I'd forgotten I'd mentioned him, and thought McBain was taking another swipe.

But McBain's comment as a rejoinder to me makes little sense to anyone who has been listening to me. I've never said Rush was funny and have on any number of occaisions pointed out how much I dislike him, so coming back to my comment about Stewart's piece not being funny with "well he's funnier than Rush" is not only beside the point, but carries with it the implication that I support Rush while disparaging Stewart.

when in fact his diatribe was not at all specific, but a hazy "he doesn't deal with facts" post with a fleeting reference to rational design.

It's this twisting of the argument, which he is very good at by the way, that makes it impossible to really carry on a conversation with him. Because his real goal is to ridicule the opponent and through the ridicule to dimiss the other person. There is no mutual respect in a conversation with him. How that's okay with you is beyond me. It goes against your behavior in every other circumstance.

And the National Review, of course, does provide news and not just opinion. Here's an example.

The National Review is primarily a clearing house for opinion writing and not hard reporting.

In response, I highlighted that the Daily Show often lampoons the foibles and frailties of "their side" while simultaneously and consistently hosting "the other side" as guests, two things Rush would never and has never done.

Most of the time, I get upset at Joe because he says things that are factually incorrect that he could easily look up for himself (intelligent design for example). Many times, when he says something factually incorrect or illogical, its an oft repeated myth that could be fact checked rather easily. Joe isn't asked to say these things, he volunteers them in response to other posts. Also, there is the constant conflation of opinion writing versus reporting, when ascertaining the facts of any particular issue, and the argumentation of unrelated ideas (Q: "why would you care about a politician outside their policy? what would be the point of voting then?" A: "I didn't vote for Cheney")

And how does my pointing out that the magazine carries news stories in any way charge you with being untrue? I am simply showing that the paper does carry news items as well and so utilizing it as a news source is not an impossible thing to do.

I believe you've even made comments about how he treats such people.

Actually, you haven't disproved anything about Plame because the issue is whether either Novak or Libby were aware of Plame's undercover status. The fact that the CIA has finally announced she was still undercover does not establish either knew that. We don't know. We are unlikely to know.

In terms of my standing by the argument that she wasn't covert, it had not yet been established. Had it been, you would not have felt the need to post on the revelation of that info recently.

Are we talking about callers or guests? And what have I commented, specifically?