The comments you shared from the respondent to the Becker-Posner blog actually made me chuckle.

A few days ago, I was taken to task by a blogger who complained, "There's a feeling among many news consumers that members of the main stream media display an undeserved arrogance."

It's almost a mantra, really, among some who don't work in the 'mainstream media,' whatever the heck that's supposed to be.

But if the comment you posted is any indicator, arrogance is something to which even those who practice their craft in the blogosphere can sucumb.

By the way, in my particular case, I was speaking in an arrogant tone with a comment that was "long on attitude and short on information," responding to a post that praised one individual at the expense of another who happened to be a good friend of mine..

Had I waited a little while, and thought a little longer before responding, I might have considered the counsul of frequent Gazzette reader/contributor Mr. Freen, something he had reminded me of just the other day. And that is, while many on the blogosphere can dish out the criticism ... very, very few can take it.

I'll strap on my helmet now ... :-)

I'm sorry but this commenter is plainly talking from a position posterior to his head. Has he READ anything in the blogosphere? Glenn Reynolds is sometimes reduced to the articulation of "heh" in his posts. Michele Catalano posts voodoo dolls that represent Red Sox players. James Joyner does caption contests.

I won't even mention some of what passes for best effort by the likes of Oliver Willis and Daily Kos.

what does this commenter think this place is, some sort of debate club? I suggest he/she climb down off the high horse before he/she gets knocked down.

I will say that it is difficult for a tenured type to understand that different rules apply. But really, that post is just a troll in training.

Jeff, I saw the exchange you refer to on another local blog. We bloggers are a sensitive lot, aren't we? ;-) [I also will say that, IMHO, the change in anchors at the station in question was not that station's finest hour.]

Bryan, I don't argue with any of your points, but I also think the commenter was making (or at least circling around) a valid one as well. The difference between Becker's post and the ones you mention is that the former was intended as a serious treatment of a serious topic (it's hard to get more solemn than preventive war), whereas the other guys are simply taking a break from their serious discussions with the types of posts you describe. I think you get judged by the tone that you establish for your blog; it's a matter of expectations. For example, no one is ever going to slam me for being shallow and fatuous, because I've never aspired to anything greater! But when you introduce yourself as a Nobel laureate, you've already raised the bar pretty high. Becker perhaps should have described himself as "Nobel laureate and really lousy bowler" or something similar if he wanted to defuse some of those high expectations.

That said, it will be interesting to see how their second posts come across, and those are due either tomorrow night or Monday morning.

I dream of the day when I will be elevated to the lofty realm of shallowness and fatuity. :)

If you're really serious about this goal, regular reading of the Gazette is a proven technique for achieving it!

Well, the nobel laureate thing can be something like the heisman. After all, Yassir Arafat won a nobel prize for peace. ;-)

You won't need a helmet if you don't go out of your way to take shots at people, Jeff.

Hiding one's (not so veiled) criticism in comedy is the approach of an intellectual coward. After all, "comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." ~Peter Ustinov.

It's also a great way to avoid taking responsibility for what you say while saying it anyway.

Incidentally, while very few people can accept valid criticism, even fewer tolerate it when it's unjustified.

Mr. Freen, you've illustrated my point very well, and in that irresistably Freenian manner that is so uniquely your own. Thank you!

No, Jeff.

What I've illustrated is that you're one of those cowardly, obnoxious jerks who hides behind an endless succession of petty jokes and silly taunts.

The internet is full of would-be "funny men" who try to use comedy to make up for their intellectual failings.

You're obviously incapable of anything approaching an intelligent debate, so, instead you try to be a "comic". Problem is, being a comic requires two things you don't have: wit and talent.

You're too spiteful to be a funny comic. Or, you're not clever enough to make your spite funny. Either way, your routine falls flat.

I'm not going to humor every petty jab you take at me. Truth is, I've been entirely to lenient towards you as it is.

This is the second time you've gone out of your way to antagonize me. If you want to turn the Fire Ant's comment section into a series of ugly jabs back and forth, that's entirely fine by me.

Nope...neither of you is going to do that. I won't tolerate it.

Either play nicely together or take it offline, gentlemen.

Eric, but he ... but he .... alllllright, I'll behave :-)

On another topic, I hope you got to spend part of this great weather weekend on your bike ... or are you still tied-up in painting/remodeling?

Jeff, thanks for resisting the temptation! ;-)

I did get to ride on Saturday while MLB was shopping. Looks like that might be the last ride for a week or so, given the weather conditions and forecast. Oh well...back to the treadmill.

I guess the smackdown goes with the territory...the long teaser campaign across all the top politics and economics blogs "Becker-Posner is coming"....30 some trackbacks to the "Coming soon" post before they ever had a real one....more readership than anyone else ever had for a first post without paying for it (and maybe with paying for it. So they got a few negative comments. I've got a deal for them - send me their readers and I'll take the negative comments!