I have a roughly forty year old nephew who uses email as a
vehicle for political and philosophical discussion. His father
is named Dave Bernstein, but not the same Dave Bernstein who
teaches law at George Mason and recently came out with a book,
_Lawless_, which looks at the current prez's penchant for um
shall we say um "improvising" on the limits of the chief
executive's powers. You get the drift I'm sure.
So I sent my nephew a review of the book that I found in
_Commentary_, a fairly conservative organ of opinion. I headed
the email with the subject line "DAVE BERNSTEIN HAS A NEW BOOK
OUT" in order to tweak his curiosity. It worked. He treated me
to a spirited reply, rather long too for him, but concluded it
with this thought:
"Please don't respond line by line. It is patronizing and
annoying."
I have acquired over the years a habit of carefully quoting and
replying to those quoted snippets. But it rubs some in my family
the wrong way. They don't see it as part and parcel of effective
communication, or as, at bottom, simply good netiquette. They
feel talked down to. My nephew's father had the same problem
with me years ago but I think I have brought him around over
time so that he no longer "takes it personal."
With that as background, here is my question/request: is anyone
aware of a spirited defence of our ideal method of "selective
quoting," (for lack of a better label) one, say, that perhaps
has achieved the status of a "net classic?" Surely some 'net
genius has dealt these nay-sayers, who seem to LIKE top-posting,
a solid uppercut?
Thanks,
--
Bob Bernstein
