As to the question of manipulation; I like sources clearly labeled so I can tell at a glance whether what I am reading are the author’s own words or a quotation. As it happens this particular smear had already made the rounds in the blogosphere before the lawiscool people decided to drag it out for one more dance so I knew Mark had not written the words in question. However, because of the deliberate obscurity of the lawiscool piece many people would have been left with the contrary impression. I call that manipulation.

It’s not like he’s a local leader or anything.

And using the quote and referring to it as an “extract from Steyn’s article” is hardly manipulation. It is an extract, even if he was quoting another.

Any more faulty parallelism and my writing will be fit for “Law is Cool”.

I hadn’t even bothered to read Steyn’s book before that.

Which is precisely the opposite of what they intended. The irony is killing me.

(Figuratively, I mean; not in the way that some jihadi with a great big knife… And there you go again, I’m making an off-colour (feeble) joke that I would never have dreamed of making…)