So, should we not discuss the merits of a person who has a public life? Glenn Beck is a public and controversial figure, and controversial for good reason - in

So, should we not discuss the merits of a person who has a public life? Glenn Beck is a public and controversial figure, and controversial for good reason - in fact I don't think he would object to the supposition that he goes out of his way to be controversial. So, if someone brings him up in conversation or in a blog post, I shouldn't respond in kind because I might offend someone? I mean, keep in mind, I didn't bring up Glenn Beck. He's a central part of the article, for crying out loud, and Arrington references his book multiple times, compares himself to him (and Churchill by proxy), and on and on. It is not unreasonable that discussion of this article would include Glenn Beck, since he's such an integral part of it, and it is not reasonable to ask that people keep their personal opinions of Beck out of that discussion. Your comment is seemingly pretty benign, but I will tell you that I take a great deal of offense to it. You are thought-policing - simple as that. I don't know where you think you derive the authority to tell me what topics are and are not off limits - especially when those topics are referenced directly in the article at hand. And, for the record, I often do start to write a comment and then think better of it. This time I didn't. Perhaps you should have.