Riiight. I'm sure you went into that article with an open mind. Let me guess, you think the CRU leak didn't reveal much of interest? Instead of ad hominem, how

Riiight. I'm sure you went into that article with an open mind. Let me guess, you think the CRU leak didn't reveal much of interest? Instead of ad hominem, how about you refute the main and specific points brought up. I'm pretty sure Paul Graham even has an essay on how to argue properly if you're not sure how it's done. PS - And if you want an article that uses a less self-indulgent style, read Michael Crichton's referenced speech. You'll be hard pressed to call it a rambling mess. Somehow I'm guessing, though, that you're actually biased against the claim, not its purported "messiness".