Comedian Frankie Howard used to do a routine where he made out that he had given some very important person a piece of his mind, he then goes onto reveal that he had actually just shouted the comments through their letter box. When I see Hitchen's I always think of the Howard routine because much of his writing is nothing more than shouting his views through a letter box and then running off.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com

He also does that "Affronted" look in a very Howardesque way.

You know, you're dead right. Next time he appears on QT I'll be expecting him to say "nay, nay, and thrice NAY!"

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

Everyone's terribly sweet... but what a festival of drivel!

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1cvQg4YaB

Which is Hitchens? Crank, dingbat, or fanatic?

Top-rated:

You know, you're dead right. Next time he appears on QT I'll be expecting him to say "nay, nay, and thrice NAY!"[/quote]

Funny you should say that because both Howard and Hitchens look distinctly equine to me.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

If it were the EDL would have turned up to lob some Help for Heroes bacon at it.

_________________
"Even when you're a super-computer with an IQ of 2000 it's brown trousers time."

Reclaiming "methinks" for the nation

Latest blog post - 2011 - a review (updated 07/10)

I can't see Hitch taking kindly to audience "Tittering".
Nor sharing Frankie's rather revisionist approach to classical learning.

Drivel.... That's a word Hitchen's uses a lot....

The real sense I am getting from the core of the occupy protestors is that people are fed up with the mix of corporate greed, media spin and politics. Which Hitchens appears to agree with.



There's a lot of drivel from the right, which mainly comes from distortion, lies, hate and fear. Maybe Hitchens should look a bit closer to home rather than, ironically, berate the left.

---

Oh and cannabisskunksense has given a handjob to Hitchens..... no bias there....

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

Generally, Hitchens is weak in arguments, given his lack of supporting evidence, so he usually attempts to claim his opponents' arguments as either the product of stupidity or malice. He seems to lack the ability to meet an opposing point of view head on.

Dead right. And wotcha, welcome aboard, what's your position on sausages?

Hitch minor thinks arguments are won by scowling. He who looks the most po-faced is the most aggrieved and therefore the most right. The person who is less sour cares less because they privately know they are full of it.

Dead right. And wotcha, welcome aboard, what's your position on sausages?

Cheers; and I'm a traditionalist in that department. If apples were intended to be in sausages then pigs would like eating them . . . oh hang on.

Hitch minor thinks arguments are won by scowling

I don't think he knows how to argue, to be honest, originally I thought this was down to a strategy to get his message across, but I'm more sure now he's just very weak writer, speaker and thinker, given that his 'arguments' essentially consist of them asserting the same points repeatedly, and then using waffle to paper over the gaping holes in what he's saying. From what I've read of his books, they're largely the same.

Any debate involving Hitch that he can't pre-rig basically devolves into a remake of the Monty Python argument sketch with all the humour replaced by sour-faced, misplaced righteousness.

Dead right. It's what's known in school circles as a "dead parrot" argument - absolute refusal to face the obvious facts. I think Charlie Brooker used the phrase a while ago.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

He looks like a dead parrot as well.