Does this mean you are backing out of the duel? 

At least in tennis the net is an actual physical entity.  Here in the discourse of the blogosphere we have to agree upon a conceptual net, and usually, in the interest of time, implicitly.  Which leads to a lot of arguing over whether the ball hit the net or not (e.g. what the heck is a revolutionary?).  Which is one way of saying excellent blog.

and started screaming and yelling bloody murder and his partner was screaming and yelling back. I thought he had hurt himself, but it was a temper tantrum. Eventually they calmed down, but we were so rattled that they rolled over us.

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities but if you think that what he did is s bad thing you shouldn't be posting on a political blog! You people who want to have effete conversations while Rome burns, can't see what's going on, make me sick! That guy clearly knows the answer to "WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE?!" He would make a great keyboard warrior (or even a member of the House,) he has a BACKBONE, he's got a SPINE, and would know blogging is not a Miss Manners dinner party polite ladies tennis match, but that you've got to go for the kill! Carpe diem, you've got to pound out those angry words day in, day out or the scumbags will not only roll over us but keep spitting in our faces and pissing on our shoes. Did I say you have to get a backbone? Maybe you need balls too! For crying out loud, take a stance and fight!

Here's a tennis analogy of mine I was going to trot out in a  different context:

I used to play quite regularly, but without much skill or style. One of my friends was a top-knotch club player, usually in the running in the local tournaments. He was a very elegant player to watch, a wicked hard running forhand, a sledgehammer serve, a second serve spun so fast it whipped up off the ground at you, and a graceful floating sliced backhand that just curled up and fell asleep at your feet like a tired puppy at the end of the day. We'd occasionally play together and, predictably, he'd kick my ass. On a good day I didn't get egged. But it was still pretty fun - I'd chip and charge, sometimes get a decent smacked volley in, sometimes a spectacular diving touch, but mostly just watch the ball whistle by.

Then I tried to think more tactically, and instead of rushing in towards the net behind a hopeful serve or a half-hearted forehand, I began sending more back-spun loopy balls to his backhand, the kind that had no forward momentum in them, i.e. no kinetic energy that he could use in sending the ball back. And crucially, they weren't the kind of ball that you could hit with a sliced backhand, which only work on balls that arrive with some oomph in them. But he was uncomfortable with any other kind of backhand, and he couldn't be bothered to run around the ball to hit his awesome forehand, and he was reluctant to cut those balls off in mid-air by moving in towards the net - netplay wasn't his thing. So he'd just keep back and continue slicing the ball and it would die ridiculously in the net, or leave me with an easy volley. And I started beating him. Regularly.

The result was that he started going apeshit. He'd ball me out for playing ugly, complain that I was making the exchanges boring. I tried to tell him that I was merely attacking his naked weaknesses, and that he ought to try to adapt to my changes in tactics. That, to me, was part of the game. But he didn't see things that way. And we eventually moved on to other partners.

How does this analogy apply here? Dunno, but it seems to me that the local rules of the game, the implicit etiquette, i.e the frontiers to what counts as a "respectable attitude" in regard to current issues of interest, are quite off-base. But then again, I'm told off-thread that I've become the resident asshole around these parts, or words to that effect. So what do I know. In any case, as Tony Blair would say, if I've offended anyone, I'm sorry you feel that way about it.

Anyway, kudos for banner-headlining that pretty little death-to-Assange piece, guys. THAT'S entertainment, YEAH!

I’m sorry I missed this discussion earlier.  I hope you and Obey see this.

I loved to play the game of tennis.  It gave me many hours of entertainment and recreation.  Sadly I could never return the favor by playing it well but no one got more pleasure from tennis than I did.  It was a tennis instructor, Vic Braden, who gave me the tools I needed to understand the game and to play a winning and satisfying version of it.  I recommend his book “Tennis For The Future.”  Perhaps a few of his observations are germane here.

First on the matter of “dinking” or “winning ugly” ( and Obey your comment is a perfect example of this), Braden liked to point out that even in professional tennis, only one in three points is won with an outright winner.  The other two points are won as forced or unforced errors.  Braden concluded that the best overall strategy in tennis is to keep giving your opponent another chance to fail.  Outright winners are nice but the game is not won that way.  Now “dinking” has the disadvantage that it usually results in what Braden called “a fuzz sandwich” for you.  On the other hand in most circumstances it will lead to a lot of wins.  There is another, fairly simple solution that has a number of charms – to wit – topspin.  

The advantages of topspin are numerous.  First its use acknowledges a fundamental physical reality about the game.  If you draw a straight line starting about 4 feet high from one baseline to the opposite baseline, you will discover that at the net there is a very narrow window through which a 3 inch ball can pass.  The important conclusion here is that hitting a hard and flat line is a very low percentage tactic.  Since it is possible to give a ball “topspin,” one can gain the advantage of aerodynamics and hit the ball high over the net and still have it drop inside the court.  In fact the harder you hit the ball the more certain you are that it will stay “in,” a fact which removes both the need to play less than full out and simplifies the physical challenge of the basic tennis stroke.  Furthermore it adds the third dimension to the shot you present to your opponent.  He/she must contend on only with left/right and high/low parameters, but also the arc of the trajectory which is moving with pace and greatly complicates the return.   If your opponent is one of those club players who lives by the slice then they will always be tempted to hit out to end the point and “bingo” they can’t because if they could they wouldn’t live by the slice in the first place.  And guess who ends up with the label “dinker?”

As for court decorum, well we can thank Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe for that.  I think Bjorn Borg got angry once in a major match.   He tells the story about how when he was a teenager he loved to play tennis and had a very bad temper.  His tennis teacher finally took away his racket and told him he could not have it if he was going to behave like that.  He loved the game too much and so ended his court antics.  He loved the game.  Connors and McEnroe, typical Americans, only loved to win.  By the way Borg was content to stay at the baseline and hit topspin all day.  Connors described a match against Borg as like “combing you hair for five hours.”  And then there was Guillermo Vilas who seemed almost afraid to step inside the court boundary.  I suppose it is a matter of taste but I would rather be Borg or Vilas when they lose than Connors or McEnroe in victory.    I only saw Laver a few times but that era of tennis was another kind of magic.  There is much to be said for the Australian “chip and charge” version of the game.   Of course like so many other sports the men have outgrown the game.  With composite rackets and fast courts there really is no more tennis.  It is now racket ball played large. Very little of what I just said applies to the game today.

I suppose there are lessons to take away from all of this, other than just that there are much happier ways to spend your time than blogging.  One thing that tennis did teach me is emotional control.  When I became angry or frustrated then everything went out the window including any chance of winning.  My technique would fail me.  I would not bend my knees or run to the ball.  I’d keep replaying the last point in my head and thus lose the next one.  The game has its physical and mental realities and if I lost my “center” in the game then it was already over.  I agree with ArtAppraiser ( and Atheist ) that the things we talk about here are often not trivial or unserious but that is all the more reason to maintain composure, decorum and respect for the “game” if not the opponent.  As I said, I’d rather be Borg or Vilas in defeat than Connors or McEnroe in victory.  As for enjoyment and satisfaction,  no “game” can provide that without a worthy opponent.