Near Patagonia AZ. These days another blogger, Ed Frey, claims that he is reading the entire archive of Fred on Everything, start to finish. So am I. I'm not sure if he influenced me to do this or vice versa. But it honks me off to think that somebody else came up with my brilliant idea before I did.
There is only one way to settle this honorably. I must demand "satisfaction". That's right, I am publicly challenging this idea-robber to a duel: after a couple more weeks of reading he is invited to join me on the field of polemical battle, if he's valiant enough.
The rules of the duel are simple enough: I propose that we each select one of Fred's essays as the "best" or most important, and then explain why it is so. A substantial number of quotes from the essay will be permitted.
Comments
I accept the challenge but believe that I'm at a serious disadvantage, somewhat in the same position as the person this quote was directed toward. “I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed!”― William Shakespeare
I need additional directions to the location of the dueling field.
Also, you call for a polemic battle but then say we each select a topic. A polemic is a disputed argument attacking a point of view, the polemic is mostly seen in argument about controversial topics. Does this mean that you will attack my point of view even if I do not select a controversial topic? Do I in kind attack your point of view even if I agree with you?
I also wish to point out that dueling was used to settle a point of honor among the well bred.
I am sure that our 'factors' will settle these points to our mutual satisfaction.
I will do the same. Quotes from Fred's essay are allowed.
Then we could turn it over to a distinguished panel of judges, also known as "readers", as to who chose the "better" essay.