Originally Posted by RegMonkey
Seems to me that the anti-Liz posters are able to offer thoughtful, coherent reasons why they dislike her and her writings. They are able to pick apart her many inconsistencies, and demonstrate the ways in which she is malicious, cruel and hypocritical. The pro-Liz posters don't seem to possess the same abilities, and are reduced to the same handful of rebuttals: ''she loves animals', 'she's very funny'. But are unable to provide any proof to back up their assertions. In fact they are very quick to resort to abuse and personal remarks. Just sayin'.
How can you prove someone is funny? What I find funny, you may not and vice versa! It seems to me the anti-Liz posters spend an awful lot of time reading her column just to be outraged by it!