<<Then perhaps you should be specific in the request for an example. My example meets all the criteria in your request; but I'll be happy to provide more once you've been more explicit in your request.>>
Figure it out, Einstein. The subject was a poll of the military showing a shocking absence of moral values, consisting of a high tolerance for prisoner abuse. There was a challenge to the authenticity of the poll, based in part on the fact that the article that reported the poll did not show how "abuse" was defined in the poll. Theoretically, "abuse" could have been defined in the poll as something as trivial as cutting into a queue. (So the argument went.)
My response to that argument was that (a) a reputable newspaper would presumably publish a reputable, professional poll taken in accordance with good polling practices and (b) that if the poll had been so flawed, there would have been a shitstorm of protest over the flaws in the right-wing blogosphere.
YOU then attempted, lamely as always, to "disprove" my contention that the rightwing blogosphere would have launched a shitstorm of protest over a faulty poll that defamed the "good name" of the American military (BWAHAHAHAHAHA) by producing the inspired example of some cockamamie media story of mixed-up babies in a Sri Lankan hospital and - - wait for it! the amazing failure of the right-wing blogosphere to go into overdrive in protest over the fakery of the story. As if they gave a shit or ever
would give a shit about any of the elements of that story.
Figured it out yet, Einstein? Or must I go into even
more excruciating detail in explaining the obvious?
- - Oh, Jeeziz, I almost forgot my phantom sirs-claque's chorus of approval; can't end without one any more: - -
Oooh a roundhouse right to Ami's head! Dunno if he's gonna come out for the next round, folks! 
Do I really need to make this stuff up for myself? It's so undignified!! Doesn't anyone here wanna be my champion and hanger on? Isn't there an anti-sirs in the house? Anyone? Anyone?
