Do you prefer "Ventriloquist's Dummy's Opinion" or "Ransom Note Opinion" to describe this debating tactic you're using?

Speaking through somebody else's words is a dubious tactic at best. It has lots of problems, starting with WTF should I care about the opinion of some random rightwing blogger named "Zombie" at a site originally named "Pajamas" but now calls itself "PJMedia" and hopes nobody notices?

But that's only the start. In a more serious vein, the tactic muddles communication. News flash: you're not being clearer speaking through somebody else. Unless you preface your link with some calibration like "I'm Tom B and I 100% stand by the opinions at the other end of this link". Otherwise, we're left to guess what percentage of the other guy's opinion you share...which then opens up the ugly possibility of the dread Deniability. Easy to backpedal away from somebody else's words. Why would I willingly enter an obvious minefield? And for what gain? If I prevail (hypothetically, take a pill), I haven't prevailed over you, I've merely rebutted some random rightwing zombie. Which I could've done over on his blog. Why waste my time here?

Just looking for a little accountability and transparency here, TB. I wasn't avoiding your point, I found myself wondering what was your point and what was zombie's (and whether there's really any qualitative difference) and picking apart what's wrong with this tactic.

Actually, I'll let you in on a related notion I've been considering: Closing Flame to new posts, and using it strictly for its original purpose, as the destination where moderators move flaming threads from other boards. I'm liking the idea better right now, because I think it'll discourage these gratuitous attempts to pick meaningless fights. We'll be left with meaningful fights, which I'd relish.

We're doing this backward when we pick topics to deliberately provoke a flame.