This is another term for "carrying a line of thinking past the initial random shots across the bow." Very few liberal arguments can stand actual detailed analysis.

I think it's pretty obvious which side ends arguments by throwing up chaff. Or as I put it once, ink. Actually, the most often-used tactic is simply pretending in any response that the information and points I have already put forward just don't exist.

Your own favorite is taking a faulty premise and then building a twelve-paragraph treatise on it.

"Intellectual honesty" demands that facts count for something. But I've been through all that before.

Look at the "No Tap Dancing" post under the "All Occupiers are the 99 percent" thread. Then look at the two comments of mine it responds to, and what I said in them. Out of half a dozen significant points I made, Bowser pulled that one phrase out as though that interpretation was the most important factor in the entire thread, and ignored everything else. That's "chaff," Robert.

And really, do you honestly think any liberal could visualize the ideal high school graduate Working Man as anything other than a union member? Go ahead. Try it.