Mike Adams has been among my favorite columnists since I began frequenting this site a few years ago. However, he seems to have recently abandoned skillful and persuasive writing in favor of sarcastic shock tactics. I agree with him on many issues, but the dropoff in the quality of his columns is disappointing.

Dr. Adams, I am going to begin studies next fall in pursuit of my Phd., and I'm a regular reader. I'm pleased that someone of your political leanings has been able to flourish in academia. I'm right there with you, and I'd like to help turn the political tide (or at least stop the bleeding) in America's classrooms. Keep up the good work.

I wish more columns were directed against him. He is such a smug jerk (thank the language filter on this board for neutering my comment). I also can't stand his hench"woman" Rachael Maddow. They both disgust me.

Olbermann is a fine sports broadcaster, however. I wish he'd stick to it.

First, I'm all about opposing feminists, but the flatulence allegory is pretty weak. I'm quite sure even the most ardent feminist has enough sense of femininity that they don't want to go around breaking wind. I don't want them to either. I oppose the double standard, but only in the sense that I oppose public flatulence in men almost as much as women.

Stossel is always a breath of fresh air. "There is nothing safe about going blind." Hilarious and true.

I'm tempted to attack you at length for your presumptuousness in claiming, in effect, that no marriage has a chance of success or happiness except unions between fundamentalist Christians. However, what would be the point? I know your kind well, and there is little to be gained by conversation with such. Enjoy Heaven.

Do I think I am "quite good enough on my own"? I suppose, from your perspective, I do. I am not a Christian, so there is really nothing for us to discuss. I don't share your faith, and you apparently can't countenance that. Sorry.

I lack both the space and the inclination to laboriously "contextualize" the story recounted by Thomas in his article. Plainly, he says that the progeny of an illicit sexual encounter was destroyed by God because of the immorality of its conception. Your condescending attitude is pathetic, and your attempt to damn my supposed "sexual immorality" because of my comments is even worse.

Since you brought it up, I've been in a relationship with the woman I will marry in four months for four years, and have never been unfaithful. You may deem that "immoral" because we haven't been celibate through our courtship, but that is your hangup, not mine.

You are quite right about my opposing Christianity, but on purely theological grounds. I do not share your faith, but I do not claim that Christianity is an evil thing.

However, your crass assumptions do not represent you well as a debator. I oppose abortion on the grounds that it is a needless destruction of life, not because religion compells me to stand against it.

Further, your assertion that one must be Christian in order to be politically conservative is also erroneous. I have no faith in any diety, yet I am sure our voting records would bear strong similarities. So, you seem to be suggesting that conservative principles have no merit apart from that they "come from God". If you believe this to be the case,...

As an example of the virtues of Christianity, Thomas recounts the story of an adulterous man who was glorified, while the husband of this man's mistress was killed and the progeny of his philandering was destroyed by the almighty? Sounds suspiciously like a divine abortion, don't you think?

I'm on board with conservative politics, but I'm one of the few secular conservatives. As an aside, I don't care what Tiger Woods' love life entails. I don't know him. But I do think this "apology" was a pretty hollow attempt to woo sponsers, rather than women, back to his tent.