'Hesiod' continues to call his enemies 'chickenbloggers' and to sneer at them if they think a 'chickenblogger' is the same thing as a 'chickenhawk'. (See for instance his own comment #8 on his post of 11/13, 02:01:22 PM.) Just to confuse us, he has never explained what he meant by this distinction except once in a comment on this post at Aaron Haspel's God of the Machine. Haspel's post was nearly six weeks old when 'Hesiod' first posted his explanation, so I imagine very few have read the latter. Here is how he defines his term:

"Chickenblogging" has NOTHING to do with the Chickenhawk concept.

Are there Chickenhawks who are ALSO Chickenbloggers? Yes. Lots of them.

Chickenblogging denotes a style of argument or rhetoric. It has nothing to do with ideology, although it seems to be practiced most frequently by those on the conservative side of the spectrum.

(When asked for examples of left-wing 'chickenbloggers', he was too chicken to provide any.)

It involves pickng out minutiae or erecting straw men, and beating them to death without addressing the most powerful or troublesome arguments of your opponent. It also denotes a belittling debate style.

It advances ad hominem attacks, and irrelevant nitpicking in place of substantive debate.

As usual with Hesiodic insults, this describes his own method of argument perfectly: he is himself the quintessential 'chickenblogger', though I prefer the much clearer term 'chickenshitblogger'. Consider for instance his habit of "[not] addressing the most powerful or troublesome arguments of [his] opponent". It's been almost two months since I offered some serious objections to Hesiod's argument that Saddam Hussein can be contained and war is therefore unnecessary. (Go to this post and scroll down to 'Skipping a bit . . . .'). The objections can be summarized as follows:

1. How can 'Hesiod' possibly know that Saddam is not suicidally insane? As far as I can determine, he has neither the expertise nor the opportunity to form an opinion.
2. Given the horrendous consequences if Saddam were to use a nuclear weapon, wouldn't it be worth risking a great deal to prevent him from acquiring them in the first place? After all, even a 3% or 5% chance of a war that would kill hundreds of thousands or millions of people is a frightening prospect.
3. Saddam is an old man -- in his late sixties, as far as anyone can tell. (He must dye his famous mustache.) Unless he is removed from power, it is therefore certain that he will, some day in the not-too-distant future, leave his soon-to-be-acquired nuclear weapons to such unknown quantities as Qusay or Uday or whoever else can seize power in Iraq. Even if he is sane, are Qusay and Uday? By all accounts, no. Are all the other possible candidates insane? We don't even know all their names. Pervez Musharraf seems perfectly sane, but we still worry about Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Musharraf will not live forever and we do not know who will come next.

'Hesiod' has never attempted to answer any of these objections, or dozens of other serious objections that have been offered (by myself and others) to various things he has written. He prefers to spend his time calling others every foul name in the book and getting all bent out of shape if anyone calls him far milder names such as 'Hayseed'. To paraphrase the South African diplomat in Lethal Weapon II, "who is the dickhead chickenblogger now?"