[MaggieL]

Quotes are used to delimit ironic usage and paraphrase as well. This is what causes people to make little "quote mark" gestures in the air when speaking. Almost always when quoting an actual posting here--especially an entire sentence or more, but even a short phrase when responding to it--I'll use the vB quote markup, unless I want to use a phrase of a few words embedded in a sentence. In an email based forum I'd be using the typical > quoting for quoting another post and conventional quotemarks in rhetoric.

As for single vs. double quotes, I only use them for nested quotes in prose; starting with double quotes on the outermost level.

Some people here make a real fetish of "ad hominem" without apparently understanding the term. Every time a position is deprecated is not an "ad hominem". And it's just amazing how some of the the folks who lead off with outraged an accusation that they've been attacked "ad hominem", and then follow right on with the most amazing abuse that shoots right past being an "ad hominem" into being a direct personal attack.

That said, I will myself indeed use the "ad hominem tu quoque" form when someone takes a position inconsistant with something they've said earlier or elsewhere in another thread. Tough.

Chefranden, what makes someone evil is not their disagreeing with me. The Jihadists can sit in their homeland and disagree with me until the Sun burns out for all I care. What makes them evil is annoucing their intention to impose thier religion on my people, and kill me in the process, and then beginning to prosecute their campaign.

Self-defense doesn't always happen over a timespan of minutes, hours, days or even months. When someone has declared their intent to kill you, has the apparent means, and has already executed several successful attacks, what possible obligation could you be under to allow them to continue unless you reach them in hot pursuit?

There *is* no hot pursuit of a suicide bomber.