Ramesh Ponnuru accuses me of doing a "lousy job of presenting [my] opponents' views accurately" and is worried that "that there are people who believe a word that Andrew Sullivan writes." This is a preposterous swipe. In the item he refers to, I stumbled across a quote from Robert P. George that seemed to make him indifferent to the murder of abortionists. I track down the source of the quote, provide the full context (which the original piece didn't), acknowledge that George is being "funny" and "clever", link to George's full article, and ensure that readers know that the author of the hit piece has a bias. I note how most of the other contributors to the colloquium unequivocally condemn the murder of abortionists, while George takes a different tack. How is that in any way a form of deception or inaccurate? Ponnuru links to two other statements by George, neither of which deal with his view of those who murder abortionists, except a prudential argument that charging them with first degree murder might be unnecessary. Ponnuru is unable to point to a single inaccuracy or example of unfairness in my post. But when you expose what some of these social conservatives actually believe - George, for example, thinks that the government has, in principle, an interest in legally preventing masturbation - they scream blue murder. Scream away.