In blogging, the dialogue fetish seems to me even sillier. I write what I write, you write what you write (whoever you may be), and let readers decide who sings most like a nightingale.
A good liberal (though others might disagree and what does that mean anyway), I believe in "dialogue" and "public discussion" (er, I called for one last night on the implications of Google technology). So what does that mean?
What it means to me is that I listen to and consider what the other side thinks. I put myself in their shoes, to the best of my ability, and let that inform my thinking. And I write with the hope and intention that they might listen and consider what I have to say.
But hey, that just happens to be how this nightingale sings. I don't find rants intellectually engaging--though I'm sure I'm occasionally entertained, and you could probably find one of my own somewhere on my blog.
So in the end I think Wolcott is right. This is the dialogue. And accusations from either side that the other isn't engaging in dialogue are just so much hot air. What do you think?