Wow, you have opened my eyes with this dead-on comparison of anecdotes. Well done sir, I salute your superior intellect and concede defeat. Please continue to set the record straight for all those poor fools out there like me.

How easy you must find it to criticize and dismiss when you're not the one who has suffered. Do you think people who are sensitive to MSG want to be like that? They want to hate on MSG just for the hell of it? Make stuff up? Revel in their ignorance?

I went to this particular restaurant because it was a family tradition and I had little choice in the matter. I went through years of suffering before I had ever heard of MSG. One day I read somewhere about Chinese restaurants and MSG and from that day on, my suffering was at an end. That may not mean anything to you, but it made a difference in my life. So dismiss it as an anecdote all you want. But you'll never convince me or anyone else who went through this experience. Be thankful you never had to.

Right, so it must've been a total coincidence that when I asked them not to use MSG, I was fine? Time and time again. But if I ever forgot, I was screwed. I'm sure it was all in my head, though.

The fact is, MSG is harmful to some people. That is the scientific consensus according to this video description and content. The whole video is based on the false premise that people who are sensitive to MSG somehow claim that it's bad for everyone, and those deluded MSG haters need to be set straight. It's ridiculous.

No, I didn't miss the sarcasm tag. Did you?

"perfectly safe for the vast majority of people" - What about the other people? Screw them, they're just the stupid minority, right? This video debunks NOTHING. I'd like to see this prick get the headaches I used to get after eating Chinese food from a particular place. I'm sure he'd be real gung-ho about MSG then.

I never claimed he was wrong on all of his other points. I only claimed that his credibility was ruined by making much the same kind of error as the one he's ranting against. Attempting to prove his point about the meaning of "treason" by twisting the meaning of "traitor" to suit his argument does not bode well for his credibility. It calls into question the integrity of his entire message.

Unfortunately, O'Donnell's credibility here was flushed down the toilet as soon as he complained that Boehner "has called Ed Snowden a traitor". According to common use of the word traitor, as well as the dictionary, you don't need to be guilty of treason to be a traitor. M-W defines traitor as "1: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty, 2: one who commits treason" How could anyone deny that Snowden has betrayed another's trust? Of course, WHOSE trust he betrayed and WHY is of critical importance (but not mentioned here).

So yeah, O'Donnell is correct when he points out that anyone who says Snowden is guilty of treason is not paying attention to the facts. But how is he himself any better when he applies this criticism equally to "treason" and "traitor"?

In case it wasn't clear, I'm not defending Boehner or the government. To the contrary - I wish O'Donnell and others like him would make more solid arguments. This one feels unnecessarily desperate/reaching and may serve to undermine his cause more than it helps it. (Could that have been his intent?)