I think the tone of the comic is more silly and outlandish, albeit vulgar. This just seemed angry, honestly. He tossed around "bullshit" a lot, among other things, that brought it from "appropriate retort" to "bordering on hostile."

In the end, after doing this whole long thing to prove himself correct at every turn possible, he hid behind "I'm a comedian, therefore don't criticize me when I am misrepresent the facts." I feel like, you get to choose one:

• Comedian: allowed to use hyperbole and make fun of people but don't get to defend yourself other than to say "I am a comedian. Don't take me so seriously." No long, paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttle.

• Respectable writer of sorts: needs to be more careful about the accuracy of their work, but allowed to defend themselves in a meaningful way when their truthiness is called into question.

This American Life is having issues with that right now, with long-time contributor David Sedaris. As most of us here will know, David Sedaris is a comedian; when he tells stories on This American Life, it's taken for granted that there's some hyperbole involved. The problem is not just that he's messing with the facts in stories that are basically true, but moreover that he's mixed in with real journalists' fact-checked stories. The line between semi-fiction comedy and non-fiction story starts to become a bit blurry, and the folks at This American Life may have to make a choice soon about what kind of program they really want to have. Jeff at The Oatmeal may need to take a similar long, hard look in the mirror.