On 2009-04-11, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Sinister Midget belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2009-04-10, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>> On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 08:22:41 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-04-10, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>>>>
>>>>> You and Tim are pretty slow on the uptake, hmmm?
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone else knows Roy wears his heart on his sleeve, and they account for
>>>>> it and move forward.
>>>>
>>>> "Advocacy" doesn't require anyone to focus on the negative news of what
>>>> they're advocating
>>>
>>> I didn't say "focus", and Roy doesn't claim to be an "advocate". He claims
>>> to be a "journalist". That's the difference.
>>
>> "Journalists" can choose what they cover provided that they aren't
>> subject to the whims of a boss, such as an editor. Right?
>>
>> Assuming a person has complete control over all of their own material:
>>
>> * Can a "journalist" who covers special interest stories choose to
>> cover one particular area or person while ignoring the existence of
>> other that may be as interesting?
>
> Some people call this guy a "journalist":
>
> http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/
I agree with the guy. He probably wastes too much time on the subject,
but there's nobody that I can think of that's worse than O'Reilly. I
dislike him even more than Obermann, and that's saying something!
> I think it's all perfectly fair and balanced, if Roy posts an internet story
> with a misleading and biased Subject line, for Erik and Tim to come in and
> present their misleading and biased interpretation of the Subject line.
>
> ;->
I don't have much of a problem with them doing that. But they need to
realize the rest of us have the same rights to attack their spin right
back.
It would also be helpful if they didn't knee-jerk about things Roy
already covered before, like in this thread.
--
Mistakes are ofen the stepping stones to utter failure.
|
|
