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":
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.
When one burns one's bridges, what a very nice fire it makes.
-- Dylan Thomas