"Mr. K needs to realize that throwing insults at people..." Personally, I do not feel I throw insults at people, but I do mock their arguments when I feel they are egregiously illogical, irrational, or misleading, and the authors are pompous or supercilious.
"...from behind anonymity..." I remain anonymous to avoid being harassed and threatened offline by misguided zealots, but that has never stopped anyone from throwing insults at me in this blog. Even Mr. curious, who is extremely scrupulous in avoiding insults, could not help himself and calls me "all hot air, pomposity, and vitriol," although his principles are so strong they prevent him from naming me specifically, even by my screen name.
"...is not the proper way to show his concern for the country." Who said I am trying to show concern for the country? I am trying to set the record straight after Mr. Miller casually violated the most basic of journalistic standards while criticizing journalists. I realize his error was not intentional, but a real reporter would face consequences if he managed to get an error like this into print.
Do I really need to point out that I have not condemned Mr. Miller, or derided him for everything has ever said, written, or stood for? I only pointed out a single, but fatal error in his post, and, instead of thanking me, he twists and turns into grotesque contortions in a vain effort to minimize it. (There I go again!)
"Nor is nastiness." I will take that as a compliment, as so many women have after being called nasty by a certain politician.
Not being a liberal, I do not feel the necessity of balancing my criticisms by saying something nice, but I think I am being called upon to do so now. So I will say that I have also found Mr. Miller "to be a trustworthy source of information about City government," and I stand behind him 100% on the issue of the downtown stadium.
Let me begin, Mr. Miller, by clearing the air. I am not a liberal.
Lawyers have a saying: if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you do not have the facts, argue the merits; and, if you do not have the facts or the merits, argue like hell. I thoroughly enjoyed your precious, yet insipid, metaphor about forests and trees and pieces of bark. You do realize it proves nothing. Allow me to extend your analogy with even more meaningless drivel: I have discovered pine beetles growing in the bark of some trees and a controlled burn may be necessary to save the rest of the forest. Please, for your own safety, try to avoid the burn area as you enjoy your walk.
Aside from the poetic distraction, you say about me, "you attempt to belittle and grade based on minutiae..." How gracious of you to minimize your own errors! I prefer to call them details and, I am told, attention to detail can mean the difference between success and failure. You, on the other hand, have attempted to belittle and degrade me based on mere prejudice and paranoia.
I wonder how you would react to someone fabricating quotes and attributing them to you in an effort to score points in an argument? Would you call it an innocent, minuscule grammatical mistake or start ranting about libel?
One more thing. You insist, Mr. Miller, "I in no way have implied in any way..." Nice redundancy.
"...(and this is a direct quote)..." Excuse me for pausing here, but I have to laugh. Having erroneously implied that quotation marks do not necessarily indicate a direct quotation, you are forced to add this totally unnecessary parenthetical comment to clarify your meaning to your bewildered readers.
"...that I 'have the authority to dictate to the media what they should report and how they should report it!'"
Correct use of quotation marks, Mr. Miller. You get a B. It would have been an A if you had left out the totally unnecessary parenthetical comment.
Now let's examine your claim. First, I feel I must point out the word "authority" has more than one meaning. When I used the word I did not mean "power to influence or command." I meant "an individual cited or appealed to as an expert," as in a professor of biology who is an authority on the mating rituals of mammals. (Definitions cited from [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary…]).
You do presume to criticize the media harshly, which does imply that you consider yourself highly qualified in matters of writing and reporting. I merely pointed out the irony that you yourself are busy violating the most rudimentary rules of reporting even as you presume to lecture your betters.
Mr. Miller consults his crystal ball and tells me, "It appears that you would be fine with the collusion between press and your favored government official..." Apparently being libeled yourself, as you claim, has taught you nothing. I have not stated any opinion about "collusion" one way or another. As I have stated quite clearly, I am against suppression of the press by your favorite government official, Mr. Miller.
If you are truly interested, ask me nicely, and I will tell you my opinion of collusion between press and government officials.
You write of the press, Mr. Miller, "they have the right to do whatever they want, but shouldn't expect not to be called out when they publish clearly false and deceitful narratives." I do not recall objecting to members of the media being "called out" for publishing lies. I did object to them being "slapped down" if they don't "behave."
You claim, Mr.Miller, "I feel well-qualified to repudiate your expectation that the press should get a pass when they lie and deceive..." Exactly where did I write anything even remotely resembling that? What I actually wrote was that you should not get a pass when you appear to lie and deceive.
You continue, "I falsely assumed (and apologize for making such assumption) it would have been quite obvious to anyone who read the article that I was not intending a direct quote..." Then why did you put it between quotation marks? "However, my punctuation implied it..." The quotation marks "implied" that your words were "not" intended to be taken as a direct quote?
As I was trying to point out in my previous post, you seem to know nothing about the rudiments of grammar, but that has not stopped you from criticizing people whose business is writing. It has not even slowed you down.
According to you, Mr. Miller, "the Columbua [sic] Journalism group cited in this article made an unveiled direct threat to 'shape up or we'll fill our airtime and column space with revenge because you're mean.'"
You are pretending to quote the Columbia Journalism group, but a search of the article shows that they never use the word "revenge" at all, not even once. So, you make up false quotes and attribute them to those you oppose, and you think you have the authority to dictate to the media what they should report and how they should report it!--which, by the way, is the very definition of censorship! In fact, your entire post is nothing but a thinly veiled argument in favor of censorship.
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation