RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 5
by 2
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Tips for how to write a letter to the editor
By DENNIS CLAYSON
You have just read something in the paper. Your blood pressure and hackles are up. Some writer has violated fairness, truth and the American Way, and unless set right (or left), there is a distinct possibility that others (less informed than you), may be swayed by this pernicious (i.e., harmful, deadly, evil, insidious, spiteful and malicious) piece of error-filled newsprint.
Of course, if you are just a political party hack doing your bit to spread the talking points, then there is little hope for you, and you can skip the following tutorial.
Step one: State your credentials. This is actually easier than it may appear because almost anything can establish you as someone "to whom we should refer."
You can use a title: Dr. H. Brohn, Ph.D., Professor of Important Stuff, College Known Only Locally, Somewhere, Iowa.
Typical, however, is the "I am wise and superior" credential. This is done with an air of bemused superiority, and it looks something like this, "I was somewhat amused by the attempt in Snort’s column to …."
Ironically, the writer can claim to be an expert by being completely ignorant. "I NEVER read Snort’s articles, but …"
Step two: Describe the article by whatever pejorative is now popular.
Currently, the preferred term is "rant." This changes from time to time, so check the other letters to be sure you are not out of date.
Step three: Attack the writer. The writer is crazy, stupid, evil, unskilled and probably physically ugly. Even worse, he or she may give you cooties if you stop and talk with them. Assuming, of course, you can get past their halitosis.
Step four: Ignore the content of the article you are attacking. There are five approaches here that seem to be popular:
a) Never mention the content at all.
b) Zero in on single words or phrases and ignore everything else.
Frankly, I was surprised by the prevalence of this approach. A columnist can write an entire article on the use of yak hair to make sweaters and mention in passing that Nixon had a yak hair sweater. This will be followed by a letter to the editor demanding that their subscription to the paper be canceled because of its pro-Nixon stance.
Part of this is just general illiteracy. A recent federal study found that the majority of college graduates could not read with enough comprehension to understand the argument of an average editorial.
Add to this the propensity of many to go nuts at the first sight of certain words or phrases, and presto … a discourse on racism when the content of the guilty article was about economics.
c) Ignore adjectives and qualifiers. After all, the letter writer knows what the author actually meant to say.
d) Reinvent the author’s argument and then argue against your own invention. Actually, this works pretty well. The article under attack was probably published a week or two ago, and practically no one read it, so the letter writer can reinvent it any way he or she chooses.
e) Plead ignorance. As in, "I certainly don’t know where the writer got his information." This implies that you know a lot about the topic without having to demonstrate that you know anything at all.
Step five: This approach is the opposite of 4e and is only advised for people with no life. You spend an entire week researching every word written in the guilty article. You then state with authority, "Peter Dryfus noted in 1593 that certain New Guinea natives once referred to donkeys as elephants, therefore Snort makes another characteristic error in suggesting an allegorical connection between donkeys and Democrats."
Step six: If you have one, drop a nuke. There are the obvious nukes like "racist," "fascist" and "hater," but some come and go like fashion trends. At one time, a person could say that they were "offended" and all discourse was supposed to end. Other nukes no longer in vogue are "mean spirited," and the multisyllable mouthful, "misogamist."
There is a problem with dropping a nuke. If it doesn’t take out your enemy on the first strike, your opponent actually gets stronger every time it’s used.
Of course, the letter writer could just address the issue in a logical and fair fashion without name calling. But would that be any fun?
Besides, how would anyone know how bright and superior you are if you did that?
Of course, if you are just a political party hack doing your bit to spread the talking points, then there is little hope for you, and you can skip the following tutorial.
Step one: State your credentials. This is actually easier than it may appear because almost anything can establish you as someone "to whom we should refer."
You can use a title: Dr. H. Brohn, Ph.D., Professor of Important Stuff, College Known Only Locally, Somewhere, Iowa.
Typical, however, is the "I am wise and superior" credential. This is done with an air of bemused superiority, and it looks something like this, "I was somewhat amused by the attempt in Snort’s column to …."
Ironically, the writer can claim to be an expert by being completely ignorant. "I NEVER read Snort’s articles, but …"
Step two: Describe the article by whatever pejorative is now popular.
Currently, the preferred term is "rant." This changes from time to time, so check the other letters to be sure you are not out of date.
Step three: Attack the writer. The writer is crazy, stupid, evil, unskilled and probably physically ugly. Even worse, he or she may give you cooties if you stop and talk with them. Assuming, of course, you can get past their halitosis.
Step four: Ignore the content of the article you are attacking. There are five approaches here that seem to be popular:
a) Never mention the content at all.
b) Zero in on single words or phrases and ignore everything else.
Frankly, I was surprised by the prevalence of this approach. A columnist can write an entire article on the use of yak hair to make sweaters and mention in passing that Nixon had a yak hair sweater. This will be followed by a letter to the editor demanding that their subscription to the paper be canceled because of its pro-Nixon stance.
Part of this is just general illiteracy. A recent federal study found that the majority of college graduates could not read with enough comprehension to understand the argument of an average editorial.
Add to this the propensity of many to go nuts at the first sight of certain words or phrases, and presto … a discourse on racism when the content of the guilty article was about economics.
c) Ignore adjectives and qualifiers. After all, the letter writer knows what the author actually meant to say.
d) Reinvent the author’s argument and then argue against your own invention. Actually, this works pretty well. The article under attack was probably published a week or two ago, and practically no one read it, so the letter writer can reinvent it any way he or she chooses.
e) Plead ignorance. As in, "I certainly don’t know where the writer got his information." This implies that you know a lot about the topic without having to demonstrate that you know anything at all.
Step five: This approach is the opposite of 4e and is only advised for people with no life. You spend an entire week researching every word written in the guilty article. You then state with authority, "Peter Dryfus noted in 1593 that certain New Guinea natives once referred to donkeys as elephants, therefore Snort makes another characteristic error in suggesting an allegorical connection between donkeys and Democrats."
Step six: If you have one, drop a nuke. There are the obvious nukes like "racist," "fascist" and "hater," but some come and go like fashion trends. At one time, a person could say that they were "offended" and all discourse was supposed to end. Other nukes no longer in vogue are "mean spirited," and the multisyllable mouthful, "misogamist."
There is a problem with dropping a nuke. If it doesn’t take out your enemy on the first strike, your opponent actually gets stronger every time it’s used.
Of course, the letter writer could just address the issue in a logical and fair fashion without name calling. But would that be any fun?
Besides, how would anyone know how bright and superior you are if you did that?
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
Phil wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:43 AM:
" Mr. Clayson writes:
"Of course, the letter writer could just address the issue in a logical and fair fashion without name calling. But would that be any fun?"
Cross does a good job of following this guideline, whether you agree with his opinions or not.
So I wonder who posts here regularly that Mr. Clayson might be talking about.....? "
"Of course, the letter writer could just address the issue in a logical and fair fashion without name calling. But would that be any fun?"
Cross does a good job of following this guideline, whether you agree with his opinions or not.
So I wonder who posts here regularly that Mr. Clayson might be talking about.....? "
chester11 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:44 AM:
" Oops, looks like someone got his feelings hurt. I think it's obvious what this article is responding to.
Clayson is too egotistical to acknowledge major mistakes and a perpetual disingenuous air in his articles but Cross responds eloquently and as point by point as one can do in this format.
Clayson just has not had to deal with such pointed opposition before and you can see how uncomfortable, and angry, he is about it. "
Clayson is too egotistical to acknowledge major mistakes and a perpetual disingenuous air in his articles but Cross responds eloquently and as point by point as one can do in this format.
Clayson just has not had to deal with such pointed opposition before and you can see how uncomfortable, and angry, he is about it. "
JanInWloo wrote on Dec 7, 2008 3:39 PM:
" Sounds to me like Clayson is simply explaining how he, himself, writes his own column. The man has no sense of irony. "
jeroze wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:01 PM:
" Now we know where xdfred, hetfield, and a few others learned how to blog. "
wcf reader wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:08 PM:
" chester11...you forgot to say, in 'my opinion'...don't you remember last week's columns?
i have been laughing so hard at your post and how hypocritical you seem to be....considering in your three sentence post, in my opinion, it seems as though you are guilty of every point clayson makes in his article...but i could be wrong....
the question i would ask you is, do you agree with his article or not, as it applies to both sides of the spectrum. if you don't, that's fine, if you do, i'd examine your first post and ask yourself if it does or doesn't fall into the categories clayson mentions.... "
i have been laughing so hard at your post and how hypocritical you seem to be....considering in your three sentence post, in my opinion, it seems as though you are guilty of every point clayson makes in his article...but i could be wrong....
the question i would ask you is, do you agree with his article or not, as it applies to both sides of the spectrum. if you don't, that's fine, if you do, i'd examine your first post and ask yourself if it does or doesn't fall into the categories clayson mentions.... "
chester11 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:30 PM:
" Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, wcf reader, that letters to the editor oftentimes have many of the characteristics Clayson mentions. Right, on both sides of the spectrum. The same tone is used in response to Cawelti pieces too.
It's my personal belief though, and completely personal mind you, that having read this author's columns for a few years now, he would never have written this if poster Steve Cross hadn't had a pointed retort published a couple weeks ago. Just a hunch, man. I can't prove or disprove and yes it is certainly my opinion. There seems to be a lot of transparent bitterness in today's mash-up though.
Clayson also accuses his opponents of general illiteracy.
My 3 sentence post was actually cut in half. In the second part I pointed out a HUGE mistake in one of Clayson's recent articles. One in which he never admitted fault or issued a correction. Which, in my opinion, suggests he is as disingenuous as these vicious authors of letters to the editor. "
It's my personal belief though, and completely personal mind you, that having read this author's columns for a few years now, he would never have written this if poster Steve Cross hadn't had a pointed retort published a couple weeks ago. Just a hunch, man. I can't prove or disprove and yes it is certainly my opinion. There seems to be a lot of transparent bitterness in today's mash-up though.
Clayson also accuses his opponents of general illiteracy.
My 3 sentence post was actually cut in half. In the second part I pointed out a HUGE mistake in one of Clayson's recent articles. One in which he never admitted fault or issued a correction. Which, in my opinion, suggests he is as disingenuous as these vicious authors of letters to the editor. "
Phil wrote on Dec 7, 2008 4:45 PM:
" First, I am not trying to distract from the discussion on Mr. Clayson's column this week.
Second, if someone posted this link last week, I apologize for relisting here again this week.
Regarding Obama's birth certificate - go here to see a copy of it - looks pretty legal to me:
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
To understand how people pursuing this think and what they might do next read this:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/
Now, I promise not to post about it again. "
Second, if someone posted this link last week, I apologize for relisting here again this week.
Regarding Obama's birth certificate - go here to see a copy of it - looks pretty legal to me:
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
To understand how people pursuing this think and what they might do next read this:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/
Now, I promise not to post about it again. "
cross1242 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:10 PM:
" I take it that Prof. Clayson has again switched to satire for his column this week. Unfortunately, unlike last time, the editor didn’t see fit to label it as satire so we’d understand what is going on.
Prof. Clayson’s possible satire is couched in terms of advice to the public on how to write a letter to the editor. His advice is that a putative letter writer should:
* Assume the tone of superior admonishing a not-to-bright apprentice;
* Despite the letter writer’s superiority, make routine writing errors;
* Call the target insulting names;
* Go for the capillary;
* Feign mind-reading;
* Accuse the target of violation of major social norms.
That Prof. Clayson is using satire is derived from the observation that the only persons I have seen following Prof. Clayson’s recommendations either in print or on this website are those who nominally support Prof. Clayson. Apparently, the professor’s satire is an admonition to his supporters to cut it out and follow Marquis of Queensbury rules for all debates on politics. In that, I can only approve of Prof. Clayson’s satire.
However, I have two quibbles with a couple of the capillaries in Prof. Clayson’s column. He says, “Of course, if you are just a political party hack doing your bit to spread the talking points, then there is little hope for you, and you can skip the following tutorial.” This doesn’t really fit the over-all satire. After all, Prof. Clayson would seem to have every bit a fixed opinion as the “party hacks” he condemns.
Prof. Clayson entire column seems, once again, to take pains to insult a portion of his readership. Someone very wise once said that it’s best to, “address the issue in a logical and fair fashion without name calling.” But, Prof. Clayson’s use of satire to oppose those who have written letter to the Courier hardly seems consistent with anyone’s view of logic and fairness.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Prof. Clayson’s possible satire is couched in terms of advice to the public on how to write a letter to the editor. His advice is that a putative letter writer should:
* Assume the tone of superior admonishing a not-to-bright apprentice;
* Despite the letter writer’s superiority, make routine writing errors;
* Call the target insulting names;
* Go for the capillary;
* Feign mind-reading;
* Accuse the target of violation of major social norms.
That Prof. Clayson is using satire is derived from the observation that the only persons I have seen following Prof. Clayson’s recommendations either in print or on this website are those who nominally support Prof. Clayson. Apparently, the professor’s satire is an admonition to his supporters to cut it out and follow Marquis of Queensbury rules for all debates on politics. In that, I can only approve of Prof. Clayson’s satire.
However, I have two quibbles with a couple of the capillaries in Prof. Clayson’s column. He says, “Of course, if you are just a political party hack doing your bit to spread the talking points, then there is little hope for you, and you can skip the following tutorial.” This doesn’t really fit the over-all satire. After all, Prof. Clayson would seem to have every bit a fixed opinion as the “party hacks” he condemns.
Prof. Clayson entire column seems, once again, to take pains to insult a portion of his readership. Someone very wise once said that it’s best to, “address the issue in a logical and fair fashion without name calling.” But, Prof. Clayson’s use of satire to oppose those who have written letter to the Courier hardly seems consistent with anyone’s view of logic and fairness.
/s/ Steve Cross "
hetfield wrote on Dec 7, 2008 7:16 PM:
" frodo, the hallster, is thread jacking again! looks like he is the culprit clayson is speaking of.
frodo, you have zero idea what a birth certificate looked like 50 yrs ago. you have no credibility on this issue at all. i'm fairly certain b hussein and his thugs in chitown could come up with a resonable forgery on their own.
how come b husseins own grandmammamaobama admitted he was born in kenya? oh, dont worry. she is now gone and cant be subpoenaed(sp).
to all those posting their rhetoric on this blog, clayson is opining about writing letters to the editor, not online blogging. all you have to do is read. you have all day long, nothing else to do tomorrow, so reread it.
claysons points are quite funny! he is poking fun at the abortionists who write in weekly saying bush is responsible for the floods, and the hurricane in NOLA. "
frodo, you have zero idea what a birth certificate looked like 50 yrs ago. you have no credibility on this issue at all. i'm fairly certain b hussein and his thugs in chitown could come up with a resonable forgery on their own.
how come b husseins own grandmammamaobama admitted he was born in kenya? oh, dont worry. she is now gone and cant be subpoenaed(sp).
to all those posting their rhetoric on this blog, clayson is opining about writing letters to the editor, not online blogging. all you have to do is read. you have all day long, nothing else to do tomorrow, so reread it.
claysons points are quite funny! he is poking fun at the abortionists who write in weekly saying bush is responsible for the floods, and the hurricane in NOLA. "
hfrmack wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:37 AM:
" Man, I wish Clayson would chime into these blogs. He'd probably put more than a few in their place, maybe even myself.
Reading Prof. Clayson's article set me back. I wonder if it set cross1242 back?
I was also taken back by something I read by Mr. hetfield in a reply to Phil late last week.
My hat is off to Mr. hetfield!
If it is not too late, I'd like to propose to Mr. Cross some humility I was reminded of by Mr. hetfield.
When, (if) I win my bet, please make your check payable to the Cedar Valley Food Bank. I will collect in person if you wish, just name the time and place to collect. If for some reason I should loose our bet, you can count on on receiving your reward however you wish.
God bless you, Mr. hetfield for reminding me of the Christmas season and of what it means to be a Christian.
Cross1242,
You are also W-a-a-a-a-a-y out of your league if you try to be critical of Clayson's article this week.
Like it or not, he's right on the mark.
Phil,
You're dillusional with your references.
-hfrmack "
Reading Prof. Clayson's article set me back. I wonder if it set cross1242 back?
I was also taken back by something I read by Mr. hetfield in a reply to Phil late last week.
My hat is off to Mr. hetfield!
If it is not too late, I'd like to propose to Mr. Cross some humility I was reminded of by Mr. hetfield.
When, (if) I win my bet, please make your check payable to the Cedar Valley Food Bank. I will collect in person if you wish, just name the time and place to collect. If for some reason I should loose our bet, you can count on on receiving your reward however you wish.
God bless you, Mr. hetfield for reminding me of the Christmas season and of what it means to be a Christian.
Cross1242,
You are also W-a-a-a-a-a-y out of your league if you try to be critical of Clayson's article this week.
Like it or not, he's right on the mark.
Phil,
You're dillusional with your references.
-hfrmack "
Phil wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:20 AM:
" What Mr. Clayson really needs to study is how to write a solid opinion piece in the first place.
He uses many of the same tactics he rails against here each week. He is especially good at using the "wise and superior" credential. But he is also very good at reinventing an argument and then arguing against it.
Obviously written by someone who knows all the tactics because he has used them himself. "
He uses many of the same tactics he rails against here each week. He is especially good at using the "wise and superior" credential. But he is also very good at reinventing an argument and then arguing against it.
Obviously written by someone who knows all the tactics because he has used them himself. "
chester11 wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:28 AM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:20 AM:
He uses many of the same tactics he rails against here each week. He is especially good at using the "wise and superior" credential. But he is also very good at reinventing an argument and then arguing against it.
"
Exactly. "
He uses many of the same tactics he rails against here each week. He is especially good at using the "wise and superior" credential. But he is also very good at reinventing an argument and then arguing against it.
"
Exactly. "
Oboy wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:53 AM:
" Say, hfmack, getting "cold feet" on your "wager?" Trying to avoid a face to face meeting to receive or present your $20.00 in person? With Cross 1242, I propose you meet in a neutral place (like the Courier Newsroom, with cameras rolling) to show you did not #1 forget #2 Too busy #3 It was Clinton"s fault. Need a witness? Call on me. "
hfrmack wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:05 AM:
" Oboy,
Negative. No cold feet here. I'll collect or present where ever. I'll more than likely be me collecting than presenting though.
Thank you for your concern!
-hfrmack "
Negative. No cold feet here. I'll collect or present where ever. I'll more than likely be me collecting than presenting though.
Thank you for your concern!
-hfrmack "
Phil wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:18 AM:
" For those of you who have wagers pending on this item:
Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
BREAKING NEWS
AP - Associated Press
updated 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. "
Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
BREAKING NEWS
AP - Associated Press
updated 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:26 AM:
" chester11 wrote on Dec 7, 2008 10:44 AM:
" Oops, looks like someone got his feelings hurt. I think it's obvious what this article is responding to.
Clayson is too egotistical to acknowledge major mistakes and a perpetual disingenuous air in his articles but Cross responds eloquently and as point by point as one can do in this format...." You two joined at the hip? You just made prof Clayson's point.
"... Clayson just has not had to deal with such pointed opposition before and you can see how uncomfortable, and angry, he is about it..." What remarkable insight you have. Did you see him fidget a lot as he wrote it, or was his face beet red? Or are you roving his point yet again? "
" Oops, looks like someone got his feelings hurt. I think it's obvious what this article is responding to.
Clayson is too egotistical to acknowledge major mistakes and a perpetual disingenuous air in his articles but Cross responds eloquently and as point by point as one can do in this format...." You two joined at the hip? You just made prof Clayson's point.
"... Clayson just has not had to deal with such pointed opposition before and you can see how uncomfortable, and angry, he is about it..." What remarkable insight you have. Did you see him fidget a lot as he wrote it, or was his face beet red? Or are you roving his point yet again? "
xdfred wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:29 AM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 8, 2008 7:20 AM:
" What Mr. Clayson really needs to study is how to write a solid opinion piece in the first place.
He uses many of the same tactics he rails against here each week. He is especially good at using the "wise and superior" credential. But he is also very good at reinventing an argument and then arguing against it.
Obviously written by someone who knows all the tactics because he has used them himself. "
I'll disagree with you on that one. When prof Clayson writes, he doesn't come off as a snob. Cross does. "
" What Mr. Clayson really needs to study is how to write a solid opinion piece in the first place.
He uses many of the same tactics he rails against here each week. He is especially good at using the "wise and superior" credential. But he is also very good at reinventing an argument and then arguing against it.
Obviously written by someone who knows all the tactics because he has used them himself. "
I'll disagree with you on that one. When prof Clayson writes, he doesn't come off as a snob. Cross does. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:53 AM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:18 AM:
" For those of you who have wagers pending on this item:
Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
BREAKING NEWS
AP - Associated Press..." So now it is a newsworthy item. "
" For those of you who have wagers pending on this item:
Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
BREAKING NEWS
AP - Associated Press..." So now it is a newsworthy item. "
cross1242 wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:05 PM:
" Phil and xdfred, the New Jersey case that was in the news as having an emergency appeal denied is NOT the case which we are expecting shortly. (I made the same mistake when I first looked at it.) That one we're interested in is from Pennsylvania. (Although the New Jersey case may indicate something about the court's attitude on this type of case.) It has not been ruled on yet. For anyone who wants to go directly to SCOTUS for news, go to:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Look under "Orders and Journal" for orders granted or rejected each day.
/s/ Steve Cross "
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
Look under "Orders and Journal" for orders granted or rejected each day.
/s/ Steve Cross "
Phil wrote on Dec 8, 2008 12:17 PM:
" Newswatcher wrote on Dec 8, 2008 10:46 AM:
" Phil, sounds like you're relieved. "
Nope - just reporting the information. Guess I wanted to see if the wagers were going to be paid off.
This lawsuit and the others like it were never going to amount to anything. Just more urban legend from the crazies.
Sorry I brought it up.
Back to Mr. Clayson's column.... "
" Phil, sounds like you're relieved. "
Nope - just reporting the information. Guess I wanted to see if the wagers were going to be paid off.
This lawsuit and the others like it were never going to amount to anything. Just more urban legend from the crazies.
Sorry I brought it up.
Back to Mr. Clayson's column.... "
hfrmack wrote on Dec 8, 2008 1:44 PM:
" cross1242 & Phil,
Check you calendars. Today is December 8th. Our wager was for January 20th. This may not even be decided by the S.C. It might play out in Congress in the Electoral College process.
Stay tuned...
-hfrmack "
Check you calendars. Today is December 8th. Our wager was for January 20th. This may not even be decided by the S.C. It might play out in Congress in the Electoral College process.
Stay tuned...
-hfrmack "
hetfield wrote on Dec 8, 2008 6:21 PM:
" good one frodo. you didnt even know which contestation of b husseins kinging you were posting!
seems there are alot of folks interested in why b hussein wont provide his actual and valid birth certificate.
maybe kenya can have him back yet!? "
seems there are alot of folks interested in why b hussein wont provide his actual and valid birth certificate.
maybe kenya can have him back yet!? "
hfrmack wrote on Dec 8, 2008 11:24 PM:
" I hope my last post went through okay...I wasn't quite finished when the damn cat jumped on the key board. (I think he hit "enter" before I got a chance to proof read my last post). "Back" would't work either.
Anybody want a cat?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I'll check later to see if my last comments came through. If not, I'll post them again later. If so, then I'll elaborate later.
Good night!
-hfrmack "
Anybody want a cat?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I'll check later to see if my last comments came through. If not, I'll post them again later. If so, then I'll elaborate later.
Good night!
-hfrmack "
Independent wrote on Dec 10, 2008 12:55 PM:
" I must really be getting to Clayson.
He wrote an entire essay attacking me.
I'm glad I finally made Clayson's list.
Happy Holidays Mr. Clayson! Thanks. "
He wrote an entire essay attacking me.
I'm glad I finally made Clayson's list.
Happy Holidays Mr. Clayson! Thanks. "
hfrmack wrote on Dec 11, 2008 5:28 PM:
" Independent,
"You're so vain...you probably think this article is about you, don't you...don't you...don't you?"
LOL...I couldn't resist.
-hfrmack "
"You're so vain...you probably think this article is about you, don't you...don't you...don't you?"
LOL...I couldn't resist.
-hfrmack "
hfrmack wrote on Dec 11, 2008 10:39 PM:
" xdfred wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:29 AM:
I'll disagree with you on that one. When prof Clayson writes, he doesn't come off as a snob. Cross does. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:29 AM:
" ....in my opinion. "
"Diddos"
-hfrmack "
I'll disagree with you on that one. When prof Clayson writes, he doesn't come off as a snob. Cross does. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 8, 2008 9:29 AM:
" ....in my opinion. "
"Diddos"
-hfrmack "
Phil wrote on Dec 12, 2008 7:43 AM:
" I think we would all agree that former Sec. of State Collin Powell does not use the tactics described by Mr. Clayson when he speaks or writes (other than his ill-advised UN address on Iraq's WMD's which he now regrets).
This Sunday he will be on CNN. One of the things he will say at that time about the GOP:
"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"
Amen. "
This Sunday he will be on CNN. One of the things he will say at that time about the GOP:
"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. "Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"
Amen. "
xdfred wrote on Dec 12, 2008 8:36 AM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 12, 2008 7:43 AM:
" I think we would all agree that former Sec. of State Collin Powell does not use the tactics described by Mr. Clayson when he speaks or writes (other than his ill-advised UN address on Iraq's WMD's which he now regrets)."
Whenever one of these left wingers begins with 'I think we can all agree', I just skip the rest of it. That's a tip for you, Phil.
"...This Sunday he will be on CNN. One of the things he will say at that time about the GOP:..." Oh goody. You the TV guide now?
"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. " Yes. Now more than ever.
"Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?" OK, so Powell's wrong again. What's your point? Ahhhh. Envy. "
" I think we would all agree that former Sec. of State Collin Powell does not use the tactics described by Mr. Clayson when he speaks or writes (other than his ill-advised UN address on Iraq's WMD's which he now regrets)."
Whenever one of these left wingers begins with 'I think we can all agree', I just skip the rest of it. That's a tip for you, Phil.
"...This Sunday he will be on CNN. One of the things he will say at that time about the GOP:..." Oh goody. You the TV guide now?
"Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?" Powell asked. " Yes. Now more than ever.
"Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?" OK, so Powell's wrong again. What's your point? Ahhhh. Envy. "
Phil wrote on Dec 12, 2008 10:26 AM:
" Envy - Rush Limbaugh? While it would be nice to have a few of his dollars, I am getting by quite nicely without them. Other than that, I can't think of a single thing he has that I would want.
No Family - which is a blessing for the rest of us that there is no Rush Jr. - wouldn't trade mine in a heartbeat.
Drug problems - no thanks.
No credibility or character - no thanks.
Seen as a radical fringe lunatic - no thanks.
And when your "admirers" and "fans" are part of the lunatic fringe - dittoheads, think about that, now that's a real compliment - that's something to be proud of. Not.
No, I don't envy Rush. When his entertainment days are over he will perish a very lonely man. "
No Family - which is a blessing for the rest of us that there is no Rush Jr. - wouldn't trade mine in a heartbeat.
Drug problems - no thanks.
No credibility or character - no thanks.
Seen as a radical fringe lunatic - no thanks.
And when your "admirers" and "fans" are part of the lunatic fringe - dittoheads, think about that, now that's a real compliment - that's something to be proud of. Not.
No, I don't envy Rush. When his entertainment days are over he will perish a very lonely man. "
cross1242 wrote on Dec 12, 2008 10:58 AM:
" For a good statement on how the Obama birth certificate "issue" is but the return of the wingnuts perpetual noise-making machine read, "The hunting of the president: The sequel". It's at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/12/12/obama/ "
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/12/12/obama/ "
hetfield wrote on Dec 12, 2008 12:35 PM:
" cross, if the birth certificate fiasco is just a big hoax, why do leftists continue to try to counter it? why does salon(liberal whiney rag bag) even publish counters?
why do you leftists continue to argue it on blogs?
frodo, sorry but if you think 20 million conservatives are just fringe, then I guess b hussein and ayers are really on the fringe, eh? "
why do you leftists continue to argue it on blogs?
frodo, sorry but if you think 20 million conservatives are just fringe, then I guess b hussein and ayers are really on the fringe, eh? "
cross1242 wrote on Dec 12, 2008 2:22 PM:
" hetfield @ Dec 12, 2008 12:35 PM said, "cross, if the birth certificate fiasco is just a big hoax, why do leftists continue to try to counter it? why does salon(liberal whiney rag bag) even publish counters? why do you leftists continue to argue it on blogs?"
hetfield, in answer to the question to mountain climbers of, "Why do you climb mountains?" the standard answer is, "Because they are there."
So, why do we libbies respond to arguments about Obama's birth in Hawaii?
Well, I can only respond for myself. I do so because you right wing die-hards make the argument. It may be a pathetically stupid argument, but it's still an argument.
I, at least, also think that it's important to respond just to let those know who suspect that it's a stupid argument that there suspicions are correct. Just because the hard-right noise machine is making a big deal about it doesn't mean that it's a real issue for anyone with an ounce of common sense.
I also suspect that there is an aggravation factor that causes at least me to respond. It would be the same thing if I ran into someone who professed, "I don't believe in gravity." The natural response is, "Are you insane?"
Just to restate the point. The issue is, "Was Obama born in Hawaii?" In response, he produced a valid, state-issued, certified birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii. For anyone with a lick of common sense, that would be the end of the matter.
And, as the Salon article made me realize, even when the Supreme Court tosses out the case and Obama is inaugurated, the hard right will be saying, "We was robbed" for the next eight years. And, as the article also says, the wingnuts will be adding stuff like the current attempt to say that Obama was working with Blagovich to sell the Senat seat. It's all pathetic.
/s/ Steve Cross "
hetfield, in answer to the question to mountain climbers of, "Why do you climb mountains?" the standard answer is, "Because they are there."
So, why do we libbies respond to arguments about Obama's birth in Hawaii?
Well, I can only respond for myself. I do so because you right wing die-hards make the argument. It may be a pathetically stupid argument, but it's still an argument.
I, at least, also think that it's important to respond just to let those know who suspect that it's a stupid argument that there suspicions are correct. Just because the hard-right noise machine is making a big deal about it doesn't mean that it's a real issue for anyone with an ounce of common sense.
I also suspect that there is an aggravation factor that causes at least me to respond. It would be the same thing if I ran into someone who professed, "I don't believe in gravity." The natural response is, "Are you insane?"
Just to restate the point. The issue is, "Was Obama born in Hawaii?" In response, he produced a valid, state-issued, certified birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii. For anyone with a lick of common sense, that would be the end of the matter.
And, as the Salon article made me realize, even when the Supreme Court tosses out the case and Obama is inaugurated, the hard right will be saying, "We was robbed" for the next eight years. And, as the article also says, the wingnuts will be adding stuff like the current attempt to say that Obama was working with Blagovich to sell the Senat seat. It's all pathetic.
/s/ Steve Cross "
hfrmack wrote on Dec 12, 2008 2:40 PM:
" cross1242,
Can you find a more left-wingnut web page than salon.com?
I daubt it.
This is about as a reliable source for information as Illinois' politics is honest.
-hfrmack "
Can you find a more left-wingnut web page than salon.com?
I daubt it.
This is about as a reliable source for information as Illinois' politics is honest.
-hfrmack "
xdfred wrote on Dec 12, 2008 2:51 PM:
" Phil wrote on Dec 12, 2008 10:26 AM:
" Envy - Rush Limbaugh? While it would be nice to have a few of his dollars, I am getting by quite nicely without them...." Then why complain about him as often as you do?
"Other than that, I can't think of a single thing he has that I would want." Sounds like a case of limited mind syndrome on your part?
"No Family - which is a blessing for the rest of us that there is no Rush Jr. - wouldn't trade mine in a heartbeat...." He probably wouldn't want yours, either. Who would?
"Drug problems - no thanks." Already tried them?
"No credibility or character - no thanks." He's got more than you ever will. 20 million listeners can't all be wrong.
"Seen as a radical fringe lunatic - no thanks." You mean painted as one by bitter jealous detractors.
"And when your "admirers" and "fans" are part of the lunatic fringe - dittoheads, think about that, now that's a real compliment - that's something to be proud of. Not." This is so ridiculous. Envy all over it.
"No, I don't envy Rush. When his entertainment days are over he will perish a very lonely man. " How would that be possible with so many friends and fans? Your bitter envy is totally clouding whatever reason you might have had. "
" Envy - Rush Limbaugh? While it would be nice to have a few of his dollars, I am getting by quite nicely without them...." Then why complain about him as often as you do?
"Other than that, I can't think of a single thing he has that I would want." Sounds like a case of limited mind syndrome on your part?
"No Family - which is a blessing for the rest of us that there is no Rush Jr. - wouldn't trade mine in a heartbeat...." He probably wouldn't want yours, either. Who would?
"Drug problems - no thanks." Already tried them?
"No credibility or character - no thanks." He's got more than you ever will. 20 million listeners can't all be wrong.
"Seen as a radical fringe lunatic - no thanks." You mean painted as one by bitter jealous detractors.
"And when your "admirers" and "fans" are part of the lunatic fringe - dittoheads, think about that, now that's a real compliment - that's something to be proud of. Not." This is so ridiculous. Envy all over it.
"No, I don't envy Rush. When his entertainment days are over he will perish a very lonely man. " How would that be possible with so many friends and fans? Your bitter envy is totally clouding whatever reason you might have had. "
rooster wrote on Dec 12, 2008 4:40 PM:
" Independent, You've got less than 1/100th of (Cross') cognitive ability and yet you think Clayson is talking to you? Indy, this is a blog not a letter to the editor. The article is talking about a letter to the editor. Have you ever had a letter to the editor published? Do you also receive messages from the mother ship? I hope you were joking. "
Independent wrote on Dec 12, 2008 9:40 PM:
" Rooster, this is a comment section, with editors approving each comment. Mini-Letters to the editor, if you will?
I was joking by the way, of course I know this was Clayson's lame attempt at a rebutal to cross1242.
I think cross should start his own university. "
I was joking by the way, of course I know this was Clayson's lame attempt at a rebutal to cross1242.
I think cross should start his own university. "
the_bat wrote on Dec 12, 2008 11:27 PM:
" Zing!
I think if there were more profs like Dennis Clayson, I'd definitely plan to go back to school when I retire.
^o^ "
I think if there were more profs like Dennis Clayson, I'd definitely plan to go back to school when I retire.
^o^ "
hfrmack wrote on Dec 12, 2008 11:38 PM:
" Independent,
This is called a "blog". This is no "mini-letters to the editor".
What planet are you from?
-hfrmack "
This is called a "blog". This is no "mini-letters to the editor".
What planet are you from?
-hfrmack "
hetfield wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:43 AM:
" cross wrote'Just to restate the point. The issue is, "Was Obama born in Hawaii?" In response, he produced a valid, state-issued, certified birth certificate showing that he was born in Hawaii. For anyone with a lick of common sense, that would be the end of the matter.
You are incorrect. the issue is not was bho born in the states. The issue is was bho born in a foreign country. You state he supplied a certificate. he did NOT. he supplied an electronic copy of a cert.. electronic copies are rarely even submissable evidence(I have to point that out?) in trial. Where is the freaking cert?? Did grandmammaobamma lie when she said she was at his birth in kenya? Were you there, cross? Why would she lie?
why was an electronic copy so readily accepted by liberals? would I be able to supply one anywhere that required one? heck NO!
I believe in gravity, cross. when one tosses BS in the air, it plops onto the floor and messes ones shoes.
Supply a certificate and get it over with? why the complete disregard to do so? why is it still an issue if BHO has one?
way too many open questions on this guy. way too many.
cross, if the messiah has an authentic birth certificate(as anyone who isnt lying does have) supply it now, on any venue that would record the event.
maybe rahm had it when he was injured in an israeli battle...lol. or maybe hillary had it when she was under fire when landing in bosnia. or maybe kerry had it when he was injured 3 times in vietnam. or maybe kennedy had it when he killed that poor gal in chappaquidick. or maybe...or maybe joe bin biden had it when he was shot down in iraq...
barack bin lying. new name. same old lies. "
You are incorrect. the issue is not was bho born in the states. The issue is was bho born in a foreign country. You state he supplied a certificate. he did NOT. he supplied an electronic copy of a cert.. electronic copies are rarely even submissable evidence(I have to point that out?) in trial. Where is the freaking cert?? Did grandmammaobamma lie when she said she was at his birth in kenya? Were you there, cross? Why would she lie?
why was an electronic copy so readily accepted by liberals? would I be able to supply one anywhere that required one? heck NO!
I believe in gravity, cross. when one tosses BS in the air, it plops onto the floor and messes ones shoes.
Supply a certificate and get it over with? why the complete disregard to do so? why is it still an issue if BHO has one?
way too many open questions on this guy. way too many.
cross, if the messiah has an authentic birth certificate(as anyone who isnt lying does have) supply it now, on any venue that would record the event.
maybe rahm had it when he was injured in an israeli battle...lol. or maybe hillary had it when she was under fire when landing in bosnia. or maybe kerry had it when he was injured 3 times in vietnam. or maybe kennedy had it when he killed that poor gal in chappaquidick. or maybe...or maybe joe bin biden had it when he was shot down in iraq...
barack bin lying. new name. same old lies. "
cross1242 wrote on Dec 13, 2008 4:05 AM:
" hfrmack 2 Dec 12, 2008 2:40 PM said, "cross1242, Can you find a more left-wingnut web page than salon.com? I daubt it. This is about as a reliable source for information as Illinois' politics is honest. -hfrmack"
hfrmack, have you ever noticed how the whole world is filled with "left-wingnut web page(s)" and other news media?
It reminds be of the old story of a mother looking at a parade of a military unit with her son in it and saying, "Everyone but my son is out of step."
Dream on.
/s/ Steve Cross "
hfrmack, have you ever noticed how the whole world is filled with "left-wingnut web page(s)" and other news media?
It reminds be of the old story of a mother looking at a parade of a military unit with her son in it and saying, "Everyone but my son is out of step."
Dream on.
/s/ Steve Cross "
cross1242 wrote on Dec 13, 2008 12:19 PM:
" hetfield @ Dec 13, 2008 12:43 AM got in a few wingnut things that, just because they are so outrageous, I am replying to. I know it won't make any difference to him but maybe others wonder whether he has a point.
He said, "You are incorrect. the issue is not was bho born in the states. The issue is was bho born in a foreign country."
Me: Gee, is it important whether a loaf of bread is sliced or whether the slices are arranged in a loaf?
He said, "You state he supplied a certificate. he did NOT. he supplied an electronic copy of a cert.. electronic copies are rarely even submissable evidence(I have to point that out?)"
Me: What hetfield is complaining about here is that the certificate from the Hawaii office was posted on the internet for everyone to see. What hetfield is complaining about is that a personal copy wasn't sent from the Hawaii registrars office to everyone in the United States. Sure, the copy posted on the internet is, in one sense, "electronic." But, does anyone even suspect that there is no original copy in the Hawaii registrar's office that was being certified to?
And hetfield better read up on his law a little more. A paper copy BEARING THE OFFICIAL STAMP of the Hawaii registrar would be accepted as valid evidence in any court. The fact that the copy shown on the internet wouldn't be admissible but that's totally irrelevant.
He said: "Where is the freaking cert??
Me: You were shown it on the internet. The fact that you choose not to believe it is your own choice. (Under circumstances stated in Hawaii's law, hetfield can write to the Hawaii registrars office and get his own personal copy just like the Obama campaign did. Where's the beef?
He said: "Did grandmammaobamma lie when she said she was at his birth in kenya? Were you there, cross? Why would she lie?"
As I understand it, someone managed to get a phone call into to the nursing home where Obama's grandmother was being cared for. (And, I'll bet that someone working at the nursing facility got reacquainted with the standing policy on allowing strangers to contact anyone who was a resident of the facility.) I know nothing about what she was suffering from or what medications she was taking. I do know that she was literally on her death bed. The fact that some wingnut claims to have pulled off that stunt is thoroughly contemptible. (And a tad unbelievable too.) I suspect that under the circumstances, the wingnut who did it could have gotten her to declare that gravity doesn't exist.
hetfield's continued insistence that there is a real issue about the location of Obama's birth is ludicrous.
/s/ Steve Cross "
He said, "You are incorrect. the issue is not was bho born in the states. The issue is was bho born in a foreign country."
Me: Gee, is it important whether a loaf of bread is sliced or whether the slices are arranged in a loaf?
He said, "You state he supplied a certificate. he did NOT. he supplied an electronic copy of a cert.. electronic copies are rarely even submissable evidence(I have to point that out?)"
Me: What hetfield is complaining about here is that the certificate from the Hawaii office was posted on the internet for everyone to see. What hetfield is complaining about is that a personal copy wasn't sent from the Hawaii registrars office to everyone in the United States. Sure, the copy posted on the internet is, in one sense, "electronic." But, does anyone even suspect that there is no original copy in the Hawaii registrar's office that was being certified to?
And hetfield better read up on his law a little more. A paper copy BEARING THE OFFICIAL STAMP of the Hawaii registrar would be accepted as valid evidence in any court. The fact that the copy shown on the internet wouldn't be admissible but that's totally irrelevant.
He said: "Where is the freaking cert??
Me: You were shown it on the internet. The fact that you choose not to believe it is your own choice. (Under circumstances stated in Hawaii's law, hetfield can write to the Hawaii registrars office and get his own personal copy just like the Obama campaign did. Where's the beef?
He said: "Did grandmammaobamma lie when she said she was at his birth in kenya? Were you there, cross? Why would she lie?"
As I understand it, someone managed to get a phone call into to the nursing home where Obama's grandmother was being cared for. (And, I'll bet that someone working at the nursing facility got reacquainted with the standing policy on allowing strangers to contact anyone who was a resident of the facility.) I know nothing about what she was suffering from or what medications she was taking. I do know that she was literally on her death bed. The fact that some wingnut claims to have pulled off that stunt is thoroughly contemptible. (And a tad unbelievable too.) I suspect that under the circumstances, the wingnut who did it could have gotten her to declare that gravity doesn't exist.
hetfield's continued insistence that there is a real issue about the location of Obama's birth is ludicrous.
/s/ Steve Cross "
bbrock wrote on Dec 15, 2008 9:16 AM:
" This is very interesting timing given the recent subject of multiple editorials including "polemics" and anonymous blogging.
This takes the anonymous blogging concept one step further by allowing this group to write under fake credentials, which is untruthful and deceitful. Not to mention that the Courier is willing to play along, by allowing this group to be credited as some sort of "expert."
If you wanted to protect your tenure track, blog to your heart's content. But don't pretend to be someone or something you're not. Isn't this contrary to the code of professional ethics you have as professors?
Finally, the Clayson group has the audacity to educate writers on the "proper way" of writing a letter to the editor, focusing on "stating your credentials" as the first step.
I hate to break it to you professors, but those writers, regardless of "credentials", had the guts to put their name out there and claim their thoughts.
Do you believe that your deceitful creditentials are satisfactory in your own letter to the editor wrist-slapping lesson?
WHAT A JOKE! "
This takes the anonymous blogging concept one step further by allowing this group to write under fake credentials, which is untruthful and deceitful. Not to mention that the Courier is willing to play along, by allowing this group to be credited as some sort of "expert."
If you wanted to protect your tenure track, blog to your heart's content. But don't pretend to be someone or something you're not. Isn't this contrary to the code of professional ethics you have as professors?
Finally, the Clayson group has the audacity to educate writers on the "proper way" of writing a letter to the editor, focusing on "stating your credentials" as the first step.
I hate to break it to you professors, but those writers, regardless of "credentials", had the guts to put their name out there and claim their thoughts.
Do you believe that your deceitful creditentials are satisfactory in your own letter to the editor wrist-slapping lesson?
WHAT A JOKE! "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
Shermie wrote on Dec 7, 2008 8:02 AM: