She prints something intended to provoke a given (inevitable, considering human nature) response, then uses that response to ridicule her opposition.
She has the soap box, she's the "authorized journalist", so she can cherry pick the responses she wants to highlight. Ignore any potentally embarassing effective response and print the angry, the less educated, the less "popular" opinions to "demonstrate" the nuttiness of the pro-gun community.
Anyone, anywhere on any controversial topic could use this tactic. Most do not in consideration of ethics and/or some semblance of conscience. She, obviously, has neither.
Sailorcurt may well be right, he usually is. However, I could not resist sending her the below, above my real name, of course.
Subject: Why do you propose more killings of innocents?
Killings of innocent people by ever larger numbers is inevitable if your proposals were to become fact. If you had journalistic integrity you would have already done the research and proven this to yourself. That you did not do your research, but feel qualified to provide advice and guidance says nothing good about ability to form a coherent and logical opinion.
You seem not to care how much harm you cause. What's worse is that your reasoning is so childish. I am making an assumption that you are physically of an age where you should be an adult.
However, after reading both your columns regarding the horrible atrocity at Nickel Mines, Pa., I am forced to recognize your mind is of inferior quality. Let me restate that. Your mind is operating as if it is of inferior quality, the quality potential for your mind may not be impaired. The problem could be that you let emotion dictate its path.
Your immaturity then makes it appear that your mind is incapable of logical thought.
Any logical thought process would disabuse you of the fallacious opinions you hold. Hell, any examination of what you would be willing to personally surrender to promote pretend security from madmen would show you what a foolish thing you have proposed for others.
Those girls died because they were helpless and those they relied upon were helpless. Had they not been helpless, some of them may have died anyway, if the attack had occurred. There is every reason to believe that the fact of their helplessness is one of the major factors in their selection as victims.
Now you come along and tell us they were not helpless enough. Worse, you want everybody to be just as helpless. What kind of monster are you? What do you have planned that you desire all about you to be defenseless?
Those are not rhetorical questions. Law of Nature of Man: If one desires you no harm, he needs not have you defenseless and disarmed.
Corollary: If one needs you disarmed and defenseless he intends you harm, either immediate or in potential.
History bears this out without exception. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I have no reason to believe you are the second coming of Christ so I will assume you are mortal and flawed just as the rest of us are and not to be trusted with overwhelming power any more than are the state or your neighbor or myself, for that matter.
Methinks we are playing right into her hand.
ReplyDeleteShe prints something intended to provoke a given (inevitable, considering human nature) response, then uses that response to ridicule her opposition.
She has the soap box, she's the "authorized journalist", so she can cherry pick the responses she wants to highlight. Ignore any potentally embarassing effective response and print the angry, the less educated, the less "popular" opinions to "demonstrate" the nuttiness of the pro-gun community.
Anyone, anywhere on any controversial topic could use this tactic. Most do not in consideration of ethics and/or some semblance of conscience. She, obviously, has neither.
True enough--in which case, the record will be established for posterity to judge.
ReplyDeleteSailorcurt may well be right, he usually is. However, I could not resist sending her the below, above my real name, of course.
ReplyDeleteSubject: Why do you propose more killings of innocents?
Killings of innocent people by ever larger numbers is inevitable if your proposals were to become fact. If you had journalistic integrity you would have already done the research and proven this to yourself. That you did not do your research, but feel qualified to provide advice and guidance says nothing good about ability to form a coherent and logical opinion.
You seem not to care how much harm you cause. What's worse is that your reasoning is so childish. I am making an assumption that you are physically of an age where you should be an adult.
However, after reading both your columns regarding the horrible atrocity at Nickel Mines, Pa., I am forced to recognize your mind is of inferior quality. Let me restate that. Your mind is operating as if it is of inferior quality, the quality potential for your mind may not be impaired. The problem could be that you let emotion dictate its path.
Your immaturity then makes it appear that your mind is incapable of logical thought.
Any logical thought process would disabuse you of the fallacious opinions you hold. Hell, any examination of what you would be willing to personally surrender to promote pretend security from madmen would show you what a foolish thing you have proposed for others.
Those girls died because they were helpless and those they relied upon were helpless. Had they not been helpless, some of them may have died anyway, if the attack had occurred. There is every reason to believe that the fact of their helplessness is one of the major factors in their selection as victims.
Now you come along and tell us they were not helpless enough. Worse, you want everybody to be just as helpless. What kind of monster are you? What do you have planned that you desire all about you to be defenseless?
Those are not rhetorical questions. Law of Nature of Man: If one desires you no harm, he needs not have you defenseless and disarmed.
Corollary: If one needs you disarmed and defenseless he intends you harm, either immediate or in potential.
History bears this out without exception. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. I have no reason to believe you are the second coming of Christ so I will assume you are mortal and flawed just as the rest of us are and not to be trusted with overwhelming power any more than are the state or your neighbor or myself, for that matter.
Please grow up.
Sincerely,
(real name)
Totally indoctrinated communist/socialist. Probably beyond saving.
ReplyDeleteLinks to her articles are no longer active. Guess she doesn't like getting linked from gun sites.
ReplyDelete