The writer identifies himself as "a longtime constitutional militia man and Internet advocate for Second Amendment rights."
Nice way to deflect from the content of the letter, and mask your utter lack of journalistic ethics by failing to issue a retraction, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
That's what you get for traumatizing the melanin deficient, Vanderboegh. I'd accuse you of making me look bad, but when I think about all the potentials for that, all I can say is take a number.
That and good letter, Mike!
15 comments:
Sipsey St. Irregulars,III.
Each of the words in that little editor's note is emotionally loaded, and together they say "fanatic."
Better would have been: "Longtime constitutionalist, member of the unorganized militia at large -- the populace -- and advocate for human, civil and natural rights," but that just takes too much precious ink or bytes or bits to say.
And it's not nearly as scary to people who haven't exercised their right and responsibility to know how their government began and the direction it was intended to go.
Makes it easier to wave byebye when WE are shipped to the camps "for our own protection."
Did I mention that this quiet weekend with loving family gave me the feeling that all the worry about a police state was so much drama and a need for excitement in my life that was lacking; trying to find a purpose beyond a 40-hour week and a vacation?
Reading the e-news today, it seems as likely that the ninja turtles are making their lists and checking them twice. I apologize for having doubts.
You'll note they edited out the "Irish Diplomacy" that Mike used. Yes, it's a good letter-to-the-editor as printed.
If they'd wanted to really emphasize "fanatic," they'd have left those parts in.
Say what you will about what he writes, the man keeps getting published. No mean feat, especially considering that he's writing from out of state.
And until one of the Evil Empire (Brady, VPC, etc) deigns to notice this activity, I don't believe that 'traumatizing the albinos' is much of a worry.
III
I'm looking for that fanatacism you're referring to, Kevin, and I'm just not seeing it.
Well, he doesn't seem to get, or see,the seriousness and reality of what we've been saying either.
Dam fine letter Mike!
CIII
...that fact-challenged fat FBI troll Pitcavage or the liars for money at the Southern Poverty Law Center and ADL. It has always been the habit of these left wing organizations who use the militia boogeyman scarecrow to generate contributions to blur the absolute differences between the Klan, neoNazis and Identity racist terrorists and the constitutional militias.
This, in a letter-to-the-editor. Plus:
But what crack pipe hallucination were you in....
Ah yes, the dulcet tones of the reasonable man!
You'll note, these were the portions edited out that resulted in that "damned fine letter" (and I use that phrase in all seriousness - it is a damned fine letter when edited - getting published.
Which raises the question: What is the purpose of the letter? Is it to hurl insults thus venting spleen, or is it to get corrective information into the news stream? I'm unfamiliar with the newsrag in question, but generally letters containing disparaging language don't get edited, they get trashed. Had that been printed in whole, the reaction of the general public would have been. . . what? Already we have a complaint that the description of Vanderboegh by the editor's note tags him as "fanatic" - and that ain't my word, is it?
Chris Horton writes: Well, he doesn't seem to get, or see,the seriousness and reality of what we've been saying either. Wrong. I GET IT. I have been studying the topic since about 1993. I understand it.
But the overwhelming majority of the populace DOES NOT. They haven't got a damned clue. And calling federal agents "fat FBI trolls" and accusing journalists and editors of smoking crack makes you look cracked in the eyes of the ignorant.
Now if you'll excuse me, I owe Vanderboegh a post on the topic, and I need to go work on it some more.
The purpose of the letter was to express contempt for shoddy and inexcusably ignorant and negligent journalism to the reporter and the editor, and tell them in no uncertain terms a retraction was owed. He never presented it as a letter to the editor. That they chose to print it as such with unauthorized edits was their call.
Kevin, if plain speaking like this is too much for you, if that is too radical, all I can say is there's a difference between studying something and learning anything. Go ahead and write a diatribe against Vanderboegh if that's what you truly think the best use of your time is. What Mike wrote is wittier and more biting than anything I've ever seen come out of the conciliation camp.
Good grief. How tight of a straightjacket would you put us in as far as expressing contempt to the liars who are destroying the Republic?
I may start writing them hard worded letters and throw in the word "militia" just to watch you folks have strokes.
"Which raises the question: What is the purpose of the letter? Is it to hurl insults thus venting spleen, or is it to get corrective information into the news stream?"-Kevin.
How about putting fat FBI troll and the crack smoking journalists and editors on notice that we did notice their dishonesty and we have contempt for it and them?
How about putting them on notice that we know they are not our friends and they don't wish to be and we know it?
How about putting them on notice that we don't give a shit for their opinion of us if it means we should surrender our rights so you can feel comfortable that no harsh words or thoughts were used against those very same sonsofbitches that would put your kids in an 8x40?
Want more? or is that enough?
I don't know if posting the response was that bad of an idea. A Vanderboegh rebuttal in readers' hands is worth two retractions buried on page G-50; in two-point type, and one month later. (My hyperbole license runs out soon, I have to use it while I can.)
It may inspire some readers to verify that the time-line is indeed correct, and therefore so is the mysterious, yet annoyed, man from Alabama.
If anybody cares, my response to Vanderboegh is up.
Everything that comes from the "conciliatory crowd" is predicated on the erroneous assumption that the GDP (Genrally Dumb Public) can be convinced to see it our way.
Forty years of programming at the government's mandatory youth training camps (public schools) will not be undone by any number of reasonably worded letters. Anyone who believes otherwise is self deluded.
Better at this Oh-So-Late stage of the game to speak directly to our enemies in such a fasion as to raise their awareness of just how dangerous is the viper they're daring to tread upon!
GunRights4US:
I felt that way for many years, however, in a climate of political turmoil, people are more willing to discuss what they think face-to-face. I don't think the electorate is dumb, I think they're generally timid and uninformed. I don't see the problem with MBV attacking the falsehoods repeated by the fanatical newly-converted. I would not, however, recommend attacking those that are simply uninformed.
I arrived at this conclusion when I realized that most people (where I live) privately poke fun at "political correctness". This includes people who work in MYTCs. Slogan-shouting only lasts as long as the shouter is shouting, and not thinking. So the disarmers may think they're permanently re-programming the population by sticking the word "gun" next to a word with a negative connotation--like "violence"--but that is not the case.
I admit that I'm the pot that's calling the kettle black. For many years I preached to people--or perhaps down to them--and was frustrated at the lack of results. About ten years ago I had just about accepted that the disarmed state was the way it was going to be.
I had an attitude readjustment after I realized that how I conduct myself matters as much as the words I'm speaking. People are mildly surprised when they find out that I'm "pro-gun". It should have been obvious, now that I look back on it. Sometimes the delivery of the message ruins the message.
Back in the 60s my mother had a run-in with one of the early fanatics of the PC movement, while working in a MYTC. She innocently used the (still commonplace) term "negro" to describe someone, and the fanatic interrupted her with, "they're called blacks", with a scornful delivery more suitable for a misbehaving child. Interesting how my mother did not recall much else this woman said.
Ahh but you see he hasn't attcked those who are merely uninformed. He has attacked the honest-to-gosh enemy!
Long answer made exceedingly short:
Rule 308 = I swore an oath that never expired.
III
what gunrights4us said.
Post a Comment