HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Mar. 30, 2006 First of all we would have to agree that he definatly had opinions and was vocal about those opinions. If one can be vocal using the written word and I only mention this as I’ve read some opinions about Ken in the rebuttals section. As in the (to paraphrase) if he’s traveled halfway around the world twice, does that mean that he’s traveled all the way around the world once? So, I don’t want some remark on “how could Ken be vocal, he’s typing?” Some of those remarks show a singular wit and it must be getting lonely. I believe that when the remarks start getting personal, then you must not have a rebuttal so you resort to name calling or insults. I’ve more the likely done this on an occasion so I will apologize befor continuing. Someone remarked that you can’t bully on the internet. You can’t physically bully someone via the internet which makes it even more of a cowardly attack. At least a physical bully runs the risk of getting punched in the beak. Ken did have some spelling errors and some grammatical mistakes but I don’t recall him claiming to be an English major or making a living writing. Then there were a lot of the attacks were strictly personal. Remarks about a sweater which brings up the question who is this person, a fashion critic? “I disagree with your article Ken, I don’t know why however I’m sure I don’t like your sweater. So, take the article back, have your sweater re-write it and then I’ll have reason to complain.” Perhaps Ken was spreading a yarn? Then there was the homosexual allegation however this person that made this allegation didn’t (to the best of my knowledge) write anything demeaning about Steve’s long adoring article about tiger woods. So, this must have been just something personal. Either that or he really liked the sweater and couldn’t find another one so he took it out on Ken. If you do happen to go to the rebuttal section in the back, you’ll find this admiration network society that exists, you’re great dude. No you’re great dude, you rock. No, no, you’re greater then I am. Did you see that last article, you tore it up. No, No you really tore it up. Reminds me of one of the reasons that I’m glad I’m out of high school. Speaking of high school, are we graded on a curve? I didn’t agree with everything that Ken wrote about however I respected his right to have his own opinion. He seemed to be of the opinion that Bush can almost walk on water and I’m of the opinion that he can’t walk while chewing gum. I viewed it as we simply disagree. We did have a few e-mail discussions back and forth, we disagreed but we were civil about it. He appeared to have a little bias against a certain people but I’ve read other articles that were much worse (should be required reading at a Klan rally) and yet, no comment. I’m guilty of not speaking up on those. Then there was the Dawn Carr incident. Someone claimed that she should have laughed it off or stuck it out but had thin skin and just couldn’t take it. Based on her articles it would seem like she had quite a lot happen to her in a short order. Perhaps she has thicker skin but based on past events, her willingness to put up with a load of crap was at an end. I wonder if anyone would have been offended and wrote her an e-mail, if she would have been singing the praises of the medical staff, that they alone had saved her husband. How dare she mention the “G” word. You have to consider the person that you’re dealing with. David said that he just laughed off the vile e-mail about his wife however if he had just lost his wife or she was in a dire situation at the hospital, would he be so willing to laugh off the e-mail? Yet he’s offended by the ending of “War of the Worlds.” As if this was sinister plot perpetrated by Christians to spread the Word of God via a remake of an H.G Wells novel and if so is George Lucas attempting to spread the belief of pantheism by his Star Wars movies? In all fairness to the individual, I had a short e-mail discussion and he was civil toward me. I enjoy a good give and take debate as long as it’s civil and both sides at least make an effort to see each other’s point of view. I seem to have taken a right angle to the point I was going to make. In the military you learn, when ambushed, to attack. If you run, you just get shot in the back. Personally, I believe that Ken and Dawn both should have stuck it out. They may disagree with what you’re saying, they may take personal shots at you but the bottom line is, they are reading it.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
