HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
June 28, 2005 Debunker is a thankless occupation and it takes a certain type of individual to take on such a responsibility. Whether that type is an idiot, or stubborn jerk, or one gifted with insight, I can not tell you. I only know that I am that type. While I completely support everyone’s right to speak their mind, and expect the same support in return, for some reason, in my first read of any opinion article my mind focuses on the author’s intent and the facts they use to support it. Don’t know why I don’t disregard the foundations of their theories, at first, and just try to grasp their "message", but I don’t. I am a skeptic at heart and have to understand whether the writer is trying to manipulate me first before I can allow myself to accept their message. If they’re manipulating, distorting facts, or making illogical or unsubstantiated conclusions, I can’t stand it – it just burns me and I have to point out their wrongs to the world. I feel that if I don’t, someone (probably many people) who doesn’t share my sensitive nose for BS might actually believe the writer. Even if I agree with the writer’s point, after I’ve calmed enough to understand it, I still hate any unfair techniques used to make it and want others to know how and when these tricks are being used against them. Strange thing, my efforts only seem to make everyone angry. Those who I debunk are mad to have been exposed and embarrassed. Others get mad at me for embarrassing another writer. They don’t care that everything I wrote was true – even when they completely agree that its true – they just think it unkind of me to embarrass another UK contributor. Finally, those who I seek to help with my debunking express no gratitude. As I say, it’s a thankless job. I’ve debunked two articles in the last week, one by Ms. Malsbury and another by Mr. Gibeault. To his credit, Mr. Gibeault did offer a weak response, but when I debunked that, he disappeared. Ms. Malsbury did write me directly, not kindly, complaining about my treatment of her et al, but without denying a single word of the truth I wrote. She made some very strange comments. She said, "Obviously you are a very unhappy and repressed man that takes his anger and hostility out on all other people in the way of personal vendettas voiced via UK." I admit now, as I admitted something to this effect above, and as I’ve admitted in other UK posts, that I do debunk, in part, to relieve some frustration. So, as any faithful reader of my posts herein can testify, I am, AGAIN, admitting fault on my part. In an email I wrote to Mr. McCrae after reading his criticism of me regarding my debunk of Ms. Malsbury, I also admitted being too mean in my debunking as he charged. I really should be more "congenial" as he suggests. You are correct, Mr. McCrae. There, one more admission of fault on my part. So now, let’s hear admissions from those who criticize me – unless by refusing you mean to tell the UK readership that y’all are PERFECT. First, Ms. Malsbury, read the quote from you above. Look these readers in the monitor and tell us that unhappiness and repressed anger where not part of the motivation of your seemingly personal vendettas displayed on this site over and over and over, against the current administration. Re-read your article I criticized and tell me it does not "reek" of hostility. Why is it OK for you to be ugly, angry, and hostile against the honorable Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove, but I’m some kind of jerk for being no worse (certainly) towards you? And the fact is, your’s was all inaccurate and manipulative – a regular propaganda piece designed (poorly, I add) to manipulate those too naïve to recognize its tactics. Mine was truthful debunking. Next you wrote to me: "Please do not write about me being a liar unless you are willing to back that comment up with hard FACTS!!!" I’m lost with this comment. My entire article was about how you were calling Cheney and Rove liars based on quotes that were not lies. And I provided the HARD FACTS you now demand throughout the article – your words. I took direct quotes from your article, showed how they were, in fact, absolutely not the "lies" you claimed, then asked you, or anyone, to tell me any possible way they could be considered such. You haven’t. It is not coincidence that your response made no attempt to do so. Your article was exactly what I said it was, your manipulations were exactly manipulations. I don’t know what other HARD FACTS you need. If you had said 10 + 10 = 30 and I used your fingers and toes to prove otherwise, why would you demand other HARD FACTS? Strange, strange comment. But as I said, being a debunker creates enemies from all quarters. After my article against Ms. Malsbury, lo and behold, two of her supporters post articles declaring their friendship for Ms. Malsbury and declaring me some kind of sicko. Mr. Hughes and Mr. McCrae both seem to adore Ms. Malsbury while admitting that they absolutely disagree with her opinions at issue. Admittedly, I accept Mr. McCrae’s criticism that I was not nice. Mr. Hughes’ was less clear but I believe he basically meant the same thing. Fine, but here’s what I don’t understand: Ms. Malsbury was exceeding mean in her article about Cheney and Rove, and she’s been just as ugly in past articles. Where is their anger at her? What is the deal where it’s OK for her to lie, distort, and hurl vile insults at people, but not OK for me to treat her the same way? Yes, I should be better than her, Mr. McCrae, BUT WHAT ABOUT HER????? Ah, the life of the debunker. A thankless job but I do it and the UK readership is better for it whether Ms. Malsbury, Mr. McCrae, or Mr. Hughes think so or not. Finally, just to prove that everything I’ve said is true, I will repeat the same request I always make of those I criticize – PROVE ME WRONG. Tell me why those quotes from Ms. Malsbury prove Cheney and Rove "liars" as she adamantly declares. Provide ANY explanation for her inclusion of the quotes on SS reform and Hillary Clinton other than that they were bald-faced (like the way I used that term, MM?) attempts at manipulation. Of course, I also insulted Florida academia, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but nonetheless an insult – prove me wrong. Name a prestigious Florida university. Yes, I said many ugly things, but they were all true – the truth is ugly sometimes. Ms. Malsbury said a bunch of ugly things but none were true – by that I mean they are not true if judged by the exact evidence she provides as justification of their truth. PROVE ME WRONG, PROVE ME WRONG, PROVE ME WRONG. Otherwise, Mr. McCrae, you ought to do exactly what you advised me to do – simply write me a personal email with your comments. You should absolutely know from our previous communications and the many examples on UK including this one, that if you had, I would have posted the exact retraction I make above – that I was too mean in my words. But to post a UK article chastising me, likewise Mr. Hughes, for doing nothing more than Ms. Malsbury did to her targets, while extolling her wonderfulness, is just blatant, bigotry. I’m feeling like Rosa Parks, unable to ride the same bus, in the same way as the white riders, simply because I am a debunker. To Ms. Malsbury, I offer my sincere apologies for offending you with the tone of my article. I used these words to describe you: "poor ignorant", "naivete", and "head-up-sphincter intellect". No other ugly words were used to describe you personally, but those were too much. Not that I believe them inaccurate, but I should use a kinder, more gentler, manner. Please accept my apology, and the UK readers as well. On the other hand, these are the words you used to describe Cheney and Rove: "flippant", that they "gross(ly) misuse their power", that Cheney made a "bold faced lie", that he lacked character, that they had "culpability and negligence in misleading the entire world in their quest to go to war with Iraq. Why do they have such total arrogance?", again that Cheney was a "bold faced liar", and finally, that numerous members of the administration "should be charged with war crimes". Please tell me why I’m the bad guy, any of you – Mr. Hughes, Mr. McCrae, Ms. Malsbury. In comparison, my words are perhaps, a bit harsher, but only a bit. And there were far fewer. And my were based on the truth – not the twisted distortions Ms. Malsbury used to justify her ugliness. Am I the pot or the kettle here? Sounds to me like we have three pots and one kettle – me. And I’m the only one honest enough, and man enough, to admit my mistakes. As I said, debunking is a thankless job. BTW, I do get a few letters of support, and to those wise folks, I thank you. ------------ About the author: Ron Lewis is a software salesman extraordinaire, albeit habitually unemployed, with no significant accomplishments at age 47 other than two wonderfully talented children who take after their mother. All his friends note his keen insight, bad eyesight, doggedly jaded disposition, and rugged bad looks. A third person seems to recall that he talks too much. Email: grnacres@direcway.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
