Olive Branch...or Psychotic Episode
Stripped of its paranoia-laced rhetoric, a recent posting at anonybloghorrhea parroted progressive goals, including the elimination of the good ol' boy network that has held New Albany back for years.
Is this a repudiation of Schmidt, Coffey, and Kochert?
Talk amongst yourselves.
Is this a repudiation of Schmidt, Coffey, and Kochert?
Talk amongst yourselves.
posted by All4Word at 11:40 PM
7 Comments:
In today's bizarre epistle that you cite, Shaman Says:
If you notice, they have very little to say in the way of addressing the issues. Rather, the rhetoric is only meant to humiliate and degrade.
Whether a reader agrees with the views of Randy or Roger, a dispassionate observer would not be able to contest the fact that in our published works to date, if anything, there has been an overabundance of text devoted to a wide range of issues.
The same dispassionate observer would look in vain to see more than a few of these issues mentioned at all at the blog source quoted above.
It's obvious that we discuss issues, just not the sole issue discussed there.
It's obvious that we discuss these issues at great length, just not in the anonymous snippets more suitable to spraypainted graffiti than proper written English.
It's obvious that we sign our names to our writings, not just don masks and lob dung on passers-by.
All these things are obvious and exist entirely apart from whether one agrees or disagrees with our views.
Olive branch or psychotic outburst? Hmm, not sure which to pick, but while I'm thinking about it, here's another of my all-time favorite Oatesisms, one directed toward right at me:
"He is the rudest most unkind man I have ever encountered...and I've never met the man."
Laura Oates, 4:56 PM, September 19, 2005.
I'd happily gather with any of them at any time to discuss real issues and seek common ground, but if I tried to post this "over there," it would be censored.
Who, then, is the impediment?
It's obvious.
Playing the devil's advocate, would it not be reasonable to think that if this is an olive branch, it might be quickly withdrawn by the proferrer (sp?) if insulted by name calling?
Name calling?
It wouldn't be proper for the victim of overt censorship to "call" someone a name, although "naming" names seems fitting.
As the saintly R. W. Reagan once noted, "trust but verify," lest the olive branch prove to be wrapped around a two by four, and the peace pipe laced with arsenic.
Annie, perhaps you can be the Nobel Prize winner and bring us together. We can begin by arguing over the size of the table and the brand of bottled water, and then proceed to real-time vilification.
A gen-u-ine conclave.
Given Ms. Oates' responses to my several attempts to engage her on issues, I'll simply say that I'm struggling to comprehend how anyone could view the situation much differently than as the New Albanian describes.
That said, those offers still stand.
I consider it important, and admirable, that the offers have been made.
My only point is that while labels–or nicknames–may seem appropriate, it probably serves no purpose other than an inflammatory one to use them.
I guess it wasn't an olive branch.
Oh, well.
As we have since learned, it's because:
"Your all a bunch of right wing liberal progressive."
My, my, my -- whether to laugh, or whether to cry.
Post a Comment
<< Home