Letters to the Editor
Reilly
Published Letters: 178
-
--Anonymous@03:45 PM "how cowardly nasty and vicious a lot of people become when the hide behind their computers"
[Read the article: I'm acting like a monster so my friends are deserting me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People interact on the internet through the written word. That's the medium. That hardly implies that people are being "cowardly" or "hide behind their computers".
And I'm assuming that when people write nice things with which you agree, you don't characterize that as "cowardly" or that they're "hiding behind their computers".
So the natural limitations of the internet precluding face to face contact only reflect a lack of courage when you're not in agreement with them.
By the way, even in a faceless forum such as a comment section, there are some who would argue that signing as "Anonymous" is the true act of cowardice.
-
--Anonymous@05:16 PM
[Read the article: I'm acting like a monster so my friends are deserting me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quit pretending that this guy was on the fourteenth floor theatening to jump and that you were trying to talk him down while I was yelling out suicidal encouragements. That's not the case.
This guy's been acting out, and the person who acts out isn't the victim. The victims here are the people he acted out against. So save the hand-wringing.
I can't imagine the same wagons being circled if the title of the letter was changed only slightly to; "I'm acting like a monstrous boss so my employees are deserting me."
And let's use language that fits, and refering to me as "self-absorbed" doesn't since I haven't been writing about myself.
Neither does "egomaniacal" unless the meaning has changed to refer to someone who voices a strong opinion and refuses to cry on cue.
And calling my second post an "after-the-fact explanation" misses the entire point of my having written that. That wasn't an attempt to back-pedal from what I wrote previously.
I simply put it in different words because I wanted to respond to your rather earnest reply. I thought I had stated that fairly clearly at the end of that post.
And I did take him at his word, all of his words, and you could to if you weren't so twisted up with whatever life problem is eating away at you. You're seeing his problem through your lens. But I don't get the impression that you're an A-hole who's acting out at those around him.
As far as the 12-step "I have to accept the things I can't change." yadda, I hope you're not suggesting that treating people in his life like shit is something he should accept.
If that's the case then let's trot out some more of that stale AA lexicon and call you an "enabler".
Shutting yourself off from the internet isn't the answer for you, Anon. The hurly-burly of life is everywhere; the workplace,the dating scene, politics, the bars. It's the same as it was when you were a kid on the playground; sometimes it's laughter and comaraderie, and sometimes it's raucous and even rancorous.
-
--Anonymous@11:09 PM "SEEMS LIKE MAYBE YOU'RE A BITCH."
[Read the article: I'm acting like a monster so my friends are deserting me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well you're not very creative, but at least you're not another who's calling for peace and understanding on the internet. Although I did notice you're keeping an open mind about your feelings for me since so far it only "seems like maybe" I'm a "bitch". Be sure and let me know when you've reached an unequivocal conclusion.
-
--Anonymous@12:55 AM "Knock it off with the "only child" crap."
[Read the article: I'm acting like a monster so my friends are deserting me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jeez, Anon.
So "A-hole", "maladaptive", "self-involved", and "narcissistic" didn't bother you but the "only-child" snark is "highly questionable"?
Interesting.
Okay, the "only-child" thing is a caricature which I used facetiously (and humorously - although sense of style and humor are completely wasted on this weepy crowd) to hammer home a point. Obviously it doesn't apply to all "only-children", and I'm sure you're one of those to whom it doesn't.
That was a joke. And thanks for your agreement on the other points.
-
I've broken down just a couple paragraphs from the AP article to demonstrate some basic techniques:
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Understate the historical significance and intent of right-wing smears:
Opponents of Sen. John Kerry proved in the 2004 election that voters are sensitive to suggestions that a candidate is not sufficiently patriotic.
That really needs to be read a few times just to savor what a light touch Pickler has with propoganda. Kerry's opponents "proved" (as if through some legitimate exercise) that voters were "sensitive to suggestions" (a marvel of understated construction, with Swift Boaters gently guiding voters to certain information which the voters then sampled and reacted to) of not being "sufficiently patriotic" (as if the smear were an issue of the degree of patriotism rather than the assertion of a complete lack of it, rendering John Kerry unfit to be president.)
Benignly recite the fact that the smear was unfounded, but without holding the smearers up to scrutiny:
The Democratic presidential nominee's campaign was torpedoed by critics of his Vietnam War record called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, even though he won multiple military honors and was lauded by his superiors.
Completely ignore the media's role when discussing how the smear grew. Characterize it as if it were a phenomenon:
The Swift Boat campaign started as a relatively small television ad buy that exploded into an issue that dogged Kerry for months.
And of course find some sort of "admission" in order to fault the one who was smeared.
The Massachusetts senator has conceded since losing to President Bush that the campaign and his lackluster response to unsubstantiated allegations he considered unworthy of a reaction likely cost him the election.