Letters to the Editor
rnostbakken
Published Letters: 135 Editor's Choice: 1
-
oddly
[Read the article: Two things you don't want to miss]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]oddly, I had done my homework and already read the articles Ms Walsh sited and had the good fortune to watch the Larry show. I agree with you Joan Walsh.
Regarding the Weeping for For Berlin or whatever intervention, I have a real problem taking anyone seriously hiding behind a mask. I have said that before here. Feel free to address me by my name Richard if you wish and disagree with me of course but I have trouble relating to faux personalities from Ossian James Macpherson fables.
I am a minor student of Norse Myths and the name I use is a real name from my ancestors from west viking Norway not that it matters but getting it right is still good.
We know who George Carlin "is" who is weeping that complains about discourse? Man Woman what century?
-
@ weeping for whatever
[Read the article: Two things you don't want to miss]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All of which is relevant to what, exactly?
A person in ones own right. A nom de plume is a feather perhaps with a point. I don't think there has been anything said in the history of things that was not personified. Even Mark Twain who's name came up regarding Carlin used the nom but we know the bright Samuel Clemens. Jesus kind of has a ring of conviction for some. You to my knowledge are not a person just an avatar with no valid personality and I could copy and paste you from wikipedia. Joan Walsh I love and hate with some passion and mostly love not that she cares, but I think if my name was rumplestiltskin even she would write me off as your less attractive clone.
This is not ad hominem. I admire a lot of what you say. But in the vernacular you recently used with Joan I am saying in my humble way who the fuck are you. It makes a difference. How can you comment on real people from the comfort of a faceless void. I can't think of a first name you should be allowed to use. Not Joan, not Barak, not John ... You have permission from me to use Richard when you suggest what I should do with myself.
You have lots of company. The trolls you object to to me are the same as you. You asked about relevancy. This is Richard's opinion.
-
weeping for a valid cause
[Read the article: Two things you don't want to miss]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is a bit of a tradition which you are no doubt familiar with in posting on forums even on sites like slashdot.com which I hope you read where posts appear from "anonymous coward" no member identity. Salon is not a forum but you and what's her name were discussing how to improve it.
I suppose I am objecting to you calling anyone by a first or real name if you don't use one. Joan is fine by me since she posts by her name. I regularly post to CNN that Lou Dobbs is a jackass not just because it's fun but because he is a jackass on a first name basis. He has a lovely auto reply.
The ethics of all this is way above my pay scale but I think it follows that anonymous sources are not a good quality reference for any argument however cogent.
I will also confess that in my vocation as a painter weeping for Brunhilde invokes images that you are not responsible for. I will try to resist turning a large landscape into a epic. If you wish to buy it, it will be expensive but worthwhile I hope. Clouds with Valkyries or just clouds or just an unsigned canvas because it is so important that no one cares from whom or where it came.
And no i do not know you at all. Joan knows you and I respect that.
i would say if you are anonymous don't be so opinionated
-
@joan
[Read the article: Is Ralph Nader losing it?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I don't want to affiliate myself with Nader, but that is a decent point. I know many of us are thinking about and debating how to respond to Obama's backtracking on the FISA compromise, a version of which he promised to filibuster earlier this year, yet now he says he'll support the latest bill (while trying to pull out telecom immunity, which is not going to happen)."
Narrow and maybe fair, But now that Nader has gone to great lengths to dig himself an even deeper hole will you not only not affiliate but distance and repudiate disassociate regret in the same way BO has been badgered for less strident nonsens? What Nader said today in follow up interviews makes Imus look careful.
Condemn Nader already!
-
@weeping for Ossian
[Read the article: Is Ralph Nader losing it?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"You really believe Nader should be "condemned?"
"And if he is condemned, does that have any bearing on the merits of his arguments?"
What merits when the premises have no current occupants?
Actually I have a soft spot for Nader. I was just inviting Joan Walsh to condemn him on standards she has contrived in other discussions as you have as well. Nader today tried to recover and could not. Joan caught him on some of it but seems to want to make Barak obama accountable in some way in every post. You know very well since you have complained about the same regarding Salon letters that argument does not deserve attention when it is couched in slurs. Nader today sunk into a long slur that was beneath him (I hope you browsed the networks) defining racist code with no self awareness it seems for what he stood for in the past. Please use you google tools. Ralph lost it today. At the very least he seems to say BO didn't do enough about rats ... stone him!
Read my past comments. Barak is the real Jackie Robinson forced into a ridiculous double standard. Too soft not soft enough too black not black enough talking white? Didn't invade Canada in 1066?