Letters to the Editor
scoober620
Published Letters: 14
-
The last post
[Read the article: The Politico sewer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The bolded sentences should give you a pretty good idea why I think your approach here has been absurd and bogus."
Once again you make claims with no reasoning or argument to backthem up.
"Glenn has posted many an article about journalistic standards. I have learned a great deal from those articles. Feel free to look them up and then you can feel safe in assuming that what you have read answers your questions addressed at me."
You are telling me to read his articles, which I have already done, and then say that after reading them I will find your answers to my questions there? That's your way of making your point?
"The Politico is a blog that has proven itself to be a bullshit artist of a blog. Salon is so much more multi-faceted that there is no comparison between the two."
The one point you make that actually says something. I comend you for this paragraph. It has actual points with premises nd conclusions. But, I believe it is irrelevant to my point.
"Glenn explained to you why he didn't spend time on the post in question. You couldn't take his explanation as satisfactory."
I did accept his explanation. It was your posts that I have been replying to.
"Just as you can't seem to take my answers as satisfactory."
You have no answers. You only post your opinion and expect me to accept it.
"I've told you all that I can or want to about what I think of your reasoning on this subject."
You haven't told me anything about my reasoning.
"Maybe you should start your own blog so you can use your exemplary standards to impress us all."
Thanks for the sarcasm, it's your best reasoned argument yet.
-
I can't help it
[Read the article: The Politico sewer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Aside from all of that, I have addressed your comments directly, in as much as they deserve. Which isn't much."
You did not address my comments at all. You said this:
"I don't agree with you, your points are absurd and bogus, if you want to know why I think that, then read Glenn's posts."
That's what you have said in a nut shell. You have not articulated why you believe that my points are absurd and bogus, so I can only infer that you just enjoy insulting people with whom you disagree.
"Should I have copy/pasted his articles on this subject that I agree with? "
He has never addressed the point that I make so you could not do that.
"Should I have copy/pasted comments that I have made in the past that might address your questions? Why do you need so much repetitive input?"
You have not addressed my questions so it would not be repetitive.
You are the one who is being absurd.
-
i CALLED MY SENATORS ABOUT THIS (MIKULSKI & CARDIN)
[Read the article: AT&T, other telecoms, buy victory in lawsuits]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cardin sent me to a voice mail of a staffer and said he would call me back.
Mikulski'a staffer would not discuss it, claiming that they were unsure of what the legislation calls for. They would not discuss the ideas in general.
Do they have to talk to me about this? Is it a general practice that a senator's office gives the cold shoulder to a constituent; i.e refusing to even discuss the senator's positions about the ideas behind the legislation?
If anyone has any similar experience I would appreciate hearing about it,
thanks