Letters to the Editor
-
Weak Tea, Cathy
"Update: According to the lawsuit, Mr. Chang did suffer an eye injury. I apologize. But as a general point, I still stand by what follows."
This is not an apology, because it doesn't deal with how you didn't bother to read the article you were writing about. It's a "mistakes were made" quasi-apology.
Prices general point rests this false superiority.
She blames the victim and call him stupid for being injured by the actions of someone else.
She justifies this by falsely equating a minimal risk event with extreme sports (high kicks near the head aren't standard).
Her general rhetoric not only echos that used by apolgists for harassment, but also right wing types who want to make businesses immune from any liability.
I'm surprised she didn't use the old "hot coffee lawsuit" canard - which falsely frames a lawsuit over severe third degree burns as frivolous.