Journal SimianOverlord's Journal: "Slashstantiated" 2
What if... pudge replied in his usual slapdashdot style....??
To: Seattle P-I Editorial Page, Seattle P-I Ombudsman
From: pudge
In a letter the other day, "More evidence that Bush & Co. used false pretenses," the letter writer wrote:
"With the recent disclosure of the secret British memorandum that substantiates the testimony of terrorism expert Richard Clarke and the writing of ex-Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, it should be abundantly clear that President Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld conspired to lie to justify the war against Iraq."
This is not true. The memorandum does not substantiate anything. To substantiate is to "support with proof or evidence." Every definition of the word has the sense of using facts, evidence, etc. to back up an assertion. But the memorandum merely makes an undetailed claim, without even attempting to back it up.
I know it is a letter, but the letters you publish should not make blatantly false claims. A better rewriting may have been something along the lines of, "... memorandum that reiterated the claims made by Clarke and O'Neill ..."
============
To: pudge
From: Seattle P-I Ombudsman
Dear pudge: Thanks for your message. I can appreciate what you are saying.
However, the idea of the letters column is to let readers express their opinions. Something that is proof in one person's mind is not proof in another's.
To turn the tables a bit, a person could believe that Newsweek's reporting of a Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay was proof that the magazine is trying to make the U.S. or its military look bad. Other people would disagree. And that's the basis for printing both opinions. The idea is to further the discussion.
I see you've written this to editpage, so the editors involved will have read your message. We appreciate your interest and that you took the time to write.
============
To: Seattle P-I Editorial Page, Seattle P-I Ombudsman
From: pudge
Dear pudge: Thanks for your message. I can appreciate what you are saying.
I am sure you would like to believe that I appreciate what you are saying.
However, the idea of the letters column is to let readers express their opinions. Something that is proof in one person's mind is not proof in another's.
No, it isn't. You're lying.
To turn the tables a bit, a person could believe that Newsweek's reporting of a Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay
This has nothing to do with our topic of discussion. You have lied and now you are covering your tracks.
And that's the basis for printing both opinions. The idea is to further the
One of the opinions was FACT, not opinion. My opinion. By giving one undue prominance you have perpetuated a lie and therefore, are a twice documented liar.
I see you've written this to editpage, so the editors involved will have read your message. We appreciate your interest and that you took the time to write.
I am sure you would like me to believe that you think I would likely substantiate that you believe I would think so. I would not.
Regards.
============
To: pudge
From: Seattle P-I Ombudsman
pudge: Thanks for the clarification. I'll share it with the editorial page editor.
We appreciate your intensity.
To: Seattle P-I Editorial Page, Seattle P-I Ombudsman
From: pudge
In a letter the other day, "More evidence that Bush & Co. used false pretenses," the letter writer wrote:
"With the recent disclosure of the secret British memorandum that substantiates the testimony of terrorism expert Richard Clarke and the writing of ex-Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, it should be abundantly clear that President Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld conspired to lie to justify the war against Iraq."
This is not true. The memorandum does not substantiate anything. To substantiate is to "support with proof or evidence." Every definition of the word has the sense of using facts, evidence, etc. to back up an assertion. But the memorandum merely makes an undetailed claim, without even attempting to back it up.
I know it is a letter, but the letters you publish should not make blatantly false claims. A better rewriting may have been something along the lines of, "... memorandum that reiterated the claims made by Clarke and O'Neill
============
To: pudge
From: Seattle P-I Ombudsman
Dear pudge: Thanks for your message. I can appreciate what you are saying.
However, the idea of the letters column is to let readers express their opinions. Something that is proof in one person's mind is not proof in another's.
To turn the tables a bit, a person could believe that Newsweek's reporting of a Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay was proof that the magazine is trying to make the U.S. or its military look bad. Other people would disagree. And that's the basis for printing both opinions. The idea is to further the discussion.
I see you've written this to editpage, so the editors involved will have read your message. We appreciate your interest and that you took the time to write.
============
To: Seattle P-I Editorial Page, Seattle P-I Ombudsman
From: pudge
Dear pudge: Thanks for your message. I can appreciate what you are saying.
I am sure you would like to believe that I appreciate what you are saying.
However, the idea of the letters column is to let readers express their opinions. Something that is proof in one person's mind is not proof in another's.
No, it isn't. You're lying.
To turn the tables a bit, a person could believe that Newsweek's reporting of a Koran being flushed down the toilet at Guantanamo Bay
This has nothing to do with our topic of discussion. You have lied and now you are covering your tracks.
And that's the basis for printing both opinions. The idea is to further the
One of the opinions was FACT, not opinion. My opinion. By giving one undue prominance you have perpetuated a lie and therefore, are a twice documented liar.
I see you've written this to editpage, so the editors involved will have read your message. We appreciate your interest and that you took the time to write.
I am sure you would like me to believe that you think I would likely substantiate that you believe I would think so. I would not.
Regards.
============
To: pudge
From: Seattle P-I Ombudsman
pudge: Thanks for the clarification. I'll share it with the editorial page editor.
We appreciate your intensity.
Re: (Score:1)
Am I the only one... (Score:2)