One of the articles on my blog*spot that’s gotten a lot of attention, has done so for the wrong reasons.
Folks with a “rip and read” mentality have taken my typed words out of context. In “Two Sides To Every Story,” I present text and video representing opposing sides in a conflict.
I’m just reporting the facts, and, for example, if I say someone is a “light of hope” for a group of inidividuals, that’s what I mean.
Breakdown: If I wrote “Joseph Smith has been a light of hope and a poster boy for those who fancy polygamy,” I am correct. Right? So if I write “May Golan has been a crusader, a light of hope and a voice for concerned Israelis in South Tel Aviv,” is it not the same in essence? I am naming an individual, a position and a following. That’s all. I neither condemn nor condone.
The Problem: People with agendas only see the side of a conflict they want to see.
Speaking of agendas, there’s a disqus commenter with an anti-weblog agenda.
Operating under the hat GeorgeSalt, this fellow clearly has no love for blogs or bloggers:
he left a series of acrid comments after I left a link as a counter-argument on an Atlantic article that attacks the very concept of blogging. The author is clueless as to the reality of the craft, and I was hoping to get a response from him or otherwise engage him in dialog. Doesn’t seem like he’s interested!