Quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
Well that was the blogger defence JD. But you could also have just said - "OK dear Mr Blogger looks to push his agenda by taking a factual article that someone has written and spewing his own verbal bile around and about it. That looks to be pretty low on form and integrity but lets instead look at the article rather than the stupid loony blogger"
I just think that would have been an eminiently more sensible line for one to have taken [img]smile.gif[/img] . No point really to defending the blogger for his actions in placing a few abusive epithets about someone elses work. That sort of childish action should be condemned wherever it is encountered no matter what side of the political spectrum the deviant wordsmith comes from. Let's not defend him because he is right wing please.
|
Davros, I could have writen that but that's not my style
. Of course the Blogger was pushing his agenda, "hale" everybody has and pushes an agenda. I have an agenda and push it, I admitt it. I don't try to use "they have an agenda" as a viable reason to dismiss their thoughts/reasons/acts because we all have agenda's. ( I'm not saying you do/are, just saying I try not to do that.)
I have seen the term "integrity" thrown around, to that I ask. Why is Not crediting a source, for whatever reason, in an open free arena of ideas, you know a conversation, not having integrity? As far as I can tell the blogger was not getting paid or recieving any other form of compensation for his blog. Granted it may very well be low on form, but as far as I can tell the blogger is human, and by nature prone to errors. So I'll quote, an often mis-used phrase as it is mis-used, "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone".
I'm not defending his placing of epithets, I'm saying his placing of epithets makes it a differant animal, and thus not palagerism, since prehaps the strickest difinition of palagerism is being used.