March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

« "Little Presbyterian Jihadist" | Main | Bigshot Joe »

Jun 05, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Billy The Blogging Poet

You're too nice, Ed. Too bad Davenport Jr. just doesn't get it.

As you and many others know I was very concerned that the whole T&R process was a waste of time and I still believe there were SOME who were hoping the report would absolve them of their guilt, but despite my doubts and the doubts of many others is there something wrong with learning? While men like Davenport Jr. may be opposed to learning I stand in favor of learning.

I still would like to see several people (Klan, Nazi's, CWP, and city officials) all do prison time for their guilt that day but for whatever reason that just isn't going to happen. So, I take what I can get. Too bad Davenport Jr. just doesn't get it.

Ace of Spades

Cone,

You are an arrogant bully and a coward. A throughly vile human with no professional ethics. Worse than embarassing !

Roch101

"and a coward." Thus spoke anonymous.

David Hoggard

Now come on, Ace. Ed is not THOROUGHLY vile.

Mr. Sun

Also, you've got garlic in your soul and termites in your smile, so you've got that going for you.

Bruce Burch

I read Davenport's column. Once I finished retching and brushed my teeth, I thought that he and Virgil Griffin might just have a fine time hangin out havin a few beers.

But I could be wrong.

Britt Whitmire

We've got to do better with the name calling on this site. I propose "yo mama so fat" cut-downs.

chip atkinson

This where I think you and the Greensboro bloggers show your worse side. You write as if everyone should agree with you...and those who don't are embarrassing fools. Your arrogant tone is so over the top it almost invites a fight.

Roch101

And this, Chip, is the fallback position of those with weak arguments: The crybaby defense.

When an argument is revealed to be flawed, when an assertion is challenged as unfounded, when the formation of an opinion is demonstrably lazy, the crybabies fall back to demanding respect for their opinion regardless of its soundness and whining that those who expose the flaws of their methods and reasoning are arrogant.

Bubba

"And this, Chip, is the fallback position of those with weak arguments: The crybaby defense."

No arrogance in that answer at all, is there? Just a little projection disorder exposed.

Ed Cone

chip, we're jumping threads here -- this is what i wrote at the other thread on this topic.

I'm pretty hard on the N&R, too. Let's not leave them out, they are by some measures the greater offender in this case.

But yeah, I'm pissed at Davenport Jr. He wasted an opportunity to provide a thoughtful disagreement. He did little work where others did much. He made judgments about events he did not attend and people he never met...

...It's not about everyone thinking alike. He blew the chance to make an intelligent argument against the project.

...If I had read a superb report, I'd have written about that. If I'd have seen the report and the process Davenport described, I'd have written that. The point is that he was asked to write about the process and the report, and he didn't.

Samuel Spagnola

All three of Sunday's columnists highlighted one common thread about the TRC report- that it was overtly political and biased to the CWP. Davenport's column picked up on that just like Cone, Wheaton, and Doug Clark before them. I'll let Davenport defend himself, but suffice it to say that I believe that his column was merely a comment on the fulfillment of the prophecy that the TRC was political from its inception.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater- just because you have issues with some comments Davenport made does not mean that nothing he said has validity. I don't agree with a lot of what Cone said, but I don't fault the N&R for daring to allow him to share space with Davenport and Wheaton. I think it is arrogant to suggest the Davenport is not worthy simply because he approached the subject from a different paradigm and viewpoint.

If nothing Davenport said has merit, than nothing Cone and Wheaton said has merit because they all agreed there was politics in the TRC report. Cone made some good points, Wheaton made some good points, and I think Davenport did to. They also made some comments I don't agree with, but I think it is unfair, snobby and elitist to suggest Davenport's right-leaning opinions are unworthy of sharing space with more "serious" writers. Ed, I think you should let other people make those comments for you if that's what you think. It does seem arrogant and petty when you say it yourself. That said, I did read your article, and you did make some valid points as did the other writers. I didn't agree with everything that anyone said other than that the report was political. I think Doug Clark's article last week was the most balanced.

Ed Cone

Again, my problem with Davenport's column is that it leads with a race-baiting comment about Bennett; that it inaccurately characterizes an event he admits he did not attend; that it inaccurately characterizes the people involved; and that it shows no sign of him having read the report.

It's not that he disagreed with the idea of the report, it's that he didn't address the substance of the report.

That he dismissed the recommendations, well, the fact that I also had problems with the recommendations yet still found the column so offensive says something about how offensive I found those items mentioned above.

The comments to this entry are closed.