Gen X at 40

Canada's Favorite Blog

Comments

Comments are locked. No additional comments may be posted.

David Janes -

And he bravely shoveled money earned by others into his maw for years to come. A happy ending!

Alan -

"....earned by others...":

???

That is just weird. It's called a marketplace. Everyone consumes what others earn. You have only embarrassed yourself..

David Janes -

I'm try to run "conservative paranoia", "NPR", and "marketplace" through my brain and getting "does not compute".

Alan -

Kinda like what you do, right? If we were to discuss the actual value you "earn" we'd be much clearer, right? Because you are reflecting on the bigger picture rather than sucking the lollypop of two dimensional ideology, right? Not to mention he was in the news service funded by McDonalds money. Because you are against the right to give and support as you freely deem fit, right?

You are looking a real fool but keep digging.

David Janes -

I personally sell goods and/or services for money.

NPR, in the 1970s (and through the 80s, and partially so today), was a govenment news broadcasting bureaucracy, in the same way that Canada Post is a government mail delivery bureaucracy. I'm not sure why you find that offensive - I assume you like that concept - but why try to warp the word "marketplace" to fit it?

Alan -

I don't know that you sell either goods or services for money even if you have revenue and expenses. I don't know the sources of your money or the degree to which they are leveraged by things like angels, clients receiving stimulus finding, tax breaks, Industry Canada innovation grants or anything else. You are in IT, still largely a shell game.

I know that NPR is by far funded by membership especially in the news area. People making real choices with their real money. Marketplace.

You can apologize anytime.

David Janes -

You must be thinking of someone's else business. If you want to come by and point out those big tax break, subsidies and investments that I should be in on, I'd mucho appreciate it. And I here I was thinking I was burning the money I spent years earning, though perhaps you can explain how I don't deserve that either.

NPR in 1974 was almost fully funded by the government, and remained so for another decade. Being on some sort of "enemies list" was about as dangerous as crossing a road in a school zone at 8:30 in the morning. And Liberal, in the modern sense of the word would be an excellent description of NPR's politics, slant.

You're forgiven though. Maybe they don't have Wikipedia over there on the other end of Lake Ontario.

Alan -

I can't be certain where your clients source their money and, I would assume, you can't speak to that. Heck, I can't even be sure they are not directly or indirectly pressuring you to continue this line. NPR receives and spends money, too - it's in the marketplace.

I still can't see the distinction you hold so deal as you are as likely to be pressured by your place in the market as you claim ought to taint this dead man who did his job far better that you or I will ever do ours.

David Janes -

The era of advocacy "get the republican" journalism dressed up as impartial reporting was a blight on dhkdjdk hjkld jkd hjdk kddk dk dl look at the <a hre="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8&videos=jGryAhYCN18">kitty</a>

Alan -

Hahhhhahhahhahhahh!!!!

Criminals? Reporting on criminals is "get the republican"!?!??!

Keep 'em coming...

David Janes -

I assume you're being deliberately obtuse here. There's nothing wrong (and much admirable) with going after criminals independent of government affiliation. But deliberately ignoring stories (Bill Clinton / Lewinsky, John Edwards / Hunter) because they'll hurt "your" side is a whole different thing isn't it? I'm asking that rhetorically, but depressingly I'm sure it isn't.

In the CBC context, when some Republican nobody gets caught in a bathroom with a wide stance I can be reading about it within an hour; when it's Al Gore the police can be opening an investigation on him and yet what are well informed Canadians hearing from their impartial institutions?

And it's not just sex, in case that's your objection.

Alan -

No, I am disagreeing with you on a fundamental basis. You chose to set yourself up as morally superior to the deceased by making your embarrassing comments. I am pointing out the fallacy of your moral superiority.

You are also displaying a frankly weak dependency on cheap scripted belief system thought-lettes and an alarming scope creep that even you have to admit. Your cut and paste standard yawners about Al Gore and the CBC have nothing to do with the professionalism of Daniel Schorr.

What failing rhetorical trick next? You have already called me obtuse so that's used up.

David Janes -

I certainly won't go for "ad hominem" then, as you've cornered that market.

Alan -

You did in your first comment!

"...he bravely shoveled money earned by others into his maw..."

Good lord, isn't libertarianism an answer to all things. "I am free to do whatever, slur whoever but you can't call me out."

What are you, twelve? It is not an ad hominem to suggest (and prove) you lack moral superiority or to suggest that you are being vacuously rude (not to mention incorrect.)

David Janes -

Where did libertarianism come into this now? Or in fact: "me"? There's some level of hilariousness in the "you're not worthy to lick the feet of this giant"-type stuff you're saying now, in a post that starts of about "conservative paranoia".

Alan -

What else explains it? I can't be ad hominem so I have to source it somewhere.

And I said moral superiority (what you did assume in your first comment) and not moral inferiority (you new false allegation.) There is a place called moral parity. Given that, it would make the level of hilariousness be set at "not very hilarious at all".

David Janes -

I damned well have the right to judge someone in his profession (cf earlier comments) irregardless of my real or imagined failings or shortcomings. And if he's tarred for the (non-)actions of others, so be it.

Alan -

Well, sure you can judge but, as stated above, you then get judged yourself based on that. It's the way it works. Handsome is as handsome does - you were wrong, rude, blinkered and failed the Robbie Burns test. You are likely in the same position in the marketplace. I recommend you read Major Barbara and think of yourself as the Sally Ann.

Then consider the Gospel message and you might have this all cleared up by Thanksgiving.

David Janes -

If I say something about Burns, I'm afraid you might go off about that too.

Alan -

You are the one who went off. You just don't being called out.

ry -

Um, can I say I didn't like the guy, when I heard him on the radio, because of the spin I detected when he did the news(kinda given away by the questions he used to guide the interview), but think it's bad that the old icon is now gone(since, hey, his replacement is 100% more annoying than the non-offensive voice of the departed Mr. Schorr.)?

Or would that be, well, mean?

is this a private fight, or are we using third man in rules, like in the NHL?

Alan -

Mainly, I just don't like slagging the dead - at least that soon. I have lost my energy for the anti-MSM silliness.

ry -

I can live with that, Al. I've even employed such a policy myself. Warned a blog buddy not to go mean too early over the death of Reagan----and had to talk him down when people went nuclear on Byrd.

You reap what you sow, neh? The world's a much nicer place, when, well, people are nice.