Thanks. Left you a trackback to help your readers improve eye vision naturally….

[...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

http://www.gingiedmonds.com/

I was unaware that one must take a side in a debate in order to point out hypocrisy.

Why do you continue to over generalize issues? This is clearly situationally dependent.

I’m done attempting to explain this to you.

Information about the tragedy itself was merely provided as context. You have no argument here.

Context for what, exactly? She quoted three different articles. That’s quite a bit of context. In fact, I’d say it borders on exploitation.

You criticized socky’s comments. You had no basis for doing so unless you think lgm’s comparison of MM to AP was appropriate.

First, when did he compare her to the AP? Actually, what lgm actually said is immaterial.

Also, I’m really unclear as to why I have to agree with lgm to criticize socky. I actually agree with Michelle that the AP should not have written the story in such a way.

Regardless, I was unaware that one must take a side in a debate in order to point out hypocrisy.

…she should have differentiated between her coverage of the tragedy…

She didn’t provide coverage of the tragedy. She was only covering AP’s coverage of the tragedy. Information about the tragedy itself was merely provided as context. You have no argument here.

You criticized socky’s comments. You had no basis for doing so unless you think lgm’s comparison of MM to AP was appropriate.

Now, if you admit that you had no basis to criticize socky, then I will gladly back down.

However, if you continue to believe that your criticism of socky is appropriate, then you must admit that you are sanctioning lgm’s comparison of MM and the AP.

MM wasn’t politicizing a tragedy.

If she wasn’t politicizing a tragedy then she should have differentiated between her coverage of the tragedy and of the AP article. She intertwined the two and used facts from the tragedy to show just how bad the AP is.

Furthermore, MM has NEVER claimed to be a non-politicizing source of information.

I didn’t claim otherwise. That’s why I only compared her to lgm and not the AP. I still don’t think your claim about me comparing her to the AP is sound. It simply does not follow logically and is merely something you read into my comments which is not there.

MM was lgm’s subject of criticism BECAUSE of her criticism of the AP.

Then, you criticized socky for differentiating between MM and lgm.

You claimed that socky ONLY differentiated between MM and lgm because he agreed with one’s politics and not the other.

Your claim is preposterous on many levels.

MM wasn’t politicizing a tragedy. MM was politicizing the fact that AP politicized a tragedy. Certainly you understand the difference.

Furthermore, MM has NEVER claimed to be a non-politicizing source of information. Therefore, she should be judged upon a different set of criteria as the AP (unless of course the AP wants to be judged as a partisan source of information).

Get it yet?

The subject of criticism was unarguably germane in your comparison.

It is made no less germane by your use of an example in which the subject of comparison is not germane.

Could you explain that further? I’m not sure what “subject” refers to.

It is made no less germane by your use of an example in which the subject of comparison is not germane.

I’ll walk you through this slowly.

By your own admission you compared;

MM’s criticism of the AP to

lgm’s criticism of MM.

Notice that the two entities being criticized are the AP and MM.

Therefore, you were comparing MM to the AP.

You’ll have to do it really slowly because it’s not logically sound. I was comparing the nature of the criticisms, not what those criticisms were critiquing.

For instance:

- I’m criticizing you through the use of logic
- Conservatives criticize liberals through the use of logic

Am I comparing you to a liberal?