CRITICISM: Words, not their writers
My, my. I seem to have struck a nerve. I refer to Fiona Gressler’s letter of Aug. 3.
Her letter rests to a large degree on her charge that I called her arrogant. That is totally false. I do not know her well enough to hold such an opinion. I used the word arrogance to describe a column she wrote. Those are two totally separate and independent positions. If, for example, I refer to a remark made by someone as silly I am not calling that person silly. I am calling the remark silly. Anyone, however smart, can say something silly.
She brings up a broad spectrum of “data” to support her position. How did Jimmy Pappas get involved? Her claim that I blustered against him and his opinions only reveals that either she did not read his letters or that she used the common liberal tactic of erasing all non-supporting data from her mind. I hold no animosity against Jimmy. I attacked his positions not him. She might re-read his last letter to establish whether or not he followed that same procedure.
She makes a point of noting that her column was her opinion as indicated by the page heading MY TURN (her capitalization). Again a liberal position that such things apply only to them and not anyone else. I re-checked the page and confirmed that the heading was not MY TURN (except for Phil Membury).
She denies that she said men could not have an opinion on abortion but follows that immediately with a repeat of it. She continues to support the militant feminist position that only the woman is involved completely ignoring the fact that another life is at risk.
She claims that men become obtrusive when their manhood is threatened. I am not at all aware that my manhood is threatened. What I am aware of is that the life of a child is threatened. Incidentally if she adheres to any form of Christianity then she must know that while it is possible to kill it is not possible to destroy.
She refuses to admit the existence of Saddam’s WMDs despite reports of their discovery supported by photographic evidence. The answer to her question: “Well-known by whom?” is: most of the rest of the world.
Her description of Republicans is eerily close to my description of Democrats. The similarity is almost frightening.
Her last paragraph is meaningless. First, I never called her arrogant as I’ve already explained. Second, the rest of the paragraph is just ad hominem attacks.
PHIL MEMBURY
Coeur d’Alene