Re: An observation

[thomst@netcom.com (Thom Stark)]

> At 06:33 AM -0600 12/26/96, Thom Stark wrote:
> >Your contention being that I no right to an opinion?  Or, no right to
> >EXPRESS that opinion?

To which Dave Crocker had the temerity to respond:

> 	As you learn more about the duties and responsibilities of being a
> journalist, you will discover that the priviledge of the position does,
> indeed, carry the burden of restraint.

Wipe the beam out of your own eye, before you upbraid me abou the mote
in mine.

> ><More than 100 lines of similarly patronizing crap deleted>
> 
> 	As you do that learning, one hopes you will also discover a more
> versatile and professional vocabulary, possibility even showing less
> personal reaction.

My vocabulary exceeds 100,000 words.  I choose the phraseology I deem
appropriate for the context.  And the stuff I deleted met every 
definition of "patronizing crap".  Just as the paragraph above meets
the same criteria.

> >In response, first Perry and now you have chosen to shoot the messenger.
> 
> 	Distinguishing between messenger and author is quite important for
> a reporter, Thom.  I hope that you come to appreciate the distinction, as
> well as realizing that your current mode has nothing at all to do with
> being a messenger, other than the claim.

Get this straight:  I am *not* a "reporter".  I am an author of feature
articles and columns of a tutorial and/or editorial nature.  You are 
speaking through your hat, about matters of which you are completely
ignorant, in smug, sanctimonious phrases.

> >trust.  To faithfully execute that charge, you must set your own emotions
> 
> 	Indeed.  I can only guess about Perry but I can assure you for
> myself, that both of these notes I'm sending you represent considerable
> restraint in that regard...

If you had kept out of my exchange with Perry, you wouldn't have any
need for "restraint".

> >You knew the job was dangerous when you took it.  As Harry S Truman so
> >succinctly put it, "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
> 
> 	Thom, for a professional journalist, your acuity of perception is
> odd, indeed.  You seem not to have noticed that flammage from others on the
> list has not been getting a response from me.  I chose to respond to your
> own note because it was such a flagrant violation of your OWN,
> self-described role.

See above.

> >I is my view that the members of the Planning Commission have no right
> >to verbally attack members of the public who turn out to speak before
> 
> 	Guess, what, Thom.  You are not simply a member of the public.  You
> defined your pulpit as one of being a professional journalist and then used
> it to take an advocacy position; worse, your advocacy showed a considerable
> lack of interpretive skill.

Again, you misunderstand my role.  No wonder your criticism is so
misguided.

As for your charge about my "lack of interpretive skill", that's your
opinion.  Based on the evidence of what I've actually said and on your 
own posts on this matter, I think the other subscribers to this list can 
decide for themselves how much credibility it deserves.

Regards,

Thom Stark

Email:  thomst@netcom.com              URL:  http://www.dnai.com/~thomst
             finger thomst@netcom.com for my PGP Public Key

(510) 526-9600 voice       STARK  REALITIES           fax (510) 526-9063
POB 457                     El Cerrito, CA                ZIP 94530-0457