It's ironic when one blogger implies that Michelle Malkin doesn't do much about child pornography in her blogs (ie "not fast enough!!" OMG! Shoot her!). Au contraire. She has discussed numerous times in her blog and elsewhere (here, here, here, here, here, here and here) about that problems of child pornography. Instead of lambasting her for not reporting the Doyle's arrest quickly enough, maybe an acknowledgement that she is actually doing something about child pornography?
She'll go after people who do these sickening acts regardless if the person doing it is a Republican or a Democrat. Or haven't you noticed? Her priorities are hers alone and how she decide to go about her writings, and not for bloggers to decide. We all have our own priorities and interests on what to write and which ones to read that gets our fancy. Obviously she is certainly not ignorant about many serious issues.
Next, I can see why many don't see the NBC story as a worthy blog piece to write about. I believe some bloggers are missing the whole point about NBC's unethical news "reporting." NBC purposely tried to make a story (rather than reporting a story, big difference) in the hope that undercover Muslims pretending to be NASCAR fans will get bashed by rednecks NASCAR fans and get captured on film. Never happened. This is a problem with the MSM and many readers simply do not see this. Hence, the story was about the NBC story in their attempt to make a story by being deceptive about it. It didn't work. They got caught. Big time.
No doubt. Child pornography is a very serious issue and out of control....worldwide. So is alot of things that she's writing about, including problems at DHS (and FAMS), of which Doyle used to work for where Michelle Malkin tied her piece about the arrest and the problems at DHS. She's a mean, writing machine. Always moving around doing interviews and shows, and always writing. Even President Bush is doing something about this issue as well. This will always be a problem. And everybody is doing their best to solve it.
I've no need to defend Michelle Malkin. If I see an error, I'll point it out for the readers to see. My blog piece was merely to correct one blogger's error and inform readers on what was said, wasn't the case at all. Can't have false information running rampant and the need to keep the overly emotional "OMG! Shoot her for not reporting quick enough!" delirium down to a bare minimum. The latter is assuredly an impossible task around here. Different strokes for different folks.
Oh, btw, "deflocking" isn't even a word. Even that would befuddle Hannity AND Colmes. Perhaps a retired teacher can help you on that part. Especially this - "A Coconut is Capable of Self-Deflocking." What the...hey?? A coconut "self-deflocks"....? Sounds destructive but, uh, ok. Whatever. Might want to change that title of that blog piece while you're at it. What? Oh, right. You're trying to make a point about the title. I see. Gotcha. Suurrrre. It is, however, YOUR blog. So, I cannot "force" you to change it anymore than I can "force" people to vote or support Matt Hamill. Ridiculous, isn't it?
I think I know where this one might head off to so I'll address it now. For a banjo or a guitar, the "plunk" can mean to "pick" or "pluck" the strings. Also, "plunk" can mean to be the sound of an off-key note of the deeper string note whether it's a piano or a string instrument. I could've said "plink" for the higher string note, too. Or "plinking" as to mean to play the string instruments. All about a play of words here in my blog title. That is, if you know how to do it right.
Now, I've had complainers (generally those who do not like my blog in the first place for whatever reasons) come to me about my "badge of honor" tags seen on the left side column of my blogsite. A little history lesson. Bloggers and writers came to me by linking to my blog columns because it was they who found my writings worthwhile to link. Don't like? I can't help you with that one. Complainers are on their own since I cannot possibly please everybody just to accomodate their fragile feelings. I hope readers will realize that. I play the tune to no one except for myself. It's all about my perception, feelings, observations and knowledge of the subject matter.
And lastly, no, I have no real, deep, deep flaming interest on Canadian politics to blog. Sorry. Not really worth my time.
But I'll tell Banjo this. If you are good at movie reviews and are successful at it, stick with it. Don't change one thing about it.
Apologies to readers who had to wade through all this. All this leaves a bad taste in my mouth doing this. Bleh.
UPDATE: Even with "defrocking" still doesn't make any sense at all unless you're making that coconut into a priest of some kind or of some other honorary position worthy to be defrocked by someone else. Put it in this way, "a coconut self-defrocks." Just as bad as "self-deflocking." Makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps "self-destructing?" Even that won't help much context-wise. Just offering my constructive criticism here.
As for speling erors which is very rarre on my part butt as long as the wurd applies well with the contexxt beig writen, everithing is dandie. Everithing is udderstood by the peeple reeding this. (note: mispelling done on purpose).
Grammatically, it's fine. Spelling-wise? Terrible! I'd rather be understood for my grammar and syntax rather than for my spelling ability. But since I have both, who can blame me?
As for the bad taste thing, I meant that I'd rather put it to a more constructive criticism since I bear no ill will towards you. But since you caught me on a rare day when I was in a bit of a sardonic mood because someone screamed bloody murder about a blogger who didn't report for a full two days about the Doyle's arrest which is hardly worth the wrath, IMO. I'm just telling you my side of the story here and my perception of the matter at hand.
As for parenting "pattykins," I'm doing very well with my kids. If I get hugs and kisses from them constantly, and say "ILY," I MUST be doing something right! Is this something you're bitter about? Me having 3 wonderful and beautiful girls? Sorry for shattering your misconception here. You're over there, not here. Be careful of how you extrapolate my blog writings toward my parental skills as lacking. A very wrong, tactical approach. Secondly, if you do find some faults in my grammar...please, point them out! Don't be shy. Give me examples. I'm willing to learn. Since you were a teacher, dig up some of my writings and give me some of your corrected examples. I don't admit I'm perfect but I'm certainly very well satisfied with my writings. Yet, it's you who have a beef about my grammatical skills?
As for deletion, it's not about "dishing it out," it's about keeping to the rules that I have prominently displayed on my Haloscan that no foul language is allowed. Yet, when a poster continues to violate that rule *after* giving him/her fair warning to please stop, you can expect the poster will get banned for not following MY rules. What part do you not understand? Yet, you say you're a retired teacher. Hmmmm....?
No comments:
Post a Comment