Monday, October 18, 2004

Dead Horse, meet Whip

Looks like the Kinsella Kerfuffle has been wrapped up to nearly everyone's satisfaction (previous related posts here, here, here, and here). I'm certainly tired of it, but I can't let the whole thing fade away without a final comment, in light of Kinsella's final word.

While stating that "there are indeed limits, even out in the blogosphere", he continues to accuse Damian Brooks (without naming him) of writing that he was "personally responsible for the death of Lieut. Chris Saunders" and "falsely accusing someone of murder".

This is wrong, false, untrue, (unfair, incorrect, etc.) and it is not right for him to be perpetuating this smear. Brooks made a nasty slumlord reference, and stated: "You were part of the problem". Pretty immoderate, but also pretty damn far from a murder accusation. Indeed, the whole point of the post was that Brooks deplored Kinsella's attitude, not his actions. That is why the concluding paragraph of the thing was approximately, "Go ahead and blog about politics, punk rock, your kids, whatever, but when it comes to the military, you need to shut the hell up."

I imagine that Damian has probably learned a bit of a lesson through this. (Ian is contrite, in a broad sense). He'll probably be reluctant, in the future, to use a military tragedy to make a political point. But, but, he did not accuse Kinsella, directly or indirectly, of murdering Lieut. Saunders, and Kinsella should not given a pass for claiming that he did. And that's why, as far as I'm concerned, he can take his conciliatory statements and [... (deleted on advice of counsel) ...] horse he rode in on. Good day!

4 Comments:

At 9:04 PM, Blogger Sean McCormick said...

I notice there was absolutely no mention on his part of how he blinked first in my case:

http://www.polspy.ca/items/2004/10/16/841.html

Oh, and speaking of limits, check this:

http://www.polspy.ca/items/2004/10/18/846.html

 
At 10:11 PM, Blogger jc said...

Life in the old pony yet...

Turns out that Mr. K was running his own little slime op on the qt.

Check out
http://www.blogscanada.ca/egroup/CommentView.aspx?guid=13125679-9bda-4963-84e4-af0e2cce7afb

 
At 1:55 AM, Blogger Nathaniel said...

"Contrite?" Hmmmm... Feeling grief? Yeah.. at my own bad writing, Jerry. Grief or contriteness at the exact thing I wrote as to what it meant to our now famous WK? No. There's a difference. And.. my "contriteness", although always there, was not the reasoning for settling up with Warren. Let's make sure the facts are indeed straight. I pulled my post AFTER Warren had more reasonable communications with me. If those communications had not happened, the postw would still be there. As immature as it was. My beef wasn't about immaturity.. even though I could admit to such.

It was about the right to be immature and not taken out of context as well. And I'll stand by my original post's legality.. if not maturity level.

And I think WK knew this.. and blinked first. In retrospect, I thought about my own quality of writing.. partly because of your comments, Jerry. It made me think. But contrite? No. I removed my post out of my own sense of being able to do better. Not because I was worried about how WK would "feel." Or how I felt about the legalities of my post.

It was not removed in deference to WK. It was reemoved in deference to me and my writing.

 
At 9:26 AM, Blogger Matt said...

I knew what you meant Ian, I'm just a mediocre writer without a dictionary handy. "Ian has regrets" would have pegged it better (I did link to your piece).

By the way, I gather your "reasonable communications" with Kinsella didn't stipulate that he can't continue to refer to what you said as "grossly defaming an innocent third party".

 

Post a Comment

<< Home