<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Forget sticks and stones</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493</link>
	<description>I couldn&#039;t possibly fail to disagree with you less.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:23:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Snitch!</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493/comment-page-1#comment-996</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Snitch!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:33:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493#comment-996</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;Former&quot;&lt;/i&gt; Well, I haven&#039;t &#039;blogged&#039; in months, and it&#039;d s regular, ongoing activity. I may return to it in some form, but saying &#039;on hiatus&#039; sounds a little pretentious and begs the question, &#039;how long&#039;? Which I can&#039;t answer. Hence... former.

And no doubt, had the network really wanted to keep Lyons, they&#039;d have found a way. Quite right, this incident might just have been a convenient &#039;out&#039; for them.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>&#8220;Former&#8221;</i> Well, I haven&#8217;t &#8216;blogged&#8217; in months, and it&#8217;d s regular, ongoing activity. I may return to it in some form, but saying &#8216;on hiatus&#8217; sounds a little pretentious and begs the question, &#8216;how long&#8217;? Which I can&#8217;t answer. Hence&#8230; former.</p>
<p>And no doubt, had the network really wanted to keep Lyons, they&#8217;d have found a way. Quite right, this incident might just have been a convenient &#8216;out&#8217; for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Salmon</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493/comment-page-1#comment-995</link>
		<dc:creator>John Salmon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493#comment-995</guid>
		<description>Mr. Snitch-You&#039;ve gone former on us?

As more than a few people have pointed out, the network suits probably had wanted to dump Lyons (who isn&#039;t dumb, but tends to a goofy, high school kid style enthusiasm) for a while. When your position is tenuous, never hand your opponents a sword.

Why they kept McCarver and dumped Lyons is an even greater mystery.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Snitch-You&#8217;ve gone former on us?</p>
<p>As more than a few people have pointed out, the network suits probably had wanted to dump Lyons (who isn&#8217;t dumb, but tends to a goofy, high school kid style enthusiasm) for a while. When your position is tenuous, never hand your opponents a sword.</p>
<p>Why they kept McCarver and dumped Lyons is an even greater mystery.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mister Snitch!</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493/comment-page-1#comment-994</link>
		<dc:creator>Mister Snitch!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493#comment-994</guid>
		<description>A broken arm can heal, a broken reputation might not. I&#039;ve seen this principle in action, defended clients (PR work) who had been slandered for &#039;business reasons&#039; (nasty stuff). The public retains doubt, no matter what you do. The stain never quite comes out.

Most people lead very private lives, and have no concept of the impact of ugly words. Imagine a front page story appeared in which you were portrayed as having raped a child. (Assuming you&#039;re not a woman... this blog has already discussed our double standards in that regard.) Even if you&#039;re exonerated in court, the damage is done.

I think at one time, one might have preferred the slander. Communications didn&#039;t penetrate to all corners (seemingly) of the planet, whereas your broken arm might not set right, develop infections, and cause you pain the rest of your life. Today&#039;s communications are especially pervasive (stuff stays on the net forever, and anyone who wants to troll for slime will find SOMEthing, somewhere), while today&#039;s medicine for repairing sticks-and-stones injuries are pretty effective.

In a sense, &#039;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:1-5;&amp;version=65;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Matthew&lt;/a&gt;&#039; was ahead of his time. We ought to do some serious contemplation before we launch accusations, which is so easily done these days.

I&#039;ve already had my run-in here with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dustbury.com/backlog/2006/10/quote_of_the_week_3.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Christians anxious to judge&lt;/a&gt;, one of whom actually asked me &lt;i&gt;&quot;Is it &quot;OK&quot; for me to judge you if you abort a female fetus?&quot;&lt;/i&gt;. Why ask me? You guys have The Book.

Anyway, this is off-point. The situation you&#039;re describing is just a typically cowardly broadcast corporation covering its ass. They&#039;re not trying to protect anyone except themselves. Here what we&#039;re dealing with a creeping McCarthyism called &#039;political correctness&#039;, administered this time by the left. The fact that this stuff is effective makes these censors increasingly bolder, so that now no newspaper dares to issue even a mild criticism of Islam, and many things that should be publicly discussed are taboo. Not sex - you can say &#039;fuck&#039; all you like (thanks, Howard Stern). You can trash Christianity all day long, at least on the Coasts. But to even imply that Black America&#039;s problems aren&#039;t entriely the result of racism? (See, don&#039;t you feel goosebumps already? And I haven&#039;t even made that accusation - I merely said IF it were made.)

Long comment, huh. It&#039;s a residual of being a former blogger. Happens sometimes.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A broken arm can heal, a broken reputation might not. I&#8217;ve seen this principle in action, defended clients (PR work) who had been slandered for &#8216;business reasons&#8217; (nasty stuff). The public retains doubt, no matter what you do. The stain never quite comes out.</p>
<p>Most people lead very private lives, and have no concept of the impact of ugly words. Imagine a front page story appeared in which you were portrayed as having raped a child. (Assuming you&#8217;re not a woman&#8230; this blog has already discussed our double standards in that regard.) Even if you&#8217;re exonerated in court, the damage is done.</p>
<p>I think at one time, one might have preferred the slander. Communications didn&#8217;t penetrate to all corners (seemingly) of the planet, whereas your broken arm might not set right, develop infections, and cause you pain the rest of your life. Today&#8217;s communications are especially pervasive (stuff stays on the net forever, and anyone who wants to troll for slime will find SOMEthing, somewhere), while today&#8217;s medicine for repairing sticks-and-stones injuries are pretty effective.</p>
<p>In a sense, &#8216;<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:1-5;&#038;version=65;" rel="nofollow">Matthew</a>&#8216; was ahead of his time. We ought to do some serious contemplation before we launch accusations, which is so easily done these days.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve already had my run-in here with <a href="http://www.dustbury.com/backlog/2006/10/quote_of_the_week_3.html" rel="nofollow">Christians anxious to judge</a>, one of whom actually asked me <i>&#8220;Is it &#8220;OK&#8221; for me to judge you if you abort a female fetus?&#8221;</i>. Why ask me? You guys have The Book.</p>
<p>Anyway, this is off-point. The situation you&#8217;re describing is just a typically cowardly broadcast corporation covering its ass. They&#8217;re not trying to protect anyone except themselves. Here what we&#8217;re dealing with a creeping McCarthyism called &#8216;political correctness&#8217;, administered this time by the left. The fact that this stuff is effective makes these censors increasingly bolder, so that now no newspaper dares to issue even a mild criticism of Islam, and many things that should be publicly discussed are taboo. Not sex &#8211; you can say &#8216;fuck&#8217; all you like (thanks, Howard Stern). You can trash Christianity all day long, at least on the Coasts. But to even imply that Black America&#8217;s problems aren&#8217;t entriely the result of racism? (See, don&#8217;t you feel goosebumps already? And I haven&#8217;t even made that accusation &#8211; I merely said IF it were made.)</p>
<p>Long comment, huh. It&#8217;s a residual of being a former blogger. Happens sometimes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McGehee</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493/comment-page-1#comment-993</link>
		<dc:creator>McGehee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493#comment-993</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;But cruel words cut straight to the heart, where they fester for all eternity.&lt;/i&gt;

In that case, I&#039;m about 35 years late staging my schoolyard massacre.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>But cruel words cut straight to the heart, where they fester for all eternity.</i></p>
<p>In that case, I&#8217;m about 35 years late staging my schoolyard massacre.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad</title>
		<link>http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493/comment-page-1#comment-992</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:53:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dustbury.com/archives/493#comment-992</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;&quot;At least, that&#039;s what we&#039;re told to believe, usually by the same people who quote Matthew 7:1 and manage to miss the rest of the chapter.&quot;&lt;/em&gt;

Amen, brother!
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>&#8220;At least, that&#8217;s what we&#8217;re told to believe, usually by the same people who quote Matthew 7:1 and manage to miss the rest of the chapter.&#8221;</em></p>
<p>Amen, brother!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

