Tuesday, 7 December 2004 - 11:35 AM EST
Name:
journal2/unofficialfellersite
Rick
Thank you for the kind words of encouragement and the helpful advice.
As I mentioned in my response to Murray, I am a bit uncomfortable with the inherently egotistical (my thesaurus says this is a synonym for narcissistic) nature of blogging, but rest assured I?ll take your advice to heart and be ever vigilant in monitoring my efforts, so that I can maintain a level of humility that you can find acceptable. As you?ve seen, I?ve set the blog up so that anyone can comment directly, without my intervention. I?m hoping that readers such as Murray and you will bring me back to reality if I get too full of myself. I?ve noticed that you write a regular opinion column, do you have the same concerns about narcissism in this endeavour? If so, I?d appreciate it if you could share with me the strategies you use to avoid it in that situation. As I understand it, people can only respond to things you say in your column by writing letters to the editor and hope that they get published. Do you find this a better approach than setting it up so that people can comment directly, without editorial intervention? I can do this here, and I was wondering if you thought that would be better. As I said, any hints on how to improve this would be welcomed.
Since you are so generous in giving advice, I?m assuming you won?t mind if I reciprocate. As far as I can tell from your body of work on all the alumni sites and in the columns I?ve read, you invariably use a single strategy to develop arguments in support of your positions and opinions. It seems as if you habitually erect straw men, then knock them down and claim victory. In order to enhance your credibility amongst the segment of your audience who actually reads your pieces carefully and thinks about the validity of your statements, you might want to consider being careful about misrepresenting and/or misinterpreting the facts or what other people say.
In case I don?t make myself clear, I?ll use a few examples from your comment for the purpose of illustration.
1) You say that my site is mostly about me.
I realize that this may be a bit surprising to you, given that the site is labeled Don Ferguson?s Feller Memories, but, I?m concerned that there?s a danger that people might think that you were saying that the site was all about me, which might scare them away. In reality, considerable space is devoted to alumni photo collections and Andy?s military history. With the imminent demise of fellercollege.com this may be the only site that contains his complete and up-to-date Ft. Lennox reports and there?s a chance that people might miss this material if they were misled by your assertion. We wouldn?t want that, would we?
2) You say that you are the only person who disagrees with me. (As Mouldy used to say ?All generalizations are false?.)
You don?t have to look very far to find posts in which Murray (on this site), Andy, Mike Lacombe and Michel Girodo disagree with me, at least to a certain extent, on many occasions.
3) You also suggest that sometimes you just don't know what you would do without me!
It seems that you?re trying to say that I wouldn?t have much to say if you didn?t provide me with things on which to comment. I must be wrong, because that sort of put-down wouldn?t be like you at all. Anyway, I admit that as far as the alumni sites are concerned, I do spend a lot of time commenting on your posts, but you keep sticking your foot in your mouth all the way up to your knee. What?s a guy to do? On the other hand, I?ve published a number of work-related articles and I?ve written reams of non-work-related stuff, both Feller and non-Feller material, that I?ve decided not to make public. In fact, I have had a pleasant and relaxing time after you retreated behind your castle walls and raised the drawbridge. So although you see less of my work, I do not live in a vacuum when you?re not around.
4) You state that only Born Again Christians frighten me.
The simplistic slogan that I ?borrowed? off a button does not suggest that my fears are directed towards any particular group of religious zealots. In fact, some people might think that it was a bit presumptuous of you to claim to know what I believe about it anyway; especially since you are wrong. I don?t believe that I?ve ever said that I believe Islamic terrorist groups to be less dangerous than born again Christians. Simply because I don?t talk much about BAIs, as you call them, doesn?t prove your point. And, in fact, I don?t talk much about BACs either. I?m mostly talking about the politically motivated groups that are referred to variously as evangelical or conservative Christians. The rank and file may be BACs, but the leadership seem to be a bit less idealistic.
Clearly, Islamic terrorism is a more obvious physical menace that I despise and fear, but even by comparison, the conservative Christian movement in the US is not at all warm and cuddly and I cannot dismiss its threat as unimportant to my day-to-day freedoms. You do not live among them, so perhaps it?s forgivable that your suggestions as to what the majority of evangelicals want is either only half true or utterly false. Their methods are insidious and their impact is becoming ever more intrusive. While evangelicals do want to change the abortion laws to protect the unborn (although that terminology is a bit loaded), their ultimate goals are far wider in scope than you suggest. They do not simply want to make abortions illegal, many of them want to make it inflexibly so without any regard to the health of the mother. A discussion of their anti-scientific positions on stem cell research and the teaching of the theory of evolution could keep me busy for days.
In any case, your clearest misrepresentation of their intentions is the suggestion that all they want to do is limit gay couples to civil unions. Frankly, this is nonsense. Ultimately, they want to eradicate every same-sex relationship (and some would re-criminalize even the act itself). Furthermore, they want to pass draconian laws that discriminate against gays and deny them equal rights for housing and for employment (among other things they would completely prevent gays from being teachers or day care workers).
5) You also say that I liken executions to the beheadings in Iraq and that the victims of Capital punishment are all convicted murderers
I apologize for not stating my position more clearly. Although, I think liken might also be a bit loaded and that compare might be a bit more fair, let?s not quibble. However, I also believe that if you read what I actually wrote more carefully, you might agree that your comments miss the point I was making completely, thereby misleading readers into thinking that I believed all executions in the US to be comparable to the beheadings. Despite that fact that it could be argued that not all the people on death row are ?convicted murderers? (some were sentenced to death for participating in a crime in which a murder was committed), let me re-iterate and clarify what I actually meant (and thought I said).
We have seen repeatedly, over the last several decades that not everyone on death row is guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. In Illinois alone, in the period between 1977 ? 2000, a time span in which 12 men were executed, 13 ?convicted murderers? were proven to be innocent, thankfully before they were put to death. George Ryan, a very conservative Republican governor who had ironically used his support for the death penalty as a campaign issue, imposed a moratorium on executions. After reviewing the situation thoroughly, he eventually commuted all the convictions to life sentences, or less. However, his contemporary George W had no such qualms. This despite the fact that several of the ?convicted murderers? on Texas? death row were similarly proven to be innocent men, often convicted on the basis of the deceitful practices of overzealous prosecutors and police officers. As with other situations in which W rather arrogantly presumes that the facts should have no bearing on his beliefs and actions, the executions continued apace. If you look at what I actually said, I believe that you will find that I was not equating all of the people on death row with the executed hostages. I was simply wondering how many of these ?convicted murderers? were innocent but got executed anyway. And yes, I certainly do believe that the deaths of any such individuals, albeit not as grisly, would be as horrible as that of any of the executed hostages in Iraq.
I?ll close by telling one of my little anecdotes. Kathy and I knew someone who prided himself on his many singing accomplishments, both in choirs and in productions of Gilbert and Sullivan. At one point, Kathy decided to go and audition for a small part in [I think] The Mikado. Much to her surprise, she was given a lead role, apparently to the chagrin of our mutual acquaintance, who was usually selected to be a member of the chorus, or occasionally given a relatively minor role. I was able to make arrangements to see the final performance in the company of this fellow. After the play, we went back stage to congratulate Kathy, and while we were in a group comprised of cast members and their friends, this fellow admitted that Kathy had given a decent performance, and had ?a nice little voice?. I don?t know why, but I was reminded of this when I read your comment.
Anyway, thanks again and I hope my amateurish suggestions might be of at least a tiny bit of help to you in your future writings.
Sincerely,
Don
A casual reading of the religion section of my website and my more recent comments here on the blog should provide a fairly accurate reading about my opinions on the religious hypocrisy to which we were exposed. It should come as no shock to learn that I largely agree with the rest of the sentiments expressed in your comment.