I'm doing this as a new post instead of a comment because my word verification on the comment page is having a fit and won't let itself be seen by me. Which makes it hard to verify.
Anyway, I'm not sure my previous post could be characterized as "going crazy" criticizing your ad. I just mentioned it because I was told it existed and I wanted to see it. If it never existed, so be it.
And while we're citing Red and Black articles, check this one out about local blogs; we are specifically mentioned, as well as JMac and Hillary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't know whether it exists or not. It probably does not, since I don't believe I placed an ad this semester, but if it does, great more business for me.
But it just strikes me as odd that you would be giddily jumping at the chance to "laugh at [me] mercilessly" over something like a professional advertisement as opposed to criticizing my support our troops support their mission counter-protest - you know, a real issue that actually means something to people?
(That's the first time I have used the word giddily in my entire life - I like it.)
That makes sense now. Yes, I did have ads last semester. I don't have any in there now (yet) - that must be where the confusion happened. I'm not sure I still have copies of the old ads, but if I do I'll be glad to put them up.
I don't think my ads were over the top at all. I didn't say "Have the people at the Athens Politics blog libeled you? Please give me a call, I've been itching to sue those clowns and shut down their blog and take all their money." That would have been over the top :)
Finally, you said, you don't see the sign thing as controversial, because "you obviously have a different viewpoint on the war than these ladies, and you're both expressing those viewpoints." Isn't that the definition of controversy? Opposing viewpoints?
(PS - the mission of the troops is not to let all those fallen heroes have died in vain by cutting and running and letting the insurgents take over.)
Post a Comment