It’S Much Easier To Be Critical Than Correct

Advertisement

Editor:

In response to Ted Paulk’s editorial regarding 2016 presidential candidates. He has managed to insult a host of Republicans saying most will be dead or senile. Also he made reference to two women who he thought may be in the mental ward by 2016, one of these women has a Down Syndrome child.

He has libeled and defamed many Republicans and predicted the future until 2024. Maybe in the future he could take more time and research current political issues and write something constructive. It’s much easier to be critical than correct.

Editor, you have asked for input concerning editorial policy, I believe Noble Collins hit the nail on the head. A letter like Ted Paulk’s is a rant containing primary derogatory attacks and is not worthy of publishing.

Tim Williams

Comments

don evans 1 year, 6 months ago

Mr. Paulk continues his "hate speech" rants via the letters to the editor. He could easily avail himself of getting his point across without the hateful personal comments about individuals with whom he disagrees. I agree with Mr. Hinshaw and Mr. Williams.

0

Ted Paulk 1 year, 6 months ago

Thug, Marxist, Socialist, Communist. These words have come from YOUR mouths! You Republibaggers and/or Teapublicans have called our President (and me) every name in the book, but I'm offending you? Have to admit this is the best place to find comedy! You guys are HILARIOUS.

Stay afraid sheep. Very afraid.

0

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 6 months ago

Ted, Again you make your detractor's points about you with your responses. If you truly want to address them, then stop with the generalizations and be more specific. If they are "calling you names", point to the specific time that occurred and rebut it. It isn't rocket science, but it does take some effort. For example, in this entire thread , you are the ONLY one that responded with name calling. Care to have all your posts brought up for review and we can all see fairly quickly just who it is that most frequently resorts to that approach. Come on, I know you can be less combative and make a better case for your views.

1

Donald Cline 1 year, 6 months ago

The problem with Mr. Paulk's immature tantrum over being called "Thug, Marxist, Socialist, Communist," is that he doesn't like labels that accurately describe the political ideology he espouses. Perhaps if he did a little study as to the meaning of these words, and the political ideologies they represent -- perhaps "comparative ideologies," if you will -- then perhaps he would understand where we are coming from and if he agrees with them he can accept the labels, and if he doesn't, then he can outgrow the childish Marxist/Socialist/Communist ideology that is ALWAYS imposed on a population by a Thug.

1

Kim Chittick 1 year, 6 months ago

Gosh Teddy, I think that if anyone can be categorized as "sheep" it would be you and others of your ilk. Blindly following the current administration right off the cliff to your own demise. Those of us who are constantly watching, resistant, and ever vigilant are speaking for ourselves. By the way, I AM afraid, very afraid of what the current administration and people like you are doing to our once magnificent country.

1

frederick franz 1 year, 6 months ago

"A letter like Ted Paulk’s is a rant containing primary derogatory attacks and is not worthy of publishing."

Editor: We still have freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Let's all keep it going!

1

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 6 months ago

I agree with Mr. Franz. Although Mr.Paulk and I seldom agree on many socio/political issues, I served this country so that EVERY American could have the freedom to freely voice their opinions and views. We may not like what they have to say or how they say it, but I for one will not willingly throw one American's right to free expression under the bus. As a former Marine as well, I trust the editor's judgment will err on the side of freedom.

2

Rex Hinshaw 1 year, 6 months ago

Of course Mr. Paulk has the right to free expression....freedom of speech. But let's not confuse that with a right to be heard or published...that does not exist. There is no right to be provided a forum for your opinions. If he stays within the editorial policy....publish him....if he doesn't....don't. Having said that , I believe Mr. Paulk's purpose with his letter (and his response above), was to stir up the conservative readers by using insulting comments and name calling. I think that says alot about what kind of person he is.

1

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 6 months ago

Mr. Hinshaw, I concur with your observations. What I would wish is that Mr. Paulk lower the less than constructive name calling and involve himself in the debate by bringing forth facts as he has obtained them and come to understand them. A benefit of these types of forums is that they allow for very diverse views and often cause others to think about views that conflict with their own. Admittedly many of us have very strong opinions about all the "Hope & Change" that this administration has brought upon this nation, for better or worse. that we often use very strong invectives to express those opinions does not make those opinions "fact". But as most on here have had some smattering of world and life experiences, we can easily form an opinion about someone in the absence of "documented fact" and quite often be perfectly correct in that observation. That others have a different "view" than ours neither changes the "facts" nor is likely to alter those views/opinions arrived via those observations. Let the debates continue.

1

Rex Hinshaw 1 year, 6 months ago

Ronald, I agree with you. I think the main point here is plain and simple ...name calling on a public forum. Is it protected speech? It is the Roundup's call to publish.

1

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 6 months ago

Mr. Hinshaw, " Is it protected speech?" As much as I dislike it, I think yes. I recall a KKK Rally, in I think Illinois, where their speech was pure hate and name calling, and some tried to get that type of speech suppressed via the courts. Yet the Supreme Court has taken a position that things I think are "beyond the pale" fall into the category of protected speech. I think we all know that slander, defamation,and fallacious accusations do not fall into that category under certain circumstances. Personally my hide is fairly thick after all these years and although I find name calling juvenile and distasteful, I have on occasion taken that very undesirable approach in my anger and frustration. I sense that is what stimulates Mr. Paulk and others to resort to such. It is out of frustration from their inability to get people to accept their views and points regarding hot button social and political issues. They would like everyone to see things through their personal prism and agree with them on most all debatable issues. It must be frustrating and somewhat uncomfortable to be a progressive/socialist living in a traditionalist/conservative environment. I know very few of Mr. Paulk's particular persuasion that are as vocal and "out" about it as he tends to be. I'm certain there are many more in the area but I sense the opposite socio/political ideology is the more prevalent in this region.

Having said all that, I still think the editor at the Roundup is well aware of the types and character of rhetoric that is posted on these forums and if he feels it is warranted, will take the appropriate steps to reign it in. I personally would like to have those with differing opinions and views challenge my own, but not in the manner which is at the root of this discussion we are having.

0

Kim Chittick 1 year, 6 months ago

Rex and Ron, you two are spot on with your assessments, I think. Mr. Paulk is what my husband calls a "pot stirrer". Seems to like throwing infammatory statements out to see what kind of adversity he can stir up.

I am really going to endeavor to just ignore all of his posts. Perhaps employing the advice of most Moms, "just ignore it, it will go away" will straighten his act and make him decide to settle down and play nice.

1

Ronald Hamric 1 year, 6 months ago

Kim, Hope you'll forgive me if I keep trying with Mr. Paulk. Nothing he says actually offends me personally. Heck, neither of us has personally met the other. I actually don't mind someone calling my opinions and views into question. That forces me to re-examine them for their accuracy and whether or not they are pertinent to the discussion. As I've stated before, I actually want him in the debate. He has as much right as anyone to express his views and I know all agree on that point. I think we all agree as well that we wish he would not continue to resort to personal name calling. And in his defense, others, myself included, have been guilty of that approach as well on some occasions. "Mud slinging" seems to simply fit into the on-line blogosphere. I wish it were otherwise.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.