Do Hate-Filled Letters Meet Criteria For Publication?

Advertisement

Editor

This is in response to a letter that you printed in the April 23 Opinion section titled: Ban gun free zones.

The writer’s comments are full of untruths and hateful rhetoric that includes name-calling and inappropriate language that is offensive to some people.

He is perfectly within his right to express his opinions, but untruths and name-calling are not opinions. He uses language like “Leftist Communist Democratic thugs” and the “Muslim Obama regime” — this kind of hateful rhetoric goes against your own protocol as you outline in your “Letters Policy” which states: “The Roundup reserves the right to withhold letters found to be objectionable or otherwise inappropriate. Letters should stick to issues and avoid personal attacks.”

Do you find that the letter you printed meets all of the criteria that you established as appropriate for your readers?

Wayne Donnay

Comments

Rex Hinshaw 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Wayne, I agree that the name calling is unnessary. I found no inappropriate language though. I also found NO untruths in the letter. Just because you disagree doesn't make it untrue. We are fortunate that the Roundup doesn't censor based on someone like yourself being offended.

0

Donald Cline 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I had to laugh out loud when I read your letter, Wayne. You describe language like “Leftist Communist Democratic thugs” and the “Muslim Obama regime” as “hateful rhetoric,” and “inappropriate language” and “offensive to some people.”

I’m glad that they are offensive to some people, because they are intended to be., To others those words are a perfectly accurate description of an evil, destructive, totalitarian regime that has no place in a nation founded on principles of individual liberty – such as the liberty to exercise the individual right to free speech regardless of how many leftist communist democratic thugs and Muslims and their "useful idiot" followers choose, for reasons of political agenda, to be offended.

Being prevented from speaking the truth as one sees it, or being afraid to speak it for fear some totalitarian thug might be offended, is the kind of attitude leftist communist democratic thugs promote and encourage. It is how criminal sociopaths like Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin and Hitler and Pol Pot and Mugabe and others got themselves into positions of absolute power where they have tortured and murdered millions of people in the last one hundred years … for the fun of it. Perhaps you would like to explain your motives for trying to get this newspaper to censor the truth?

It is how practitioners of a certain sociopathic political ideology are doing their darndest to achieve total political power in this country, right now. A free people, founded in principles of liberty, embrace the truth, regardless of who calls it “hate speech.”

0

Ted Paulk 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Hinshaw and Cline: Glad to see you still have someone around to type your letters for you. You claim that just because Wayne disagrees with you it doesn't make your lies less truthful. Obama is not a Muslim; whoever says so is a liar. Democrats are not communists; whoever says so is a liar. I doubt that Wayne is a "totalitrian thug" as you so falsely claim; hell, what is a totalitarian thug anyway? And can we ever let Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Cheney rest in peace!! You peckerwoods make me howl. Ted

1

Donald Cline 11 months, 1 week ago

Ted! Glad I had a sudden urge to hop out of bed and keep you honest. First, I type my own letters, thank you. Who did you think typed them? Your second sentence sounds really powerful until you parse it down to English rules of syntax and realize it makes no sense -- "lies less truthful"? Do you think there are lies that are more truthful? Like yours, perhaps? Can you provide any evidence supporting your empty assertion that Obama is not a Muslim, in spite of the fact that he bows to Muslim princes, praises Islam in Arabic, hires Muslims to positions of influence knowing that their religion prohibits them from honoring their oath of office, and has openly stated his belief in the equivalency of Islamic and Judeo-Christian values, and lies like a rug any time he deigns to release some artifact of his alleged bona fides, which invariably turns out to be a forgery, all in accordance with the Koran's command to lie to the infidels until you can kill or enslave them? You say "Democrats are not communists," in spite of the fact ninety percent of them are either members of the Progressive Caucus or vote in line with the Progressive Caucus on practically every vote that comes up? Oh, are you suggesting that you didn't know the words "Socialist," "Communist,", "Marxist," and "Progressive" are all virtually synonymous? That the only difference between them is the degree to which the Communist Party apparatchnik prefers to hide his true intentions? Lastly, no, Ted: As long as we have people like you running around espousing the totalitarian political ideologies of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and yes, Cheney, and Mussolini, and Karl Rove and Valerie Jarrett, we must not allow them to rest in peace. Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it, Ted, and I do not intend to allow you to pull the wool over our eyes and force us to endure, again, the 170,000,000 murders committed by those monsters. Now, Ted, I would like to ask you a simple question and see if it is possible for you to answer it honestly: Do you believe the purpose of government is to guarantee and protect the rights (liberties) of the people? Whatever your answer may be, can you provide a factually-supported logic proof in support of your belief?

0

Nancy Volz 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree with you, Wayne. I can't wade through many letters due to how rude and even irrational some writers sound. IMO, the paper does not stick to its' own policy. Maybe the Payson Roundup finds it is entertaining for customers to read the letters they print that contain untruths, etc. Some of them are amusing at times. Don, you say..."Being prevented from speaking the truth as one sees it," - well, IMO, that may not necessarily be the truth in the real world. It is only, as you say, truth as one sees it - or chooses to see it. IMO, Wayne is not trying to censor anybody. He sounds just as sick and tired of rhetoric that goes nowhere as many others folks. Ted, you had me with you, except for your foray into the name-calling. Can't we all just get along while we agree to disagree with civility?

1

Donald Cline 11 months, 1 week ago

Nancy, you say, "Don, you say...'Being prevented from speaking the truth as one sees it,' - well, IMO, that may not necessarily be the truth in the real world." Quite so. But I am sure you are aware that being prohibited by color of law or fear of offense from speaking the truth as you see it results in the truth never setting you free. In that circumstance, only the truth as defined by the totalitarian thugs is ever published. Let's discuss this a moment: It is a given that "opinion is not fact." However, opinion can be assigned a value according to the facts and logic used to support it. Opinion without facts or logic to support it is worth less than nothing; it tricks the naïve and ignorant and requires greater effort to refute it. A useful tool in determining, at least tentatively, the value of an opinion expressed as an argument was developed in the 14th Century by Lord Ockham, called "Ockham's Razor" (or sometimes, "Occam's Razor). It simply states that "Among competing theories, the one requiring the least number of assumptions is the most likely to be true." This gives you a methodology to ensure that your evaluation of an argument is not influenced by your own biases or naivete: You simply count the number of assumptions that would have to be true for the argument to be true, and then see if there is some other theory that requires a fewer number of assumptions. Now then: With regard to Wayne's letter: To support your argument that Wayne is not trying to censor anybody, you would have to assume that he is not challenging the Payson Roundup for publishing "name-calling" letters. You would have to assume that calling a "Leftist Communist Democratic thug" exactly that is an empty rhetoric with no basis in fact rather than an accurate description. You would also have to assume that Wayne has no personal axe to grind in making this angry outburst, i.e., that he is not a "Leftist Communist Democratic thug" himself and trying to hide that fact, as well as not trying to curb the totalitarian agenda of other "leftist Communist Democratic thugs." Pretty large number of assumptions, I would say, and there are probably more. The simpler theory, with the fewest assumptions, is that he and his agenda are exactly what I described them to be in my reply to his letter above.

0

Ted Paulk 11 months, 1 week ago

Sorry about the name calling, but I have been called a socialst, hippie, troll, thug, etc., by these same guys year after year. Just get a little tired of their same old rhetoric. I have been accused of being at Woodstock, but I was really in Vietnam when Woodstock took place. I've tried to have sensible discourse with these "gentlemen" over the years, but I have just run out of patience with them. To quote a man I saw yesterday on TV, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". When I pointed out their lies in the past, they complain about "Free speech"; yet when I speak out against them, they call me names. They don NOT have my respect.

1

Donald Cline 11 months, 1 week ago

Uh ... Ted? Sensible discourse? You've tried to have "sensible discourse" with these "gentlemen" (sic) over the years? Is that "sensible discourse" when you reply to my rebuttal with "Blah blah blah. All words, just words" as you did in a different thread?

I've invited you and others of your mindset to "sensible discourse" enumerable times, and you and they always bail. Maybe others call you names, but I challenge your theories and your philosophy and your ideology, and you always bail. Do you think maybe that is because your theories and philosophy and ideology don't stand up to the factual and logical light of day, and you don't know how to deal with that? I mean, you just CAN'T change your mind, can you? After all, horrors! That would mean that you were wrong! Oh, my goodness, that cannot be borne and still be able to hold your head up, can it? C'mon, Ted. There's no disgrace in finding our you were wrong. There is only disgrace in refusing to admit it and thereby studying a more accurate path. I've been wrong in the past, and all it did was make me resolve to check my facts more carefully before shooting off my mouth. Once I even thought all government had to do was post a sign saying "No Guns Allowed" and no one would ever rob the place or kill anyone there. Of course, I was only twelve years old then ...

0

Nancy Volz 11 months, 1 week ago

Don, I read the first few sentences of your reply (above) and gave up. I know the definition of "opinion" and I know that of "fact." Even if the facts are dispensed by trusted (not newspaper letter writers) sources, I make a point to check facts before accepting them as truth & then offering those facts. I don't use "facts" from talk radio or talk TV or the internet message boards without doing the homework. I don't post a message unless I have checked. Weird, but just the way I am. I wish everyone else would do the same, but if wishes were horses...I be broke buying hay! As you say to Ted (above) "Blah blah blah. All words, just words"

0

Rex Hinshaw 11 months, 1 week ago

Ted, By the way, I write my own comments on this forum. I know you would never call me a peckerwood to my face. If you did....it would only happen once. I enjoy a lively debate , but I don't take personal attacks well. This is just an attempt by you liberals (not name calling unless your ashamed) to censor conservative opionions that you don't agree with. Remember what your types called Pres. Bush. If you can stop the personal attacks...then let's debate.

0

Kim Chittick 11 months ago

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen...let's all go to our separate corners!!

Mr. Hinshaw, I absolutely agree with you, and do not blame you one bit for getting defensive and calling Paulk out; however, please remember that Paulk utilizes name calling and personal attacks, which he then follows up with (insincere) shocked and dismayed apologies. In example, "Sorry about the name calling, but I have been called a socialst, hippie, troll, thug, etc., by these same guys year after year." Why, I can almost hear him whining to his mommy, "but, but, they started it!!"

As for your invitation to Paulk to debate, ain't gonna happen. Paulk confuses opinion and supposition with fact and common knowledge.

I would truly hate to see anybody get banned over this absolutely inane argument. Don't let Paulk draw you in!

0

Kim Chittick 11 months ago

By the way, Paulk says, "...by these same guys year after year" and "...over the years." and "...in the past", as though he can claim founding father status on here. But, guess what??? Even though to some of us, it feels as though he has been posting forever, it has actually only been 4 1/3 years. Lighten up Mr. Paulk and play nice. Reading your past posts is like being sucked into a maelstrom of hate, adversity and constant confrontation.

Why so miserable and unhappy Teddy?

1

robbin flowers 10 months, 4 weeks ago

Ted, where did you go? Get over it and put your big boy pants on. I promise to play nice. I love you, you are a good man.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.