Posted on 01/22/2005 9:18:55 AM PST by churchillbuff
I see that a couple of freepers have misspelled Krauthammer's name. And I don't think you have to ping a freeper when you don't mention their name.
Several posters misspelled Krauthammer's name. Would it have been necessary for the freeper to ping each of them to her comment about the misspelling? That seems a little silly.
Peach,
Some people believe: "When you have no argument, make up a rule!" Ha Ha.
Thanks for your support..... I shall watch for your posts in the future ;) (syncopation)
He was referring specifically to post #40. He knows it, I know it, we all know it, and then he made an insulting remark about a freudian slip that was completely unwarranted.
The "rule" is if you have a critique to make about someone's post such as speculating they made a freudian slip in their spelling, you ping that person and say it their cyber face.
what?
Since freeper highflight was referring to my post #25 and the person I was corresponding with who also misspelled the name at one point, I think you are incorrect that highflight's comment was directed at post #40.
Regardless, you have now mentioned post #40 and should you have pinged that freeper under the rule you mentioned?
My understanding is that if no names are mentioned and it's not a clear connection to a specific poster, it is not necessary to ping a poster.
Peach,
In the future, I will have my people ping your people.
That would be prudent.
LOL.
I've been here since '98 and only ping people when I mention their name or reference a post they made.
Don't worry about it.
I did ping him when I first brought up the issue. This time I wasn't commenting directly on the post but addressing the claim that "several" people had made that misspelling when in fact #40 was the first (and then echoed by someone else later). I'm not discussing him per se at this time and I'm certainly not insulting him so didn't feel the need to ping him.
A mere reference to a post does not require the ping, but a comment about the poster (making a freudian slip..har har har) in an insulting manner certainly does.
It's interesting you mention the music because Noonan didn't like that either and called it "defensive" as in someone chose it so as not to offend.
The poster we are discussing was responding to my post in #25. I understand the order of how things happened, but think the Freudian slip comment would have been made to post #40 if it was directed at that person.
And I have seen and sure you have seen dozens of comments about other peoples posts, sometimes not very complimentary, and as long as names aren't mentioned, pings generally aren't issued.
Regardless, this seems to be a rather trivial matter considering the issue at hand that was being discussed. And that is whether Krauthammer is a bigot and hates Christianity. As I consider Krauthammer one of the most staunch defenders of Christianity on the national news, I could not let some previous comments made on this thread pass unanswered. Let's not get bogged down on other matters.
So Peggy thought GOD was overdone but the music was not specific enough in reference to the Almighty? She sure sounds conflicted. Maybe being paid to be critical takes the edge off of enjoying a really great moment in history. Her loss.
She may still receive email at peggy@peggynoonan.com but it looks like her website hasn't been updated since 2002.
I'm kind of curious to know what other FNC commentators have to say about Ms. Noonan's critique of President Bush's Inaugural speech. I would especially like to see what Ann Coulter has to say about it as they are apparently close friends.
The above is highflight's comment and the first and only (except for it being repeated later) spelling of it that way was in post #40.
It is an insult that was unwarranted for that post or poster and I wrote my opinion directly to the two parties involved, period.
You chose to pursue it and I don't wish to argue with you, but I was offended by the "Freudian slip" line uttered about but not to the person it was about. That's it. I didn't wish to make a bigger deal about it than that, but my point stands.
She wanted more established music. Have you read the column? She also described the Bush administration as having "mission inebriation", this when the President's hard drinking past is well known seems an unnecessary phrase to come up with.
I'll go find the link to her column.
excerpt:
There were some surprises, one of which was the thrill of a male voice singing "God Bless America," instead of the hyper-coloratura divas who plague our American civic life. But whoever picked the music for the inaugural ceremony itself--modern megachurch hymns, music that sounds like what they'd use for the quiet middle section of a Pixar animated film--was . . . lame. The downbeat orchestral arrangement that followed the president's speech was no doubt an attempt to avoid charges that the ceremony had a triumphalist air. But I wound up thinking: This is America. We have a lot of good songs. And we watch inaugurals in part to hear them
Never be defensive in your choice of music.
~snip~
And I already told you that I understood the order in which the misspelling occurred.
But since the comment was made in response to my #25 vs. someone else's #40, I believe I know which poster the freeper was referring to.
I think you are taking offense on behalf of the wrong freeper. But we have both made our positions clear.
I have never seen such a tempest in a teapot - ckilmer's and my posts #52 & #54 were an interchange that should have satisfied any third party criticism.
I would like to thank Peach for a balanced perspective and help in explaining how the forum is supposed to work.
Unless ckilmer has a private or public reprimand for me, I think this could end right here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.