I agree, others have said worse things - about Judge Koh for example - I am
not them.
I pay little attention - if any - to such authorings. I
usually read far enough to hit that expressed opinion - of a lack of respect
even though they only have an outsiders view of what Judge Koh may be going
through - and I tend to stop reading their posts and move on.
Do I agree
with Judge Koh's rulings? Some I do not. Others I have no opinion of because I
don't know what they're based on - the evidence is usually unavailable for our
perusal. There are those that seem to be reasonable - but again, I know almost
nothing about what's fully going on.
Do I agree with what Mr. Hogan
appears to have done? Absolutely not, but I still refer to him as Mr. Hogan and
do not perpetrate any personal attacks against him. For example: does he appear
to have manipulated the rest of the Jury? His own public statements seem to
indicate that but I still refrain from calling him a manipulator. A descriptive
word which seems to very well fit his acts - but it's still also a
name.
Based on the above, I happen to hold the view that calling an
Official Court a kangaroo court is moving into the area of name calling. So
yea, to me it's an ad hominem attack. It doesn't speak to a particular decision
and why he disagrees. It doesn't speak to actual facts. It's nothing more then
a name that conjurs up the definition you provided without even substantiating
such a definition is applicable. And even if the definition is applicable there
is a difference between:
the kangaroo court like activities
and
the
kangaroo court decided
One is quite clearly a name.
You claim I'm
finding fault where there is none. So let's take a look and see what else I can
find. There's just the one in that article - I admit it's really tame in
comparison to his usual.
Let's take a look at his article on Randi Zukerberg less then 2 weeks ago.
Some quotes:
her strange, reclusive
brother
Strange?
Because this dumb issue about her dumb
photograph is that important.
Dumb?
A company that ran
a scuzzy IPO
Scuzzy?
You and I obviously disagree. And
that's ok!
I still personally view Lyons authorings to be filled with
venom.
I'll stick to the much higher quality of authorings P.J. produces
thanks. I don't really much care for Mr. Lyons current style even though it
does seem to be substantially better then the past. I'd really have to take a
look back and compare to see if he's actually improved or whether it's just the
lapse of time that seems to indicate he has.
Whether or not he's saying
things I happen to agree with is not my criteria about whether or not I read
someone's authorings.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|