Home
Letters
Letters written by Ash
- Details
- Written by: Rita Cormulley
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 5
As ash demonstrates below, there is a difference between conflation and analogy. Conflation takes two unrelated issues and attempts to compare them in a way that makes no sense. Analogy compares two seemingly disparate issues with the use of a legitimate link or common trait. Here is her analogy between God's will in a frightening tornado and the justification for prohibited abortion, through one adjective:
A correspondent calls a previous correspondent’s suggestion that divine intervention, not happenstance, spared a church from tornado damage “asinine.” It's a good word, applicable to other issues as well.
- Details
- Written by: Rita Cormulley
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 4
As with many letters to the editor ash sends to her local paper, this one responds to a previous writer in a manner including the previous writer’s assertions. Suffice it to say the writer in question attempted, unsuccessfully, to make his particular brand of Christianity the law of the land:
This letter is futile. It will convince no one. It will persuade no one of the rightness of its argument while merely reinforcing those who already agree.
- Details
- Written by: Rita Cormulley
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 5
ash's hometown paper recently joined the 21st century with the ability to respond to articles within. Here's her response to the innovation itself, as well as the association she makes with the current state of corporate media. And note the technique of coming full circle to the starting point.
What’s unfair? And who’s the arbitrator?
The State Journal-Register’s brand new feature, the online discussion of articles, is an excellent idea, if a little tardy. Newspapers large and small have offered them practically since the debut of the Internet, or at least its proliferation.
- Details
- Written by: Rita Cormulley
- Category: Letters
- Hits: 5
Ever the populist, ash bristles at the whiff of corporate aristocracy. When such elitism permeates an editorial defending the indefensible, ash refutes it not statistic by statistic, but by attacking the underlying attitude itself. Can you say disingenous and self-serving?
Facts and figures. The facts can’t be proven and the figures can distort. I’m no economist nor need I be to spot a phony, smiley-faced, corporate editorial when I read one.