Brian Baird: Coward (XXI) Words have meaning, Lou, and failing to provide context for mine is just part of your problem.

.
This has been a very tough month for Brian Baird, our resident Cowardman. It's been a month that our local waste of wood pulp has done everything it can to save this idiot from himself.

I've pointed this out, repeatedly. I've shown many, many examples where this stain on journalism has failed this community, again and again, by writing as if Baird's campaign pays them.

Oddly, that claim has not been disputed, to my knowledge. But then, it's hard to deny the facts of the matter.

So, when the Columbian portrayed David Hedrick as some sort of a nut, *I* wrote

That said, words have meaning. For example, when I characterize this worthless rag as a stain on journalism, that means something. So when this scumbag waste of pulp characterizes David Hedrick's lecture to the Cowardman during the Dog and Pony show at the Amphitheater as a "rant," that is a deliberate act, done to belittle Hedrick as these clowns continue to take a dump on the science of journalism in their quest to rehabilitate the Cowardman's destroyed image.

So, of all that, what did Lou Brancaccio mention in his latest Baird rehab effort?

They zeroed in on our description of what Hedrick said, as a "rant."

After reading our story and headline, one conservative blogger said it was done "to rehabilitate (Baird's) destroyed image."

Go figure.

So, in mentioning this blog without having the guts to link to it or name it, Brancaccio, in his own cowardly way, failed to provide the context for what I wrote AND failed to use ALL of the quote. But then, referring to Baird as "Cowardman" simply goes against the Baird Rehabilitation program this rag is now almost constantly engaging in.

Go figure.

Brancaccion blows off accurate criticism of his use of the word "rant" to describe Hedrick's accurate criticism of our Cowardman. As usual, Brancaccio misses the point.

When that moronic coward characterized those of us who are wise enough to oppose Obama's efforts, efforts that he and this rag support as fellow fringe left whack jobs, This newspaper failed to apply that same word to Baird.

Now if, as Brancaccio is trying to sell us, the word "rant"

simply means "a loud rhetorical delivery expressed with strong emotion." How could you argue with that? OK, OK, we love arguing.

Then why didn't this despicable waste of space fail to use it when Baird actually did engage in a "rant?"

How come it only became a "rant" when someone confronted Baird, but wasn't a rant when the Cowardman stupidly confronted us?

The word "rant" also has negative connotations. Again, these so-called "journalists" know damned well that it's a negative label.

THAT'S the point, Brancaccio. But then, you knew that. Your disingenuous, out of context bullshit doesn't change that.

And, of note, is your double standard on referencing sources so the reader, if so inclined, could judge for themselves if you were right or wrong.

There is much more at stake here then your limited, biased perspective when it comes to the facts of the matter. You continually fail to source those of us smart enough to disagree with you by our efforts to provide alternative perspectives to the leftist crap you typically write... much like your column today.

There's no excuse for that, of course. So, here's a clue: Everything I write is copyrighted. If you're going to use my product, you have to ask me first.

See, Lou, I don't make a dime off of what I write, so quoting, sourcing and linking you and that rag all come under "Fair Use." Doing the same to my product?

Not so much.

So, feel free to swing on by when the mood strikes. I'll be more than happy to HELP you "figure," since you seem incapable of the act yourself.

And who knows, Lou. Maybe you'll grow some balls and actually source our words.

But then, I doubt it. Because as insecure and academically bereft as leftists typically are, they certainly don't want to expose anyone to a perspective that disagrees with theirs... and certainly not while giving the writer in question an opportunity to clarify positions to a level simple enough that even YOU can understand it.

Since you asked.
.