The spectacular and public self-immolation of Blogging Tory Sara Landriault continues at breakneck speed:
A reporter scamming her way to selling newspapers, she if [sic] full of it!
Too Munsch information, Robert!
The result of Munsch's admission of his problems has been to stigmatize them even more, as in Landriault's response, which can be summed up as: "He's mentally ill and he took cocaine and drank! Evil man! Get him and his books away from my children!
By Naomi Lakritz, Calgary Herald
This statement was never made by me nor was it even hinted at. Naomi is such a low life writer she decided to take my original post while ignoring my other posts showing all of my emotions just to sell more skanky newspapers.
This article is a lie, I do not believe Munsch is evil nor will I do any of the things she says I will in the article.
My blog was written to show my emotions of how the unveiling of Robert Munsch's addiction affected me, it was certainly not to portray him as evil. That would be Naomi's doing!
Apparently, Sara is some kind of pissed, as you can read in her comment at Lakritz's online piece:
I did not and do not feel munsch is evil, that only came from Naomi's narrow minded brain.
Read my blog for the truth http://choiceforchildcare.blogspot.com
as for Naomi I will see you and the Herald in court.
3 pieces of personal information were used without my permission from your paper and the National Post.
If you really want to be a tabloid writer try the US or UK they would love woman like you who twist the truth just to sell newspapers....
Overlooking the hilarity of a Blogging Tory complaining about journalistic irresponsibility, I suspect Sara is not going to have much of a case here since, as I read it, Lakritz never suggested that Sara used the word "evil." She simply suggested that Sara's position could be "summed up" that way; in short, Lakritz made it abundantly clear that she was paraphrasing, which would make this threatened legal action amusing indeed.
If I really want this to happen for the sheer, naked entertainment value, does that make me a bad person?
P.S. You need to read the comments at Sara's latest piece. Honestly, these people are about as smart as a sack of soup. I particularly like Ardvark's take on this:
Ardvark said…
..as in Landriault's response, which can be summed up as: "He's mentally ill and he took cocaine and drank! Evil man! Get him and his books away from my children!"
What kind of writer uses quotation marks for something that clearly was not said?
The kind that prefaces those quotes with "which can be summed up as" to make it clear they're paraphrasing? Christ, I'm getting tired of having to explain stuff to these yobs.
OH, YOU KIDS: You can be so adorable when you're even more obsessive than I am. An e-mailer brings my attention to this 2007 gem from lovely Sara:
Liberal supporter tells Cancer patient to "fuck off"
Jumping ahead to the comments section on that piece, we have commenter "Jay" being fairly reasonable:
I don't think this has anything to do with Liberals and more to do with an asshole who supports them.
And then Sara comes clean:
I agree he is a nutwing and has nothing to do with the party. I put Liberal supporter in hopes the Libs would shut him down.
It occurs to me that someone who deliberately lies for political advantage really doesn't have the moral high ground to complain about someone else's journalistic accuracy. If you catch my drift.
32 comments:
"If I really want this to happen for the sheer, naked entertainment value, does that make me a bad person?"
Yes....I mean No!! :)
I'm sure the Herald's lawyers are in deep panic mnode.
ps does Sara now beleive she speaks for the NP? hahahaha
"The kind that prefaces those quotes with "which can be summed up as" to make it clear they're paraphrasing? Christ, I'm getting tired of having to explain stuff to these yobs."
Oh wise one, please find me a quote or reference that says it is proper to use quotation marks when it isn't an actual quote.
Good luck with that.
Well, Naomi edited. It now says, "The result of Munsch's admission of his problems has been to stigmatize them even more, as in Landriault's response, which can be summed up as: "He took cocaine and drank! Get him and his books away from my children!""
Eh... Tempest in a teapot and all that...
Ardvark uses quotation marks on his boggeee:
Igantieff [sic] said the Conservatives have accused the Liberals of “trying to start a cultural war’[sic], but suggests it’s the Conservatives that have really done that. The Liberal leader said “let’s be clear: we didn’t end the 25-year consensus on a women’s right to choose. They did.”
I know it's hard when you're a cuttin' and a pastin' all the live long day like that and everything. Maybe paraphrase once in awhile.
To publish a threat to take a party to court is quite defamatory and can be argued by the defamed party to be libel.
Oh god. I meant to type bloggee and look what happened.
LOL, it must have been a bad day. I even spelled Ignatieff's name wrong.
I never said I was perfect but I also never claimed that it is proper to use quotation marks to paraphrase either.
Hows that search coming BTW? Us yobs want a reference.
Liberal supporter tells Cancer patient to "fuck off".
Was that this Alan Kan?
Aardvark said
"The kind that prefaces those quotes with "which can be summed up as" to make it clear they're paraphrasing? Christ, I'm getting tired of having to explain stuff to these yobs."
Oh wise one, please find me a quote or reference that says it is proper to use quotation marks when it isn't an actual quote.
Just above your request for a quote was a quote (in fact you quoting CC). This quote clearly implies that in the specified context quotation marks can be properly used for something that was not actually said.
Here's a suggestion, Ardvark -- go look up the word "paraphrase." Then look up the phrase "verbum dicendi". Come back when you have dealt with your literary ignorance.
Fuck, but I'm tired of teaching the Special Ed class around here.
You DO NOT use quotation marks when paraphrasing. Here are about 200,000 links for you.
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=using+quotation+marks+to+paraphrase&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=bff28e8e230e9c76
Find me just one credible source that claims otherwise.
shorter ardtwat: "i'm a pedantic nitwit on the troll."
KEvron
In these here intertoobs, isn't it known that when one actually uses the meme--
Shorter Aardvark--"I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about"
--that what follows the "Shorter (insert some doofus here)" is, in fact, a paraphrase, usually denoting something the original author completely missed or ignored in his or her little rant...
And isn't it customary when using the "Shorter (insert some doofus here)" meme that quotation marks are used, as in, "This is probably what the iggit should have said, or was saying but didn't realize"...
In short, a paraphrase...
There are a variety of ways of showing that you're paraphrasing. To wit--
Shorter Aardvark--"I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about"
Shorter Aardvark--"I really don't know what the hell I'm talkling about"
Shorter Aardvark--"I really don't know what the hell I'm talking about"
Oh wait, they all have quotation marks...
Meh... again tempest in a teapot. The "offending 'evil'" has been scrubbed from the article. Life, as they say, goes on.
I see Ardvark still hasn't invested the time to figure out the phrase "verbum dicendi". I'm betting that never happens.
Who the hell even knows latin anymore?
CC--left leaning progressive snark, opinion and latin lessons...
Geez, an argument boils down to this level of pedantry?
Look, speaking as a professional writer, you use quotes to say that something is being said. It doesn't matter if it's a direct quote or a paraphrase, if you are writing a piece of dialogue that you are saying is coming from someone's mouth, either directly or in summary, you use quotes.
The decision on whether or not something is a direct quote or a paraphrase comes in the context leading up to the quote. Such things would include "she said something like", or "can be paraphrased by saying", or even "such things would include".
Quotes or not, the context makes it clear that this is a paraphrase, and not a direct quote. It's more than silly to try to hang Naomi on this point.
There you go again, James, trying to engage the Wanker-sphere with your facts and knowledge and expertise. Haven't I told you not to do that sort of thing?
"Who the hell even knows latin anymore?"
they do.
KEvron
*SIGH*
Ardvark:
Read James Bow's comment if you cannot be bothered to learn the Latin CC suggested, you are way out to lunch on this one.
James Bow:
Thank you for spelling it out in plain English, I suspect CC's Latin reference was more than the anteater was able to process.
CC:
You used Latin to explain something this basic? You had to know that wasn't going to work, but then given how much you enjoy pointing out the basic ignorance of the English language when used by the Blogging Tories crowd I suppose you might have been underscoring your point and inviting further displays of ignorance.
General:
I love the lawsuit threat, as already noted that in itself can be actionable, don't these people get that before you can bend/break the rules safely you first need to understand/know them first? I mean come on. As to the grammar police well the prior comments by CC, James Bow et al more than deal with that stupidity.
Part of what makes dealing with so many if not most of the online CPC partisans so painful is their massive dishonesty not just in terms of politics and ideology but in their basic intellectual ability to use the English language the same way everyone else that actually paid attention in class was taught. I mean really, I don't expect everyone to be English teachers/professors, but is it too much to ask that they at least show they have basic high school level ability (although these days I am not so sure that means what it once used to) before they get on their high horses about such matters?
BTers actually reading this thread:
Come on people (online CPCers/Blogging Tories generalization, yes there are a few that this doesn't fit but only a few IMHO), it is no wonder CC has such a target rich environment so much of the time, and it would do wonders for your credibility outside of your inner circle of compatriots if you could argue in an intellectually consistent, honest, and accurate manner. Then you would only be wrong on grounds of good sense and judgment and not the more easily ridiculed aspects you are currently being mocked for. And who knows, you might even have a good point and even be correct about something once in a while and get noted for and engaged on it. Some of us would like to have a real opposition that actually can argue their POV in a reality connected manner, unlike so many of you in the BT sphere we like having differing points of views being engaged (as long as they are connected to reality that is), we find we get better results and better conclusions that way instead of feeling the need for empty ego stroking and acting as mouthpieces for a political leader/party. But then we are actually interested in matters of substance connected to reality and understand the importance of such.
(Sorry CC, couldn't resist the additional snark, but this really does drive me wild, I really miss having honest political opposition that I could argue with and at the end of the day still see someone grounded in reality even when I sharply disagree with their ideas like I grew up with)
Scotian:
It probably would have been more productive if I had suggested Googling on the word "paraphrase," following what would probably have been the first hit to Wikipedia, then simply reading the first two paragraphs to see what I was getting at.
I'm just tired of trying to intellectually engage those who are hideously incapable of it.
I commented that she must be kicking herself for not having AdSense!
CC:
"I'm just tired of trying to intellectually engage those who are hideously incapable of it."
I hear that!!! I've more or less stopped bothering, my health simply isn't up for it anymore. Besides, I have you to rely on for making these wonderfully pointed observations for me, it is after all why yours is one of the blogs I check first whenever I am checking the blogs at all.
As to your comment, it might have been more productive, but somehow going by past results I wouldn't have been willing to bet even a penny on it. There is a reason one of my personal favourite expressions is "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
Actually wiki doesn't agree with you, CC:
"...It is incorrect to use quotation marks for paraphrased speech. This is because a paraphrase is not a direct quote, and in the course of any composition, it is important to document when one is using a quotation versus when one is using a paraphrased idea..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation_mark
Sorry, Holly, no dice. If you read carefully, you'll notice that the prohibition against quotation marks for paraphrased speech holds only if you aren't making it clear that it's a paraphrase.
If you clearly denote what you're writing as a paraphrase, quotation marks are perfectly acceptable.
Read what you quoted again in that light, and you'll see what I mean.
By the way, Holly, I just popped over to that page at Wikipedia, and I'm curious as to why you chose to ignore the following:
"However, another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph or sentence—for example, in an essay—is to recognize double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation ..."
Kind of lessens the impact of your comment, don't you think?
shorter holly: "shorter what?"
KEvron
fuck wiki: dramatica!
everything old is new again....
KEvron
Ongoing even. So good!
Where's Ardsy
"Where's Ardsy?"
I don't know but given that he was pissing and moaning:
"please find me a quote or reference that says it is proper to use quotation marks when it isn't an actual quote."
and I did exactly that with:
"... another convention when quoting text in the body of a paragraph or sentence—for example, in an essay—is to recognize double quotation marks as marking an exact quotation, and single quotation marks as marking a paraphrased quotation ..."
I'm going to guess that that's somehow not going to count because shut up.
I didn't ignore it since I know that you are literate. I would use single quotation marks for a paraphrase.
Wait until Sara finds out the path through Fred Penner's log leads to a crackhouse.
Post a Comment