Get a life. And get over your little obsession with Chris Krok.
Every time you attempt to post something here, I get your IP address.
Today’s attempted post, which I immediately shitcanned, came from this IP: 70.168.243.164 , WMAZ-LCLNSCVI.13WMAZ.COM
Well well well! Looks like I’m really making friends at the Telegraph!
George McCanless emailed me a reply today, and copied Charles Richardson and Sherrie Marshall.
There’s so much wrong with this condescending “go eff yourself” email. I’m going to publish it here and, since Mr. McCanless and Mr. Richardson read this blog (hi guys! one of these days we’ll have an Obama-style “beer summit” and laugh about this), give my answer in public.
I hope you saw Charles’ note on the letters page this past Sunday regarding our letters policy. As far as how many times people are published, that rule was instituted to control prolific writes who submit stuff to us on a daily basis. However, we reserve the right to run writers more than once if their letter is of particular relevance in a discussion or in relation to current events.
It comes as no suprise to me that your “favorites” send you letters every day. No suprise at all.
So you admit that you do publish some of your “favorites” more than once per week. Sorry but your excuse doesn’t fly. One letter a week should be one letter a week. Period. The extra letters you print from your favorites are no more “particular relevance” than any other letter on the same subject from those who don’t get published.
As far as your letters go, I refer you to the guidelines we run everyday on the Opinion page: “Priority will be given to letters that address contemporary local issues and have community wide interest. Letters whose only intent is to direct personal criticism, or letters that are racially divisive or otherwise objectionable, will not be considered.”
With that in mind, don’t you think that Daniel Schlafer’s weekly letters attacking Sarah Palin have as their only intent to direct personal criticism? I have it on good authority that the owner of The Rifleman wrote a reply to the hit piece that Ed Corson wrote about his radio ads. Did that get published? Look what Chris Krok had to go through to get his reply published when he was attacked by one of your columnists. Where are the letters presenting “the other side”? Daniel Schlafer has had 10 letters printed this year. How many of those were not personal attacks on Sarah Palin or Fox News? Those are the only two subjects he writes about. Keep in mind that I do keep track, so if you want statistics I will be happy to post them up.
The emails you have copied me on are nothing more than petty attacks on The Telegraph because we run some letter or letters that you do not agree with, or your attempting to take us to task for running a letter writer more than once a week. Neither of these in my analysis meets the criteria for addressing local issues or appealing to community interest. And yes, our policy is to prohibit form letters and press releases. We do our best to weed them out, and I think we do a very good job in that regard. Sure, one or two has gotten through, but those submitters have now been flagged for additional review.
Petty? Only because you don’t like what I have to say, Mr. McCanless. I do not email you because I don’t agree with a letter you publish. I have only taken you to task for publishing your favorites more than once a week, for printing Sarah Hunt’s cut-and-pasted form letter, and for twice printing plagiarized letters from Frank Gadbois. I submit to you that my letters regarding Frank Gadbois’ plagiarism, and the fact that you would not say anything publicly even when you published a letter praising one of his plagiarized letters, are indeed very much of interest to the community.
Mr. Ganas, fortunately we get way more letters than we have space to print them. As a result, we choose to deal with the ones that do address topical issues, especially dealing with our local community. You obviously have an interest in these issues as well since you seem not only to read the letters section every day, but to even keep track of who writes what. I would encourage you to direct that time and energy in opining about these issues, and sharing with others your ideas on how to improve our community and our country. Those are the kinds of letters we place priority on, and which have the most benefit to readers, and which end up in print.
In other words, “please stop watching us so closely, we don’t like having egg on our faces”. Mr. McCanless, do you know how much time I actually spend on this little project of mine? It only takes a few minutes to write down the names of letter writers each day. I multi-task. I do that while drinking my morning coffee. If I had wireless at home, I could do it while taking my morning dump, which in a way would be appropriate.
Judging by the tone of your email, and the fact that you copied Charles Richardson and Sherrie Marshall, I’m willing to bet it wasn’t a happy day in the ivory editorial tower when Frank Gadbois’ very first letter after his suspension in February was revealed to be plagiarized. How did the phone call from the New York Times’ Rights and Permissions department go? They weren’t very happy with you, were they?
I’m not going to stop, Mr. McCanless. The Viewpoints page is a joke.
Well well well!
Looks like Charles Richardson had to soldier up and make a public statement today. I’d say it is a minor win, even though he still won’t come out and name Frank Gadbois as the plagiarist; nor did he address the FACT that there is a small group of regulars who get priority over everyone else. And of course he still won’t admit to printing more than one letter per week from his “favorites” nearly every week as has been documented here.
Is Frank Gadbois really banned for six months as we’ve been led to believe? We shall see. I’d love to find out what sort of fallout there was at the Telegraph over Frank’s latest plagiarization of a New York Times article.
Now as for Charles Richardson’s statement, well I’m going to help Mr. Richardson out a little bit and re-write it for him.
The Viewpoints page is an open forum for the community to discuss the issues of the day. The Telegraph is proud to print more letters per week from my favorite letter writers than any other newspaper in Macon. We try, as best we can, to figure out a way to print a letter rather than discard it. At times, our letter writers rightfully disagree with our editing choices. While some will find it hard to believe, most edits are made based on who wrote the letter rather than space considerations. We receive hundreds of submissions every week. It would be easier to print another letter from one of our favorites than to purposely sift through and find someone who hasn’t been published in a long time, which is what some writers have proven.
// <![CDATA[
if( typeof( miyahoo ) != "undefined"){
if( miyahoo.ads[ mi_live_or_preview ].dart.enabled ){
_krdDartInc++;
document.write('’);
}
}
// ]]>
Here are a few tips that will aid us in publishing your letter. We try to publish letters in the order we receive them, but letters written by our favorites receive preference. While we have a word limit, we reserve the right to adjust that limit depending on the author and space available. Shorter letters, however, are likely to be published before longer letters, as are letters received via e-mail, and anything written by Daniel Schlafer.
Two of our most vexing problems in this age of technology are plagiarism and form letters. It is possible to pull information from the Internet from thousands of sources. Now that we’ve been busted twice for printing plagiarized letters from Frank Gadbois, we ask our letter writers to follow one simple rule: If you copy information from any source, credit the source. Failure to give credit where credit is due will result in being banned from this page for a period no less than six months It is unfair and ethically wrong to pass off other people’s ideas and words as one’s own. It is possible to check each letter in only a matter of minutes on Google; fortunately, readers often spot and report violators and we try to cover up as much as possible. Such was the case recently when Frank Gadbois plagiarized ‘Sarah and Her Tribe’ by Jonathan Raban and then a month later plagiarized ‘Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues’ by Kate Zernike of the New York Times.
Form letters are another issue. They are available all over the Internet pushing various causes. During the height of the health-care debate, we received hundreds of form letters for and against health-care reform. Most were caught. They are pretty easy to spot — but I just don’t bother checking when I agree with the writer. If you read a letter you believe to be a form letter, please let us know and we’ll ignore you.
A few minor issues. Please do not send the same letter repeatedly. I’m easily confused and can’t discern which version of the letter you wanted to be published so I’ll just go ahead and reprint your letter. If you would like to personally see how the editing process works for letters to the editor, give me a call and I’ll set a date.
1 month and 2 days after being suspended for plagiarizing his letter of 14 February, Frank is back and plagiarizing again!
Yes indeed folks! He didn’t learn his lesson whatsoever. And apparently neither did Charles Richardson. Oh by the way Charles, since I know you read this blog, the New York Times Rights and Permissions Department was VERY interested to know about Frank’s plagiarism.
Frank’s letter today was plagiarized from the New York Times article Tea Party Avoids Divisive Social Issues by Kate Zernike. I found her article to be fairly objective, whereas Frank’s plagiarism of her work is full of his usual ultra-left-wing vitriol against the Tea Party movement. Not only did he plagiarize her work, he also twisted it to fit his own agenda.
Here’s Frank Gadbois’ letter. Highlited in red are the parts he plagiarized.
The Tea Party leadership is anti-social, has no platform or headquarters. No mention of God, family and life in their manifestos. The Tea Party Patriots has as its motto “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. (1)” They would “scrap the tax code. ” Their concerns are the “proper role of government, tax policy and the federal budgeting process” with only scant mention of social issues.(2)
The Tea Party movement mainly arose because the Republican Party under former President George W. Bush failed to be “representative of the economic conservative ideology.”(3)
Bush left our nation with $7.2 trillion in unfunded debt plus a $1.3 trillion deficit. Yet, ironically, most of us like some of the main elements of big government, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicare Part “D” Medicaid and earmarks for Middle Georgia.
Some Tea Party leaders even criticize Sarah Palin — normally one of their heroines — “for advocating divine intervention to help the country.”(4)
They are all about emphasizing “a return to the strict meaning of the Constitution.” They champion states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment, which restricts the role of the federal government.”(5)
The Tea Party leaders are right to aim for a big tent large enough to accommodate many different views.
Now here’s the parts of Kate Zernike’s article that Frank Gadbois plagiarized.
(1) God, life and family get little if any mention in statements or manifestos. The motto of the Tea Party Patriots, a large coalition of groups, is “fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.”
(2) The Independence Caucus questionnaire, which many Tea Party groups use to evaluate candidates, poses 80 questions, most on the proper role of government, tax policy and the federal budgeting process, and virtually none on social issues.
(3) This is a movement that rose largely because of the Republican Party failing to deliver on being representative of the economic conservative ideology.
(4) And some leaders criticized Sarah Palin — normally a Tea Party favorite — for advocating “divine intervention” to help the country.
(5) Tea Party leaders champion states’ rights, holding dear the Tenth Amendment, which restricts the role of the federal government.
I’ve also contacted Kate Zernike and alerted her personally of this plagiarism.
Look Charles, this isn’t about partisan politics nor is it about your petty little personal biases. Plagiarism is theft. Ms. Zernike’s work was stolen by Frank Gadbois and passed off as his own. That is called stealing. You of all people, as an editor of the Macon Telegraph should know that. And Frank Gadbois, as a retired librarian, should know it as well.
Way to go John Wilson! Give yourself a pat on the back, you’ve earned it!
THREE LETTERS IN ONE WEEK! And not just that, but THREE DAYS IN A ROW! We have a winner! Mr. Wilson was published Wednesday, yesterday, and today!
Hey Charles, what’s your excuse? If, somehow, a letter appears in print questioning why the 1-letter-per-week rule just doesn’t seem to apply to your exclusive little club of “favorites”, are you going to deny everything? Are you going to privately tell people “it was a mistake”? You make “mistakes” EVERY WEEK, Charles.
How come you can find room to print THREE LETTERS from John Wilson this week, but you’ve rejected every single letter I’ve written this year?
What happened, Charles? Don’t tell me Danny boy didn’t write at least 3 letters this week. For some strange reason, known only to you, he didn’t make it on the Viewpoints page this week. Did you two have a little spat? Knowing liberals the way I do, in his mind this is proof positive of the alleged “conservative bias” of the Telegraph. Tell me I’m wrong, I dare you!
But I see you did print 2 letters from John Wilson this week. One yesterday and one today. And why do you insist on wasting space on Alan Northington? Seriously! All he does is send quotes from Mark Twain. But you once again rejected a letter that I submitted regarding Howard Wooldridge even though it met all the guidelines for publication, and considering the subject matter I’d say it was definitely of local interest.
Now let me ask a question. I have it on good authority that the owner of The Rifleman wrote a letter in response to the hit piece that Phil Dodson wrote attacking his radio commercials. Why hasn’t it been published, Charles? Phil Dodson devoted an entire column to The Rifleman, and you refuse to give equal time to him in order to respond? Biased much? Tell you what. I’m reaching out to the owner of The Rifleman and I encourage my fellow bloggers to do the same. If you won’t publish his reply, as you should in the interest of fair and objective journalism even though neither exist at the Telegraph, I will publish it right here, unedited, and ask my fellow bloggers to publish it as well.
Admit it Charles. You run the Viewpoints page like an exclusive little club. You’ve got your “favorites” who you publish every week, every day giving them priority over all the other letter writers, nearly every week “forgetting” that they’ve already been published that week. You never admit to this favoritism and you’ve even lied more than once when you tell readers that your “favorites” are limited to one letter a week. You need to let someone else run the Viewpoints page, Charles. You’ve proven time and again that you’re just not fit for the job. Stick with your vanilla, no controversy radio gig with Kenny B.
Can you believe this? This is the arrogance of Charles Richardson and the editors of the Telegraph!
First they publish a letter praising Gadbois for a letter that he plagiarized.
Now they publish a letter asking where his letters have been lately, but DON’T BOTHER SAYING THAT HIS PRIVELEGES HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED FOR PLAGIARISM! Charles Richardson and the editors and publisher of the Telegraph REFUSE to tell the truth.
Oh and I sent a letter in on Friday regarding Howard Wooldridge. Guess what? It was rejected. No suprise there. I’m willing to bet, though, that Daniel Schlafer will have 2 letters printed this week.
Charles, do you ever pay attention? I warned you about Howard Wooldridge two weeks ago.
He’s a spammer. He writes letters to editors of newspapers across the country. No Charles, he’s not from Albany either. Two weeks ago, he was from Washington D.C. and today he’s writing from Albany?
Guess where else he tells gullible editors like you he’s from?
Now Charles, I realize it would be a complete waste of time to even think about writing a letter to the paper on this subject because you’d refuse to print it. You’re simply not man enough to admit when you screw up, and too prideful to admit that you are way too biased for the job.
So what I will do is send a copy of this to George McCanless.
Once again, Charles Richardson has rejected one of my letters. Charles? You’re being childish! Man up, print my letter (I’m sending you another in case the first four were “lost”) and admit that you are quite possibly the worst editor ever of the Viewpoints page.
Let’s see what today’s Viewpoints page brought us.
Ken Jones was printed for the second time this week. No doubt the fact that he sucked up to Charles and plugged the Mix 100.9 morning show helped Charles “forget” that Mr. Jones had just had a letter published on Monday.
James Spicer’s letter from yesterday was reprinted today. No idea how or why that happened, but at least Charles’ incredibly dishonest reply was reprinted right along with it. Charles, what’s going on? Yesterday you reprinted the same letter from Mike Pekarek that was printed Tuesday. But you couldn’t find space to print my letter? Right!
At this point, before I go on to two letters that were printed today, let’s take a look at the guidelines for getting letters published. This is taken directly from the Telegraph’s website:
GUIDELINES ON GETTING YOUR LETTER PRINTED
All letters must include the writer’s actual name, address and daytime phone number. We publish only name and city.
Sooooo……..
Today, two letters were printed from Howard Wooldridge of Washington DC and Ralph Givens of Daly City, California. Why? No local letters to print? Oh wait, why do I even bother asking? Aside from the reprint of James Spicer, all the other letters were from the same people printed every week.
Charles, Google is your friend. Google the term ‘Ralph Givens Letter’ and you’ll find out in only a few seconds that this guy really gets around. He’s like the Ellie Light of drug legalization. Know how long it took me to check out Ralph Givens? Less than 30 seconds. Same thing for Howard Wooldridge. Both he and Ralph Givens spam newspapers all over the country and you fell for it.
So we’re back to the question that James Spicer asked. Why? I realize that I, like him, am not Frank Gadbois nor am I Daniel Schlafer (speaking of Danny Boy, where’s he been lately?), nor am I any of the other handful of writers you show favoritism to when selecting letters for publication, but you have rejected my letters in favor of printing 3 people so far twice this week, reprinting 2 letters, and giving space to a couple of “spammers”. You had no problem publishing a letter that praised Frank Gadbois’ plagiarism, but you refuse to print any letters exposing it. Know how that looks to everyone? It looks like you’re trying to cover up the plagiarism of one of your “favorites”!
Charles, the denial no longer works. Nearly every week at least one of your “favorites” gets published twice. And don’t bother with the excuse of how you’re the only person editing the page. It takes me 1-2 minutes and a piece of paper to write down names and then read back over the list to find repeats.
Man up and admit it. You’ve done a crappy job as editor of the Viewpoints page and with each passing day you do an even worse job. Step aside, let someone who is more objective and more organized do the job, and stick with what you do best.
Not only have the editors of the telegraph remained silent on the matter of Frank Gadbois’ plagiarism, today they printed a letter from Martha Heckman PRAISING the letter that he plagiarized!!!
Ms. Heckman wrote:
In this instance, he is seeing and speaking with abundant clarity
Perfect opportunity for the editors to say “um, sorry, Frank didn’t write that letter, he stole it from Jonathan Raban” but no, not Charles Richardson.
Instead, Charles chose to LIE in his response to James W. Spicer who complained that his letter wasn’t printed. James makes perfect sense to me:
I have a question for the person or persons who make the decisions as to whether a submitted letter to Viewpoints is published. On Feb. 2, I submitted a letter by e-mail, responding to William B. Carter’s letter of Jan. 31. As of today my letter has not appeared in the Viewpoints section.
I have been very careful to follow the guidelines, outlined in the paper regarding personal criticism. I have read many letters this past week that were much more critical than mine.
Is it because my questions required honest answers that you do not want to read? Why do you continue to print letters that are total falsehoods as long as they are liberal in nature??
I know my name is not Frank Gadbois or Daniel Schlafer,. I just ask that you print my occasional submissions. I do not expect you to print this letter, I just would like an honest answer from you as to why you do not publish my letters
Yeah Charles, how about an explanation? Not like there wasn’t room to print Mr. Spicer’s letter
Why couldn’t you find the space to print Mr. Spicer’s letter, Charles?
We realize you’re a busy man, what with the morning talk show and spending all that time making sure no one is published more than once a week and no form letters or plagiarized letters are published, but surely you could have found room for Mr. Spicer’s letter.
After all, you did find the time to reply to Mr. Spicer:
The letter writers mentioned are restricted to one letter a week. We attempt to publish letters as they are received
Bullshit!
By the way, where did Mr. Spicer say ANYTHING about them being printed more than once a week? Feeling a little guilty after being caught, Charles?
Daniel Schlafer has been printed twice in a week two times so far this year and we’re only in the third week of February.
In fact, between 2 February and now, you’ve printed Daniel Schlafer 3 times (two of those letters in one week).
Jon Phillips twice in 1 week
Travis Middleton twice in 1 week
Carlton C. Cook twice in 1 week
Harry Stewart twice in 1 week
and Faye Tanner twice in 1 week.
You printed a form letter that Sarah Hunt DID NOT write
and you printed the now infamous plagiarized letter from Frank Gadbois.
So you wanna tell us again about that 1 letter a week rule, Charles?
This is your state-controlled media, folks!
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Mar | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
