posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:18 PM
reply to post by redhorse
As you say, it's an interpretation of her article, just as yours and anyone else's is. I actually considered editing my first post after posting it
to add that I have little time for Shriver anyway, which I'm sure is obvious
and perhaps in hindsight I should have done - lesson learned I guess.
I don't think I've skewed any facts, just offered my interpretation and criticism of the article.
I do believe that her article is as sloppy and sensationalised as the reporting she's criticising - 'demonise', for example, is imho too emotive a
word to have a place in a reasoned discussion, and the diversion into the two paragraphs about Asperger's is sloppy to say the least, as the weight
she gives the discussion in such a short article in my opinion serves the opposite purpose to that you suggest she intended (and I agree with you
about her intention). But that's my opinion of her as a writer, and I know very many people don't share it.
To be clear: I absolutely do not think Nancy Lanza deserved to die and I believe that everyone deserves to be mourned, even Adam Lanza, and absolutely
Nancy. I maybe shouldn't have asked my question about the law around gun keeping in the same post as I see how it might have given that impression, I
just didn't want to double post tbh. Again, lesson learned.
Thanks for your comments and the discussion
edit on 30-12-2012 by Brocade because: clarification (hopefully!)