Tripitaka of AA
16th August 2003, 12:02
I saw Phil Elmore's thread, asking for contributions to his E-Publication "The Martialist".
I like Phil's posts on E-Budo. Amusing stories, nice contributions to debate, etc.
Then I read the thread titled "Spyderco Ronin", which is a review of a "knife". I was reminded of the differences between Phil's view of life on the street and my own. His advocacy of weapon-carrying is at odds with my own beliefs and we've discussed it in the past (not a lot, just enough for me to realise that we have different views).
Now I'm sure that Phil's publication would be happy to feature articles that offer alternative voices from his own, that's what he askeds for, after all.
My concern is that so much harm is done these days "by association". I read the papers, and everybody covered by a story is described in terms of who they have been with, where they have been and what other people might have said to them. It really gets up my nose, that this "no smoke without fire" attitude is used to smear anyone and everyone. Yet I am as guilty as the next person, of believing in rumours and unsubstatiated claims, when it comes to reading about people I don't know. As an old cynic, I find it increasingly difficult to trust anyone completely, so I doubt the media Icons during their rise, and doubt their crimes during the media-led witch-hunts that inevitably follow.
If I was lucky enough to have an article published by Phil. Someone would use it to show that I support and agree 100% with everything Phil has ever said, written or spoken about.
Call me a coward. many people do. I don't wish to disparage Phil or his work, but I wouldn't want people to see my work in a publication that goes against my principles.
Hhmmmm, I wonder if this should have been as an Email to Phil.
I like Phil's posts on E-Budo. Amusing stories, nice contributions to debate, etc.
Then I read the thread titled "Spyderco Ronin", which is a review of a "knife". I was reminded of the differences between Phil's view of life on the street and my own. His advocacy of weapon-carrying is at odds with my own beliefs and we've discussed it in the past (not a lot, just enough for me to realise that we have different views).
Now I'm sure that Phil's publication would be happy to feature articles that offer alternative voices from his own, that's what he askeds for, after all.
My concern is that so much harm is done these days "by association". I read the papers, and everybody covered by a story is described in terms of who they have been with, where they have been and what other people might have said to them. It really gets up my nose, that this "no smoke without fire" attitude is used to smear anyone and everyone. Yet I am as guilty as the next person, of believing in rumours and unsubstatiated claims, when it comes to reading about people I don't know. As an old cynic, I find it increasingly difficult to trust anyone completely, so I doubt the media Icons during their rise, and doubt their crimes during the media-led witch-hunts that inevitably follow.
If I was lucky enough to have an article published by Phil. Someone would use it to show that I support and agree 100% with everything Phil has ever said, written or spoken about.
Call me a coward. many people do. I don't wish to disparage Phil or his work, but I wouldn't want people to see my work in a publication that goes against my principles.
Hhmmmm, I wonder if this should have been as an Email to Phil.