Telling me it was a surprise that it was satire doesn't work when I already said that would be your excuse.
and you've given yourself away right there... claiming I need an 'excuse' for this? pfft. there's no need for an excuse when what
I was doing has been explained, quite clearly (bluntly even, as you've put it...)
I've stated that it was close to the line as far as satire is concerned... I've acknowledged that the line, in this case, has been pretty badly blurred...
but I know that I set out to do something, which I've done (and explained) and to have people's reactions to it extend this far has been great...
(by the way, the gentle - and not-so-gentle - "I don't like your work" jabs are only making your arguments seem, as I said, more about me and less about the piece... if you could clear up whether we're debating me or my writing, that'd be great... thanks
The people slagging you off are doing so under the full knowledge of what you were doing and several predicted your reaction. Saying it was a shocking, surprising parody (or 'hinting' at it by stating it repeatedly and bluntly,) no one expected over and over again doesn't make it true.
ahhh. ok. I see. you're saying that you knew it was satire, and that you hated it... because I was being ignorant.
never mind the fact that the piece was written for a specific purpose, and therefor written in a particular 'voice' or 'tone'... and that tone was necessary for the piece to have enough of an impact to achieve what
I wanted it to achieve.
in a sense, I was trying to piss people off. I was trying to get people to think. and I knew that the explanation was going to be forthcoming, and that people would read them both (hopefully) and then make their own calls on whether they're prepared to have the media they rely on for information sensationalise, editorialise and otherwise fuck with the story at hand...
And yes Gregor, myself, unlike everyone else who posted on your journal, who e-mailed you, posted here or otherwise tore away at your dramatic ignorance, have deigned to attack your article because I had a personal axe to grind. Hence why all of your other articles attracted as much ire from me personally (not to say they're any good, but I rarely bother saying anything about it,) and hence the thunderous acclaim you're receiving for this one, with only several dozen people reaching the same conclusion about it. Because there's nothing deeply and dramatically wrong with the last two articles you've posted which could possibly explain my reaction, a reaction you're supposed to have been expecting, and which is the same as 'many' others according to you.
I've read this paragraph about ten times, and don't understand it.
...not trying to be pissy, but I just don't get it... sorry Jason... what
are you trying to say?
Ironically I wouldn't have cared nearly as much had you actually just been trying to piss people off instead of the 'I didn't mean it except yeah it's all true' stance you're taking now.
is it, exactly, that you're pissed about?
sorry again, Jason - I'm not trying to be an arsehole about it, but your point's getting buried in there somewhere and I'm at a loss to drag it out.