| Oregon Magazine |
| Response to a Reader
Note (text below mine) Thanks, AR, but I already knew about that. That mis-use of the stats is not the product of Oregon Magazine staff research. Not that we are without fault. We're as capable as screwing up as the next guy. But, the purpose of the E-RFDs, which is pointed out at the end of them, is not that particular truth. It has to do with a look at what's going around, like for example the Salem Witch trials or the Declaration of Independence. Some of them are factually and logically accurate, and some are baloney to the dimensions of myth. You do not see an Oregon Magazine byline or copyright on them. That means they were not produced by our group. Go back to the piece, or any other E-RFD in the magazine and scroll to the bottom of the page. You will find the notice there. My point is that (A) sometimes such messages contain things so true that the mainstream media wouldn't think of publishing them, and (B) sometimes such messages contain pure BS, but are so well-written that unless you have some intelligence and a questioning mind, you can be taken in by them. In this one department, I usually refuse to tell the reader which kind they are looking at. If they're too damn dumb to even be curious if what is said is accurate or pure crap, that's their problem. I don't need them as readers. Your text is clear and well written. That means you have a good brain. In turn, that means you understood my explanation above. If you think in spite of my declared reasons the E-RFD is a bad idea, you could be right. But, I think it is a good idea, and will continue doing it. If you publish a magazine, you get to do it your way, right? Again, thanks for the note. From my standpoint, it means the E-RFD is working. Let me know when you win the federal senator job in your state. I will allow you to take welfare money from drug addicts and give it to me so I can buy a fishing lodge with a boat dock on the best bass lake in Oregon. You'll get free access and a chair, where the waiter will bring us beer and sandwiches, and we can argue about how wonderful or terrible my ideas are. Best, LL/OrMag Andrew Rapp wrote: Larry, Here are the real casualty numbers from the government. The numbers you have at OregonMag are bogus!!! 7,500 soldiers died from 1993 to 2000 under Clinton. 8,989 soldiers died from 2001 to Dec. 31, 2006 under GWBush. http://siadapp.dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY DEATHS
|