you seem to have missed not only the point, but the continent that the point is located on.
obviously you didn't 'tacitly endorse' Berlusconi. but you clearly said that by declining to endorse Gantt, Michael Jordan was unprincipled. i doubt you're aware of this, but it is not common practice in the US for athletes to endorse candidates. strangely, you seem shocked that Cook (who is no saint himself, on that i'd agree) dares pretend to take the moral high ground against.... Silvio How-much-is-that-jury-in-the-window Berlusconi?
perhaps you can, instead of dodging the issue, explain how is your giving Berlusconi a free pass from *your* public platform is any less reprehensible than Mr. Jordan's failure to endorse a candidate (according to *your* logic).
more details, as if you'd pay attention:
Marina said:
this is quite the stupidest email I have received today. your logic is so
flawed a child of nine could see I didn't "tactily endorse" berlusconi -
you seem to have missed my logic entirely. yet strangely you see fit to comment on the "stupidity" of it. but hey, straw men make easy targets, don't they. clearly my email was stupider than the threats of violence you allegedly received, whereas *this* email from *you* shines like a beacon of intelligence and logic.
Marina said:
and nor did Michael Jordan tactitly endorse Jesse Helms. as for the Hitler
reference, words fail me....
*your* words:
Marina said:
It was Nike whence he came, of course, where he was in charge of Michael Jordan's brand, another chap – how to put this? – who has never allowed himself to be held back by the dead weight of principle. When the segregationist Republican senator Jesse Helms ran against a black Democrat in his home state of North Carolina, Jordan famously declined to take sides on the basis that "Republicans buy sneakers too".
clearly, according to you, Mr. Jordan is unprincipled for not endorsing a candidate. incidentally, i lived in North Carolina at the time, and voted for Gantt.
the Hitler reference was hyperbole. apparently you're the only one allowed to use it.
Marina said:
word of advice:your email is so aggressively patronisin, and indeed plain
aggressive, that it is guilty of precisely what you accuse me of, which
unfortunately means that you lost me at hello. harder than it looks, isn't
it? it is an OPINION COLUMN. if you don't agree, fine - but it is a
perfectly valid opinion.
as for losing you at hello, it obviously wasn't intended as a charm campaign. congrats for figuring that one out. feel free to explain why i should heed your unsolicited advice.
as for my email, *i*didn't get paid for it, so i fail to see where i should be held to professional standards. it was, however, up to *your* standards.
if you don't agree with it, fine, but surely you can't deny that it's a perfectly valid opinion.
