Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Who Killed Richard Swink?
I'm not completely anti-censorship, but both of you already know that. Europe does just fine with the restrictions they have on free speech, all of which have been cited in another thread. But here they are again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by… Re #53: That doesn't address anything I said. And I didn't use any words I'd consider "fancy." Re #54: Those are broad, general statements about "politics and religion" that don't address this situation, or even these types of situations in general. This was a specific case about publishing a picture of a deceased individual, who obviously had no say in the matter. He was not a public figure. Doesn't everyone but a public figure have to sign a release before their pic even gets published? Seems like the dead would get as much respect as the living. Oh, I forgot, this is not "published." That's the out, isn't it?— October 27, 2009 8:45 p.m.
Just Move On Already
"However, 10 years ago I would be on my way to the store to buy some pink spray paint and beer." <snort> I'd go witchya!— October 27, 2009 8:23 p.m.
Who Killed Richard Swink?
Re #51: One was absolutely necessary to make a point that the individual himself wanted to make. It's an iconic photo featuring an act of defiance by an individual who was willing to die for his beliefs. It's an inspirational photo; the individual wanted it to be seen. Performed in public, to be seen by the public. On purpose. The other was not only completely unnecessary to relay the story connected to it, but the indvidual involved had no choice whatsoever about how his lifeless body was displayed to the public. Do you really think HE would have preferred that picture to be shown to the public? Not just due to his own wishes, but do you not think that he'd have considered how it might affect his family and friends? No comparison whatsoever.— October 27, 2009 8:11 p.m.
Stringers Are NOT Reader Reporters, plus Taylor Swift's Taylor Guitar, Local Blogger Silenced By Killers, Wavves Calls SD "Wretched," SDMA Fishwrap, Zappa, Weiland, Axl, Blackheart, Ms. Beatle, Halford, Mower, more
"Or maybe you want to tell me, like two of your white male posters did, that I’m just a delicate flower?" I'm not a damn bit delicate, and I find most of what that guy writes to be offensive and unintelligent. My reading requirements are simple. When I take the trouble to read something, I expect to be entertained, educated, or inspired. There are plenty of blogs on this site that meet one or more of those requirements. His isn't one of them. Practically everything he writes is "incidiary." Deliberately so. His daily blogs essentially consist of picking out some person or group of people, making a negative judgment about them, and saying some nasty, judgmental things. This is always supported by unsubstantiated "facts" that usually begin with the phrase "I heard." Said facts are usually, if not always, wrong. It's a pitiful excuse for "journalism" that's nothing more than muckraking in the tradition of Limbaugh and can hold only that demographic. This is notwithstanding the revolving door of new folks that he constantly asks to contribute to his blog, both in person and via email, and then verbally abuses them once they do so. Luckily for him, he gets around a lot, and meets a lot of new people. Therefore, his readers are replaceable -- which is a good thing, because you'll notice that most of them don't stick around for long. I'm not the only reader and former contributor to his blogs that knows that he collects information about people and then uses it to provoke them when he writes these incindiary blogs. He "baits" people. He'll name groups that he knows you're a part of, and announce that they're all "idiots," etc. It's obvious and thinly veiled to those of us who have been through this cycle with him. Basically, the dude tries to run his blog like it's the Howard Stern radio show. (Which is not altogether unexpected, since he's a former radio guy.) Pop off with something obnoxious, and then let your callers/readers do all the work for you with their phone calls/comments. Fill the airspace, fill the bandwidth. Same thing. Great scam. It's disingenuous of the Reader to disavow responsibility for what he writes just because it's in his "personal" blog in another spot on the website. Q: Now, let me get this straight. This guy is a PAID STAFFER. A: That's right. Q: But he's not held to the standards of a paid staffer? A: Not when he's over there. Q: Over where? A: There. Over there in that other spot. Q: On your website? The same website? A: Correct. Q: Huh? A: Yeah. Right. It's a problem.— October 27, 2009 7:58 p.m.
Who Killed Richard Swink?
I don't need to look at the link of the monk who set himself on fire; it's a famous enough photo. But how a photo conveying a deliberate act, performed by a living individual's own conscious choice, in order to convey an important political message compares with a dead body in the street, I have no idea.— October 27, 2009 7:13 p.m.
Who Killed Richard Swink?
"AG: I bet Buddha would not have a problem with that photo." I'm not gonna put words in Buddha's mouth. But I'd speculate that you're probably wrong about that. Anyone? Buddhists...Buddhists...Buddhists?— October 27, 2009 4:31 p.m.
Who Killed Richard Swink?
"LOLOLOL Invoking my Fifth Amendment rights on that one, AG!" So let me get this straight, Cuddle: a.)You meant to type "1st" b.)But instead you typed "2nd" c.)So now you're pleading the 5th? My head hurts. :/— October 27, 2009 4:17 p.m.
Who Killed Richard Swink?
"I would not seek to have the image removed. I wouldn't want to look at it, but I think that truth is much more important than putting up a shield to hide the fact that people are murdered. The opposite upsets me more. First, the photo goes away. Then, the story doesn't get written. Then, we're in complete denial. It becomes more difficult to fix problems when we are forbidden to see or know about them." See, THIS is the problem. This RIGHT HERE. Black-and-white thinking. "The opposite upsets me more." Contrary to Western thinking, and contrary to Western politics, everything does not have to exist in terms of polar opposites. "First, the photo goes away." The end. Everything is not a damned "slippery slope." Everything does not have to be one EXTREME or the other. Each political party in this country, for example, is so afraid of "getting the ball rolling toward the other side" that nobody will ever be reasonable about anything. Europe knows that it's all about common sense, common decency, and the common good. Consideration for one's neighbor, manners, ethics. Those are always to be found on the Middle Path. Listen to Buddha, for Chrissake.— October 27, 2009 4:14 p.m.
Who Killed Richard Swink?
"...Freudian slip, anyone?" Why, because you felt like shooting somebody when you (mis)typed that? :)— October 27, 2009 4:04 p.m.
Stringers Are NOT Reader Reporters, plus Taylor Swift's Taylor Guitar, Local Blogger Silenced By Killers, Wavves Calls SD "Wretched," SDMA Fishwrap, Zappa, Weiland, Axl, Blackheart, Ms. Beatle, Halford, Mower, more
"By the way, I take it back that Josh Board is the Don Imus of the Reader. Don Imus is at least occasionally informative and amusing. ;)" LOL. I had the same thought!— October 27, 2009 3:58 p.m.