Wrapping it up with the Wayne Review

I'm tired of emailing the Wayne Review, so I thought I'd post their most recent reply and comment on it here.

From: waynereview@yahoo.com
To: Jeffrey
Date: April 19, 2004
Subject: Re: Logical fallacy lesson

Jeffrey,

Once again, I tried to explain to you that *I* did not write the article. If you want to get into grammar, please refrain from using YOU when you actually mean *HE* referring to the author of the editorial.

Joe, why can't I bring up grammar issues with you? You are, after all, the editor-in-chief. Does the buck stop at the writer's keyboard? If so, what the fuck do you do at the Wayne Review? Drink beer and come up with John Kerry jokes?

To address your other comments. As far as a Straw-man fallacy I do know what it means. But I cannot speak on the article and I would never speak on someone's written work for them. That is more dishonest than printing articles that lack any factual merit.

I wonder what Howell Raines would say about that? Like it or not, Joe, as editor-in-chief, you hold a level of responsibility for the articles you publish, and I will hold you responsible when your writers are intellectually dishonest. Like it or not.

As I said, I cannot speak for the Author, as it pertains to the first rhetorical quote though, I can say that much of that is a summarized version of the first Rawlsian "Justice as Fairness" theory.

When did Rawls become chairman of the DNC? Thanks for proving part of my point for me.

Much of A.A. deals with a conception of Rawls or at least some off-shoot of his theories. It is uncertain whether or not we are going to print again this year, but if you are around next year and wish to respond to anything, with a counter article, we would love to print dissenting points, space permitting. We are not close minded about debates, and I personally, although I cannot speak for my entire staff, think that debate about Affirmative Action is necessary. Racial issues in America must move forward and must gain positive ground. If we wish to accomplish the goals and see the principles of the Founding Fathers come true, we must strive for equality amongst all people. We at the Review think that Affirmative Action is not the way to go unfortunately.

To try and do an entire article on Affirmative Action, one would have to include every argument for and against it to be "intellectually honest" in your opinion?

No, you just have to represent the arguments you do include fairly. Let me quote from the article again: "The interesting thing is the liberals can only point..." I sincerely hope you're not trying to imply that anecdotes and institutional racism are the only evidence supporting affirmative action. If you are, then a bunch of scholars with Google will quickly show you for the liar you are.

I think that the point of this article was to show that not much has changed since reconstruction for Liberals and their view on Black Americans place in society. But once again, I will contact the author and I will forward him your email. He can then respond to your specific questions. But remember, I speak for the review, the authors individually only speak for themselves and the article.

Again, I must ask you -- if you speak for the Review, but not the articles, then what do you speak for?

As for the "your" point. You're right. I am awful with that, it is not that I don't understand the rule, its that I usually type so fast and don't think about it. I am constantly being made aware of it, and it is a bad habit. I will give you that point. As for the red pen, we are always looking for copy editors :)

I guess now would be a good time to mention that you just misused "its". Possessive adjective versus contraction!

Once again, thank you for responding, I appreciate your passion and admire your commitment to this topic.

Joe Koss
Editor, The Wayne Review

p.s. I was upset that no comment was made about the Wizard of Oz comment, but I guess humor has no place in intellectual debate?

That was a joke?