Dear Rebecca, I'm sorry, but...I can't help but think that you're sorrier for the reactions your post generated than for what you actually said (and, more importantly, the tone in which you said it). You are angry that GMA broadcast your photo without your permission. You are trying to "shield your children". Methinks you may now have more in common with EE than you ever dreamed possible. Tit for tat, as they say (that was not meant to be a pun derived from my previous post, but you can take it as you will). I guess you forgot that when you put yourself out there in the public (yes, the blogosphere is public domain) you run the risk of being judged by a large and varied audience. Isn't that why we blog in the first place? We want someone to hear us. We hope that somebody out there finds what we have to say to be important, thought-provoking, perhaps inspiring. It's wise to remember that when we promote our thoughts, opinions, views, whatever, we are inviting, passively or not, the world to counter us. While our political candidates rarely enter into the process with blinders, it seems as though many who exercise their right to express themselves publicly (ie: via blogging) resort to crying foul when the public responds in the negative.
Dear Rebecca, I'm sorry, but...you took your chances when you posted your entry admonishing the Edwards family for their choices. Apologies notwithstanding, you need to acknowledge that you did so with implied consent to your detractors. You don't have to like it, but you need to accept it.
Dear Rebecca, I'm sorry, but...you forgot the first rule of internet communication:Never put anything out there that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of the newspaper.
1 comment:
Yes, Rebecca has certainly taken her medicine for that post. And why should we have been surprised that Elizabeth Edwards would find out -- she has a Google Alert for her name!
Post a Comment