There is coloring and then there is coloring

[fool]

Bob; good job on acknowledging a thread in your own forum from Jan. 30 2004.:thumb:

 

[Vaquero45]

this post was heavily edited...

lol!! I posted a big thing chewing out ThePhy, saying Bob would admit he was wrong, and would the guy Jo Scott is talking about do the same? Then I scrolled down and saw that Bob had handled it.

Carry On....

 

[Bob Enyart]

Bob; good job on acknowledging a thread in your own forum from Jan. 30 2004.:thumb:

Hey, less than a year? That's not bad!

-Bob

[Oops, 2 years... okay, so... that's bad !]

 

[Army of One]

Hey, less than a year? That's not bad!

-Bob

Psst...It was 2004. But less than 2 years isn't bad either.

 

[fool]

Hey, less than a year? That's not bad!

-Bob

As Army pointed out about a year and a half.
Do you come to your forum much?

 

[Zakath]

Wow. You are going to hell!

Ain't I a stinker?

 

[taoist]

ThePhy, thanks for pointing all this out. Yes, you are correct. I clearly see that I incorrectly reported Kips demeanor.

In my incorrect recollection of his demeanor, I accidentally confused my interpretation of his reason for calling, with his actual demeanor. From your transcript:

>I just sit down in the studio and start to open the show and the phone rings, and it’s some worker at Pat Schroeder’s office, I think his name is Kip.

So far, I got that right, even his name after what, nine years?

That's actually pretty impressive, Bob.

>Kip is on the phone, and Kip is really mad. And he wants to know - he is just beside himself – and he wants to know – “Who, who sent this to us, did you” - and you could tell that he – “I just want to, I just want to confirm that you sent this to us.”

The part about him being “just beside himself” was completely wrong, as I now realize. I haven’t listened to the tape, and I doubt you are trying to say that he was making just a routine thank-you call. It seems clear to me that he returned the call immediately because he was angry at what he had just received. BEQ-KIP1: Phy, do you disagree with that?

It seems clear to me you didn't wait to draw breath before minimizing your misrepresentation. Do you have any idea how much outright kooky correspondence gets filtered from a public official's inbox every day? The staff is used to it, Bob. It's all part of a days work.

Staffers in charge of responding to constituent communication have a responsibility to identify the loons. Public figures attract dangerous psychopaths. Wasn't there a radio talk show host in Denver named Alan Berg that found that out the hard way? Hey, I googled him and I'm right. Gunned down in 1984. Wow, I remembered his name after twenty years! And I haven't lived in Denver since the mid 70s.

I doubt you received any special attention beyond what would be accorded to any fax originating from a radio station. Your inference of anger behind his professional demeanor is analogous to my inferrence of wishful thinking from a radio talk show host with a declining audience whose living depends on instigating disproportionate responses to anecdotes from everyday life. Hey, you've got to keep those listeners coming back!

Considering your emphasis on paying attention to the subtle meaning of "agreed" in another thread, don't you think it would be more forthright to split up your "that" into the four questions it represents?

>And he just got the information he wanted, and just before he hung up, I explained where we got the picture. And you could tell that sort of deflated his anger. Because what he thought was pornographic at one moment, that was a crime, being sent from a radio station to a governing official, that was so despicable and obscene and enraged him - and all of a sudden it was being given to girls and boys in the fourth grade, well that is perfectly acceptable.

I think this is all true. You might disagree with the “deflated his anger” part, but we’ll all find that out for certain soon enough.

Alternatively, he found that correspondence that might have come from a private kook was actually coming from a shock jock broadcaster and his professional interest flagged into ennui.

>Kip just in case you are listening out there somewhere in the world, you are a blithering idiot, you are a moron, you are a piece of human waste. What an idiot.

Yes. And strong words. For him to not help us expose that sexual abuse of children makes me despise him. I hope he repents.

Where there's life, there's hope.

Strong words? I don't think so. Words take on strength by virtue of their perceived truth. I'm guessing the provocation fell on deaf ears. This was just random abuse directed at a convenient target like a water balloon dropped on a passing pedestrian. Abuse mixed with poorly-concealed vulgarity, in fact.

Where there's Bob, there's euphemisms for offal, it seems.

 

[ThePhy]

Never ever ever review

Never ever ever review

From BE:

ThePhy, thanks for pointing all this out. Yes, you are correct. I clearly see that I incorrectly reported Kips demeanor.

There is a more significant point here. You acknowledge that your representation of Kip’s conversation was not accurate. But you have long had a loyal audience. It is very likely that some of them occasioned to listen to those two consecutive shows – where you describe the phone call in one show and then replayed it in the next. Did not a single one of those people detect what you now acknowledge, and ask you the same questions about it I have? If not, then the biblical representation of sheep may carry a deeper truth than just a leader protecting a flock. If I were you, that would concern me.

I haven’t listened to the tape, and I doubt you are trying to say that he was making just a routine thank-you call. It seems clear to me that he returned the call immediately because he was angry at what he had just received. BEQ-KIP1: Phy, do you disagree with that?

Yes. In this response you admit that once again you are judging Kip’s feelings without taking the time to listen to the recording. When the issue of what Kip said and his tone and demeanor is of sufficient interest to you to warrant your time to listen to it again, let me know. Till then, well …