An email from a friend pointed to me this post on Richard T. Cahill’s blog:
Please Leave Me Out Of It.
A new blog has taken an old quote from my blog out of context and used it as part of an attack against another blogger. While I appreciate my blog being read and appreciate being considered a source worthy of being cited, I have no issue with either of the bloggers.
If two bloggers have an issue with one another, that is their business. Please keep me out of it. I have more than enough drama in my life.
I always liked Rich’s blog, for its topics and civility. I feel his pain between the lines above, and I hope he feels mine at being accused of quoting out of context. Just to make sure we are all on the same page, here is what “out of context” means, at least according to Wikipedia:
The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
What part of “removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning” is hard to understand? Look at the way I quoted Rich:
Albeit about a different whopper, Rich Cahill’s description of Blaber’s blogging is fitting:
“This is without question the most vicious, idiotic, foolish, nonsensical, moronic, unfair, juvenile, and hateful attack piece I have ever seen. I have followed national, state, county, and city politics for many years. I have seen some real nasty stuff thrown out there by irresponsible candidates. This, however, takes the cake.”
Let me repeat this, in bold lettering: Albeit about a different whopper, Rich Cahill’s description of Blaber’s blogging is fitting. Clear statement: the quote refers to a different, but similar instance. As Rich clarifies:
- I do not deny writing that quote. It had to do with a bogus allegation being made against Nina Postupack.
The intended meaning was not distorted. A bogus allegation made against Manuela Michailescu is not less reprehensible than a bogus allegation made against Nina Postupack, and I have no reasons to believe that Rich Cahill and I disagree on this. Nothing was taken out of context. Period. Case closed.
There is more in Rich’s post and comment that rubs me the wrong way:
A new blog has taken an old quote from my blog out of context and used it as part of an attack against another blogger.
I just have no desire to be involved in a feud between two other parties. My request is to be kept out of it.
I’m not attacking Blaber, I’m exposing him for being a sneaky, untrustworthy and insincere person – a weasel – and I’m signing my accusations. There is no feud between us, as there is no feud between a witness and a perpetrator.
I know from Hugh Reynolds about some of the drama in Rich Cahill’s life:
Two-time Kingston mayoral candidate Rich Cahill Jr. has volunteered as a “stand-in” against powerful Democratic incumbent Kevin Cahill in the 103rd Assembly District. But that’s all. “I am absolutely not a candidate. My acting as stand-in gives the [Republican] committee more time to find a candidate,” he said.
It’s not easy to stand in. It’s even harder to stand up. Request granted.
– Jon Dogar-Marinesco
So I’m guessing that the bottom line is: I may have written it, put it on the world wide web on my blog (with my name on it) but I may not have the same feelings about that exact same situation at a later time… so don’t hold me to anything I post on my blog with my name. HUH?
Rich can’t possibly be afraid of parking tickets, so probably Bernardos got on his case and sicked Rascoe on him.
11:20am….Double talk seems to be the way of Ulster County politics.
I read Hugh Reynolds’ article and was surprised by Rich Cahill’s quote – I knew these things were done but I was surprised to actually see it in print.
Rich Cahill is an idiot.