The new image of Tearaway Magazine: Part II

But wait, there’s more!
I don’t usually get responses to my ranting and raving on here, so imagine my surprise when I log in and find TWO comments in response to my post from the other day ( One in the form of a comment on my page. The other was a thinly veiled rant from another blogger by the name of Brendan Malone, a predominant pro-lifer.

I felt so validated!

Unfortunately Mr Malone had misunderstood significant aspects of my blog post, so I set about setting him right.
For some reason he took such offense that he deleted not only my comment but the entire post!!

Fortunately for you I had already saved the text, enjoy!
(Edit: A huge thanks to Fox for figuring out a sweet way to pull the entire image of the page. Isn’t he amazing?)

To which I had replied:

You know, you’re right. My blog post was emotive, as personal blogs do have a tendency to be.

So maybe I should apologise for that.

While I’m at it, shall I apologise for switching between past and present tense over the course of my post? Just because you seem to be a little confused.
You see I spoke about how I loved Tearaway, past tense, when I was growing up.
Then I went on to point out that the magazine “isn’t what I remember”, present tense.

The Tearaway I remember wouldn’t have allowed either side of the argument to pay their way into the magazine.
They would not have allowed full-page advertisements masquerading as articles, let alone for only one side to be represented in any one issue.

The Tearaway I remember would have told both sides to keep their money. They would have run an expose, covering both sides of the argument in an impartial manner, to allow the readership to make their own decisions on the matter. Because at the end of the day, who are they to tell people what to think or believe?

And now I have another question to ask him: Why did you delete your post? Scared? *cue maniacal laughter*



Filed under Politically Inclined, Writing and Querk

2 responses to “The new image of Tearaway Magazine: Part II

  1. mecharusutron

    And what’s even more delicious, he seems to think that pro-choice means ANTI-LIFE. He’s set up a strawman in which pro-choicers are coercing young people into thinking that abortion is the only way. It tells me that he doesn’t understand that both camps don’t like abortion.

    I don’t think any reasonable person has a life goal that includes having an abortion. The difference is that a pro-choice person believes that a person should be able to make the decision for themselves without the interference of government or religion.

    • The thing that really gets me is that this strawman seems to be a common friend to the pro-life/anti-choice set. And they don’t seem to understand the need for a separation, insofar as it is actually possible, of Church and State when it comes to governance issues.

      But I’m not entirely sure that the Government grasps that half the time either, as the vote today on the members of the select committee underlined.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s