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 (http://bit.ly/honsYx). 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*