If you want to know if anyone is reading your stories, make sure you insert a mistake about George Washington.
Oh, if only I could claim it was all a ploy by Calendar editors to gauge readership. But when I wrote in Saturday's story about HBO that George Washington stepped down from the presidency after serving only one term, it was just a stupid, blind error, the sort that leaves you smiting your forehead, literally and repeatedly, the moment it is pointed out to you.
For the six or seven people living in the Los Angeles Basin who did not e-mail to correct me, he served two terms, not one. And my daddy was a history teacher! Ever since the first e-mail hit my box (on Friday afternoon, about two seconds after the story went up on the website), I have been bathed in hot shame. But I want to thank you, well, most of you, for the gentle tone you took -- most clever subject line award goes to: Is a TV Critic Smarter Than a 5th Grader? -- though I certainly deserved all those incredulous exclamation marks as well. And yes, I did go to college. Graduated even.
Also, for the record, we entertainment writers are held just as accountable for flubbed historical references as any other journalist. The correction runs today online and in tomorrow's print edition, and I will try to comfort myself with the knowledge that a good, strong dose of humility is always good for the soul. Especially the soul of a critic.
The Readers' Representative also e-mailed me (and, I assume, all the other readers who wrote in) first thing this morning to respond to my Saturday e-mail noting the error.
Related Posts (on one page):
- L.A. Times Writer Apologizes for George Washington Error:
- Learn Something New Every Day:
Thus, again, the awesome power of The
ForceInternet/Blogosphere is revealed . . . .That said, while I agree with LM, I think the level of discourse on comment threads often precludes such a gracious response. While I would like to believe in OK's 'good faith' rationale for posters, too often we see the following:
1. The grammarian post. After someone makes a substantive post, someone who ideologically disagrees with them attempts to show how vapid their argument is by pointing out some trivial spelling/grammar error. Since most posts are written off the cuff, as opposed to with deep reflection and with pinpoint cites, this seems both juvenile and asinine. Are there not better nits to pick?
2. Argument by anecdote (or, generally, ad verecundiam). Unless you're one of the few posters here who have been outed, relying on your own personal experience in an anonymous post does not 'win' an argument, or adherents to any side.
3. Winning an argument. This takes everyone (even me) a while to figure out. You don't 'win' an argument on these threads. Make your point, then get out. Don't respond to the many idiots who respond to you. Especially if they USE ALL-CAPS for emphasis. No matter how correct, or how rational, your belief is, there will be those who disagree. If you post that the sun is hot, someone will post that the sun is, in fact, cold. Just remember that others can tell by themselves that the response is idiotic; you don't need to point it out.
4. Snark feels good. If you can't be a part of the solution, become a part of the problem, right? But, uh, don't you have better things to be doing? Like a life, or something?
All that said, if a fellow-poster does point out an error in fact you have made, it is best to follow the example above and be gracious. Don't just move the goalposts.
(Small voice): she?
Lovely apology. That's something to aim for in our own lives. Thank you, Ms. McNamara.
TWICE in one day (maybe 3 if you count each of his last two posts separately)--at least for me. CrazyTrain doesn't live up to his moniker after all.
That said, I would add a small caveat to his statements about expertise.
There are some posters, myself included, who, though while anonymous, have shared personal knowledge--and I trust that person's expertise (even if I don't agree with it) unless I am shown evidence to the contrary.
To pick some regular posters at random, I believe Neurodoc really is a neurologist and when he is speaking as a medical doctor, I figure he knows what he is talking about. MDJD2B is in the same boat, though I don't know that person's medical specialty.
Kovarsky is an expert on habeas corpus; Anderson knows criminal law and Mississippi culture; Whit is (or at least was) a police officer, and when he is speaking about police procedure, it is clear that he has a professional background.
So, while I may disagree with these people some or most of the time, I do think that if an anonymous poster has established his or her bona fides, that poster does have extra credibility when he is discussing his or her field of expertise.
So, if Loki13 is offended at accidentally being confused with CrazyTrain, and if CrazyTrain is offended that I confused him with Loki13, I apologize to both of them.
It is the end of the world. And I am losing my mind.
I may disagree with you more often than not, but you are assuredly not a troll.
Thanks. I didn't take it that way. I was kidding.
I figured you were, but I have had more than a little fun today (across 2 threads no less) in honestly agreeing with posters with whom I generally disagree (though I do hope without being disagreeable).
Are you listening Hillary?
That said, this is an example of not knowing what you don't know.
It looks as if her emphasis on the nastiness of Washington's first term led her to believe that he would have stepped down.
He didn't. Maybe the emphasis was overdone.
All the time he was absorbing with his famous stoicism the slings and arrows, he was also considered a demigod by many of his fellow citizens. Maybe that offset the political nastiness.
A woman who can admit error, and with humor ... if I was single and in her area I'd be trying to figure out how to (a) determine if she was married and (b) if not, how to arrange an introduction.