A Letter, reprinted, by request of the author, from the Coat of Arms, with a reply.
Mr. Feamster:
Answering your challenge, I have asked that not only should my response be printed in this publication, since the letter was sent to it, but also in yours, pending your approval. I apologize for the confusion my first "Open Letter" raised, and it is unfortunate that the conflicting timetables of our two publications could not easily facilitate dual publication the first time around.
Let me at least clarify that I do not "oppose your mission," as you have so accused me of doing in several messages on the school's bulletin board. Much to your surprise, I do agree with your belief that free speech is a power that should be available to all. I am truly sorry if my beliefs extend past yourself in believing that people must be responsible for their actions and must be willing to not just "talk the talk, but walk the walk." I have heard from defenders of anonymity that it would enable them to say things about certain people in this community that would raise our awareness of those problems, without causing harm to the initiator of the comment. Indeed, such a statement would raise question, but would it be trusted, coming from some unknown source, someone who just dropped the sodium in a swimming pool and hid behind the bushes to see the explosion without getting hurt? Ideally, this should not be necessary in a true democracy, where everyone should be free to speak their mind, knowing and being prepared to stand by it, but without fearing the unnecessary loss of respect in everyone else's eyes. Perhaps that can also be a common goal of our publications as well.
Lastly, and I really have to hand it you on this one, Mr. Feamster, holding me culpable of my online nickname, "Sage," is, in all honesty, a pretty cheap shot. Having a penchant for medieval themes, I stumbled upon this class of character because it appealed to me, not because it was condescending, and I apologize if it ever appeared that way to you. And furthermore, I would ask you not to chastise me for simply trying to relate my personal experiences to the readers out there; I'm not doing it, as you maintain, to put forth a "condescending tone" that "envelopes content which is incorrect"; I merely do so in the hopes that it might strengthen the points I am arguing and offer the foundations of one person's perspective on things.
Again, Mr. Feamster, I thank you for your contributions to the community in raising its awareness of the importance of free speech, and I anticipate your feedback.
Sincerely, Shane Dizon
Mr. Dizon:
Thank you for your well-developed response; however, when I wrote to the editor-in-chief of the Coat of Arms, I was not anticipating a response, nor was I yearning for a heated discussion on the ethics of journalism. I do not understand why you were impelled to attack TSC initially, and I do not believe my letter to the Coat of Arms necessarily required a response. Moreover, in your letter of reply, you did not address the issue in question, that is, the unncecessary attack of TSC; rather, you used your letter to further your initial argument. Your appology, though I'm sure it was heartfelt, cannot be well-received when it is accompanied by further commentary.
You claimed that it was "funny" how I mentioned the Junior State organization and continued to to expound on the goals of JSA. It seems as though you have missed my point entirely -- I broached the Junior State because I likened your endeavors to those of TSC. Both you and our staff are struggling to maintain the vitality of our respective organizations. I, personally, would never formally aggress an organization which is struggling to survive, because I realize the tribulations which one may encounter when nurturing an establishment which cannot stand on its own two feet. Therefore, I did not so much object to your article as constructive criticism; rather, I found the circumstances inappropriate for the levying of such an attack.
Furthermore, in your letter, you have misquoted me -- I have never claimed that you "opposed the mission" of The Subterranean Crusader; moreover, I read your letter previous to its publication in the Coat of Arms, and I requested that the quote be removed because it was unfounded. Although I can understand where confusion might arise, I cannot sympathize with those who misquote; this carelessness is a breach of journalism ethics, and, more importantly, a violation of trust.
Finally, I wish to appologize for my inappropriate personal attack in my initial letter. In no manner did I intend my letter to be a personal attack, and I am sorry if my inflammatory Parthian shot upset you. I sincerely hope that we can advance from this discussion with a greater understanding of the goals of TSC, as well as the spirit of journalism.
Sincerely, Nick Feamster