Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
bawden_s_broad_brush [2016/04/06 00:05] – adds Mike's photo Carlos Pedrazabawden_s_broad_brush [2016/06/07 17:02] – [Bawden's Broad Brush] edit for clarity Carlos Pedraza
Line 29: Line 29:
  
 <WRAP right box 50%> <WRAP right box 50%>
-//**__It appears more convenient to attack a straw man than one who brings facts to bear, and critical questions and a sincere desire to see fan productions survive this debacle.__**//+//**__It appears more convenient to attack a straw man than one bearing facts, critical questions and a sincere desire to see fan productions survive this debacle.__**//
 </WRAP> </WRAP>
  
-There's no room in the world he describes for Axanar's supporters for anyone who simply wants to hold the production accountable to the standards of openness and transparency with which it touts itself, for anyone who cares about how the professional, commercial venture trading off CBS and Paramount's property — the studios' words, not mine — imperils all other fan films.+There's no room in the world he describes to Axanar's supporters for anyone who simply wants to hold the production accountable to the standards of openness and transparency with which it touts itself, for anyone who cares about how the professional, commercial venture trading off CBS and Paramount's property — the studios' words, not mine — imperils all other fan films.
  
 **AT HIS WORD** I take Mike at his word that he zealously represents his client because he cares about the project, that he wants to see //Axanar// made, that it embodies an idea of Star Trek that thousands of fans want to see brought to life. I don't see why he can't offer me the same courtesy, instead seeking to discredit what I've published about Axanar by impugning my motivations. Why not engage my critiques on their merits, with logic and facts and open discussion? **AT HIS WORD** I take Mike at his word that he zealously represents his client because he cares about the project, that he wants to see //Axanar// made, that it embodies an idea of Star Trek that thousands of fans want to see brought to life. I don't see why he can't offer me the same courtesy, instead seeking to discredit what I've published about Axanar by impugning my motivations. Why not engage my critiques on their merits, with logic and facts and open discussion?
  
-He has never once pointed to anything on **AxaMonitor** and said, "That's wrong. That's inaccurate. That's unfair." Despite the meticulous sourcing of each article, no objection of substance has ever been lodged that I haven't answered. Instead, we see the setup of a straw man "detractor," motivated by greed or narcissism or some intoxicating mixture of both, easily dismissed. It appears to be more convenient to attack that opponent than one who brings facts to bear, and critical questions and a sincere desire to see fan productions survive this debacle.+He has never once pointed to anything on **AxaMonitor** and said, "That's wrong. That's inaccurate. That's unfair." Despite the meticulous sourcing of each article, no objection of substance has ever been lodged that I haven't answered. Instead, we see the setup of a straw man "detractor," motivated by greed or narcissism or some intoxicating mixture of both, easily dismissed. It appears to be more convenient to attack that opponent than one bearing facts, critical questions and a sincere desire to see fan productions survive this debacle.
  
 ---- ----
 **Keywords** {{tag>about news}} **Keywords** {{tag>about news}}