End the hypocrisy, Jorg

Thank you for a long over due letter. Letter writers should stick to arguing the facts instead of ad hominem attacks.

Good morning, Scott

Thanks for your LTE. Regular DJ readers, from the left and right side of the political aisle, are familiar with Mr. Aadahl's rhetoric. In your letter, you suggested that he should heed his own advice and "disagree with grace." It ain't gonna happen.

Jorg routinely describes persons who disagree with his opinions as uninformed, uneducated, and un-American. These descriptors, which he assigns to others, are factual and provable... according to him. That says a lot.

Here is what may surprise you... I have connected with Jorg outside the daily trench warfare in the DJ's comments section. Those exchanges have been friendly, sometimes funny, and above all else... very human. I agree with you... Jorg "is entitled to his own partisan political opinions." Everyone is welcome to the table. That being said, I cannot explain why he chooses to bring dishes seasoned with derision and pejoratives to the table.

Mr. Abramson, Jorg exhibits the long-term effects of TDS. Readers are well aware of Jorg’s hypocrisy and ad hominem attacks. We knew Jorg’s call for a more respectable and agreeable level wasn’t worth the paper, digital or physical, it was printed on and we knew Jorg would violate his own plea before the day was out (just check out Jorg’s comments on his letter). But Jorg’s gotta be Jorg. He can’t live in the present so all he has is his “orange man bad” shtick in a bid to stay relevant. Oh yes, let’s not forget Jorg’s generous use of exclamation points – his only valid points to date. Sad, just sad.

Scott - we are so fortunate to have such an outstanding arbiter of civil discourse such as Jorg in our midst. No matter what, he is right and you are wrong.

Scott: Some misconception here! While silly “blah-blahs” and personal derogatory remarks have been thrown at me and others on this site, instead of meaningful counterpoints, I have only referred to groups with certain factual, provable characteristics. It is not meant personally, when I refer to the Trump cult as un-informed, mis-informed, easily fooled, gullible and a threat to national security, - it is embarrassingly obvious how true it is, - especially for the vast and steadily increasing majority of us. Nothing personal here, Scott, - but if you insist on being a part of that cult, be my guest. Otherwise, tell us where I’m wrong. It is your choice.

If you look at my more personal statements, you’ll see that they are mainly directed towards those who have attacked other writers directly and personally with vicious ad hominem, - instead of presenting valid counterpoints. That was the main point in the LTE you refer to. See the difference now? After hanging me out in an LTE heading, don’t worry about reaching non-subscribers with a correction. I didn’t take it that seriously, nor do I think others did.