Don't mean overkill on this original topic, but in the spirit of my leading post, here is the content of a proposed new letter:
"Dear Sirs,
I'm new to shotgunning and have recently been reading DoubleGunShop forums. Some of the writing is rather slick; some of it's woven to distract and divert from what is truly being expressed by that poster.
In the end, I feel that parsing the posting's meaning/intent (as to my opinion of what it is) from the chaff is educational. My point here is to emphasize that stifling criticism doesn't work and that criticism should be published. Especially when it appears well-founded. EDM's supposed point that "Letters to the Editor are not the place to critique a writer's work" (my quotes) is at hand. The results of much of this parsing should indicate why I disagree.
In this, I wanted to refer to both my original post that started this thread and the cutting response (EDM's) to it. Right out the start gate, the inference in the response was that my writing sucks. Meaning it isn't worth reading, thereby invalidating my critique. Or maybe meaning that it's an indication that I'm a "criticizer" as defined below by EDM. Or maybe to prove just how hard it is to write articles in a nationally published magazine. I think any critique is permitted to have as many words as can be written, not limited to the length of to what it is responding, and negativity about undue length could infer the reader's having breezed through it, led by his negative preconceptions, or his rejection of its theme. It takes about five page sides of SSM to get through Helmsley's Letter (albeit including advertisements). About half of my critique is a numbered technical-like recitation of prior experiments, much like Helmsley's Letter. Getting back to SSM, McIntosh essentially refers in his reply to these sorts of things as an indication of "techno-wonkism." When you look-up the definition of "wonkism" it applies to stuff that the designer designed too complicated and subtle for the reader to understand. These experiments aren't "wonkism" and I can see why knocking the length of a written criticism seems called for when you can't be bothered by the facts.
EDM's sole definitional references to criticizers are truly that we are "quibblers and malcontents..." "reader[s] with nothing in.... [their] brief case but a peanut butter sandwich... [getting] a free shot at the big guy..." and "complainers." In a later post to another poster, it's implied criticizers are "task-takers and quibblers and uninformed web-junkies" and that a criticizer is where a "man is King in his own opinion." I don't see a positive reference to criticizers. McIntosh alludes to this strain when in his reply he mocks Helmsley with the lines 1.) "There is more in Heaven and Earth - also guns and cartridges - than is dreamt of in philosophy and techno-wonkism" and 2.) "Didn't work out so badly, after all" about the hubbub of his (McIntosh's) educational experience and money-making writing expertise. Are the rest of us all dopes with no solid ground to stand upon, facts be damned?
The response to my original post asked me to "cogitate""revise""proof""edit" and "download to a Word file" supposedly for the purpose to cleanse my material of offending matter. Or to highlight that I am missing a point the reader can clearly understand. Well, if we throw stones then consider EDM's response: "gorillia"; "complaing"; "brief case" (it's one word); a missing apostrophe with "'Why Parker?, ; "truely"; "problemaical"... I include this grudgingly because we can all spend more time correcting the superficial stuff - it's cosmetic and hopefully we can see such errors for what they are. As for making a clear point, I think this forum largely reinforced my post's clarity, however I will indicate that McIntosh used the same allegation at Helmsley's Letter - "it's that every story needs a point, clearly expressed." I felt that McIntosh was unfair to Helmsely in that his letter appeared clearly espressed. I thought of this when I considered the visceral-like allusion in McIntosh's response to Helmsley's Letter about "bogging everything [down] hopelessly;" it echoes that meaningless damnation. Unneccesary attacks? I think so.
McIntosh and EDM appear to see things in a similar vein, and perhaps being published with all that comes with giving a different perspective. I understand that.
I feel people should call attention to portions of writing not suitable for print. McIntosh's bold pronunciation, stemming from either ignoring the truth or faulty research, is not only a distraction, but arguably unethical. Including a pile-on with that brutish reply that dismisses the facts AND the critic was too much. Good writing and deceptive writing both take great skill.
To get to my point way up above, I feel the SSM Editor's choice was wise in this instance to publish both the Helmsley fact-correction Letter and McIntosh's reply - it addresses the truth and doesn't stifle expression from a reader. The Editor surely knows what's going on when he read the submitted McIntosh reply. I think the Editor clearly saw the value in publishing the Letter and enjoyed all of it. Publishing both certainly makes for informative AND entertaining reading which begs me to keep reading more issues.
Regards"
