Jan 20, 2009

Open Letter to Philip Klein

Dear Philip;

I felt compelled to respond to your latest letter to yourself on your Reader Mail page since you specifically mentioned Operation Kleinwatch. You challenged your readers:

Do this - send them an email and ask them why they do not print their names. Proud of their content? We think not or they would sign their names faster than you can say Boo.

I've answered your allegations before, but let's revisit since you have a short attention span.  Also, note that I'm the only one responsible for this site - there is no "them." I don't need to hide behind an ambiguous pronoun like "we"  because I don't have a weak sense of self or a poor self-image.

You've never really explained how you arrived at the conclusion that Gus Pillsbury is not my true name. Have you been running another "investigation"  or did you have to pay a $1,000 dollar reward to find out that Gus Pillsbury is a nom de plume?

This anonymity underscores your own hypocrisy.  You frequently refer to anonymous "sources" who make the same grammatical mistakes as you, most of whom also make wild and unsubstantiated claims. As just one example, you claimed an unnamed source in the Texas AG's office substantiated the issue of names on cop cars, even though AG Gregg Abbott had rescinded that previous opinion upon which your entire article was based.

Yet, quoting manufactured sources "who demand anonymity" is credible, but I'm not. Like most of the gibberish you publish, this logic makes sense only to you.

This anonymity underscores your lack of credibility. You can't muddy the waters with a personal attack, so you're required to either address the issues themselves or ignore them. As an example, let's consider your simplistic and sophomoric analysis of the red camera issue in the Beaumont City Council presented in your first article this week entitled "Stupid:"

You see - Coleman runs in the same social groups as Beaulieu. It is that simple. And what you have is a bunch of social ninnies with nothing better to do than try and bring Beaumont to a more lawful place.

Calling Coleman names has nothing to do with forcing a vote on an issue for which there is little support, but you missed that, didn't you?  As I've repeatedly shown, your grasp of politics is limited to wingnut opinions based upon bumper sticker mentalities, or throwing mud based upon unsubstantiated rumor and hidden agendas.  Without the logical fallacy of your ad hominem attacks, you're left to discuss these issues on their own merit, something for which you're poorly prepared.

Lastly, this anonymity simply bugs you, enough that you purportedly offered a $1,000 reward for information leading to Sam The Eagle's identity.  Even though you claimed you had a response within 24 hours, I suspect we all know that your statement was balderdash. We're still waiting on for you to make good on that promise.

Here's a challenge for you:

Those who know this web site know the content and the fact we do the best we can with what we have."

If lies, half-truths, hate speech, rumors reported as fact, rampant racism, and and gross ignorance is the best you can do, perhaps you should hang it up. I challenge you to poll readers on whether the Southeast Texas Political Review should hang it up permanently.

That is, if your fragile ego can stand the truth.


Gus Pillsbury

P.S. You never answered the charges that you lied about those 21,000 cases to be "refilled" in Hardin County.

I also noticed this contradiction: the header on your "Reader Mail" page clearly states (emphasis is mine):

If you have questions that you would like us to answer - and we will answer any question sent to us...

But in this spurious letter, you stated (emphasis is again mine):

As for lying - we get emails all of the time. I ignore them.

So which is it? Do answer any question, or do you ignore the hard ones? Didn't you claim

We stand up and say we are wrong when we are wrong.

No comments :