Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> The first paragraph of the Argus Leader story says I wear a "bee
> suit". This is false. I do not own a
> bee suit. I never wore a bee suit in my life. I do own mosquito
> netting, much like what fisherman
> wear when bothered by mosquitos. When I mow in tall grass or work near
> woods I wear mosquito
> netting over my T-****rt.
>
Here is the website for this story:
http://m.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080629/VOICES/806290324/1161/CUSTOMER06&template=wapart
Now the reason that is such a offensive journalistic mistake is that I
can anticipate what will happen
with that mistake for Wikipedia when they get a hold of it and with
their corps of hatemongers. They
will write a Wikipedia entry showing someone in a bee-suit in the
middle of summer walking in
Vermillion and saying it is Archimedes Plutonium.
So every journalist in the world, should have a code of conduct that
asks "do I have a low opinion"
of the subject they are writing about, and if the answer is yes, then
they have to be especially careful
as to what they write in the story, because their low-opinion usually
surfaces and makes the writer
look bad, not the story subject.
The next blotched error is when he discusses "pi" and then discusses
"e". I never mentioned E = mc^2
in our three conversations for this story. I mentioned lower case "e"
in mathematics which is the number
2.71...... and this is not the same as the "E" for energy in that
equation. I did offer to proofread this story
before it was published and was told that it is against Argus Leader
policy, but then I found out that
many stories from the Argus Leader are give to the subjects to
proofread before print, so apparently there
is an "ambivalent policy at the Argus Leader." So that if a story is
emotionally packed that proofreading
is denied.
The next mistake which I would have caught with a proofread was the
quoting of a dollar value for
my owned real-estate. Now I am rather confused as to why $100,000 was
even mentioned, as it is
easy to walk into any courthouse and find out those numbers. I find it
uncouth that a story about
science even tresp***** over into the dollar value of the scientist's
real estate. But worse yet is
that the sum of the value of my real-estate here in this area is
$175,000, not $100,000 for the author
missed adding the Gift Shop. Uncouth because most stories of people
simply do not go into talking
about money values, even though they are publicly available. So why
did the Argus Leader go down this
uncouth avenue? It is because, I suspect, the low opinion of the
writing staff, that they mentioned
so many properties, and with their low opinion, that a nut or crackpot
to their eyes should be a homeless
beggar on some city street and not someone independently wealthy, self
employed since 25 years of
age and can buy and sell real estate in any place in the world and can
live in any place in the world.
So when the Argus Leader or other newspaper does a story on Archimedes
Plutonium, they simply
cannot bear the reality of the situation that I have been self
employed since I graduated from University
and that I was a millionaire five years after leaving University of
Cincinnati. That my intelligence is allows
me to make a living from playing the stock market whereas most people
who graduate from College
spend the rest of their lives working for others. So when a newspaper
re****ter wants to write about
how kooky and crackpottish Archimedes Plutonium is, well, they look
for things such as dishwa****ng
at Dartmouth, rather than the truth-- that I play the stockmarket and
real-estate and am self-employed.
So the Argus Leader can add up my real-estate in Vermillion County
Courthouse and why they quoted
$100,000 instead of the true price I paid of $175,000, tells me that
the low-opinion of the writing staff,
is so low that they just simply fudged the numbers. If the writing
staff at Argus Leader wanted me to
show a bank statement that I owned 17,000 shares of Verizon which
gives a yearly dividend of approx
$30,000. I would have shown them a bank statement, but they would not
wanted to have seen that
because, well, it does not lend to their aim of making AP look like a
kook, a crackpot and whatever.
When a journal writing staff has a low opinion of a subject, it is
pretty hard to write a balanced and
truthful account of the subject.
Now what the Internet does, is provide a counterbalance. In the old
days, the subject had to be
disgruntled and bear the errors. But now, with the Internet, my story
of the errors is as likely
to become even more worldwide known than the original errorfilled
story by the Argus Leader.
So that Europeans reading the errorfilled Argus Leader are just as
likely to read this news thread
by me, correcting the Argus Leader.
In the old days, the newspaper often rejected followup letters to
stories, but with the Internet,
a newspaper story can have an immediate followup letters where they
cannot reject. And where
I was under a microscope by Argus Leader, now I put the Argus Leader
under a microscope.
Although, I probably will not be able to stave off the pack of
Wikipedia editors with their hate
mongering using "bee suits" in some future Wikipedia article on
Archimedes Plutonium.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
