He can only be one of two people. Only two have expressed that rare animosity that extends beyond reason, beyond my views and to me as a person. But neither knows me enough to be that caught up by my very existence. I just shouldn’t be that important to them in the grand scheme.
I mean, you don’t like me, that’s fine. Disagree with my views, that’s what makes our lives richer. But hatred? Come on, now. You’ve got issues that go well beyond a newspaper editor’s many flaws.
Fortunately this is a rare malady indeed, to carry disagreement, even distate, clear to rather irrational expressions of hatred. Usually it’s reserved for more deserving people ” actors, pop musicians, bigtime politicians and other celebrities. I’m flattered, of course. But it makes little sense to be quite so focused on me.
Yet, there it is. It happens. All you can really do is feel sorry for this person. And wonder who it might be.
One possibility, the more remote, is one of those folks who “never reads” that awful paper but somehow knows everything in it. For the other, it turns out we did have standards. But if we’re so lacking, why care?
This critic comments mainly, if not wholly, by computer these days. The comments don’t really have anything to do with the commentary that he comments under. The latest tear began with a rant following a column I wrote recently about taxi, shuttle and limo service at the airport. Could that be a clue? Is he particularly interested in limos or airplanes?
He’s Republican, and a bitter one at that. Other than trying to insult the publisher, Steve Pope, or me, he’s got at least one posting that complains about Eagle County commissioners Peter Runyon and Arn Menconi, again pretty much irrationally.
He’s familiar with Andy Stonehouse, the Daily’s arts and entertainment editor a few years ago. He doesn’t know Andy Stone, the regional editorial director and ombudsman for us and our sister papers in the Colorado mountains. At least not by name.
He’s a literal reader who doesn’t quite get humor, and professes to have a rather rigid view of journalism, like one of those priest of Big J. journalism, the haughty, fully official, nasally sounding stuff no one reads (and generally for good reason).
He’s a broad-brush “intellect” who doesn’t think things all the way through. His criticisms therefore don’t really make sense, boiling down to: Go learn journalism. You don’t write well. You run ads. Rogers is just the publisher’s puppet. You make money and too much of it. You don’t pay people enough. (Actually, who does?)
He’s afraid of identifying himself. But he leaves clues, more than he realizes.
I hope his grafitti helps him in some small way, and on that level I welcome it. I don’t mean him harm. He’s not hurting me, just making himself look foolish.
Either of these guys I’d help if I could, strangely enough. That’s the funny part.