So, I recently applied for a position as an opinion columnist at my school's newspaper. I was not hired, and was rather disappointed. I thought that my sample column was good, but now I am not so sure. The sample column dealt with a campus regulation which forbids students from smoking cigarettes within 30 feet of any building. I have posted it here (changing the name of my current university.) Does it suck, and if so, how badly? I am aware that parts of it suck, but does it suck as a whole, by the standards of a college paper? I am asking for your candid thoughts, but plz not to reply unless you are willing to express your real opinion in a reasonably courteous manner. Obviously I am posting this in the Lounge for a reason. Thx

No-Smoking Regulation is Silly, Unjust
By JeffreyBSG

Some of the most revered men in history – Thoreau, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. – won their fame by breaking laws which they considered to be unjust. I do not equate myself with these great men, of course; but I do follow their example. Six or seven times a day, I cheerfully violate the ridiculous regulation which prohibits smoking within 30 feet of any building on campus.

This no-smoking regulation inflicts a very real injury on ESU smokers. It forces them to smoke their cigarettes in the teeth of the bitter Anywherecounty wind, with no barrier to obstruct, or even weaken, the literally freezing gales which run mercilessly over their faces and exposed hands. ESU smokers are asked to stand idle and unprotected in this almost laceratingly cold wind, rather than relax in the comparatively warm shelter of a building wall.

Some might claim, “I don’t care if the smokers do have to stand in the freezing wind! When they smoke their cigarettes near a building, they pollute their fellow Raiders' lungs with secondhand smoke!” But this argument is about as robust as a puddle of cottage cheese, because the dangers of secondhand smoke are reduced to negligibility when the cigarettes are smoked outside. The first major study on the subject, conducted by scientists at Stanford and published in 2007, found that outdoor secondhand smoke is, under reasonable conditions, well-nigh harmless. It is true that if Johnny Hypochondrowicz stands 18 inches away from a smoker and has the smoke from two entire cigarettes blown in his face, he will imbibe as great a quantity of nasty chemicals as if he had sat in a smoky bar for an hour; but Johnny will hardly submit to this, if he is concerned about secondhand smoke. Indeed, simple extrapolation from this statistic reveals that the harm Johnny suffers in passing a few feet away from a smoker, and inhaling a little puff, is virtually nil.

Some might claim, “Even if the 30-foot rule doesn’t really confer any meaningful benefit on the health of ESU students, it still discourages them from smoking, and that’s a good thing.” To which I reply, “Where the hell do you get off infringing on my personal freedoms, just to make a public service announcement?” Everyone knows that cigarettes are bad for you; we don’t need a 30-foot rule to tell us that.

The truth, ladies and gents, is that the public is prejudiced against smokers, viewing them as ignorant, trashy people whose rights are less important than everyone else’s. This misconception is an unhappy result of the massive anti-smoking campaign which the government and other organizations have undertaken over the past 20 years. This anti-smoking campaign has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, no doubt, and was certainly better done than not; but it has maligned smokers just the same. Contrary to popular belief, smokers can be good, even great, people. The greatest writer in American history (Mark Twain; or William Faulkner, if you prefer) and the greatest statesman of the 20th century (Winston Churchill) both smoked.

I myself am neither trashy nor stupid, and I smoke cigarettes for the simple reason that I enjoy them. I do not wish to elaborate on the pleasures of tobacco, but I do assure my readers that there is a reason why more than a billion citizens of the world smoke. And if smoking a cigarette near a building harms no one but the smoker, and in fact does him far less harm than the binge-drinking which thousands of ESU students practice on a weekly basis, then what right has the University to tell that smoker to step 30 feet away from the building, and freeze in the wind?

So if you see me smoking a cigarette in that cozy little nook beside the Psychology building, feel free to call me a criminal. I’ll be the warm criminal with the clean conscience.


[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 4:41 PM. Reason : fixing typo which was not in actual submission]

1/24/2009 4:37:37 PM

I myself am neither trashy nor stupid

1/24/2009 4:43:40 PM

Personally, I question the subject of your column. I think you could have chosen a better topic than smoking period. I'm an ex-smoker so I can understand your pain but most people don't care & a good number would like to see smoking banished completely. What are the chances that your editors feel that way? I also wonder if criticizing your university and admitting to breaking the "rule" is a good place to start when nobody there knows you. You can go back to the editor thing again on this one. Maybe they support that ban or maybe they're a non-smoker that you "disturbed" one day.

I didn't really feel that the article was that bad although there's a lot of differences in university papers. When I was at NCSU, the Technician wasn't anything special and your article would have fit in well (and been better than a lot of the crap that was in it). Then again, maybe your school is known for its Journalism majors.

1/24/2009 4:50:26 PM

Quote :

"It forces them to smoke their cigarettes in the teeth of the bitter Anywherecounty wind, with no barrier to obstruct, or even weaken, the literally freezing gales which run mercilessly over their faces and exposed hands. ESU smokers are asked to stand idle and unprotected in this almost laceratingly cold wind, rather than relax in the comparatively warm shelter of a building wall. "

you weren't dramatic enough

1/24/2009 5:14:00 PM

^^
Thank you. Interestingly enough, out of all the reasons for my rejection that I thought of, the ones you mentioned never really entered my mind. I am not a diplomat (that is why I am studying mathematics) but maybe you are right, maybe I should have been a little (or lot) more diplomatic in my choice of topics.

My school is rather like NCSU (a huge school with lots of engineering majors) but the quality of the paper is a little higher.

^hehe

[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 5:15 PM. Reason : /]

1/24/2009 5:14:33 PM

the thing that bugs me about it is your tone.

i may be the only one who feels this way, but to me you sound smug and self-important and that can turn readers off.

also using the whole "many great men smoke" deal is really far stretched for me bc it was such a different time then, it just seems silly to even say and lessens your credibility

anyways, my constructive criticism is this: consider your audience. WHO are you writing for and how can you change your tone or writing style to accomodate these people.

1/24/2009 5:21:11 PM

"Silly" seems too silly of a word to put in the title, even if it's an opinion column. Its one of those words that stands out and sticks in your head while you're reading the rest of the column, except in this case I don't think it helps your case. Honestly, I wouldn't take your column seriously after reading the title, and would read the rest of the column with a black mark on it without wanting to really read it.

But that's just my opinion and I've never written for a school newspaper, so take it for what you think its worth.

1/24/2009 5:23:27 PM

monkeys eat stuff..

1/24/2009 5:24:01 PM

Quote :

"Personally, I question the subject of your column. I think you could have chosen a better topic than smoking period. I'm an ex-smoker so I can understand your pain but most people don't care & a good number would like to see smoking banished completely. "

This.

I don't think the column was really bad, but it wasn't really good either. It was pretty typical of the arguments you normally hear, nothing new, nor anything phrased in a new way.

1/24/2009 5:28:16 PM

Exactly, most people don't care about this

1/24/2009 5:35:44 PM

As soon as I saw the title of the article, I didn't even need to read the article to arrive at my gut-conclusion: the subject!

As a member of student senate, I have actually sat through hours of debate over the "smoking within 30 feet issue" which involved nearly 100 different college-student voices. Sure, the article was written well-- but for interviewing purposes and "showing your stuff" you'd want to steer clear from controversial issues. For one thing, you've got folks with opinions all over the map on the smoking topic-- environmentalists, health freaks, non-smokers, smoking-haters, ex-smokers, and of course the smokers themselves. Then, you'll just get the people who don't like that you think your "above the rules"

Alas, this is politics. (and news media in all shapes and sizes are political by their very nature) I'm sorry you didn't get the job, but you can at least learn, improve and succeed going forward. For that I applaud you!

1/24/2009 5:38:10 PM

Wow, I feel like a stupid son of a bitch.

I asked the Opinions editor if it would be offensive to write a column like this. She said "Yeah, but if you make your point..." I see now that it would have been wiser to have focused on the "Yeah", rather than the "but if you make your point."

Oh well, I have learned some valuable lessons. Mainly I have learned that A.

Quote :

"consider your audience. WHO are you writing for and how can you change your tone or writing style to accomodate these people."

and B.
one should not write in a vacuum, but should get criticism BEFORE one submits the piece.

Thank you to everyone for your intelligent responses, and for keeping this courteous.

1/24/2009 5:49:21 PM

I always thought the 30 foot rule is pretty stupid and i don't even smoke. Apparently a lot of people are really big pussies and even the slightest hint of cigarette smoke in the air dries out their sensitive pussies. Even though they are exposed in an outdoor environment to higher concentrations of car exhaust and other air pollutants supposedly 2nd hand smoke in an outdoor environment still gives them "asthma attacks". Personally unless i get right up in someones face i never even notice cig smoke from outdoor smokers. Usually smokers have teh decency to not smoke right in the doorway of a building so i don't by the "wah wah it goes in the building argument either.

1/24/2009 6:16:31 PM

Bad subject. From someone who deals with air quality for a living, I have to admit I would be fairly biased while reading a paper about someone who breaks a rule like this on their campus. However, if you really dont like the rule, you follow it until you overturn it, or at least if you are going to break it, you certainly dont use that as part of your article imo.

Im not sure which Stanford report you have read, but I have read a study for work they did in 2007 as well (im pretty sure its the exact same report since a few of the key things you said match some of the articles words) that stated nearly the exact opposite. You are twisting their report to meet your needs. It is at work so I dont have it on me now but a quick google search helped me out some through an article that was written about the study. Im only going to paste a few paragraphs, but based on the fact that you referenced it, if I was reading your paper I would have tried to look up or google the paper myself and I would have found that the report you are using to support your idea is not really all that supportive of you which is a pretty big negative when trying to write a critical piece:

Quote :

"Stanford University researchers have conducted the first in-depth study on how smoking affects air quality at sidewalk cafés, park benches and other outdoor locations. Writing in the May issue of the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association (JAWMA), the Stanford team concluded that a non-smoker sitting a few feet downwind from a smoldering cigarette is likely to be exposed to substantial levels of contaminated air for brief periods of time. "Some folks have expressed the opinion that exposure to outdoor tobacco smoke is insignificant, because it dissipates quickly into the air," said Neil Klepeis, assistant professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and lead author of the study. "But our findings show that a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels." Klepeis pointed to the 2006 Surgeon General's report, which found that even brief exposures to secondhand smoke may have adverse effects on the heart and respiratory systems and increase the severity of asthma attacks, especially in children. "We were surprised to discover that being within a few feet of a smoker outdoors may expose you to air pollution levels that are comparable, on average, to indoor levels that we measured in previous studies of homes and taverns," said Wayne Ott, professor (consulting) of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and co-author of the JAWMA study. "For example, if you're at a sidewalk café, and you sit within 18 inches of a person who smokes two cigarettes over the course of an hour, your exposure to secondhand smoke could be the same as if you sat one hour inside a tavern with smokers. Based on our findings, a child in close proximity to adult smokers at a backyard party also could receive substantial exposure to secondhand smoke." "

Yes, it stated that it was WORSE to be sitting close to someone smoking two cigarettes over an hour and yes they said it was comparable to being in a bar if you were close to them for a long period of time even outside, but the aim of this report was NOT to state that the effect of brief exposure to smoke is "virtually nil."

The little bit of the study that the article looked at was also based upon being near ONE smoker stating that if you were 6ft away, THEN you would not be breathing in chemical levels much higher than normal. However, how many times is there just 1 smoker smoking outside of a building that allows it? On a college campus that allows you to smoke outside the buildings, there are easily 10+ people out there smoking in between classes sometimes which really starts to skew the report even more in the favor of non-smokers being that it would increased the distance required to inhale virtually none of it, and increase the amount if you were already inside a range that got effected by 1 smoker.

In fact, if you really read and comprehend the entire report, the guy's conclusion that headed up the study is in opposition to your own.

Quote :

"The researchers found that air quality improved as they moved away from the smoker. "These results show what common sense would suggest--when you're within a few feet downwind of a smoker, you get exposed," Ott explained. "But likewise, when you go a little distance or stay upwind, the exposure goes way down. If there's just one smoker, and you can sit six feet away, you would have little problem. At the same time, if there are a lot of smokers nearby, you may be exposed to very high levels of secondhand smoke. So this thing that critics have been dismissing as trivial is not." Added Klepeis: "If people realize that being near outdoor smokers can result in potentially large exposures to toxic air pollution, they may decide they do not wish to be exposed in a variety of outdoor settings. This realization may lead to an increased number of smoking bans in public locations.""

I am not trying to be a dick, but if someone is reviewing your paper and happens to look up the study, they will see that you were fairly misleading in using it as a source. It meant one of two things (1) you were twisting a story to serve the exact opposite purpose for which is was written or (2) You are not very thorough in investigation and reading comprehension...and neither is really good for a potential writer. That coupled with stating that you are purposely breaking campus rules is not going to look good.

Yes the article is not saying that zomg youre going to die if you walk past a smoker, its not coming down super hard on the effects of ETS, BUT what it also certainly is not doing is supporting your point.

Im not here to argue your point on either side. Yes I am biased as I stated at the beginning, but that is outside of the scope of my response which was simply aimed at letting you know that you should use a much more convincing source if you are going to reference it in support of your argument because, yes whoever reads it SHOULD be objective whether they smoke or not, but that just means your sources need to be very sound and not easily dismissed.



[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 7:04 PM. Reason : just going to stay objective]

1/24/2009 6:35:55 PM

i scanned the thread...so this may have been said but,

smokers are a minority, so you're looking for sympathy from a very small group which is probably the biggest reason the piece wasn't run

also i agree with the comment about tone. something about it was off.

but kudos to you for seeking advice and opinions... it may be after the fact but it looks like most of it was constructive

1/24/2009 6:45:41 PM

also, your use of commas seems to be completely random. and your writing sounds forced, as a bad writer trying to sound good.

1/24/2009 7:05:09 PM

Quote :

"(Mark Twain; or William Faulkner, if you prefer) and the greatest statesman of the 20th century (Winston Churchill) both smoked."

The way I read this, and I could be way wrong, is that you think Mark Twain = William Faulkner, which is way wrong. Mark Twain = Samuel Clemens =/ William Faulkner.

1/24/2009 7:29:20 PM

As someone also guilty of this...

too many commas!

And like others have said, you should pick a safe topic for a job interview writing.

1/24/2009 8:39:08 PM

Quote :

"you follow it until you overturn it"

Good call as a Patriotic German in Nazi germany it would have been wrong of me to not respect the law and report any jews in hiding to the proper authority in the S.S. because we all know every law created is good and our politicians would never make any stupid laws.

1/24/2009 8:43:16 PM

^^^
I am not that fucking dumb

V He said "The way I read this, and I could be way wrong," so I'm pretty sure he actually thought that was what I meant. But I see your point, certainly.


[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 9:06 PM. Reason : /]

1/24/2009 8:44:26 PM

^^ LOL nazi germany is on the same level as smoking outside!! I never knew. i was referring to this law/rule and this situation. are you really that thickheaded?

^ and i think the more important thing to take from his statement is not that he is saying you are that dumb, but rather he is pointing out that the way it is written easily leaves it open to be interpreted the way he read it.


[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 8:57 PM. Reason : x]

1/24/2009 8:51:42 PM

Just a couple things.

First of all, you use the word both, which is exclusive to two people. I hope/assume you know that Faulkner and Twain/Clemens are not the same people, but when you use the word "both" and then talk about three people (Twain/Faulkner/Churchill) it is at the very least grammatically confusing. [/tangent]

Anyway, as to the article. It seems to be written well, but this is one of those topics that you will NEVER change anyones' opinion on. People who already agree with you will be like "Fuck yeah!" and those who already disagree will just think you're coming off as whiny.

Comparing your struggle to Thoreau, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr. is just ludicris. It comes off way too BridgetSPKesque. I mean, if I think sleeping with children is OK, should I keep doing it in my struggle to protest against this "ridiculous regulation?" I know you qualified your argument, saying you do not equate yourself with these people, but just by bringing their names up you have already tried to create a bond with them.

But like other people said, you probably just pissed off the people who do the hiring.

1/24/2009 9:34:42 PM

Quote :

"azi germany is on the same level as smoking outside!! I never knew"

I am merely trying to point out that just b.c something is the law does not mean its immoral or wrong to disobey it.

1/24/2009 9:52:00 PM

I don't think the subject is what hurt you.

I think the tone (extremely self-righteous), the total lack of context (university campuses can, in fact, impede on your personal freedoms), no credible research (you didn't cite your sources, AND you didn't even bother mentioning the origins of the regulation), and complete lack of a concluding stance (you enjoying smoking is not a based position to support removing the regulation) are what got you denied.

Opinion columns are supposed to be persuasive, well founded, and insightful. Your column was none of these. There are several angles you could have pursued: why 30 feet, what are the health detriments of having to stand so far away from shelter in inclement weather, or comparisons to other public spaces without the regulation? Lots of objective opportunity there.

1/24/2009 10:07:43 PM

some of the comparisons are baffling....first the ones with Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK and then to say that great people like Churchill and Twain smoked...none of this has anything to do with the rule and just felt way out of place.

1/24/2009 10:37:13 PM

Quote :

"this is one of those topics that you will NEVER change anyones' opinion on. People who already agree with you will be like "Fuck yeah!" and those who already disagree will just think you're coming off as whiny."

Extremely good point.

Quote :

"Comparing your struggle to Thoreau, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr. is just ludicrious. "

That was sort of tongue-in-cheek. Reading over it again, however, I don't get the tongue-in-cheekness.

Noen: You made some good points. Try to keep in mind, though, that I was asked to keep it within 400-600 words. I didn't have room to cover all the aspects you described. As for

Quote :

"you enjoying smoking is not a based position to support removing the regulation"

my point was that secondhand smoke is harmless when the cigarettes are smoked outside, it is cruel to force smokers to stand in the wind (it is fucking cold where I live), and therefore the regulation did harm but no good, and should have been removed.

However, I don't deny anything you said. This might explain why so many people hated my guts when I wrote for Technician.


[Edited on January 24, 2009 at 11:17 PM. Reason : /]

1/24/2009 11:09:59 PM

Quote :

" my point was that secondhand smoke is harmless when the cigarettes are smoked outside"

But as CalledToArms pointed out, that's not the case, and if anyone else reading this op-ed had fact checked you, it could have been the final nail in the coffin.

1/24/2009 11:32:11 PM

you are right, I am afraid

1/24/2009 11:41:46 PM

Quote :

"No-Smoking Regulation is Silly, Unjust"

for me, you lost all credibility right there.

i mean .... silly? Silly???

still, i tried to give it a fair chance. unfortunately, my suspicions turned out correct. I didnt need to read more than the title to know exactly what your article was going to do. although i do admit i didnt know one could fit so many non-sequiters and red herrings into one column.

this was anything but a persuasive article. your approach was "if you support the no-smoking regulation, then you're a stupid idiot, and I'm gonna tell you why."

If i were an advocate for "smokers' rights", i would be disturbed any time such poorly-written, factually incorrect hyperbole was written to "support" my cause.




[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 4:36 AM. Reason : ]

1/25/2009 4:20:03 AM

A couple more hints:

(1) William Faulkner's pen name was NOT Mark Twain. I mean, come on, dude. that's pretty bad.

(2) You really do need to lose the smug, self-righteous tone throughout your writing. at least until you can overcome these crippling issues you seem to have with logical fallacies and straight-up factual errors.

(3) don't ever use the term, "well-nigh". Just ... don't.

(4) East Stroudsburg University? They dont have an engineering program ....






[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 5:02 AM. Reason : ]

1/25/2009 4:59:26 AM

You are a hell of a person to be talking about "smug, self-righteous tone"
I asked for courteous criticism, and everybody up until you was willing to provide it. But for some reason, you decided to be downright malicious. Fuck off.

1/25/2009 11:26:56 AM

As someone who has actually worked as an opinion editor:

1) You use of first person - I personally found first-person columns to be baneful, and would generally exhort writers not to use it. (In fact, were it come down to a choice between someone who used it and someone who didn't, I'd easily take the person who didn't.) It's rare that you actually need to invoke it, and generally when you do it sounds self-absorbed and petty. Which, generally when college op-ed writers use it, it does end up being self-absorbed and petty.

No reader needs to be told, "I think" or "I feel" - you're the writer, you have a byline, this is obvious. A good writer is able to make their argument without invoking themselves.

2) Your comparison of what many perceive to be a minor inconvenience (or even a welcome one, depending upon their point of view), to an epic struggle warranting civil disobedience. It makes the whole thing come across as silly.

3) Your tone in making the argument is a little too casual - see, for example, your except:

Quote :

"To which I reply, “Where the hell do you get off infringing on my personal freedoms, just to make a public service announcement?"

It comes off both as overly casual and histrionic. First, no "To which I reply" is necessary - just make the point. Second, tone it down just a little bit - nobody's hauling you off to Gitmo. Yes, they are infringing upon your liberty to do as they please, and perhaps it is excessive, but the way you make this point just sounds petulant.

Which begins to sound even more petulant when you complain about a prejudice against smokers.

4) Your argument that binge drinking is prevalent therefore smoking in violation of the ordinance is flawed - it is in essence making the argument that two wrongs make a right. Nobody's going to buy that. Again, if your point is that the university's priorities are out of order, make that argument. But the logic you have here is fatally flawed.

I'm actually going to go against the popular current here and say it's okay to write a controversial column - even for an interview column - but it has to be done well. Don't invoke yourself, stick to the facts, make it persuasive and not simply whiney, and most importantly, make it something that somebody else actually wants to read. The last criteria was my most important criteria as an editor, and one I think that gets overlooked a little too often in many college papers.

Edit: I thought Noen brought up a few good points as well. Instead of complaining about the utter crucifixion of smokers being forced to do their business in the cold, cold wind, use the space for insightful analysis - for example, why pick the arbitrary line of 30 feet? Is this really solving the problem of secondhand smoke at all?

Spend more time on doing things other than complaining and provide for thought-provoking points which individuals may not have thought about.

[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

1/25/2009 11:43:18 AM

DID NOT READ

1/25/2009 12:05:31 PM

Quote :

"As soon as I saw the title of the article, I didn't even need to read the article to arrive at my gut-conclusion: the subject!"

1/25/2009 12:49:39 PM

why all the effort to change the school you're at? you realize you already posted that on here?

1/25/2009 1:03:51 PM

^^^^
These are all intelligent points; thank you. I will certainly keep them in mind in my future work. I am inclined to agree with you and Noen: if I had approached the subject differently, I might have pulled it off. But anyway, by now I see that there is so much wrong with the column that you are just hammering more nails into a coffin that is already securely fastened shut.

^
If ANYONE is rejected for a job and makes a thread about it, they rarely give the name of the company which rejected them. It's just not a good idea. And yes, I know I have already given the name of my school elsewhere, but only in a single post, which probably not everyone read; and just because it is posted elsewhere does not mean it should be screamed out now.


[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 1:37 PM. Reason : /]

1/25/2009 1:17:45 PM

Your tone has a sense of entitlement to it which is an immediate turn off. Comparing your feelings of injustice and discrimination to Gandhi and MLK is ridiculous. Using the word silly is a poor choice when you are trying to write about a topic that has serious health consequences.

1/25/2009 2:52:23 PM

as a non-smoker who doesnt mind smoking (and even gave it a shot for a few weeks), i have to agree that it was the tone. opinion columns are often somewhat controversial or at least can be from time to time.

i just didnt agree with much of it and have to say that...

Quote :

"Some might claim, “I don’t care if the smokers do have to stand in the freezing wind! When they smoke their cigarettes near a building, they pollute their fellow Raiders' lungs with secondhand smoke!” But this argument is about as robust as a puddle of cottage cheese, because the dangers of secondhand smoke are reduced to negligibility when the cigarettes are smoked outside."

...was the point that i was turned off. the cottage cheese comparison just sounds silly in an otherwise serious argument. the comment, as noted before, also sounds over the top.

Quote :

"To which I reply, “Where the hell do you get off infringing on my personal freedoms, just to make a public service announcement?”"

was also a bit much. using phrases like "where the hell do you get off" sounds EXTREMELY combative in a column which is arguably supposed to be swaying opinions. it teters more on soap box lunacy than it does rational argument. not trying to be a jerk, just thats what it comes off as.

1/25/2009 5:13:20 PM

I like your article. It's above and beyond most things I've read in the Technician.

However, your unpopular stand on a controversial issue may be what got you canned.

If you wrote an anti-recycling article backed up by real evidence, you probably would get canned too.

I imagine they want people who will toe the line and do what they say, rather than independent thinkers.

1/25/2009 5:39:26 PM

backing it up with much strong evidence than presented here though is key for a persuasion piece imo

[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 5:50 PM. Reason : x]

1/25/2009 5:50:02 PM

^^I totally disagree. Opinion columns are supposed to be insight and controversial in some sense.

Quote :

"You are a hell of a person to be talking about "smug, self-righteous tone" I asked for courteous criticism, and everybody up until you was willing to provide it. But for some reason, you decided to be downright malicious. Fuck off."

And I don't think Joe_Schmoe was being self-righteous. His suggestions and criticisms were pretty spot on. It sounds like (and more backs this up from your style and content in the writing) that you are a very easily offended, defensive and self-important person.

1/25/2009 7:02:04 PM

Oh, hell with it. Yes, I probably am a very easily offended, defensive and self-important person. I don't have a problem with criticism, and I don't deny that he made good points; but he went out of his way not to be courteous.

V well, I've edited it all out, anyway


[Edited on January 25, 2009 at 7:31 PM. Reason : /]

1/25/2009 7:22:41 PM

I'm pretty sure the ESU remark was a bit of sarcasm.

His reply was in the same tone as your article .

1/25/2009 7:29:25 PM

Oh, and thanks, Vix, by the way.

1/25/2009 9:24:24 PM

i dont see how my tone in offering criticism was either smug or self-righteous.

i was being straight-up and to the point. as a persuasive article, it sucked on many levels.

sorry if i didnt sugar-coat it or handle your writer's ego with kid gloves.

you wanted to "figure out why" you didnt get the job. I'm giving you my opinion. I've had my columns published on UWire, so for whatever that's worth, you can take my opinion or leave it.

1/26/2009 10:54:46 AM

I repeat that I felt you went out of your way not to be courteous. Perhaps we can agree to disagree about that. I have also had columns published on U-Wire, incidentally, so it's not like my writers ego (which I admit to) is totally baseless.

On the real, thank you for the basic nature of your reply.

1/26/2009 11:22:51 AM

i want to pose a question about your smoking in the cold complaint....

why would anyone care about someone having to stand in the cold when they are doing so to fill their lungs with smoke? doesn't it seem kind of ironic to complain about the exposure of the elements?

i'm not trying to move on to the subject of smoking, just saying that it isn't a very good argument. and even though this is supposed to be an opinion piece, it reads more like a persuasive work instead.

1/26/2009 1:03:27 PM

i agree...

1. tone
2. tone
3. tone
4. too many damn commas
5. subject & POV

did i mention tone?

1/26/2009 1:36:20 PM

was more of his tone than anything ^ said

1/26/2009 1:46:08 PM

set em up

1/26/2009 2:57:01 PM