Ann Widdecombe is Killing Our Children

Good tracking of the research, Paul. Yes, the article did rather pointlessly villify Widdecombe -- and Paul's illustration comments on that villification by exaggerating it.

We all know that Paul is not one to pull his punches... and Widdecombe is a public figure, and therefore is not covered by the same privacy expectations that an ordinary citizen would have concerning use of his/her image. But I'd welcome comments from the class -- particularly those of you who are interested in photography. What issues of ethics, sensitivity, and freedom of speech are raised by this image?

HAHA, sorry just needed to say that I found that picture (errr adjustments made to it) extremely funny! :)

You certainly have the Photopublisher thing down.

I especially enjoyed the little offensive symbol on Ms. Widdecombe's blazer (I am being completely sarcastic if you can't tell).

Just for our little rivalry:
Now, how about highlighting other things in your entries such as spelling and grammar? It would be a nice change from all the "mabyes" and "i's" I find in your responses to many of my comments. Apostrophes are helpful too.:-) Now, I know that my entries are not always perfect, but I do try to go back and look them over, and shorten my paragraphs.hehehe.

But seriously, you may want to think about toning down the symbols in your photos. I know that when I made uninformed assumptions about the Holocaust lecture with Robert Mendler I was shot down by Leah Pore, and rightfully so.

I am surprised that she did not have anything to say about your use of this symbol. It carries with it a message that neither of us can completely fathom; it has a long history that means many things to different people.

To watch what you say on a blog is not censorship, it is simply taste. And it is something you will thank yourself for doing down the road. When you get a job and an employer types your name in on a search engine, and then offensive symbols or angry tirades do not appear, you will sing praises to all that is electrical and your own intellect (stroke that ego).

As a blog rival, a classmate, and as a person, I am saying, watch what you publish; it may not be "just a joke" in the future.

I will be waiting for your rant on what I have just written. Go ahead. I'm waiting...

I absolutely love what you did with this picture from the article. Thanks for making me smile in the morning!

Ok, A) the "little offensive symbol" is a Swastika. Not naming it doesn't make it any better. B) Since this is only the third time I've ever responded to any of your comments, don't you think it's a little early to start making stupid generalizations on how I write? C) I always look over my entries. You may not like my writing style, or find my posts distasteful, but the fact remains that when I'm proof-reading my work I don't go back and change things based on the fact that someone like you might not like my style.

Which brings me to my next point. Think my blog is offensive or distasteful? Here's an idea: Don't read it. It's not rocket science...if you come to an entry posted by me, just skip over it.

And yes, if you take the Nazi sign by itself, I agree that it would be incredibly offensive. If, for instance, I posted a picture of a gigantic Swastika as the top of my post, your comments would be completely justified. But in this case, you're just an idiot. By putting that symbol on, as you say, Miss Widdecombe's blazer, I am by no means trying to "fathom" the message that it contains. Adding the Swastika to the edited version of the picture was used to further villify Widdecombe, as were the devil horns and red eyes. Since you obviously missed the point I was trying to make, I'll spell it out for you: With so many unthinkable horrors that have occured, and are still occuring in this world, It is incredibly ridiculus to pointlessly villify someone such as Miss Widdecombe. Far from glorifying the Nazi's, the Swastika I drew was put there as an example of something truly horrible that happened in our worlds history, in direct contrast to Miss Widdecombe, who has seemingly done nothing more evil than become a politician. You were so close to not being stupid...but then, I suppose even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Last but not least, I did a search on "Google" for Paul+Crossman, such as you suggested my future employer might do. Out of the 25,700 search results, I was ranked in there at around 19,000. If any of my future employers have enough time to look through that many entries merely to see if I might have posted anything "offensive" on the internet, well, bully for them. If they have that kind of time on their hands, they obviously don't need my help.

I am glad you are beginning to think about what I am saying.

Thinking is so important, Paul.

And about the Google search, you will be found more commonly as you continue writing for college.

You will be found. And regardless of what you are trying to say, the employer may not understand and will make judgements solely based on that image and not the text below it.

And about the skipping over thing, question: How can I skip over something that fills an entire window, uses flag colors, relates to an assignment, and is part of an impromptu assignment? Jerz welcomed comments; it was an irresistible comment opportunity.

Thanks for the rant. I really look forward to them. Maybe it is just the backlash of my idiocy and stupidity, which are actually the same thing--redundancy--where have I seen that before? Oh, in my post that you commented on.

And I knew what the offensive symbol was; taste stops me from mentioning certain offensive words in my comments. You obviously cannot. In almost every post on the NMJ site you have used some type of profanity. The NMJ site is more public than your "personal blog", and it reflects on the entire university, not just you.

I don't visit your blog, either. I see everything that I do not want to see on the NMJ site. Further research is not needed in some cases.

I think your post was very good. I personally wasn't offended because I knew the message you were trying to convey. Maybe Amanda should take a step back and not look at it with such seriousness. Also look at the context. I can see if it was an article relating to Jewish culute, then that would be offense. But in an article such as this where it is purely satire I don't think it is something to get that worked up about. And as for Amanda's comment about future employers looking back at your work, they'll at least see that Paul has a sense of humor and is not afraid to speak his mind. I'll still visit your site Paul....where is would I get my daily dose of sarcasm? ;)

As I sit here at my temp job with nothing to do but read every blog known to man, I am entertained by this argument as it unfolds. I would like to say that I take both sides on different points:

I think it's a gamble to post some questionable things when a future job could be on the line. My blog is linked on my website, which is on my resume. So I guess if you make it hard enough to find, and it still gets buried in Google, go right on ahead.

Meanwhile, while I think Amanda makes some valid points about the swastika, saying that the word swastika is profanity is not one of them. For example: if a hate group used a triangle as its symbol, would we have to tiptoe around the word in geometry classes? I think not. Just call it what it is.