And one more thing, to the five journalists, we researched that piece before we wrote it. We called and checked our facts (which, unlike at least one of you, we got right). When we finished it, C.I. made the correct point that only women and countries were 'discovered' and there was talk of how we needed to go back and add that to the piece. We didn't. We were done with it. We don't go back and read our stuff. If there's a question in an e-mail, Ty will ask us, "Where did you get ___ because there's a question about it." We don't go back in re-read it then (and we can back up what we've put in without re-reading). The point is, we write those things and we're done with them. That two of you are still bound and determined to try and convince us that Ike Turner's torture of Tina Turner and other women needs to be 'set aside' or 'forgotten' or 'left out of the equation' is ridiculous. Our pieces we write together are our opinion and we express it and then move on. Your obsession with us is unhealthy and an indication of how many people (or maybe just women) you've been able to browbeat into agreement. We will never agree that Ike Turner's beating doesn't go to who he was as a person. All being journalists, you presumably have an outlet in which you could disagree with us, but doing so would mean going on the record and that's probably why you resort to those e-mails because it wouldn't play well with most people if they knew you were repeatedly minimizing and justifying the abuse of a woman -- it's more than one woman but you all refuse to grasp that. So you keep coming back to it and coming back to it. None of you will get a reply. I am insulted that Dona attempted to reply to one journalist last week and was treated like she was a babbling fool. Dona chooses her words very carefully. She's steady in everything she does and if you can't grasp what she says in a simple declarative sentence then you'll never grasp anything that anyone says. Jim told C.I. and I both that Dona stated, "I am disturbed by what appears to be the passed on nature." She goes on to explain that you're writing about an article you haven't read which indicates someone told you, "You must write in on this!" because if, someone didn't tell you that, why the hell are you writing to complain, question or comment on an article you never even read? And how the hell did you find our e-mail address to begin with? You didn't visit our site last week or else you're unable to handle a webpage because Jim's note lists every article in each edition and, in addition, the articles are all listed in a sidebar on the right. So if you visited the site to find the e-mail address it's rather shocking that you were confused as to which article was about Ike Turner. It would have been the one entitled "Ike Turner (Ava and C.I. feature)." That should be rather obvious to anyone but especially to an allegedly trained journalist. Jess just read the two whiners, of the original five, again and one wants to say, "If it was wrong for me to weigh in on an article I didn't read, it's wrong for you to weigh in on my e-mail you didn't read." No, there's a difference. We posted an article online for anyone to see. You wanted to comment on it. We don't read those e-mails. We get a summary on all e-mails about our writing. We don't have the time to read regular readers let alone someone who happens by. The difference is we posted an article online that anyone can read and you wanted to argue and bicker in private about an article you didn't read and things you didn't know. We know your points, they were summarized to us -- and it appears the five were part of an organized writing campaign indicating that your bosses should be aware of exactly how much time you have on your hands while on the company clock. There is a difference. And here's another. We didn't read your e-mails but we know what you said and responded to that. You heard of an article but didn't know enough about it -- because you didn't read it -- to comment on it. Apparently you took part in an organized e-mail campaign based on a one sentence summary. The morning after Elaine's post went up, we had Jim on the phone and C.I. opened with, "I'm going to repeat some points based on my understanding of Elaine's post. Tell me if I'm understanding correctly." After that was all checked off on, Jim then added some more details about the texts of the e-mails. We fully understood your rants. You couldn't even point to errors despite maintaining they were there. Clearly, what we did and what you did were not the same things because we understood your e-mails and you couldn't even be bothered with reading a public article before weighing in. Do yourself a favor and go away. It's like we went into a bar to grab a drink and catch up and you hovered around us the whole time, ignoring that we refused your drinks, ignoring that we've told you to get lost. It's last call, find someone else to go home with. You never stood a chance, but you have struck out.
-- Ava repling to the whiners and big babies. "It's like we" Ava and C.I. "went into a bar to grab a drink and catch up and you hovered around us the whole time, ignoring that we refused your drinks, ignoring that we've told you to get lost. It's last call, find someone else to go home with. You never stood a chance, but you have struck out." :D