Tim wrote:
>>Well, my point is, so what if they do, and I have changed their minds? I
>>still think I'm entitled and justified to be critical of Oprah and not like
>>her. If others on the list are convinced I'm right, then their opinion of
>>her wasn't very strong to begin with...
>
>"If that bitch let me smack her around like that for all those years, her
>opinion of herself wasn't very good to begin with... and that ain't my
>fault--I was entitled and justified."
I think it's completely wrong to equate my assertion that I'm entiled to an opinion (which I am, goddamn it, that's what I've been trying to say all along) with beating a spouse, and making an exuse for it. I wasn't aware I've been abusing Oprah at all. You're taking something serious and turning it into a joke by comparing it to my criticism of Oprah. That analogy doesn't wash with me at all.
>Funny, how easy it is for the attacker to shift the blame onto the shoulders
>of the attacked by using those kind of phrases, isn't it?
Oprah is not my "victim". If I bought a new album by a band someone suggested, but then found myself to be very disappointed, and then I wrote a review, strongly stating how much I dislike the group's music, does that mean I am "attacking" them? No, it's criticism of their form of entertainment, not blowing up their studio.
I believe "you cannot dispute taste". So why *are* we disputing taste, again? After all, that is what the argument has always been about to me; my assertion that I do not like Oprah's show, and I do not like her (there is a difference between not liking someone, and hating them), but that's OK. Or, is my opinion of not liking her somehow less equal than yours which endorses her? Doesn't add up. For a group that prides itself on being open-minded, take a look at how accepting you are.
~kjs