Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Can't be me

"Neil's talking about you in his editorial," they told me. (He stands with the pedophiles, Nov. 23). "Can't be me" I responded, "my letter (Fake news, old news, Nov. 17) didn't say anything like that.

"Neil's talking about you in his editorial," they told me. (He stands with the pedophiles, Nov. 23).

"Can't be me" I responded, "my letter (Fake news, old news, Nov. 17) didn't say anything like that.

For example, the Prince George man in Neil's editorial defended Roy Moore, I didn't defend him in any way, shape or form. In fact, my letter wasn't even about him, it questioned the conduct of the media.

I wondered about the timing of the story, coming when it was too late to replace Moore on the ballot, leaving the Republicans with a fatally flawed scumbag candidate that they can't endorse and worried that the Democrats have a clear shot at the seat.

The man Neil talks about also demanded more investigative journalism about Moore's Democrat opponent, Bob Jones, or Hillary Clinton. I didn't make any demands of any kind. I did wonder if the WaPo reporter had investigated Jones with equal zeal. After all, an impartial reporter would treat every candidate the same, right?

Apparently the man that Neil talks about believes the accusers but doesn't believe the publication which reported their allegations. What a ridiculous position! I made no suggestion or inference that the reporter got the story wrong, Neil's man would have to be out to lunch to believe such cognitive dissonance.

And finally Neil's man thinks that if the Washington Post looked into Jones, they'd find he preyed on young girls, too. Unlike him, I suggested nothing of the sort, I only wondered if the Post had treated both candidates without initial bias, and to demonstrate that such bias against the Democrats actually does exist, I listed five examples.

No, it's obvious that Neil's editorial wasn't be about me. If it was, it would be a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote, a straw-man argument (which is when someone invents a position for his opponent, attributes it to his opponent and then argues against his invention rather than what his opponent actually said) and would even break one of the 10 Commandments. I wonder who this mystery man is?

Art Betke

Prince George