REBUTTAL to Smell the Stench
MY REBUTTAL85 total reviews
Comment from vickib
Thank God and greyhound, as my husband say's. Thank you, thank you for writing what I felt and couldn't figure out how to say. Razz's post really upset me. I was shocked by it and I was shocked at the extreme range of ratings on her post. I shook my head and wondered off saddened by the forcefulness of it all and the fact that it gets us no where. The six is for speaking up for me, a quiet one when it comes to religion as I just can't judge anyone when it comes to it.
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
  |
Thank God and greyhound, as my husband say's. Thank you, thank you for writing what I felt and couldn't figure out how to say. Razz's post really upset me. I was shocked by it and I was shocked at the extreme range of ratings on her post. I shook my head and wondered off saddened by the forcefulness of it all and the fact that it gets us no where. The six is for speaking up for me, a quiet one when it comes to religion as I just can't judge anyone when it comes to it.
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
ditto on my rivate response
Comment from cheyennewy
Hi Echo,
I remember reading and reviewing your poem...Wake up and Smell the Stench...I think it is allowed to voice one's opinion and thought you brave to do that. I understand why you felt the need to post a rebuttal, which is well written and thoughtful. Blessings, chey
I went back to read that poem again and found Razz wrote it. Yikes what was I thinking? You most likely think me daft! chey
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
 |
Hi Echo,
I remember reading and reviewing your poem...Wake up and Smell the Stench...I think it is allowed to voice one's opinion and thought you brave to do that. I understand why you felt the need to post a rebuttal, which is well written and thoughtful. Blessings, chey
I went back to read that poem again and found Razz wrote it. Yikes what was I thinking? You most likely think me daft! chey
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
I wrote the rebuttal because I took issue with the tone and the indignan way Razz responded to members. I totally agree that everyone has a right to voice their views, hopefully in a coherent and logical way, but I absolutely did not have any association with the poem.
-
I know that now and did add to my review! Sorry...chey
Comment from jdrhye
I agree and applaud your penning inspiration. I too read Wake up and smell the stench and although it seemed to shout off the page and into my computer screen I felt it had merit for the conviction and heart as well as the courage to speak freely as you have done as well! USA what a wonderful democracy we live in, to be and speak, to chose. Thank you for sharing and congrates on your courage to do so!!
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
|
I agree and applaud your penning inspiration. I too read Wake up and smell the stench and although it seemed to shout off the page and into my computer screen I felt it had merit for the conviction and heart as well as the courage to speak freely as you have done as well! USA what a wonderful democracy we live in, to be and speak, to chose. Thank you for sharing and congrates on your courage to do so!!
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
Thank you for responding. The author's response to reviewers is equally intteresting.
Yes, we are all awarded the ability to express our views and that is a blessing.
Comment from MS Writer
I had clicked to read the "stench" but then when I saw the 4 stars I figured oh go write something. But then today I saw your rebuttal and read it. Which made me go back to the "stench" and read it. All I can say is that you have presented your point of view on this subject in a very clear, concise manner. Points well taken. Everyone has free speech and we certainly don't have to agree.
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
|
I had clicked to read the "stench" but then when I saw the 4 stars I figured oh go write something. But then today I saw your rebuttal and read it. Which made me go back to the "stench" and read it. All I can say is that you have presented your point of view on this subject in a very clear, concise manner. Points well taken. Everyone has free speech and we certainly don't have to agree.
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
You are absolutely right.
Comment from Narvik
So glad you wrote this, Echo. The perfect rebuttal to that essay or poem or whatever it was. I think I gave it three stars which was probably even too much. I told her she needed to turn it into an essay for it to make much sense. I did remark on her courage, although in this case "discretion is the better part of valor" comes to mind.
Although I hate to see polarization on this site, especially on things like politics and religion, in this case I think your rebuttal is well warranted. These discussions can either be constructive, or else turn into an eternal circle jerk, and I think this essay of yours is undoubtedly constructive.
Anyway, unlike "The Stench" your essay is very well written, in technic, SPAG's, style and clearly expressing your argument in a rational tone. Thanks for posting it.
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
|
So glad you wrote this, Echo. The perfect rebuttal to that essay or poem or whatever it was. I think I gave it three stars which was probably even too much. I told her she needed to turn it into an essay for it to make much sense. I did remark on her courage, although in this case "discretion is the better part of valor" comes to mind.
Although I hate to see polarization on this site, especially on things like politics and religion, in this case I think your rebuttal is well warranted. These discussions can either be constructive, or else turn into an eternal circle jerk, and I think this essay of yours is undoubtedly constructive.
Anyway, unlike "The Stench" your essay is very well written, in technic, SPAG's, style and clearly expressing your argument in a rational tone. Thanks for posting it.
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
As you know, I admire your writing skills very much and your comments are very meaningful. I read your review and like you, I commented on the passion with which this piece was written.
The formatting and writing in the original essay's posting was very poor, but I also marked higher, giving this a four as I did not want my review to in any way suggest that I was taing exception to the writer's POV. So, I backed down because she was expounding, using God as her intimate final authority and I chose not to question her beliefs.
Comment from TKField
This very nicely worded and reasoned response to "WUASTS" is a breath of fresh air. Your logic and clarity are in sharp contrast to the colossal sewer-bilge spewing forth from the brain-dead manifestos of "R".
I agree that she's trying to get a rise by taking positions out beyond the boondocks and being intentionally offensive. She reminds me of that wonderfully enlightened group who picket soldiers funerals because they don't like gays. This only proves that if you paint yourself yellow, foam at the mouth and jump about like a lunatic, you'll get some attention. What's really scary are the people who awarded this badly written pile of poop five and six stars and said they agreed with her idiotic beliefs.
The record number of views are a bit skewed. It's the second time this piece has been posted. She just changed the title.
After I wrote withering reviews to a couple of her other screeds, she muted me, (check out my comments if you want a good laugh). She's a big coward and I consider her mute a badge of honor.
I pissed her off so much she doesn't want me coming anywhere near her rubbish. Apparently, I'm even more threatening than the Anti-Christ, whom she also has a bug up her sanctimonious ass about. So even though I couldn't actually read "WUASTS", I could access the reviews. Imagine my surprise when I came across one written by me! Only it was from July of last year. This "poem" is just the same reeking swill with a new label.
Again, kudos for the rebuttal, and "R", if you're reading this, you are a gutless wonder. As for your wretched "writing", it should be disposed of properly...flush twice.
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
|
This very nicely worded and reasoned response to "WUASTS" is a breath of fresh air. Your logic and clarity are in sharp contrast to the colossal sewer-bilge spewing forth from the brain-dead manifestos of "R".
I agree that she's trying to get a rise by taking positions out beyond the boondocks and being intentionally offensive. She reminds me of that wonderfully enlightened group who picket soldiers funerals because they don't like gays. This only proves that if you paint yourself yellow, foam at the mouth and jump about like a lunatic, you'll get some attention. What's really scary are the people who awarded this badly written pile of poop five and six stars and said they agreed with her idiotic beliefs.
The record number of views are a bit skewed. It's the second time this piece has been posted. She just changed the title.
After I wrote withering reviews to a couple of her other screeds, she muted me, (check out my comments if you want a good laugh). She's a big coward and I consider her mute a badge of honor.
I pissed her off so much she doesn't want me coming anywhere near her rubbish. Apparently, I'm even more threatening than the Anti-Christ, whom she also has a bug up her sanctimonious ass about. So even though I couldn't actually read "WUASTS", I could access the reviews. Imagine my surprise when I came across one written by me! Only it was from July of last year. This "poem" is just the same reeking swill with a new label.
Again, kudos for the rebuttal, and "R", if you're reading this, you are a gutless wonder. As for your wretched "writing", it should be disposed of properly...flush twice.
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
Your response was as much fun to read as entries to a humor contest! Thanks! I needed that.
Now how on earth do you take reviews from one previous posting and attach them to a current submission?????
That's just plain bizarre!
Thanks for taking the time to write. I won't be posting any work aout God, abortion or education for a long, long time. I, like you appreciate the site for the literary feedback.But, some controversial attitudes need to be called up to the table.
-
It was my pleasure.
Comment from NadineM
I've read your rebuttal but wasn't able to read the original "Wake up and smell the stench" poem/essay. It's been removed from public view. Am I then the unfortunate one to have missed such a stirring write? Perhaps not.
Your rebuttal is well-worded and exhibits great restraint, leaving me impressed.
Thanks for sharing this with me.
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
|
I've read your rebuttal but wasn't able to read the original "Wake up and smell the stench" poem/essay. It's been removed from public view. Am I then the unfortunate one to have missed such a stirring write? Perhaps not.
Your rebuttal is well-worded and exhibits great restraint, leaving me impressed.
Thanks for sharing this with me.
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
Go to the member's profile page. The author is Razz and it's quite possible that her promtion certificate expired.
Thanks for your response.
Comment from JeJo
hello SE,
I read fully/reviewed the posting referred to here (it was under a different name then - I think "Sins of America") a while ago, back in last July. Today, I would like to rerate and rereview (which I could), but that's useless for many reasons. I gave a 'four' to that piece; today, I'd probably give it a 'three' mainly because of how it is written - not what is being written about. I agree with Razz's views, but not in not taking correction, especially for technical and grammatical reasons, and in being rude. That's no way to treat a reviewer. I have read every review/response up till now, and for the reviewing/responding part, I agree with you. And for your review, I agree with most of it, and thought the response rather rude. Of course, I got an 'average' response - mainly a 'thank you'..
This is a well-written rebuttal, better technically and easier to understand.
However, for the number of people reading her post, many could easily be several from the same people, as that happens frequently, and it was promoted months ago.
What I liked about this piece is that it acknowledged that controversy is OK and debates are fine - even arguing is fine, but it is when we use our words to manipulate our wishes. For example:
"Creating controversy is an enjoyable pastime and a theatrical trick. Using God as a tool in order to create this notoriety is the real sin."
And how you also did not put yourself into deeply discussing the religious content/theological approach to her post, of which major debates could/can be started.
a few small things/suggestions:
For every nod of approval that Razz received, - I'd omit the 'that' here - it doesn't seem necessary
while still agreeing in principal, - principle
the author attacked the reviewer throwing up God as her holy shield. - I would put a comma after 'reviewer'; there seems to be a pause necessary there
the author labelled them, often accusing - labeled (I don't know where you live - maybe that is an acceptable spelling - just wanted to point it out)
there was little respect shown for the reviewers efforts. - reviewers' efforts (for there were several reviewers)
because Jesus appears in the subject line and inadvertently pollute their - pollutes (to be parallel with 'appears')
However, for the 1800 who opened "Wake Up and Smell The Stench, only 200 chose - missing quotes after Stench,(")
That means that only eight percent of these members felt the - there are two 'that' words very close together; I'd suggest omitting the second one.. and I was one of the eight percent, feeling I should give a review.
This is a very well-written essay - if these small things are fixed, please tell me and I'd be more than happy to take another look and upgrade :) the 'four' is only for technical stuff :)
Great rebuttal - interesting and well-written :) You back up your point with several examples, from this site and elsewhere. All the best, Jen
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
 |
hello SE,
I read fully/reviewed the posting referred to here (it was under a different name then - I think "Sins of America") a while ago, back in last July. Today, I would like to rerate and rereview (which I could), but that's useless for many reasons. I gave a 'four' to that piece; today, I'd probably give it a 'three' mainly because of how it is written - not what is being written about. I agree with Razz's views, but not in not taking correction, especially for technical and grammatical reasons, and in being rude. That's no way to treat a reviewer. I have read every review/response up till now, and for the reviewing/responding part, I agree with you. And for your review, I agree with most of it, and thought the response rather rude. Of course, I got an 'average' response - mainly a 'thank you'..
This is a well-written rebuttal, better technically and easier to understand.
However, for the number of people reading her post, many could easily be several from the same people, as that happens frequently, and it was promoted months ago.
What I liked about this piece is that it acknowledged that controversy is OK and debates are fine - even arguing is fine, but it is when we use our words to manipulate our wishes. For example:
"Creating controversy is an enjoyable pastime and a theatrical trick. Using God as a tool in order to create this notoriety is the real sin."
And how you also did not put yourself into deeply discussing the religious content/theological approach to her post, of which major debates could/can be started.
a few small things/suggestions:
For every nod of approval that Razz received, - I'd omit the 'that' here - it doesn't seem necessary
while still agreeing in principal, - principle
the author attacked the reviewer throwing up God as her holy shield. - I would put a comma after 'reviewer'; there seems to be a pause necessary there
the author labelled them, often accusing - labeled (I don't know where you live - maybe that is an acceptable spelling - just wanted to point it out)
there was little respect shown for the reviewers efforts. - reviewers' efforts (for there were several reviewers)
because Jesus appears in the subject line and inadvertently pollute their - pollutes (to be parallel with 'appears')
However, for the 1800 who opened "Wake Up and Smell The Stench, only 200 chose - missing quotes after Stench,(")
That means that only eight percent of these members felt the - there are two 'that' words very close together; I'd suggest omitting the second one.. and I was one of the eight percent, feeling I should give a review.
This is a very well-written essay - if these small things are fixed, please tell me and I'd be more than happy to take another look and upgrade :) the 'four' is only for technical stuff :)
Great rebuttal - interesting and well-written :) You back up your point with several examples, from this site and elsewhere. All the best, Jen
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
Thanks for the sharp eye. I will go back and make corrections and no, you don't have to upgrade the stars. I wrote this after also readng Razz's submission and offering a four star rating, primarily because of the passion involved in the writing. I share a certain number of views that she brought forward, but the response I received (while ignoring the subject in the content) was sarcastic. I went into the review column to see what other responses were posted.
If someone disagreed with any points or suggested tolerance and love of mankind, there was a vehement response and ultimately an accusation that the reviewer must agree will "killing our babies" which led me to believe that the real issue was abortion. But instead of formulating a strong argument the author chose to use God as his prime witness to ANY discussion about his essay.
I did not respond by debating the issues because I would have respected ANY point to view that the autho might have presented provided that it was formulated in a logical presentation. This was simply a rant.
My entire essay was to point out extremism and hard-hitting defences that obscure the points being made by invoking God. If I had such a close relationship to fully understand the word of God I might have responded with counter arguments. But I feel my right to represent God's teachings are better left in the hand of learned men and women.
I do not belive non-Christians should be excluded from debates that involve consequences for soceity. Not do I believe that spiritual choices negate the universal desire to live in harmony and peace. I found Razz' essay and responses to verge on the edge of inciting hate.
I spent a great deal to push my rebittal to the top so that it could be aligned with the original. It isn't a subject nor an essay that I would normally put so much real cash promoting, but I felt very strongly about the manner, language and tone that "Stench" was promoted.
Thank you for your response and insight.
-
You are very welcome.. and thank you for the great reply. We all have our choices and opinions - and I do believe in passion, which I think, regardless of the topic, both posts have, which creates some passionate responses :)
Comment from Sally Carter
Bravo - the post you refer to is not (or should not be) what Fanstory is about.
I read and commented on a previous piece and received a shockingly self satisfied reply. And then I was angry with myself that I had upped the number of reviews to no purpose whatsoever.
The writer scares me.
A very good point of yours, questioning what the response would have been if the subject was another faith.
One small point in your own piece - it should be "principle" in the para beginning "For every nod...".
What a terrifying thought to be part of a world run on these beliefs.
I applaud you for your stance.
Sally
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
|
Bravo - the post you refer to is not (or should not be) what Fanstory is about.
I read and commented on a previous piece and received a shockingly self satisfied reply. And then I was angry with myself that I had upped the number of reviews to no purpose whatsoever.
The writer scares me.
A very good point of yours, questioning what the response would have been if the subject was another faith.
One small point in your own piece - it should be "principle" in the para beginning "For every nod...".
What a terrifying thought to be part of a world run on these beliefs.
I applaud you for your stance.
Sally
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
Thanks Sally. I will make the correction.
I believe you understand exactly what motivated me to write and post this piece and I agree with your sentiments.
Comment from bayoupoet
I reviewed this write mostly from writing rather than content. I don't necessarily believe the way the author feels, but defend her right to believe that way, as I believe in your right to believe your way! This is a well written piece!
sandra
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
|
I reviewed this write mostly from writing rather than content. I don't necessarily believe the way the author feels, but defend her right to believe that way, as I believe in your right to believe your way! This is a well written piece!
sandra
Comment Written 23-Feb-2011
reply by the author on 23-Feb-2011
-
I don't question anybone's right either.
But, I don't think somethings should go silently unaddressed and my response is a public as the original essay.
I am reminded of a quote (by Martin Luther King Jr., I think) "Be not agraid of angry evil men. Be afraid of the silence of good men."
-
I hope I didn't offend you, for that was not my intention!
sandra
-
Not at all.
-
I'm so glad!
