It’s hysterical. Carol McKinley labels me the Dan Rather of bloggers (whatever that means) for failing to stand up and defend Deal Hudson to the last drop of my blood, but now Bill Cork is attacking me because he says I was defending Deal Hudson. So which is it, was I defending him or not?
In reality, neither. I pointed to the story, made some comments, and then said that since I don’t know the whole story and emotions surrounding it are running very high, I’d rather stay out of the line of fire. Of course, I ended up getting caught in the crossfire, so what can I do? You can’t win for losing, I guess.
As for Bill’s other assertions, since The Wanderer article wasn’t published any speculation as to what was going to be in it is just that: speculation. And I guess Bill’s assuming the worst. As I’ve said before Barbara Kralis could have been looking for any background information on Archbishop Harry Flynn that her circle of friends could offer (and she has already admitted that her use of the word “scuttlebutt” was ill-advised because it caused people to misunderstand her intent.) That said, I will remind people that I wasn’t defending Barbara either, just pointing out the weirdness of the archbishop’s response and that there were other rational explanations that didn’t have to assume ill intent.
Clearly, its on the record that you were defending him BEFORE you were attacking him!!
Sorry Dom I couldn’t resist the reference.
Jaime
Or an earlier reference Jaime:
Dom, at podium pointing finger: “I did NOT defend/attack that… man/woman (insert name)…”
Dom, we feel your pain…:)