Recent Posts
Subscribe (RSS)
Darren Barefoot doesn't think Joy Kogawa's childhood house is worth saving
[link]
Except for quoted text, Just a Gwai Lo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Canada License. A clearly-indicated direct link back to the original article is sufficient attribution. Just a Gwai Lo is powered by Drupal.
Comments
I think that paraphrase misrepresents my point, which reads in part "I'm unconvinced about the house's significance, it's a questionable, costly location, and there's been no shortage of redress or recognition of Canada's dark days of internment."
That is, I'm not sure it's worth saving at $1.25 million, with a plan that it be converted into a writer's retreat.
"Darren Barefoot questions whether saving Joy Kogawa's childhood house is a good idea" would be a more representative sentence.
I'd also welcome dissenting opinions on this point, but nobody (besides one of the guys organizing the house-saving) seems inclined. Are you?
I stand by the link text as accurately summarizing your article, if not as accurately as you like. That said, I'll make you a deal, though: if you change the title of your Geoffrey Beene shirts article to a statement you actually believe (since you're #1 in Google for 'geoffrey beene shirts'), I'll use the link text you suggest.
To answer your question, I don't have a dissenting opinion. To be honest, unless there's tax dollars involved, I don't really care either way.
I'm afraid you're not comparing apples-to-apples. That Geoffrey Beene post specificially indicates that I self-conciously mis-titled my post. As I wrote "I titled it 'Geoffrey Beene Makes Bad Shirts' to highlight the importance of having an online presence." Until I added a comment, however, you had no such mitigating text associated with your link.
That is, while my Geoffrey Beene title wasn't necessarily a reflection of my opinion, it was purposeful and specifically related to the post that followed. See also, for example, This is Not About My Phlegm, which is decidedly about my phlegm.
In the same spirit, let me ask why you 'stand by the link text as accurately summarizing your article'? I've provided several reasons as to why it doesn't accurately summarize my article.
If you'd provided more than just a link--some discussion of the subject and my apparent opinion--then I'd have much less of a complaint.
I expect there are some tax dollars indirectly involved, as I'm fairly certain the Land Conservancy has received grants or funding from sundry levels of government over the years.