![]() And the very first result is a link to the Knoxville-Sentinel’s archive on this case. Upon googling the names of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, no fewer than 136,000 results are listed. There is a very good reason for this: Stix has zero grounds upon which to root such a charge. Therefore, he stole from Stix.īut what exactly can it mean to be “ripped off” in this context? Notice, Stix never accuses either me or any of his other “sons”-his not so affectionate term for those of us who also seek to bring the national scandal of media silence on black-on-white violence to more people’s attention-of plagiarism. He is unfamiliar with Satterfield’s work. This is a vintage example of what logicians from the time of Aristotle have called “false dichotomy”: Either Jack is familiar with Satterfield’s work or all that he knows of the Knoxville case he stole from Stix. Stix, however, in a feat that would make a college freshman in a basic logic course blush, reasons from my carelessness to the conclusion that I “ripped” him “off.” ![]() First, though, it should be noted that Stix is correct about one thing: I am not “familiar with Jamie Satterfield’s work ” I thought to even glance at the name attached to the Knoxville-Sentinel’s article from which I quoted only because, well, I was quoting from it. Of both the Orwellian concept of theft that Stix employs here, as well as the shoddiness of his reasoning, more will be said shortly. He makes the same mistake twice, and never gets her name right.” Stix confidently declares: “Nobody familiar with Jamie Satterfield’s work would do that.” “Kerwick and his defenders would surely respond that it was an innocent mistake, but that won’t wash. ![]() Yet because of this, and because I, admittedly, and carelessly, misspelled the name of the Knoxville Sentinel reporter, Jamie Satterfield (I wrote S utterfield), to whom I alluded in my piece, Stix’s verdict is that I “ripped” him “off.” As an illustration of the latter, I selected the grisly ordeal of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, a young white couple from Tennessee who were carjacked, abducted, raped, tortured, and murdered by four black men and one black woman in Knoxville back in 2007.Īnd to show that this wasn’t just an event that was six years old, but a saga that continues to the present, I segued into a description of the circumstances in which the victims spent their remaining hours by way of mentioning that even while the brouhaha over Deen is all of the rage, one of the victimizers, George Thomas, had just been retried and convicted once more.Īdmirably, gallantly, Stix had been writing about this topic from the time that it first occurred. On July 3, I published an article in Front Page Magazine entitled, “Paula Deen and the Fundamental Transformation of America.” The objective of the piece was to draw out the glaring contrast between, on the one hand, the media’s obsession with Deen’s use of “the N-word” decades ago and, on the other, its indifference toward black-on-white cruelty. ![]() In “While Reading about the Knoxville Horror, Journalist Finds Son He Didn’t Know He Had,” Stix remarks: “I just discovered a new son, and his name is Jack Kerwick!” ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |