Schutz’s Obfuscation
September 22, 2024 at 4:06 p.m.
Editor, Times-Union:
This letter is in response to Ms. Schutz letter "Seeking Truth."
As those that read these letters can tell, Ms. Schutz letters tend to drive me to the brink of frustration. In simple terms, she says one thing and does another.
First of all, she says, "I believe in honest conversation" yet answers my request with "As a rule I do not engage with anyone responding to my letters."
Secondly, she says, " I am always prepared with reliable 'receipts,'" but in my request for proof of one of her "facts" she responds with "try to disprove my findings."
Thirdly, while I will admit, up front, that Donald Trump has said some strange things from time to time, such as the one that Christians may not need to vote anymore. (Obviously, that was not well thought out.) Even Donald Trump is NOT going to admit to the claims Ms. Schutz put forth. However, rather than admitting she got carried away and stated her opinion as fact, she resorted to obfuscation.
(I've always wanted to use that word in a letter. Just to make sure I was using it right, I looked it up in "Oxford" and it said 'the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.' Then it gave this sentence as an example. "When confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation." I thought the word fit well, considering she wrote over a 470-word response.)
Fourth, she says, "I am satisfied that what I offer in writing is true." This is what one says when one offers an opinion. If you're stating facts there is no need for satisfaction. Truth is truth.
Lastly, (I apologize for the length of this letter. I hate long letters.) she says, do your own research but then reveals her real reason for writing at all. "I do not write letters to 'stir things up' but rather to share information with folks who do not have time to do their own research." Here she is asking people to blindly trust her.
Might I suggest one watch out for this lady. She has an agenda and it's not open for discussion. (By the way, less there be any confusion, this is my opinion. Hopefully, it's now yours as well.)
John Burtoft
Warsaw
Editor, Times-Union:
This letter is in response to Ms. Schutz letter "Seeking Truth."
As those that read these letters can tell, Ms. Schutz letters tend to drive me to the brink of frustration. In simple terms, she says one thing and does another.
First of all, she says, "I believe in honest conversation" yet answers my request with "As a rule I do not engage with anyone responding to my letters."
Secondly, she says, " I am always prepared with reliable 'receipts,'" but in my request for proof of one of her "facts" she responds with "try to disprove my findings."
Thirdly, while I will admit, up front, that Donald Trump has said some strange things from time to time, such as the one that Christians may not need to vote anymore. (Obviously, that was not well thought out.) Even Donald Trump is NOT going to admit to the claims Ms. Schutz put forth. However, rather than admitting she got carried away and stated her opinion as fact, she resorted to obfuscation.
(I've always wanted to use that word in a letter. Just to make sure I was using it right, I looked it up in "Oxford" and it said 'the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.' Then it gave this sentence as an example. "When confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation." I thought the word fit well, considering she wrote over a 470-word response.)
Fourth, she says, "I am satisfied that what I offer in writing is true." This is what one says when one offers an opinion. If you're stating facts there is no need for satisfaction. Truth is truth.
Lastly, (I apologize for the length of this letter. I hate long letters.) she says, do your own research but then reveals her real reason for writing at all. "I do not write letters to 'stir things up' but rather to share information with folks who do not have time to do their own research." Here she is asking people to blindly trust her.
Might I suggest one watch out for this lady. She has an agenda and it's not open for discussion. (By the way, less there be any confusion, this is my opinion. Hopefully, it's now yours as well.)
John Burtoft
Warsaw