May 12, 2005

Ken Wells '08 responds

The Review pointlessly singled him and his blogging friends out and only made themselves look like assholes. The man deserves to have his rebuttal read:
When the aliased was drafting this story, the first thing that should have clued him in on the context of theRandomness was the blog's URL (whip that shit out) and the title (the Randomness). Think about it syllable by syllable. The Randomness.....The. Ran. dom. ness. Basically, it implies a collage of useless, insignificant crap; kind of like your article and kind of like most all other TDR articles for that matter. I mean, it may be unfair to point out only one specific article of TDR and draw conclusions about the integrity of the entire organization, but then again, that's what the author in question has done to me and my friends.

1 comment:

  1. As someone else who was senselessly singled out by the Review, I agree that the review deserves our harsh-but-true words as much as anyone. Yet, when TDR makes these malicious personal attacks (resembling a tabloid rather than a news journal), they want to stir controversy. And, as mean as we can be in our responses, it would only fuel the fire they intended to ignite in the first place. They want people to get pissed off and respond.

    Yet, although I wrote a response found at my own blog "CJo: Ahead of My Time" (, I am choosing not to send it in to TDR. First, I know they would only take portions of it out of context and spin it in such a way to criticize me, but second I don't want them to win. They are not worth my time or stress. I know that most of what they write is garbage, so I refuse to take it too seriously.