Malice in Wonderland

In a report by GMANews.TV, former DSWD (now DOH) Secretary Esperanza Cabral, through the National Bureau of Investigation, has filed a libel suit against a blogger named “Ella,” who exposed some irregularities and alleged hoarding activities of the DSWD, at the height of the Typhoon Ondoy and Pepeng relief efforts.  On the one hand, some people believe that Cabral is right to sue Ella, if only because the practice of “exposing” irregularities and the expression of dissent and disagreement can sometimes be irresponsible.  On the other hand, some people believe that the suit can set a precedent for the Government to muzzle the Internet.

Libel, as we all know, could – and should – be proven with one very important element: malice.

Malice is the exact opposite of one of the precepts that keep society orderly, harmonious, and civil: “do no harm.”  Malice, at least in my view, is one of two things: 1) it is the deliberate intention to cause harm, and 2) it is to go about one’s gains recklessly such that harm is caused.  A lot of criminality revolves around malice: causing harm, whether intentional or out of spite and recklessness, is to live in dishonor and not to give everyone his or her own due.  That’s how dangerous malice is, and one reason why libel is difficult to prove.

Personally, I find it odd that in so many instances of outright malice already taking place on the Internet, where reputations of honorable Filipinos are defamed and insulted and mocked and scorned on a daily basis, this has to happen.  A sitting member of the Cabinet takes a bunch of observations and pictures – all Ella could ever get given the context of the post and the limitations of what she can and what she’s supposed to do – and calls libel out on it.  What was to be gained, and at the expense of what?  If that is proven, then let justice take its course.  Yet – and I hope this is not the case – if such a tactic is used to bully a blogger into submission, I think we owe it to ourselves to defend our rights, and be aware of where we are.

Bloggers are not journalists: unless you are one, or you append that role (implicitly or explicitly) to what you do.  You are always limited by the information you have on hand, and often an opinion is based on that limited pool of information.  You can never have “both sides of the story” given that limitation.  A writer is obligated not to take “both sides of the story,” but to treat the information on hand objectively, to weigh them prudently, and to write about the topics as honestly as possible.

Ella had that much to work with, she posted her observations on her blog, and offered solutions to the problem.  She expressed her discontent, her dissent, and her disappointment.  Now she faces a very real accusation that could land her in jail for any proof that she deliberately or implicitly did it to hurt Cabral.  The good Secretary, however, still enjoys the confidence and the favor of the State despite that supposedly “libelous” post.

Where is the harm, and if it exists, who is harmed?  Caveat: there is no objective source of information.  Caveat: all people have biases and information can never be completely neutral.  Caveat: to write is already to choose.

I think that for Sec. Cabral to go beyond her press releases and statements, or to overlook the channels of new media to make her point clear, and to cry libel from her position as a member of the Cabinet, is not just and it is certainly not fair.  Yet at the same time, I think that Ella should practice prudence and tact: that an honest opinion can always be phrased in a way that does not attract ire, but action and attention.

I’m not saying that bloggers who are motivated by malice should be exonerated under the guise of free speech.  I’m not saying that malice does not exist in the Internet.  I’m not saying that Ella is completely innocent.  If Ella is wrong, she should apologize.  If Sec. Cabral is wrong, she should apologize.  We should all be prepared for the consequences of what we blog about, for so long as those consequences are fair, just, and proper.  If there is no merit to the case – and my personal belief is there is none – then it should be junked.

New media is all about synergy and discussion.  If Sec. Cabral understands that she can come to the defense of her reputation or the institution she represents by commenting on Ella’s blog (or sending her email, or telling her side of the story through a press release or whatever venue is available to her), then there wouldn’t be a need for her to use her position to force Ella to submission.  Sec. Cabral already did, in news reports and releases from her office and her department.  We were left to decide between Ella’s blog, or Sec. Cabral’s statement.  Like everything in blogs, it was a word against another.

On the one hand, Ella’s tone may be laid into question.  Then again, it matters where the lawsuit is coming from.  Malice, in this case, comes from well within a wonderland.  Overkill, so to speak.

27 thoughts on “Malice in Wonderland

  1. The Freedom of Information act lies gathering dust in the shelves of congress. Transparency will prevent this kind of case. The problem is that people are left guessing whch leads to speculation. To avoid this, the agencies should open its records to the people. An unpopular administration will always be suspected even when some of its employees are honestly doing their job.

  2. In the interest of fairness, we may want to consider these details in weighing the matter at hand:

    http://jlp-law.com/blog/libel-e-internet-libel/
    In Philippine jurisdiction, the truth is not always a defense. While something is true, if the purpose is to besmirch, then liability still exists. To be liable for libel, the following elements must be shown to exist:

    (1) the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

    Here are some photo captions in Ella’s blog:

    – Marami pang pabubulukin

    – Sige, ideretso ‘nyo ulit ‘yan sa DSWD warehouse. Para AMAG naman ang abutin ng biskwit… at sapot ng gagamba.

    – Do you mean “do not delay ang dati nang delayed”

    – Sabay tatahiin na ang sako. O di ba, parang asong tinapunan ng buto ang mga nasalanta?

    – Relief goods na ayaw yata ibigay sa mga nasalanta. Halatang-halata.

    Her Conclusion:

    Susulpot din siguro ang laman ng mga mahiwagang kahon at mapapasakamay din ng mga tao…sa ARAW NG ELEKSYON.

    (2) publication of the charge;
    http://www.ellaganda.com/?p=1759

    (3) identity of the person defamed; and
    http://www.ellaganda.com/?p=1759

    (4) existence of malice.

    Legal malice is a term that refers to one party’s intention to do injury to another. Malice can either be expressed or implied.

    – Expressed malice occurs when the party gives outward notice that they intend to commit a crime or some other wrong towards another.

    Nagpalabas ng directive ang pangulo. Individuals, private companies and other nations were ENCOURAGED to send their donations to DSWD. I blogged about it here (blog entry not found ).

    This PGMA directive sounded suspicious to me then. Now I know why.

    Here’s the story.

    A group of eight people, your ate Ella included, went to one of DSWD warehouses to help in repacking relief goods. We know they need volunteers pero hindi namin akalaing WALANG TAO TALAGA SA LOOB NG WAREHOUSE!

    ***Ella suspected PGMA’s directive. She went to volunteer and took photos expressly violating the instruction not to do so. She displayed these on her blog with the captions earlier mentioned.


    – Implied malice occurs when one party causes death or injury to another during the course of unlawful or disreputable actions.

    Pinagbawalan kaming kumuha ng pictures sa loob ng warehouse. I wonder why.

    *** She took photos, posted the photos in her blog with abovementioned captions.

  3. Malice generally involves the intentional infliction of physical, mental, psychological, or financial damage to another party.

    Now how do you determine intention?

    1. Do you base it on the blogger’s outward notice of her suspicion?

    This PGMA directive sounded suspicious to me then.

    … and the actions she took after she formed her suspicion?

    a. Her alleged visit to DSWD.

    A group of eight people, your ate Ella included, went to one of DSWD warehouses…

    …. which is refuted here:

    It has already been established that someone else went to volunteer and took the pictures that she uploaded in the blog—her brother. Why did she conceal this?

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/letterstotheeditor/view/20100208-251877/Blogger-Ella-a-poseur-not-a-citizen-journalist

    b. Taking of Photos.

    LET THE PICTURES DO THE TALKING. Note: Pinagbawalan kaming kumuha ng pictures sa loob ng warehouse.
    ***The photos have been posted here: http://www.ellaganda.com/?p=1759

    c. Uploading of Photos

    … you can copy the photos of relief goods rotting in DSWD warehouses… You can also email the photos.

    d. Request to spread blog content online.

    I’m asking your help to spread the word. Tulungan po ninyo akong ikalat ito . Beyond this, we should also demand action. I disabled a plugin so you can copy the photos of relief goods rotting in DSWD warehouses. You can link this post to your blogs, facebook, websites etc. You can also email the photos.

    e. Announcement that the blog entry will be used by a US-based Philippine newspaper

    Philippine News (US based Philippine newspaper) will use this as its front page story this week.

  4. 2. Do you base it on the accused and the accuser’s history and connections, if any?

    There are claims that:

    FORMER SOCIAL WELFARE and now Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral is reportedly using her office to harass a blogger who exposed
    the allegedly rotting relief goods at the warehouse of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

    Ramon Tulfo
    http://services.inquirer.net/mobile/10/02/01/html_output/xmlhtml/20100130-250222-xml.html

    And that:

    Cabral, an alter-ego of President Arroyo, should not use her powers to intimidate Ella Ganda
    http://tonyocruz.com/?p=2773

    If there’s an allusion to motive because of political connection then you may be interested to check this link: http://www.bulatlat.com/news/6-32/6-32-libel.htm for this info:

    42 Journalists Face Libel Raps from Arroyo’s Husband
    Bandera (six counts, Tulfo’s column “On Target” inilabas noong Jan. 26, May 23 at 27, June 6,8 at 17)

    27. Eileen Mangubat (publisher)
    28. Beting Laygo Dolor (editor-in-chief)
    29. Jimmy Alcantara (associate editor)
    30. Raymond Rivera (circulation manager)

    The Beting Laygo Dolor :

    Of Philippine News Online:
    http://philippinenews.com/article.php?id=5380

    who started PCIJ (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism ) alongside Sheila Coronel, Malou Mangahas, Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, Howie Severino and David Celdran.
    http://preciousanne.blogspot.com/

    Editor- of:

    1. Bandera
    2. Prime Asia and Pinoy Global Access
    http://www.upjournalismclub.org/gallery/photos/suit-of-cards-a-forum-on-libel/
    3. Playboy Philippines
    http://www.bworldonline.com/Weekender072508/main.php?id=focus1
    4. Business World
    http://www.grabeh.com/forum/index.php

    Contributing Editor of:

    FilGlobe:
    http://www.filglobe.com/files/augpage22forum.pdf

    Same Beting Laygo Dolor of:

    Philippine News

    who released this:
    http://philippinenews.com/article.php?id=5380

    Donated goods sitting in DSWD warehouse
    Published, October 23, 2009

    … after Ella released this:
    http://www.ellaganda.com/?p=1759

    Aanhin pa ang damo kung patay na ang kabayo? (A special report from a volunteer)
    Published, Oct 21st, 2009

    Same Beting Laygo Dolor who co-wrote the articles appearing here:
    http://pinoybsn.blogspot.com/2006/10/arroyo-to-nurses-retake-board-test.html
    http://bolanon.com/forums_topic_view.aspx?page=1&tid=3363&fid=2929&=desc

    …with the girl whose name appears here:

    http://services.inquirer.net/mobile/10/01/22/html_output/xmlhtml/20100121-248693-xml.html

    …and whose identity is confirmed here:

    http://forums.seo.ph/showthread.php?t=10191

    Re: DSWD vs Jade? – 01-22-2010, 11:36 AM
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kickmoko
    teka maihabol ko lang..member din ba dito si jade?
    Yes. Si vlette

  5. 3. Do you base it on the snowballing imputations the blog entry has spawned?

    a. Such as the blog entries of her fellow bloggers like: http://gurlalien.blogspot.com/2010/01/para-kay-ella.html

    Wow… di maka get over? bakit kaya? well… ang sabi niya, hindi daw dapat palampasin ang mga ganitong ‘paninira’ sa gobyerno. huh? pero bakit? Alam mo madam, kung di ka talaga guilty, dapat madali kang makaka move-on. eh bakit parang hanggang ngayon eh hurt na hurt ka pa din sa mga nabasa mong blog post? dahil ba the truth hurts? at kahit pa na hindi na ikaw ang mei hawak ng DSWD eh nag file ka pa din ng kaso?

    yung mga againsta kay ella, obvious na obvious na related sa DSWD. kung makapag post eh damang dama nila every word.

    Whose alias appears here:
    http://forums.seo.ph/showthread.php?s=81b8794c5836bf5d9aae7608177a1b3f&t=5216

    b. Or the published articles of media men like:
    Ramon Tulfo
    Whose article: It pays to be honest
    http://services.inquirer.net/mobile/10/02/01/html_output/xmlhtml/20100130-250222-xml.html
    states:

    FORMER SOCIAL WELFARE and now Health Secretary Esperanza Cabral is reportedly using her office to harass a blogger…

    The same group also allegedly went to the Parañnaque residence of the Dolor family, as Cabral was reportedly convinced that Ella was a member of that family.

    Same Tulfo who happens to appear here:

    42 Journalists kinasuhan ng Libelo

    Bandera (six counts, Tulfo’s column”On Target” inilabas noong Jan. 26, May 23 at 27, June 6,8 at 17)
    27. Eileen Mangubat (publisher)
    28. Beting Laygo Dolor (editor-in-chief)
    29. Jimmy Alcantara (associate editor)
    30. Raymond Rivera (circulation manager)

    http://zumel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=2

    As confirmed from this column:
    http://tulfo.net/column1.htm

  6. How do we determine malice? How do we determine intention?

    When do we call on online freedom of expression?

    Do we make way for the truth thru responsible blogging or do we redefine freedom of the press as freedom that recognizes no borders, overlapping the rights and freedom of others notwithstanding?

    http://www.zumel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=2
    http://tungkab.wordpress.com/2007/06/17/peryodista-kontra-libelo/

    Who defines truth? The one accused? …Or the accuser?

    Who defines freedom? The one who exercised it? …Or the one denied of it?

    Who actually exercised it? Who’s denied of it?

    Where does freedom start? Where does freedom end?

  7. In my online readings of the DSWD-blogger brouhaha, I came across two online personas who are quite insightful in the way they dissect the issue, the way they try to be balanced in their views and the way they zoom in on details that prove material to the issue at hand. Let me share these with you.

    Here are links to Danny Arao’s Posts:
    http://risingsun.dannyarao.com/2009/10/24/pahaging-sa-responsableng-blogging/
    http://risingsun.dannyarao.com/2009/11/01/pahaging-sa-responsableng-blogging-2/
    http://risingsun.dannyarao.com/2010/01/26/filipino-bloggers-should-help-decriminalize-libel/

    and Jigs Arquiza’s comments.
    http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/02/07/philippines-cabinet-member-sues-blogger/
    http://tonyocruz.com/?p=2773&cpage=2#comments

    With the media furor this issue has created and the resulting reactions from solons, it is perfunctory that we allow more room for this type of in-depth analytical blogging approach. Our reactions and non-reactions will help contribute to the Cyber Law platform these influencers (media, solons, and the blogging world) may later shape, and this DSWD-blogger case may be one benchmark they’ll base it on.

    ***I posted the links which I have come across so far regarding this timely national issue, on their sites as well.

  8. ^

    After reading through your comments, here’s my response:

    There is a saying among lawyers: if you’re weak on the law, you pound on the facts. If you’re weak on the facts, you pound on the law. If you’re weak on the facts and the law, you pound on the table.

    In your response (which I surmised should have had some measure of legal or ethical enlightenment with due regard to whatever I have missed in my own entry, that your rejoinder could have served to patch up, fill in, elucidate, or refute), you Sir, have been pounding on the table.

    Furthermore, to see the world from a black-and-white series of rhetorical questions demonstrates a lack of understanding for things like truth and freedom. “Live honorably, harm no other, give everyone his or her due,” writes Justinian. Your answer, Sir, is between the lines.

    1. Yes, sir, I agree that my post (not answer) is between the lines.

      .. for that is the very point I am making.

      Let the people ruminate thru the facts of the issue, weighing the matter at hand, in a fair and unbiased manner.

      The readers have their own minds, they can form interpretations of their own, they can side with your argument, or go against it…

      …but first give them the necessary details that will help them analyze the issue the way they could, the way they should.

      Please refer to my opening statement:

      “In the interest of fairness, we may want to consider these details in weighing the matter at hand:

      I do not seek to pound on the law, nor pound on facts. I leave it all up to to those who have veritable opinions to do just that.

  9. Furthermore, to see the world from a black-and-white series of rhetorical questions demonstrates a lack of understanding for things like truth and freedom. “Live honorably, harm no other, give everyone his or her due,” writes Justinian. Your answer, Sir, is between the lines.

    Just noticed my mistake and see now that the answer you are referring to is the answer to to the questions i raised, elucidating that there are gray areas, not but black and white.

    I do not have any issue with that. Black and white. Gray, Green,Purple or Red, it’s up to the reader. We are not talking here about how I see the world. We are not talking here about answers I expect you or your readers to have.

    I am raising those rhetorical questions as you put it because though we think we have an idea about what truth and freedom means, we are forgetting the most important thing: truth and freedom are founded on facts, details.

    We can’t come up with the gray if we do not care to determine where the black and white hues are.

    Asking a lot of questions doesn’t mean you do not have answers of your own. It doesn’t translate to you not having any idea of truth and freedom at all.

    It might just mean you want the reader to form his opinions based on the details presented, not your own opinions, or anybody else’s.

    Whether the answers be black or white.. or gray.. It’s up to the readers to form them.

    What matters is you gave them the necessary tools to come up with a painting of their own.

    1. ^ ooookay… here goes.

      first of all, i defend “ella” on the basis of this premise: i may not agree with what you have to say, but i will defend your right to say it. do i agree that ella should have written her post in a less abrasive manner? yes, i do. yet while i do not necessarily agree with the manner of how her post was written i think that her comments were within the bounds of fair comment. nangyari, nakita, may opinyon. the same rights – perceived or real as they may be – that give you the right to opine on this blog and on yours apply to ella and to me. fair enough? responsible? definitely. hence debate.

      the position of this entry: while cabral has every right to cry foul on her reputation being besmirched it is not within the grounds of prudence and fairness for her to use her position as unnecessary leverage in filing an unnecessary charge that could be construed as an attack to free speech. does cabral have the right to defend herself? yes, i believe she does, and she did, with responses in press releases and conferences that have, at this point, justified her stand sufficiently, caveat emptor, caveat lector. is a court case necessary? yes i agree that criticism should be fair and balanced, but it can only be objective up to a certain point.

      was sec. cabral denied the avenue to respond? i don’t think so. responsible? yes, there’s a healthy exchange of opinions. fair? yes, we have both sides of the issue so we now cast judgment, caveat emptor, caveat lector. free and responsible speech, bingo.

      in other words, tapos na yung usapan. narinig na natin ang bawat panig at siguro naman may kinampihan na tayo kina sec. cabral at miss ella. bakit kailangan pa ng libel charge? kailangan ba ang puder ng kapangyarihan upang makipagtalastasan sa isang isyu? kailangan pa bang idaan ito sa korte at mag-file ng damages o may mabibilanggo gayong pareho naman silang may kanya-kanyang pamamaraan ng pagkumbinsi sa taumbayan kung sino nga ba ang nagsasabi ng totoo? doon ako kampi kay miss ella, kasi hindi kailangan iyon. it defeats the purpose of conversation.

      oh, and by the way, you’re abusing etymology. careful careful. a very slippery slope you’re on, my friend. you’re assuming that one word strictly defines this and this definition strictly adheres to that situation (read: synonyms and antonyms).

  10. oh, and by the way, you’re abusing etymology. careful careful. a very slippery slope you’re on, my friend. you’re assuming that one word strictly defines this and this definition strictly adheres to that situation (read: synonyms and antonyms).

    yeah, i’m careful. careful enough and sensitive about etymology enough that i cosidered what word to use to best describe what was included in the content.

    when i read the content, yes, i also thought of the word “founded”. i decided against it though.

    Although “founded” or “founder” are sometimes loosely used as being part of that which starts an endeavor, etc” , i also am aware that in common parlance , has a more technical connotation:

    One who establishes something or formulates the basis for something: the founder of a university; the founders of a new nation.

    I opted not to use the word “founder” since it’s a bit specific. I was basing the word usage on the content of the link so Iooked for a more general term that can encompass the statement in its context.

    i have to admit i even had to go as far as checking the online dictionary because i wanted to find a word more apt to what was being described. Thus I used “started” instead.

    Started in its colloquial or literal context is more general. The definition in the dictionary and the way I understood it is, as far as I know, is also the general meaning most people would accord the word. It was the closest descriptive word that could encapsulate the meaning of the content I read.

    I do not assume that one word strictly defines this or that situation. In fact to prove it, I was’t even the one who zoomed in on one particular word and assumed it meant what I thought it did.

    Ella accused me of referring to somebody as a founder. I told her nowhere in my post did I ever refer to him as one. I wasn’t the one who assumed the strict meaning of the word “founder” or “who started”. Ella was the one who assumed that “who started” strictly meant “founder”. If not, why did she point out I referred to the person as such when it was clear in my post I never even used the word?

    I tried to explain to Ella though because, I thought her hurling that accusation at me wasn’t intentional.

    Maybe she just automatically thought that both words meant the same thing. That’s the reason why I had to post the dictionary meanings. To show that I was considering the fact that she might have taken one of the definitions of “start”, and thus equated the word with the more specific definition of “founder”.

    I also explained that yes I understand how she might have misconstrued that the words meant the same thing to me as it did to her, but that for me the two words do not exactly cover the same definition. I used who started, not founder, for a reason.

    If both words mean the same to her, it’s the way she understands it, I respect that.

    I had to point out though that she accused me of using a word I CONSCIOUSLY did not use. I opted not to use it. To me the slight nuance between the two words is important enough to consider.

    I did not want to use a more concrete meaning not explicitly specified in the text being referred to.

    I chose a more general term.

  11. ^

    There’s the problem. You’re assuming that words do not change, and that meaning is static. People don’t write with dictionaries or are gifted with a wide lexicon, so you may be talking about one and the same thing. In your discussion above, you are the one falling into the trap of zooming into particular words, making your otherwise valid argument for responsible blogging turn into a discussion of semantics.

    Again: people don’t write or blog with dictionaries on hand. With regard to a term encapsulating a particular meaning, nothing ever does: there are meanings that escape a word because of the limitations of language.

    1. Remember she was the one who said:

      If you can prove that Beting Laygo Dolor is one of the founders of PCIJ, I will eat your panties in public in front of a hundred witnesses. But if you cannot, you will french kiss my dog in public, in front of a hundred witnesses.

      Put up or shut up.

      I had to spell out my semantics to her and the semantics of the general public I considered (what I know and what I verified from the dictionary), because she was hurling at me a word I didn’t use.

      Apparently we weren’t talking about one and the same thing. Otherwise she wouldn’t have reacted that adversely.

      When miscommunication and misinterpretations ensue, it would help a lot if one party would care to explain or thresh out the variance in their semantics because maybe, just maybe, that’s one of the main reasons of the ensuing misundestanding.

      It’s not easy trying to explain my semantics or trying to understand another’s. But I choose to take that effort in the hopes that by trying to do so, we may at least understand where the other is coming from, or what he or she actually means.

      It doesn’t mean we always have to agree. It matters though that we know what we are agreeing or disagreeing on.

  12. I wrote the prior post in response to your reference to etymology.

    I however would want to share here the very meat of my response to Ella on the statement she posted.

    From Ella:

    If you can prove that Beting Laygo Dolor is one of the founders of PCIJ, I will eat your panties in public in front of a hundred witnesses. But if you cannot, you will french kiss my dog in public, in front of a hundred witnesses.

    Put up or shut up.

    My reply to her was:

    Can you point out where I stated “that Beting Laygo Dolor is one of the founders of PCIJ”?

    Nowhere.

    Nada.

    Zero.

    Please refer to my post. Note that I just listed a rundown of the media and journalism outlets that that name is connected to. I researched on the personalities behind the “expose” and their connections to such media/journalism outlets came up.

    PCIJ just happened to appear in the search along with the other establishments. It’s not the only voice front mentioned.

    Why are you zooming in on PCIJ alone? Why would you go as far as inventing supposed accusations against it nowhere visible in my post?

      1. My point is her arguments didn’t have the merits she thought it had.

        1. She was wrong in assuming I referred to BLD as one of the founders. I didn’t.
        2. She was wrong in accusing me of something I did not even do:

        Normally, I would ignore a “rotting”, old school black propaganda like this pero idinamay mo ang PCIJ, a well-respected, two-decade-old institution of professional investigative journalists sa basurang ikinakalat mo. Because they dared speak the truth!

        Nowhere in my post did I say anything against PCIJ. I didn’t even have any links or quotes from any PCIJ articles.

        Again here’s my reply to her:

        Please refer to my post. Note that I just listed a rundown of the media and journalism outlets that that name is connected to. I researched on the personalities behind the “expose” and their connections to such media/journalism outlets came up.

        PCIJ just happened to appear in the search along with the other establishments. It’s not the only voice front mentioned.

        Why are you zooming in on PCIJ alone? Why would you go as far as inventing supposed accusations against it nowhere visible in my post?

        3. Again, she was wrong in accusing me of something I never ever did:

        You are imputing that the post in Daily PCIJ was a favor granted to one of its founders.

        You can go back to my post. Check if you can ever find such a claim. I do not even know where that accusation came from.

        1. I’m sorry, but you’re pounding on the table.

          First, I am not going to open a dictionary at near-midnight, or Google the definiendum and definiens of particular words, for the sake of argument. We have come into semantic conflict for thousands of years not knowing a precise single-word term for “turon” in the English language, so why would we bother with the intentionality of a synonym?

          Second, stick to the merits of your case. You came to this argument with a case for responsible blogging, and then you shift to an argument about semantic differences between ‘founded” and “started.” What gives? Does the whole point of your argument revolve around responsible blogging being a case of bloggers writing with a dictionary beside them to cross-check every word written?

          To be perfectly honest, I do not know why you are taking it out here, when you can take it out on Ella. Assuming that this blog takes the character of a courtroom what is your case?

          1. I may have come here initially to post the details which may help us weigh things well when forming our take on responsible blogging. Now, I have already included the link of the blog where I have entries on this very particular issue.

            I’m only answering here the points you raised in reaction to the posts you read in my blog.

            you’re the one who brought up the topic I was but replying to. I just thought the point and question merited a response, so I answered.

            1. oh, and by the way, you’re abusing etymology. careful careful. a very slippery slope you’re on, my friend. you’re assuming that one word strictly defines this and this definition strictly adheres to that situation (read: synonyms and antonyms).

            2. so you’re telling me that the very meat of your argument with ella is purely a matter of semantics and not the merits of her argument?

          2. Okay. Let me just say this once: I was asking you for your *case.* You started this from a perspective of “seeing both sides of the story.” Then you translated your case to “being fair and responsible.” During the course of accommodating your case on my blog, you turned it into a semantic argument and a case of dictionary definitions. Then you go about with your own blog defending yourself from a accusation of being paid.

            That you are committing yourself to even the most minute details of this issue is not a “problem,” as much as it is problematic; from there, I don’t know if you’ll turn it into an editorial problem. Ano ba talaga? That’s precisely what an opinion on an issue is for: that the meat of the issue, the very substance by which our opinions are founded on, are tested in the crucible of debate. When I’m asking you for your case I’m not asking for a recap of your arguments: I’m asking for your stand on the issue that you seem to be so passionate about? Are you for Ella? Are you for Cabral? Do you care? Or do you take an iwas-pusoy position by being so obsessed with details that you pass an empty argument?

            I think my point is clear: with the details presented by both sides on their own avenues with their own methods guaranteed by their rights, a libel case is overkill. I fail to see yours, other than “I will continue to post and make it seem like I’m being fair even if it’s clear I am against Ella on this one.”

            Am I correct in assuming that?

  13. To be perfectly honest, I do not know why you are taking it out here, when you can take it out on Ella. Assuming that this blog takes the character of a courtroom what is your case

    Please note, this is what I posted:

    As of this writing, Ella has referred to my post here (as well as in other sites) in one of her comments. In respect for the sites I have submitted my posts to, here’s my reply:
    http://issuesopinions.wordpress.com.

    Your reply to this discussed that you side with Ella on some points and may not necessarily agree with how she presented her take on the matter. You also discussed you believe Cabral shouldn’t have filed a libel case. My take on these, I have already discussed in the blog you visited.

    Your closing statement, that about etymology is what I replied to because you said:

    oh, and by the way, you’re abusing etymology. careful careful. a very slippery slope you’re on, my friend. you’re assuming that one word strictly defines this and this definition strictly adheres to that situation (read: synonyms and antonyms).

    Since you raised this , I had to give you a reply. The complete response’s already posted above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *