« A Man for the Ages: A Tribute to Charlton Heston | Main | Words from the Editor [Video] »

April 16, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Can you clarify your editorial point? I believe what you're saying is: Rather than criminalize alcohol consumption for those between the ages of 18 and 21, it should be legalized, and society should view alcohol-related deaths as someone's personal choice rather than some "accidental tragedy."

I'd also like to know what the estimated rate of drunk-driving is among those 18-21. Some people have cars at college, others have access to cars during vacations, and others are not in college and therefore may not have a restriction on having a car. These people could all cause others to be killed in a drunk-driving crash, no?

Thank you.

Michael N

You pretty much have the editorial point down. The part about colleges was to show the effects of having a law in place that no one follows. Yes, a lot of drunk driving fatalities are caused by people under 21, but the point of the article is that we already have laws in place to prevent that, and society refuses to obey or enforce them.

Nick Commons-Miller

In regards to "Cynicism Personified or Rambling Idiocy Epitomized?", I cannot believe you published such an immature, arrogant, and downright nasty piece.

Criticism is great, but the kind of behavior displayed in that article is unacceptable. The article went far beyond criticism. In fact, it contained little intellectual criticism. It was mainly just immature insulting and bashing. As people you have a responsibility to take the perspectives of others, understand that they are people just like yourselves, and to treat them accordingly. There is also just no point in acting like that, because it will not really convince anyone of your viewpoint. It is more likely just to make people dislike you and disregard what you are saying.

Beyond that, as journalists such a piece is even more reprehensible. It contained little or no intellectual criticism, and it did not really serve to document anything.

Nick Commons-Miller

And since I don't generally like to leave my claims unsupported, it is arrogant because it makes all kinds of assumptions about Dave Adams, who you probably do not know personally and know nothing about. It is also steeped with self-assurance and the seeming assumption of the absolute validity of the writer's perspective.

I also don't really need to state this, but it is nasty since it consists primarily of insults or insulting statements.

Nick Commons-Miller

I apologize though, I used you and I didn't always mean you specifically (though sometimes I did). Sometimes I was referring to the author, sometimes the people who allowed this to be published, sometimes you (the editor), and sometimes I was using you in the general sense of you all.

Nick Commons-Miller

Though you as the editor are also among the people responsible for allowing this to be published, there are cases where I might have meant you alone. I am also just supposing that there might be some democracy to the process, I could be wrong and you could be the only one.

Nick Commons-Miller

Actually, I already know. There are multiple editors, and I'm not sure how many of you but multiple of you are responsible.

Michael N

As editor in chief I take full responsibility for everything published in the magazine.

Nick Commons-Miller

Thank you. Well, then I am speaking to you and to the author.

The comments to this entry are closed.