Reader Ted left a prescient comment on my piece about Rush from yesterday:
I don’t really have any opinion on Rush or Adam’s articles as it’s not a topic I know about and I havent listened to Rush either. That said, from reading the article and then the comments so far , the commentators haven’t really addressed Adam’s main argument. Adam’s main argument was that Rush was out for himself and didn’t mentor any people coming up. So far the commentators have tried to defend Rush but haven’t addressed Adam’s main argument making me think Adam is right about this….
Ted is on the money here.
I don’t need to listen to someone, or to watch someone, or to read someone, in order to evaluate the effect of his output on the world around him and the way in which he maneuvered through that world. Part of that observation will include examining valid criticism from people on the same side.
But if you as a reader intend to evaluate what I write and the argument that I am making, then perhaps it would behoove you to read what was actually written.
But this sort of inability to approach the topic at hand is typical when you’re up against people who don’t like having yet another one of their sacred cows busted. And while I do understand that frustration, it doesn’t mean that I’m going to go along with it.