Award for best literary piece by rabid supporter: take a bow Waltzing Woof Biscuit, for showing up that idiot Caroline Wilson for what she is:
'''''What can one say? The day that Wilson writes a similarly emotional hatchet job on her beloved Tigers is the day that I might ascribe an ounce of credibilty to her.
The article is so full of attitude it's startling. I'm actually writing a thesis on Appraial Theory, which examines the linguistic mechanisms through which attitude, emotion and judgement is encoded into language. After having just a brief look at Wilson's article, I've made a few points...
What is the genre of Wilson's article? What exactly is she hoping to achieve by writing it? Has she introduced any information to the reader that was not already in the public domain?
The genre is obviously an editorial. She is expressing an opinion -HER opinion. It is not an exercise in balanced discussion. There are no constructive suggestions, no new insights into old news. It is Wilson venting her spleen. But why? Does she know something what we don't? Unlikely. It would have been in print.
What are some of the 'factual' elements of Wilson's article?
a. The Bulldogs have performed some on-field misdemeanours which have attracted negative publicity to the club.
b. Danny Southern has alluded to comments made by Terry Wallace.
c. The Knights-Liberatore incident
d. The rigging of the 1996 B&F
e. The Bulldogs are desperate for members
f. Wallace had not been paid some monies owing to him by the club
Now, one could refer to the above as the raw material of Wilson's artilce. These are the issues which, to varying extents, have moved her to comment. OK. But Wilson has not merely said "here are the facts and this is my interpretation." In fact, she at no stage uses language in such a way to suggest that she is expressing her own opinion among a spectrum of possible opinions. She could have conveyed her critical stance in a number of ways. But her use of SO much attitudinal vocabularly suggests that there is something personal at stake here. Let's have a look at a few examples:
1. The allusion that the Bulldogs are dodgy, putting on a show, false, erecting smokescreens = in plain language suggestions of dishonesty and lack of integrity.
Consider the following vocab:
Paragraph 1: spin doctor, impressive double-act
Paragraph 2: great manipulator, conman
Paragraph 3: never fails to convince
Paragraph 4: inner-sanctum coaching comments, Wallace was
convincing,
Paragraph 5: they don't come much smoother, he performed
brilliantly, unveiled a series of...tactics
Paragraph 6: carry off a...request,
Paragraph 7: and a convincing one, glib explanation
Paragraph 9: at face value
The important thing to consider is that one does not HAVE to use the language that one does. How we choose to construct a message is VERY revealing on a number of levels. Even when Caro used some of the above vocabulary in a seemingly neutral or positive sense, one must bear in mind what she COULD HAVE said. Is describing Smorgan as 'smooth' a compliment? How could Caro have expressed it? 'Professional' perhaps? Something without the connotation of shiftiness? And Smorgan 'performed' brilliantly. There she goes again...suggestions of a performance, something which is fabricated. Thinly-disguised sarcasm indeed. And paragraph 2 need not have been included at all. Why the point about all good coaches needing an element of 'conman?' She is planting conceptual seeds into our helpless little minds.
2. Wallace apparently had denied knowledge of "the club's rigged best and fairest in 1996." Sorry Caro, shouldn't that read "allegedly rigged?" A strange omission of a word when so much of your article is unnecessarily verbose.
3. Smorgan is 'if nothing else, a great front-man.' Why is 'if nothing else' inserted here? What function is it serving? For 'if' read 'is.' Smorgan is a good front man AND nothing else. If that is not what is meant, then why use the phrase? This is personal stuff.
4. "Several clubs, in their meetings with head office, have questioned the Bulldogs' supposedly sound approach to running a club." Firstly, the sentence would have conveyed the same information without the insertion of 'supposedy sound.' Just jam the emotional language in whenever you can Caro. And may we please have some details. One should never underestimate the efficiency of language, but perhaps a single sentence on this topic fails to adequatley explore the issue. Hmmm Caro???
5. "If it was Wallace...then" The old if/then clause. One of Walls's favourites (If Libba DID hit Knights...). Just insert it into the first sentence of a paragraph, and hey presto, you can fill the remaining sentences with as much innuendo as you like. You can even hint at instability and disenchantment at the Bulldogs, if it suits your agenda. Well done Caro, you've passed Concepts in Journalism 1.
6. 'So increasingly alarming have the Bulldogs' prospects become' Well, if we're talking finances, the alarm is not isolated to the Whitten Oval I would have thought. And how does the alarm reflect upon the Bulldogs adminstration? Where are the examples of fiscal mismanagement? Oops, the paragraph ended. Typewriter run out of ink Caro?
7. "There is something rotten in the state of the Whitten Oval and that too can no longer be denied" A VERY strong statement. Denied by whom I wonder? By the Bulldogs? If so, that is a very blatant attack on our adminstrations integrity and honesty. This sort of statement demands some hard core evidence, not just rumours and opinion. By everyone? Thanks for speaking for us all Caro. By Caro herself? I don't think that she has ever denied her vitriol against the Dogs, has she? Come now Caro. Don't be coy. Who can't deny it??? We so wan't to know.
Just a few observations of the many that I could make. I am seriously amazed that this standard of journalism is coming out of The Age. Caro seems to be bitter and twisted, and ought to keep such things private rather than embarrass herself by producing this sort of garbage. She is SUPPOSEDLY professional (if nothing else ).
Please Caro, come out and unequivocally state for the record that the Bulldogs are corrupt. We want to sue you SO badly. Stop being coy - your attitudes are about as well disguised as an elephant wearing a false nose.
But that's just my interpretation, among a range of many possible interpretations.''''''''
Caro's Tripe:
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/news/2001/07/15/FFXI45W94PC.html
WWB, I told you I would hunt you down if you didn't post it on the main site. Hold out your hand.
'''''What can one say? The day that Wilson writes a similarly emotional hatchet job on her beloved Tigers is the day that I might ascribe an ounce of credibilty to her.
The article is so full of attitude it's startling. I'm actually writing a thesis on Appraial Theory, which examines the linguistic mechanisms through which attitude, emotion and judgement is encoded into language. After having just a brief look at Wilson's article, I've made a few points...
What is the genre of Wilson's article? What exactly is she hoping to achieve by writing it? Has she introduced any information to the reader that was not already in the public domain?
The genre is obviously an editorial. She is expressing an opinion -HER opinion. It is not an exercise in balanced discussion. There are no constructive suggestions, no new insights into old news. It is Wilson venting her spleen. But why? Does she know something what we don't? Unlikely. It would have been in print.
What are some of the 'factual' elements of Wilson's article?
a. The Bulldogs have performed some on-field misdemeanours which have attracted negative publicity to the club.
b. Danny Southern has alluded to comments made by Terry Wallace.
c. The Knights-Liberatore incident
d. The rigging of the 1996 B&F
e. The Bulldogs are desperate for members
f. Wallace had not been paid some monies owing to him by the club
Now, one could refer to the above as the raw material of Wilson's artilce. These are the issues which, to varying extents, have moved her to comment. OK. But Wilson has not merely said "here are the facts and this is my interpretation." In fact, she at no stage uses language in such a way to suggest that she is expressing her own opinion among a spectrum of possible opinions. She could have conveyed her critical stance in a number of ways. But her use of SO much attitudinal vocabularly suggests that there is something personal at stake here. Let's have a look at a few examples:
1. The allusion that the Bulldogs are dodgy, putting on a show, false, erecting smokescreens = in plain language suggestions of dishonesty and lack of integrity.
Consider the following vocab:
Paragraph 1: spin doctor, impressive double-act
Paragraph 2: great manipulator, conman
Paragraph 3: never fails to convince
Paragraph 4: inner-sanctum coaching comments, Wallace was
convincing,
Paragraph 5: they don't come much smoother, he performed
brilliantly, unveiled a series of...tactics
Paragraph 6: carry off a...request,
Paragraph 7: and a convincing one, glib explanation
Paragraph 9: at face value
The important thing to consider is that one does not HAVE to use the language that one does. How we choose to construct a message is VERY revealing on a number of levels. Even when Caro used some of the above vocabulary in a seemingly neutral or positive sense, one must bear in mind what she COULD HAVE said. Is describing Smorgan as 'smooth' a compliment? How could Caro have expressed it? 'Professional' perhaps? Something without the connotation of shiftiness? And Smorgan 'performed' brilliantly. There she goes again...suggestions of a performance, something which is fabricated. Thinly-disguised sarcasm indeed. And paragraph 2 need not have been included at all. Why the point about all good coaches needing an element of 'conman?' She is planting conceptual seeds into our helpless little minds.
2. Wallace apparently had denied knowledge of "the club's rigged best and fairest in 1996." Sorry Caro, shouldn't that read "allegedly rigged?" A strange omission of a word when so much of your article is unnecessarily verbose.
3. Smorgan is 'if nothing else, a great front-man.' Why is 'if nothing else' inserted here? What function is it serving? For 'if' read 'is.' Smorgan is a good front man AND nothing else. If that is not what is meant, then why use the phrase? This is personal stuff.
4. "Several clubs, in their meetings with head office, have questioned the Bulldogs' supposedly sound approach to running a club." Firstly, the sentence would have conveyed the same information without the insertion of 'supposedy sound.' Just jam the emotional language in whenever you can Caro. And may we please have some details. One should never underestimate the efficiency of language, but perhaps a single sentence on this topic fails to adequatley explore the issue. Hmmm Caro???
5. "If it was Wallace...then" The old if/then clause. One of Walls's favourites (If Libba DID hit Knights...). Just insert it into the first sentence of a paragraph, and hey presto, you can fill the remaining sentences with as much innuendo as you like. You can even hint at instability and disenchantment at the Bulldogs, if it suits your agenda. Well done Caro, you've passed Concepts in Journalism 1.
6. 'So increasingly alarming have the Bulldogs' prospects become' Well, if we're talking finances, the alarm is not isolated to the Whitten Oval I would have thought. And how does the alarm reflect upon the Bulldogs adminstration? Where are the examples of fiscal mismanagement? Oops, the paragraph ended. Typewriter run out of ink Caro?
7. "There is something rotten in the state of the Whitten Oval and that too can no longer be denied" A VERY strong statement. Denied by whom I wonder? By the Bulldogs? If so, that is a very blatant attack on our adminstrations integrity and honesty. This sort of statement demands some hard core evidence, not just rumours and opinion. By everyone? Thanks for speaking for us all Caro. By Caro herself? I don't think that she has ever denied her vitriol against the Dogs, has she? Come now Caro. Don't be coy. Who can't deny it??? We so wan't to know.
Just a few observations of the many that I could make. I am seriously amazed that this standard of journalism is coming out of The Age. Caro seems to be bitter and twisted, and ought to keep such things private rather than embarrass herself by producing this sort of garbage. She is SUPPOSEDLY professional (if nothing else ).
Please Caro, come out and unequivocally state for the record that the Bulldogs are corrupt. We want to sue you SO badly. Stop being coy - your attitudes are about as well disguised as an elephant wearing a false nose.
But that's just my interpretation, among a range of many possible interpretations.''''''''
Caro's Tripe:
http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/news/2001/07/15/FFXI45W94PC.html
WWB, I told you I would hunt you down if you didn't post it on the main site. Hold out your hand.
