/sarcasm

I am not sure what you mean by “I give no rhetoric.” Your second comment here pretty much argued that this type of criticism would be okay once the emergency of the flood is over. This is rhetoric (using means of persuasion), and it is the (tired) rhetoric of criticism during times of duress is bad.

In your most recent comment, you wrote: Choice number one: I suggested waiting until the issue of the sign with the past makes sense. The sign, however, has nothing to do with the flood, either in reality, or in the above article.

Choice number two, make them link somehow.

Choice number one suggests that the issue of the sign does not make sense right now. However, if this issue does not make sense now, when would it? Eric wrote about the historical inaccuracies of this sign, which are built upon the stealing of land from Native Americans. It seems like this criticism would always make sense until injustices have been healed.

Choice number two implies two things: there is no linkage at all between the flood and the sign. The linkage seems clear to me in the picture Eric posted. However, perhaps you want a stronger link: less of a visual one and more of a historical/cultural one. But then, why should there be? Doesn’t this presuppose that a blog post must have all the contents in it linked?

You write that you want something original. While Eric’s critique isn’t “original” (similar critiques have certainly been made before), it seems like this type of critique has either not been made or has gone unheeded if it has been made, for the sign is currently standing. It seems like his critique is less tired and unoriginal to me than the a sign and other city and county documents with flat-out inaccuracies in them.

I also find it interesting that in one comment, you request that Eric limit his discourse to just the flood, yet also wish for him to expand his content to all injustices. It seems like an extremely fallacious argument to state that because Eric has not covered nearly all global injustices, that he does not actually care about justice.

Eric,

I don’t see the Godwin’s Law connection.

It’s difficult to respond to your comment. I feel that it is rife with anger.

I would rather engage you in a discourse that allows me to be supportive of the loss that has occurred in Cedar Falls while simultaneously being free to analyze the historical marker, that prior to the floods, I had no idea about. The post is inherently related to the flooding in Cedar Falls because it was the news coverage and subsequent posting of the photograph on the Red Cross Flickr site that generated this post and its analysis.

I also feel that your last lengthy comment is wading deeply into Godwin’s law.

Faris. I give no rhetoric. Choice number one: I suggested waiting until the issue of the sign with the past makes sense. The sign, however, has nothing to do with the flood, either in reality, or in the above article.

Choice number two, make them link somehow.