Comments on: Neglecting to Mention That Other Mortgage-Meltdown Villain http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/23/neglecting-to-mention-that-other-mortgage-meltdown-villain/ Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:49:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/23/neglecting-to-mention-that-other-mortgage-meltdown-villain/comment-page-1/#comment-1884 Dan Gillmor Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:16:37 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/23/neglecting-to-mention-that-other-mortgage-meltdown-villain/#comment-1884 I vote for sloppy, though in fairness to Kurtz I had absolutely no doubt about what he meant (and he goes on to explain it more fully). I'd cut him slack on this. I vote for sloppy, though in fairness to Kurtz I had absolutely no doubt about what he meant (and he goes on to explain it more fully). I’d cut him slack on this.

]]> By: Stephen Downes http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/23/neglecting-to-mention-that-other-mortgage-meltdown-villain/comment-page-1/#comment-1883 Stephen Downes Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:48:06 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/08/23/neglecting-to-mention-that-other-mortgage-meltdown-villain/#comment-1883 I really hate sloppy language like this - "Everyone who is defaulting on a home mortgage is not necessarily a victim" - especially when I half-suspect the intent is to mislead. What Kurtz means, presumably, is that 'not everyone who defaults on a home mortgage is a victim'. Fair enough. Some people tried to take advantage of the system and got burned. But what Kurtz *said* was, 'everyone who defaults is not a necessarily victim'. This casts aspersions not only on the people who tried to take advantage, but on every single person who defaults. If we assume that Kurtz is not simply a sloppy and careless writer, then the explanation must be that he wants to blame the victims for the mortgage industry failure, but to look like he is focusing only on those who are unsavory. Sloppy or deceitful. Some choice. I really hate sloppy language like this – “Everyone who is defaulting on a home mortgage is not necessarily a victim” – especially when I half-suspect the intent is to mislead.

What Kurtz means, presumably, is that ‘not everyone who defaults on a home mortgage is a victim’. Fair enough. Some people tried to take advantage of the system and got burned.

But what Kurtz *said* was, ‘everyone who defaults is not a necessarily victim’. This casts aspersions not only on the people who tried to take advantage, but on every single person who defaults.

If we assume that Kurtz is not simply a sloppy and careless writer, then the explanation must be that he wants to blame the victims for the mortgage industry failure, but to look like he is focusing only on those who are unsavory.

Sloppy or deceitful. Some choice.

]]>