Kate

JGM failed to post his phone number in his conclusive taunt.

Imagine that.

Syncro

OK...So I'm a self correcting idiot. Top right. I think I'll give the good doctor a call.

Syncro

Yes, he does prefer calls.

...but they themselves have stopped listening to anyone else.

What, no comments allowed on the "doctor's" blog?

My God, you'd think that after what Steyn did to him he'd have changed his name, gotten plastic surgery and emigrated.

Miller, if you're reading this, stop it, man. Don't do this to yourself. For you to be taking on the likes of Steyn and McMillan is like Bill Maher challenging Lennox Lewis to a fistfight.

Maybe his problem is that he is terrible with tha intarnetz? His page screams "Imported from Geocities".

Frequent lurker here, but one of a *ton* of lurkers who stop by here for some balance.

Miller's entry is rife with inaccuracies, but then I read this:

"I have taught journalism for 21 years at Ryerson University."

As Peter Griffin would say: DONE!

From his web site...

'John Gordon Miller has been an award-winning reporter, a senior news executive, chair of a journalism school, an author, a teacher, a researcher and a consultant.'

And the key words are 'has been'

"Miller's entry is rife with inaccuracies, but then I read this:

"I have taught journalism for 21 years at Ryerson University."

That's a lie. There's never been any journalism taught at Ryerson.

Steyn ate his lunch. Ryerson..is that where the CBC gets 'journalists' when they can't find foreign interns that work cheap? Ryerson has high acedemic standards..need a 60% average to get in. It isn't Carleton that is for sure.

What make one an "Expert Witness"?

Does this put him in the same league as Kato Kaelin?

That is expert witness in Ont. and BC. Read certified leftie.

Thirty eight John Millars on Wiki and he ain't one of them. Looks like Kate has a higher profile.

"Her current pages boast rejoinders from [...] none of whom seems to provide us with a first name."

What am I, chopped liver? :sniff:

He calls himself a "Journalism Doctor" but his resume (he likes to call it a CV, but its not really, its just a long windy resume) shows only that he obtained a BA in English in '65. Other than his stint in the most self-righteous leftist newspaper in Canada and in arguably the worst academic institution, he has no formal qualifications in anything, including journalism. Most of his "honours" are industry self-congratulatory.

His blog entry about Kate is puerile and sophomoric, hardly the writings of a "learned" individual who has been the Chair of a school purported to represent subject excellence.

For the good "doctor", the charge is malpractice, as it appears the best he can do after 40 years of practising "journalism" is to pen a yellow, infantile pejorative lacking in any sophistication whatsoever.

As to not taking emails, he can respond here. I, for one, like my dialogue in writing, for the record, not the whisper-whisper, hush-hush, inadmissible heavy breathings of backroom copy boys.

(egerton's?) Ryerson:
AKA: bong factory

My first name is "The", really, I had it officially changed when I found out I was much more popular online as The Rat than I was in the real world as Wanda Kornitsky.

Kate, don't leave us in suspense: did you call him??

The narcissist and envious know it all John Gordon Miller is simply a big lefty whose career is attached to a dying media and a corrupted enterprise. MSM journalists and TV anchors are regarded about the same as politicians these days and they deserve each other.

The expert whiner has blog hit envy and with career prospects waning he has to indulge in prodding SDA to raise the old profile a notch.

John, there is no advantage to being a popular fool, be quiet!

Twat. Nuff said.

Anyway, what's Miller whining about in the second-to-last paragraph? I assume he could post here, or email Kate.
Oh, sorry, that's "blogs of that ilk". The McMillan ilk.

In my opinion, a blogger has the choice to be anonymous, post under a semi-anonymous pseudonym or openly post under their real name depending on the level of "protection" they desire from making their opinions well known. This anonymity should only protect people from the social consequences of their opinions and not from the (obvious) legal implications.

Now, I personally don’t run a blog but if I did I would choose to post as anonymously as I possibly could because I am fully aware that a person’s opinions on (just about) anything can have an impact on their likelihood of getting a job; or on any personal relationship where someone might google their name.

Yikes, I bet Kate is shaking in her boots.....from laughter!

The sad thing is although the posters are 100% correct, they also provide the "Professor" with the one thing he craves, attention.

I would suggest that the proper response would be absolute deafening silence....

Well he's a perceptive one,
and I guess that's what makes him an "expert witness". It's quite a gem to have a degree from Canada's largest journalism mill.
How far removed is that from saying, I started my working career at Canada's largest restaurant chain?

"I don't accept emails"
I'm not going to fact check that by sending an email to him... his email address that he lists under his telephone numbers in the upper right hand corner? "email: semiller@sympatico.ca"

teeming with perception John?

Having toiled in academia for over 30 years, I am surprised by nothing in Miller's post. Do not, however, assume that his slovenly research and logic-free argument are connected to his teaching at third-rate institution like Ryerson. Nonsense of the sort you read in Miller's blog is repeated every day across the nation's most prestigious campuses. Prestige just ain't what it used to be.

We live in a country where you can go to the CHRC pretend, but all too real court or even jail for speaking too freely. That makes anonymity a force field to protect a person who has something to say, but with something to lose. Perhaps a job or standing in a community. You know how you sometimes have to do a lot of pretending to get along with some of the folks you are going to meet up with.

I don't mind because with anonymity we get hear what we may normally never get to hear. It's sort of like telling secrets in public in come cases. It also makes things more interesting.

It's called freedom of speech (force field notwithstanding)

Let us see now,

By all appearances this is a Professor no less, though it is more understandable even to non academic, the Professor being of “journalism”.
As it is likely, the Professor would have a problem with syntax, this comment being written by a nonacademic.

While it would be preferred to have disclosure of the participants name in the commentary, to the superior mind of the Professor, it would be something to be attacked if the participant did not go to school for a long time. After all, one that has not gone to school for a long time can not possibly be a homo sapiens, only him and on whom he may decide will qualify.
The Professor sates in his drivel ….one of the nastiest right-wing political blogs in Canada……, how so and why? How does the Professor decides what is nasty and what is right - wing.
Let us get to basics for a moment, it matters not if you are of this wing or that wing or any wing what so ever, you:
Have to eat, have to sleep, go to the bathroom (how ever unworthy of you it is, being a superior ubermnesh) and look funny having sex.
Of course the Professor would justify his obscenity by saying others are doing so, so there. The Professor does not know that a professor should have a better command of language than a non academic.
Then the Professor point to other bloggers to boost his argument simply because they, as per his superior qualifications they have really no right to have say about anything, regardless, he know nothing of their innate ability to think, even though the majority of them have gone to school for a long time, the exception being that they actually have made a living of their learnings in the real world of doing things, rather than blabbering gibberish to “feel good about themselves”.
To tell the truth, right wing, left wing, are artificial constructs by the totalitarians to make the others feel that they are really bad. In a real world it does not work that way, common sense is not as common as it used to be, as the song goes, though it seems to make appearance more often.
McMillan doesn‘t even directly identifies herself on her site……. If anybody, even a Professor does not know who runs this site, it is plain that he is, as is commonly referred to, a MORON. (the spell check corrected the Professor when pasted in the previous sentence “identify” as “identifies”, you make the call.)
Now, how is stating facts in the next paragraph as an insult to anyone, maybe the Professor can explain and expand, perhaps defend the down trodden, that he has such war feeling for, rather than get backing from a politician and according to his views a right wing at that, politician being the operative word.
The blog is open to anyone to comment, there are those that the Professor may qualify as left wing, though if he has any sense in him, may stay away from them.
The Professor is so wise, he knows that those that comment here, stopped, if ever they were ever listening to anyone else, does he not get the simple concept the comments relate to events in the neighborhood, the town (though the Professor may not know there are towns, being a city slicker) the country, the world.
Professor, it is not likely, how ever you might wanted to you pricked, people that comment here are not vassals to a particular ideology, they are free and most likely love freedom more than you can imagine in your limited mind and something you despise.

Truth to be told I don’t know how I came up with this, as previously noted being a non academic and not having mind of my own, nonetheless there it is.

905 885 5553
905 369 3639

Funny, the woman on the other end keeps saying, "you've reached the Canadian Human Right Commission and you have now been identified as a Thought Criminal. Please turn yourself into the nearest authority for incarceration and re-education. Gordon Miller is cowering in his basement as a result of your hatred."

worth repeating:

"Why this blog?
Until this moment
I have been forced
to listen while media
and politicians alike
have told me
"what Canadians think".
In all that time they
never once asked.

This is just the voice
of an ordinary Canadian
yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."

anybody likes doggies as much as I do is starting at 50% plus 1 in my roster.

" and other lesser lights like Being Right is Not Wrong, which gives you no clue about who’s behind it."

What? No link love??

Interesting. If he would actually look at my site, or any of my comments here, he would notice my real name. Then, a quick google search would point out that I have a number of other sites.

I used to have an about page on BRINW but I switched themes. Ooops. I'll have to email him. Oh wait.

p.s. Kate: do give the Doctor a call and let us know what words of wisdumb he shares.

John Miller says "Who is Catherine McMillan, you say?"

No...the real question is "Who the hell is John Miller"?

Ya gotta feel a bit sorry for this poor sot, he's reportedly in the communication business yet self supporting commercial artist Kate can say more with one line than Dr Poof can say in a thousand words.

...such war feeling...
of course sholud have been ...such warm feelig...

sorry, the spelling is not working out for me, something with being non academic.

"They profess to be strong defenders of free speech, but it’s all one way. They think they have an inalienable right to broadcast their bigoted, nasty views, but they themselves have stopped listening to anyone else."

Since I'm of the belief that only the state can violate a person's speech rights, I find the above silly. But even if one individual could violate another's rights, not listening to them is not a violation. Speech is guaranteed, not an audience.

John Gordon Miller is full of sh**. Not only have I corresponded with Kate (she, unlike John Gordon Miller, does respond to emails), I've even picked up the phone and spoken with her.

I didn't even have to do a whitepages.ca search. I found all the contact links I needed on her blog.

Not only that, John Gordon Miller, cheques I've written payable to Kate McMillan, have been easily honoured.

By the way, John Gordon Miller (ug, how I hate pretentious full names - where's the III, I wonder), she does fabulous work that normal people, like me, want and are happy to pay for.

On the other hand, I wouldn't waste a dime on a phone call to you. Hopefully your 'doctorate level' journalistic investigative skills will lead you to my response.

As an expert witness myself, I would think his days of being able to get someone to pay for his work have ended.

"I don't waste my punches on nerds" - Arthur Herbert Fonzarelli (Fonzie) ... before the shark thing.

Every time John Miller opens his pie hole he never ceases to amuse me with his idiotic rhetoric. I love how these socialists haul out the bigot/racist accusation every time a conservative says something that offends them which is usually 100% of the time. They don't even know why, it's as though they are operating on pure emotionalism and nothing else.Here are his numbers , email and mailing address.
John Miller
The Journalism Doctor,
6083 Knoxville Rd,
RR4 Port Hope,
L1A 3V8

Mobile: 905-396-3639
Phone: 905-885-5553
Office Phone: 905-885-5553
semiller@sympatico.ca

Ryerson does teach journalism.

He mentioned my name!! Did you see that!! The guy is a total moron. The retarded kids who make carpenter aprons at special needs schools know that if you sign an e-mail or a note as "Joe Citizen," your first name must be Joe.

Seriously! I belong to AA. We wrote the book on "anonymous." I've stayed sober for over 25 years by using an alias at meetings where I don't know the crowd. I do use my real name at my home group.

Mark Twain, (Sam Clemens,) Lewiss Carroll, (Charles Dodgson,) and Moliere (Jean Baptiste Poquelin) used a pen name. Does that make them "undesirables" or "criminals?" Hardly!!

I think what it all boils down to is that, the guy hates the West!!

I tried catching the good doctor at his triple nickel # but only got a nice lady named Sandy that sells real estate.

I wonder what cha get on his cell?

Syncro

http://beingrightisnotwrong.com/2009/09/05/is-my-name-not-enough/

The real estate angle is interesting. I noticed that his meta keywords had real estate and homes in them as well. I wonder if he is hiding behind someone else?

That my friends would be IRONY.

Oh well, back to doing interesting things... Next post please Kate :)

Black mamba; a fight between Leenox Lewis and Bill Mahr would go in Mahrs favor, a little grease on that sloped head of Mahrs and Lewis would glance off that forty degree slope all night causing hime to tire and lose, just thinkin, and there is nothing in there to rattle anyways. Maahr makes Forrest Gump look like Einstein.

SOMETHING FUNNY HAPPENED TO ME ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM!

I entered John Miller's phone number (905-885-5553) on "Canada 411--reverse lookup and I get the following name.

S. Segal
6083 Knoxville Rd
Port Hope, Ont.
L1A-3V8

Better check that out Kate!! Opps, Catherine!

He appears to be another left wing moron probably jealous of the number of hits SDA gets in comparison to his pathetic blog.

As far as his non-accomplishments go I thought that:
"Miller is one of Canada’s leading researchers and trainers dealing with diversity in news organizations" was perhaps the most useless. Anyone who believes in forced "diversity" is an enemy of meritocracy and perhaps this has something to do with the rapidly declining standards of the MSM.

If he has anything to say to me then post it the thread with my comment. SDA is one of the most open blogs I've run into as anyone can post here. As far as "having stopped listening to anyone else" all we've done is stopped listening to the MSM as to do so is a waste of time. Perhaps someone should email Miller a link to the occupations of SDA regulars which shows that people who post on SDA are far better educated and intellectually diverse group than journalists.

As far as anonymity goes, I've said it once before and will say it again: as a doctor I can't freely express my views except under a pseudonym. Kate knows who I really am and I haven't had any difficulty in sending a check to her to support her legal battle with the most prolific user of section 13.

Forest Gump is Einstein.

Simple is as simple does.

Syncro

I'll add to loki's comment and mention that I, too, must post under a pseudonym. I work at Environment Canada and although my immediate co-workers know I'm a right winger (and actually many I work with tilt more right than left, but they just don't recognize it) if it got into the food chain of promotion decisions, I wouldn't ever be considered. Despite being very good at what I do.

Miller's piece is the worst thing I've read in years, not because he's so clearly wrong - which he is - but because he doesn't make sense. The piece isn't inane in the usual sense, because the author isn't trying to be silly; he deigns instead to go out on a challengeable limb, and announces that he's being sensible and logical. It's addled, I guess, is the word. He's almost entirely in error on points of fact, and his piece is so dense with logical non-sequiteurs that there's no point even trying to take it apart; if one wished to demonstrate what a piece of crap it is, it would suffice to simply type it out, verbatim, start to finish, and then say :"Read this. No, seriously."

After Miller calls Kate "stunningly hypocritical" in the first sentence, he commences to get the very facts that he posits as comprising in entirety the basis and proof of the vicious charge *exactly wrong* - as in, perfectly, one-hundred percent backwards.

It's a remarkable, carefully-constructed mistake that should bring him instant fame:

"McMillan doesn't even directly identify herself on her site..."

Everyone and his dog knows, and has always known, for years now -- even her enemies know - Kate's exact - real - name. She has posted photos of herself, and details about her various occupations and pastimes -- one of which is blogging. Kate has always *directly identified herself on her site.* Everyone knows that, but, uh-oh....here comes Miller:

"... but posts under the moniker Kate..."

Message here for John Gordon Miller, "expert witness," "consultant," and "writer": "Kate" is not actually a "moniker", it's actually Kate's, how you say, name. Are you actually....uhhnn. This is embarrassing:

...and helpfully *links* you to her Wiki page."

She doesn't *do* that either, in any ongoing sense. On one occasion she pointed out the ludicrousness of having mini public-domain mini-bios authored *anonymously* by one's enemies. Miller, after falsely asserting/implying that Kate "links" to her Wikipedia page in some ongoing way, goes on to shamelessly recite, in -- and this is the sort of thing that sticks with you -- the exact same order as that almost prurient, hate h**d-on Wikipedia slag-job, the very info from said anonymous slur-piece.

I'm guessing that he thinks that since he's the "Journalism Doctor," no one's going to notice that his use of a juried-by-anonymous-enemies piece of crap as exhibit A en route to making the very specific and utterly false case that Kate "doesn't even directly identify herself on her site" is the online equivalent of him repeatedly clapping his n*ts between a pair of bricks.

The guy's not just irony-deaf, he's irony-dead.

I disagree with commenter Thucydides' (11:28) suggestion that Miller "craves" this sort of attention. I believe that Kate is performing a public service by drawing our attention to John Gordon Miller's should-be-famous piece. This is a guy who was a chair at the same Ryerson journalism school that spits out those journalists who always seem to rise into the positions of public narrative-writing, and therefore, oh, say, influence elections.

The self-described "Journalism Doctor" really and truly should be eternally famous in the blogosphere for that linked-to piece. Leaving personal loyalties aside here, and just looking at it from a distance, his piece is a real standout which properly should have enormous utility for students of journalism. In a perfect world is would find a place in textbooks not just at Ryerson but elsewhere, spanning oceans and continents, as a perfected example of bad journalism.

If you type in Miller's name at Wikipedia all you get is "You may create the page 'John Gordon Miller.'" Hmmm... Is anyone inclined to be as much of a gormless pest as those Wiki-authors who rise forth anonymously, in the number-one go-to public-domain resource, to slur Kate, and who Miller in effects cites, in a Father Christmas tone, as the building blocks for his blithe, "everybody-knows" slur-piece?

I sincerely hope not. On the other hand, such cited results could authoritatively be referenced, and with a considerably weighted pompous authority backed by the methodology of the good Journalism Doctor Himself - not that people would notice - and would all be in the interests of a common good which can be specified as that which is widely and self-evidently identified, and defended, by pompous blowhards from a certain mien.

Thanks, Miller! Sometimes we need people to spell it out for us. Memories are made of such.

Joe Citizen:

25 years? Sincerely, sir, my hat's off to you.

I doubt Miller's reading this, but:

Kate knows who I am. If I ever did something to compromise her legally or financially, I wouldn't expect her to take the hit for me. I hope I'd be enough of a man to stand up for what I wrote. But if, in a moment of weakness (see my note to Joe C. above), I wrote something stupid or actionable, I don't think I have any right to hide behind Kate's skirts (let alone her cherry ice cream..). Or doesn't Miller realize we have to provide a valid e-mail address?

I tried to contact the professor on his cell but alas he was incommunicado.

I did leave a very polite message and look forward to his response.

Sandy was nowhere in sight.

Syncro

Never heard of him.

Oh, and by the way, Johnny, ever seen the Media run with a story quoting an 'anonymous source' ?? Everyone here has.

Read this guy's cv and no surprise he doesn't like Kate.

When you're taking flak it means you're over the target.

How many of you hard asses dialed?

Syncro

No one should harass the guy, syncrodox. Totally counterproductive.

*Link* to him. Get those who know the facts to read him.

# Senior news executive for 13 years at Canada’s largest newspaper (What newspaper??)
# Chaired Canada’s largest journalism school for 10 years (What school would that be??)
# Wrote Yesterday's News, a critically acclaimed book on Canadian newspapers (So acclaimed that its not even listed in Amazon.ca; and nothing for John Gordon Miller either.)
# Won national and provincial awards for investigative reporting (Which awards would those be??)
# Successful record as an expert witness – for both plaintiffs and media organizations – in three provinces (Which provinces would those be??)

After Steyn so thoroughly mopped the floor with him, he’s back for more. Is he gormless or does enjoy public humiliation?

“If I’ve pricked that beast again, please note: I don't accept emails. Show some courage and pick up the phone.”

Maybe he is just ronery.

I repeat..How many of you dialed?

Syncro

I just ask because the last time I dialed a number from here it turned out to be the Peel Regional Police.

Odd that.

Syncro

so this slimey "destroyer of minds" slanders you to glean traffic from your amazing blog ? the good doctor is so lonely

Scanoo

If you can back any one of the good doctors assertions......game on!!

Syncro

I think it says something about Miller's thesis that if you google "shagged sheep", the first thing that comes up is the magnificent whuppin' Steyn gave the poor fellow last November. In other words, for all the studied magnificence of his c.v., John Gordon Miller, thanks to the miracle of the cache, forever forever be known as the poor, unsuspecting twerp who challenged Steyn to a fist fight and came out covered in bruises and festooned with bestiality jokes. That's what happens when you bring a Nerf bat to a nuke fight.

(For those who missed or have forgotten it: http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1516/26/)

Speaking as an aka-dumbic myself, the first question I ask when reviewing an argument is "what's the data"; the second is "what are the sources"; and the third is "does the analysis flow logically from the material the author has presented." By those standards, unlike anything Miller has managed to come up with, Steyn's "shagged sheep" article is a letter-perfect example of a solid piece of academic work.

The fact that it is also (a) the literary equivalent of a Joe-Pesci-style beating with a potato sack full of rusty doorknobs, and (b) cover-yer-keyboard funny...well, that's just the "Steyn Bonus" you get with Mark's prose.

As for the relative worth of blogs vs. MSM wogs, I'm of the mind that such questions are best settled by a duel: Kate vs. Miller, hit counters @ 20 paces. No need to run that contest, I'm afraid.

In the real world (which is to say, the one where the market sets value, not the one that Miller and other goofball socialists live in), a thing is worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. You need no other epistemological lever to help you understand the rise of the blog vice the putrescent obsolescence of print "journalism" such as that taught by the good "doctor".

'Course, I'm not a doctor of journalism. But then, neither is Mr. Miller. According to his c.v., he has a BA dating from the year before I was born. Outside the medical field, one requires a Ph.D. before claiming the title of "doctor" - and even then, one doesn't throw the title around, because it makes one sound like a pretentious arse. Also because signing a lousy argument "Dr. Trodwell" is akin to applying a thin coat of lacquer to a feculent, steaming turd.

As for anonymity...well, when I was blogging, I rather liked it. Amongst other things, it dissociates the individual from the reasoning and obviates arguments both ad hominem and ad verecundiam (that's 'from authority', for Herr Doktor Miller), which are invariably the first refuge of the incapable. If you blog under a pseudonym, you can't start your argument by citing your "critically acclaimed (and popularly unknown) book"; your reasoning must stand or fall on its own merits. Expert or positional authority have no force in the blogosphere. It's the great equalizer. This is perhaps why conservatives and libertarians love it, and liberals and socialists fear it so deeply. Nothing is more terrifying to the trembling, limp-wristed tyrants of the nanny state than a free man crying, "You don't speak for me!"

Or, not to put too fine a point on it, a free woman.

And that's also why web-fights are so funny. For all its scintillating glory, Doc Miller's c.v. didn't help him build an argument that Steyn couldn't casually shred, and it doesn't do him any good in a google-fight with Kate. On the interwebs, nobody gives a good goddamn who you are. All that matters is what you say, and whether it is weighty and witty, or a load of bollocks. If the good doctor hasn't sussed that out yet, perhaps he needs to go back to school.

A REAL one.

Called.The good news is his mailbox is not full...I am sure that will change.

I love. "If I’ve pricked that beast again, please note: I don't accept emails. Show some courage and pick up the phone."

I mean, buddy, we all accept emails. It is kinda the way we live. You want 300 phone calls? OK. but the world has moved on.

Jay
For men like me this is not an ideological or philosophical fight...it's practical.

Syncro

Once again....who here dialed?

Syncro

And his lil' ol blog has had more hits in the last 10 hours than in the previous ten weeks.

Listen Jack, can I call you Jack? Or is it Gord? Anywho, I would wager a guess that more people have read Kate's musings and rants in the last five years than read yours over an entire career in "journalism".

I suggest we put Miller's reputation as the "Journalism Doctor" to the test...

We should submit his blog posting and EBD's response to a journalism school and see which one is deemed to be better writing.

Congratulations, EBD! There really is no comparison.

SDA is one of the most open blogs I've run into as anyone can post here.

Uh-huh.

Just another self congratulation asshole from Toronto. Imagine, a Professor believing he is important, that people value his opinions.

Wonder what it feels like to live in the center of the Universe and be able to have the Toronto Star delivered to your door?

That must be sweet living.

Good Lord! The man admitted to teaching journalism at Ryerson Polytechnic!! And he still thinks this is a valid credential?
He should be embarrassed! Ryerson is not a real university and journalism is not a profession. Ryerson is where yo go when you couldn't even get into Carleton and journalism is what you do when you failed at actually earning a living.
And what exactly is a professional witness?

Miller has one valid claim to fame: the new verb "megaSteyn" resulted from his hapless encounters with reality.

Definition: to be bombarded with ever increasing on target salvos of real facts contradicting one's own ghastly attempts to create the illusion of expertise.

Equivalent to: "tear him a new one times ten".

Use: "The section meeting was awful. I was not ready and tried to wing it. The boss megaSteyned me so badly afterward I lost bladder control."

What EBD said.

Miller has less education than an elementary teacher.

What is his opinion of Benjamin Franklin ... who made use of anonymity?

"And what exactly is a professional witness?"
Someone who gets paid to testify?

230,000 hits for Googling "famous pseudonyms".
Here's one...
http://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~acsdry/quizes/pseudonym.htm

230,000 hits for Googling "famous pseudonyms".
Here's one...
http://homepages.shu.ac.uk/~acsdry/quizes/pseudonym.htm

Is this actually an attempt to redeem his credibility? After his last spanking, you'd think he'd be a fact-checking fanatic. Actually, John Gordon Miller is funny in a Cliff Clavin of Cheers sort of way. In tribute to the Good Doctor's fondness for Wiki:

"On the Cheers 200th Episode Special, host John McLaughlin asked Ratzenberger about Cliff Clavin. Ratzenberger said that Cliff would describe himself as the "Winged nut that holds western civilization together." However Ratzenberger said that he would describe Cliff simply as "A winged nut."

I wonder if the J-doctor has an ample supply of white socks.

I notice Dr. Journalism there doesn't accept comments. Just phone calls. Even though his e-mail is listed right at the top of the page.

Yeah, a guy who calls himself The Phantom is going to call the Doctor from his home phone and chastise him for insinuating The Phantom has "bigoted, nasty views".

Dear Doctor, I truly have better things to do that argue with the likes of you over a phone line. Like sleeping, or washing my hair, or even sitting on the deck staring off into space.

Remaining anonymous is critical for some people, while not for others. I remained anonymous on my blog for a long time until I changed my occupation. I worked primarily, and collegially, with very leftwing individuals, so while I did so, it was better to remain anonymous. Many were so leftwing, that simply knowing I was right of center would’ve kept me from getting contracts and/or would’ve caused unnecessary tension.

I completely sympathize with those who want to comment in anonymity, especially if their profession requires a degree of political neutrality. For some, it’s a matter of job security even if their comments are reasonable.

Using anonymity to libel others though, is deserving of court action. It’s one thing to call names, another altogether to spread falsehoods while hiding behind internet anonymity. There is a big difference between bloviating and libel.

If this man is as erudite as he claims he is, then why does his post reek of infantilism?
Ahh, maybe that's a pointless question all things considered!

Meanwhile the brave journo doc is protected by tenure and a civil service union, while the people he criticizes may be risking a lot if they weren't anonymous. More important, his security is guaranteed by the orthodoxy of his views; he says nothing that would get him involved in any controversy.
Meanwhile, some of the people he mentions have risked their careers and finances by fighting for free speech and ensuring a future for his profession, even while he destroys it.

Trodwell@ 6:13

Are you the same Trodwell that used to blog at RTP Reloaded?

AAw gee...I didn't even get a (dis)honourable mention.

Another demented liberal male who lusts after her but knows he hasn't a chance in hell thus he writes mean hateful stuff perhaps? Can I call him an arsehole? I

Rose; at a guess You probably don't usually ask permission? lol!

The only point the good Dr. makes is that Kate doesn't use velvet gloves when giving a position and such an approach offends him. He must get likewise offended when people tell him that hamburger doesn't come from the grocery store.

This Dr. of important and imaginative social expression must have his head up a unicorn's butt when commenting that Kate and the SDA Nation don't listen to anyone of Leftist persuasion. The truth is actually the opposite - much of what is talked about comes directly FROM people of Leftist persuasion...note the now ex-Obama green-jeans Czar named Van Jones. Nobody put any words in the mouth of that whack-job enviro-entitlement racist to show his true colors. SDA just posted articles based on Van Jones' own words and provided an open forum for discussion.

Once again, these "learned" people are tolerant of only those that hold their views and actively marginalize dissenting voices. Thanks must be given to Dr. Propaganda for showing the worth of Kate's SDA site as a strong voice against such factless abuses of journalistic authority.

I'm not surprised that the Dr. cares less about the truth than how it's conveyed. That is why "Journalism" has sunk to the depth of snake oil hucksterism. How would it feel to be a doctor of such a discredited field knowing what he's now feeding to a new crop of bold fresh faced idealists has much the equivalent value as oats processed through a male ungulate.

I work for the City of Edmonton. What Kate said about the inner city was mild. You can thank your compassionate government for giving the nuts amoung them their freedom to starve or be violent.
As for the drug addicts & gamblers, who mostly all get Welfare or ASH. They live outside to get every cent they have to spend on drugs or booze.
They even screw in public.
Just inagine 4000 bums defectaing & urinating in the River Vally while building nasty nests of filth.
Try cleaning them.
Than there is the fact most have bikes. Stolen of course, or food carts. Indeed most petty crime is commited by them including prostitution. Yet the good Journalism DR. heart bleeds for people who don't want his help , only laugh at fools like this behind their back. I might add not a few are sex crimminals who's own families will not have anything to do with them.
Get the facts before you spout off is my advice to this buffoon.
JMO
JMO

Kate is not anonymous in the least. Have talk to her on the phone many times. Seems like a very solid citizen.

As EBD pointed out, this Dr Journo is completely out to lunch.

my teenage grandkids sound more mature than that piece of DOCTOR DUNG

2cents, what Ryerson teaches is as close to "Journalism" as a fart is to perfume!

Re: Needles.

Has anyone ever thought of filling them with strychnine?? It was just a thought!

Doctor-Heal-Thyself.
His brain's just as fuzzy as his mug.

Self imposed anonymity on Miller's part I'd say.

In the free market ... when you can't sell your crap you starve.

Hi there Kate:

Give the man a call and have it out with him, altho I suspect the phone may interrupt Herr Penman Miller in one of his frequent bouts of private intellectual wanking. But Kate, do us ALL a favo and RECORD THE CALL AND POST THE WHOLE AUDIO EXCHANGE so that we cann all enjoy hearing this turkey gobble-gobble his way to the editorial Stalingrad he espouses.

Hi there Kate:

Give the man a call and have it out with him, altho I suspect the phone may interrupt Herr Penman Miller in one of his frequent bouts of private intellectual wanking. But Kate, do us ALL a favo and RECORD THE CALL AND POST THE WHOLE AUDIO EXCHANGE so that we can all enjoy hearing this turkey gobble-gobble his way to the editorial Stalingrad he espouses.

TRODWELL:

Your lovely, rational posts are the reason this academically over-qualified communications veteran doesn't dismiss the entire university system (altho I question placing Ryerson under the "university" rubric). And John Miller is an ODIOUS and STULTIFYINGLY BORING person. I can only assume that John Miller's real estate lady friend is some kind of fetishist who enjoys the isolation/desolation experience catalyzed by extended periods of time spent with someone as insightful as pudding in a coma. Or maybe she's dead.

My, my ... 99 percent of the posts above resort to personal insults (typical) and only a few address my real concern -- why people with strong views like you have a habit of hiding behind anonymity.

If you fear getting fired or held back at your place of work for expressing your views, you aren't a very strong fighter for the right to free speech, are you?

One of the few to debate the real point, Mr. hudson duster, posted: "Meanwhile the brave journo doc is protected by tenure and a civil service union, while the people he criticizes may be risking a lot if they weren't anonymous. More important, his security is guaranteed by the orthodoxy of his views; he says nothing that would get him involved in any controversy.
Meanwhile, some of the people he mentions have risked their careers and finances by fighting for free speech and ensuring a future for his profession, even while he destroys it."

To correct his facts: I am not "protected" by anything; I'm retired, just another private citizen. If I said nothing that would get me involved in any controversy, what the heck is all this? The orthodoxy of views on this site, at least, is certainly very impressive. And surely you can't ALL be living in fear for your jobs by expressing such paleoconservative views ... gosh if you do, you must be desperately unhappy ... I might recommend a change in career, unless you'd rather stand up for your rights in a much more meaningful way.

Happy trails.

Mr. Miller, I find it highly presumptive of you to make assumptions about why people leave comments anonymously. I comment anonymously because I run a blog that advocates for people with Down syndrome. I do not want to politicize my blog.
No career worries with me, but maybe we are a little more diverse here than your learned self can imagine. As for your concern about my happiness. I'm a very happy person, most especially after visiting SDA.

sir, you did not express "concerns," you leveled an inaccurate accusation

Doctor Miller: your 8:10 am post entirely, and, I would suggest, pointedly avoided the subject of both the post and the discussion in this thread, which is this: in your piece on your blog you smeared Kate for not blogging under her real name, even though Kate does blog under her real name, and always has, and has posted photos of herself, and provides contact information, and mailing address, etc.

This isn't nit-picking. The substance of your piece was entirely predicated on this - clear - mistake of yours. It was the starting point of your piece, and you ran with it. After noting that Kate said that if something is worth publishing it's worth having her name attached to it, you called her a hypocrite for saying that while writing under a "moniker." You then used the grossly-in-error "hypocrite" charge to launch an attack on her that included information from a Wikipedia piece written, in part, by one particular unstable and obsessive enemy of hers.

In other words, your piece was predicated on, and began with, a gross error in fact and then, en route to addressing "your real concern" with those "hiding behind anonymity", you quoted -- actually, scratch that, you didn't quote, or cite, but rather stated as fact - information from an online source that was written by *anonymous* individuals.

In comparison, the pseudonymous commenters at SDA whom you criticize for their pseudonymity are nonetheless accountable for their *words*; whenever they make a clear mistake of fact, and someone points it out, they will respond with some variant of "oh my gosh, you're quite right. That was really a bad mistake on my part - I'm really embarrassed. Thanks for pointing that out."

You, on the other hand, are living proof that the act of simply typing out one's name doesn't necessarily make one even slightly accountable. If you're not even slightly willing to hold yourself accountable for a particular gross error in fact which forms the basis of an ad hominem attack, in what sense does your name make you automatically accountable?

It clearly doesn't. In this case, as with the Steyn fiasco, you argue like a thirteen-year old gumsnapping girl - which is to say, you are bound by nothing resembling accountability.

Shouldn't you at least admit, as a starting point for reasonable discussion, that your smear-job was entirely built upon an error on your part? Don't you feel any obligation to explain, or defend, or apologize for, your egregious public error in fact? Shouldn't you own up to - i.e show at least the tiniest degree of accountability for - the undeniable and published error of fact you made, upon which you built an entire slur-piece? You seem to think that you win by being unaccountable and deflecting. I would suggest that if a person makes a gross error in fact, and then entirely bases an attack on someone else on that mistake, he should own up to it.

You should be accountable for your *words*, Doctor Miller. Merely typing out your name doesn't obviate that responsibility. Am I wrong about that?

Dr. Millar, thank you for taking the time to post your comment. Most of us who comment here do so anonymously for our own reasons, and because we are allowed to.

Recent court cases have shown how very tentative that anonymity really is. We all get it. But it is the discussion that holds us to account, not our name.

If the discussion is valid, the names aren't the important part.

Right now, we are discussing your writing. People here are calling it factually inaccurate. Is it? Does it matter if your name is Dr. Miller or if you go by the Journalism Doctor? It doesn't matter to me. It is the content of your writing, which seems to be lacking.

Kate would prefer to discuss the fact that your writing borders on irrelevancy based on your limited readership, but notice she doesn't force that dialogue. The discussion goes where it will.

So, you are invited to discuss. Kate asks that you don't feed the trolls. Or Catherine, if you would prefer.

And does the fact that she has her name, contact information, and her full business dealings and information about herself on her blog, posted mysteriously under the heading "About Kate" ACTUALLY mean that you are Ezra Levant's old man? He might be surprised.

It seems that you are the hypocrite. And I don't mean that in a "bigoted, nasty" way. I mean that in exactly the way you leveled it at Kate and her commenters.

It took this "journalist" three days to notice that his blog actually got some hits and to figure out where it might be coming from.

Not much wonder he missed the "About Kate" link.

I wonder how many stars from the current crop of "professional journalists" can credit their inability to read, fact check and/or write without bias to the good doctor?

If ego counted you may at one time been worth something. I can post under any name I choose. I don't need your approval and I don't seek your permission. Your satisfaction is of no concern of mine. By the way, you need a job to retire from. Getting your arse kissed for marks is not a job. Considering to-days journalism you did not teach very well.

Wow. Still the good Mr. Miller has no clue of how outmatched he is by the likes of, well just about anyone with a non-lefty blog it seems. Better he remain ignorant, it would crush his ego if he knew what intellectual roadkill he's made of himself.