And while I'm not sure what your reference to 1890 means, my pointing out your (and commentors') use of "Sully" wasn't that it was an offense to the nickname "Sully" as much as it was an offense to your point about this guy being a true hero; you don't call Obama "Barry" (un-ironicaly anyway) so either put some " " around "Sully" or use his first and last name like an adult who isn't, at the very least, his passing acquaintance.

As to your comments about Dolomite's, I think you (self-interestedly) change "promote" in his/her comment to "build up" in your own. I think most can agree that "Sully" needs little build up in the hero or pilot areas (and I'll will assume your use of the term was out of a lack of consideration and not because you actually believe Gawker could do any more to build him up.)

In the end, your comments and convenient sentimentality are unnecessary to anyone who recognizes the difference between a "hero" (i.e. capable, good-at-his/her-job person) when one rarely comes along and anyone else (e.g., the "proto-celebrity fameballs" who have, with Gawker's welcome assistance, "thrust themselves" into attention.) Apparently, with the accolades this post is receiving, that isn't the Gawker readership and I'm not particularly surprised. A month from now this "Sully" guy won't register on your (Richard's) radar. And why would he?

 Reply

Then you address of what you seem to believe is my actual argument. I suppose "It was Friday at 5 and I was just musing" rationale is, I suppose, (welcome) intensity-diffusing humor.

And the Gawker celebrity promotion just to tear down shrillery comes, I believe, from Dolomite's original comment (where, like your addition on the original point twisted it into something it wasn't quite (like you do here with the wrong " " marks here with the "!!" marks.)

This Gawker thing was not at all a point I made so it's hard for me to address: but the I'm-rubber-and-you're-glue-but-no-I'm-the-rubber (tired) Gawker editor fall-back position of fighting criticism from the but-that-criticism-is-old standpoint not only doesn't address that particular criticism but is also way, way, way older than two years (ask Spiers). And you're right it does have nothing to do with this post (I didn't bring it up, you did).

 Reply

Now if your use was that thought out and "warm" then it would seem to kind of betray the very point you wanted to make about how (in your best-put words) "We need heroes, I know. But they don't always need us." in that he probably would balk at you calling him "Sully" to his face just as anyone (unfamous) would feel uncomfortable with a stranger calling them by a nickname.

I did seem to agree with and I mostly do. I did not agree with what you turned it into which was an accelerated version.

Wine delivered to the house? What a first-year-blogger I'm-always-drunk alcohol reference to close the point. Semantics? Ok. If that's what you mean by having that last poetic paragraph follow a piece about not making too much of this "Sully" fellow.

 Reply

Richard is another obvious example.

 Reply