I'm not comfortable with that use of "effective." Although your statement has to do with writing, the point you are making is more about readers. And that's where we can agree. If people are inclined to get pissed off, then it's really not hard for a writer to do so. A really effective writer, though, would do the amazing - moving the reader who is already planning to be pissed off to some other position. That's the real power, and trick, of writing.
and honestly, it has nothing to do with universal truth. It has do to with how we approach, recognize, and respond to "the multiple." Knowing that people don't see eye-to-eye is no excuse to piss someone off or to get pissed of. Instead of being pissed off or pissing off (both which take little effort), people should find ways to accomplish something else, something better.
I'm sensing this is a matter of semantics as the words are shifting. Disagreement is inevitable. Getting pissed off and/or pissing off is a purposeful, and shallow, move.
When LEO is at its best, it invites the reader to do serious analysis/thinking as a result of strong writing. When LEO is at its worst, it resorts to childish writing that accomplishes little more that pissing people off - and, I think, based on the writing, that this is a purposeful move (by LEO).
Carla G wrote:I stand by what I wrote earlier.
Carla G wrote: You're not a very effective writer if you're not pissing off somebody, somewhere .
To think otherwise is to believe that there is only one universal truth applicable to all. Somewhere, someone, is going to disagree with you. BTW I don't think the point of writing is to irritate, merely that it is an inevitable by-product. Looking at some of the difficult subject matter that LEO has courageously tackled in the past, to say they let Roger go because some of the readers were upset is, in my opinion, naive. It is obviously driven by an attempt to get in big brewer advertising. The really sad thing is I seriously doubt much additional revenue will actually materialize. If AB (or anyone else for that matter) was honestly convinced that LEO was a viable vehicle for advertising their product they would have jumped on it regardless of the opinion of a single columnist. All that has sadly happened is that LEO has allowed itself to be stifled by big business. It's a sad folks.