Monday, September 12, 2005


Hi Doug,

I've been reading the blog almost daily since it
started. I wanted to thank you for this forum-- I
believe that it has served a good purpose. I was the
asshole who suggested that "People should be exposed
to all viewpoints and ideas, and decide for themselves
what to think." Frankly, I'd like to see more posts
from Gary Stradling, et al. Even though I disagree
with most of what he says, I'd like to hear his voice.
That's what the first amendment is all about. Of
course, this is your blog, and your rules apply.
I was also the person who said that implosion was one
of the things that LANL was good at. Some of my posts
get applauded, and some get yanked (I get pissed at
all the crybabies).

I appreciate your offering this forum, and in thanks,
I will only post under my real name, ksboland.
As far as those who disagree with me, they can feel
free to go f**k themselves.


Thanks, Kevin. Re: Stradling, I banned him from the blog a few weeks back. The reason was not for what he tended to say, even though I disagreed with nearly everyhing he said, but for his having repeatedly ignored my requests regarding posting etiquette.

That is correct-- I will post only under my real name. I challenge all others to do the same.
I noticed Gary had went silent, but I didn't realize that he was being censored-- I mean, reprimanded for breaking the rules. Good thing you did that Doug.
To Anonymous @ 9/12/2005 09:36:51 PM, banning Gary was a good thing. While the blog can stand a few abusive anonymous posts, most of which Doug eliminates, trying to police Gary would be a full-time job. He was just too prolific.
Sometimes comments by folks like Gary are good, it makes people think. Thanks for the blog.
I see in the Monitor that Gary just voted to nix the new Whole Food store
that was to go into Ed's Market because he didn't like the idea the new owners
would sell alcholol (he's on a city commision). Way to go, Gary. That
decision should certainly help boost commerce in this dieing community.
I can't believe my first post is agreeing with old Gary, in response to 12:20.

The old Ed's is 150 ft from the high school. A special use permit is required to any business selling alcohol within 300 ft of a church or school. Once that permit is granted, it stays with the property. Does it really sound like a good idea to establish a permanent liquor permit on property just a stagger across Diamond from the high school, right next to the athletic field?

Even a stopped clock is right 2 times a day.
The request was for a permit to sell package beer and wine (you know, like Smiths does). Not to sell drinks on the premises.
Yeah, Secret Handshake...witness the "shun and purge" underway as well as shifting of UC employee investments to Fidelity.
I see that in my absence this weekend the anonymous posters have been busy.

I spent the weekend on the outer banks of North Carolina where, gratefully, there was no internet access, as well as minimal hurricane damage. I'm in meetings through most of today but I will go through the (apparently offensive to some) submissions on a time-available basis and apply my editorial discretion as it seems to be indicated.

Oh - sorry about saying that those posts had your approval. I let my monday-morning irritation get the better of me.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?