HMJC: the occupiers need a spokesperson. Essesntially as I understand them they are protesting the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor and middle class.
Yes - they do need a spokesperson. I recommend Rosie O'Donnell. If she's not available, perhaps Mel Gibson would give it a try. In any case - "Occupy" celebrated its anniversary with more than 100 arrested. That's the BEST news:
(I would have suggested Rahm Emanuel - using the rationale that "filthy people" should be spoken for by a "filthy mouth." But unfortunately, Rahm is otherwise "occupied" battling the dastardly teacher's union in Chicago.)
I predict he will appeal, and he will win.
HMJC: the occupiers need a spokesperson. Essesntially as I understand them they are protesting the growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor and middle class.
Jimmy, I get that, don't necessarily disagree. My lack of understanding continues to be peaked by the specific focusing on wall street and the banks. My opinion is that this the easiest target to blame. My question is, is that the biggest contributing cause?
If I am not mistaken, it is not wall street's fault that:
- the unemployment rate is so high.
- record numbers of Americans are on food stamps.
- that trillions of dollars flow out of our country to support countries that do not like the U.S., but of course do like the aid.
The list can go on and on. Until we realize we are part of the problem, it will continue to exist. The bottom line is this, we don't want the government to tell us what to do, but we still want it to provide unabated subsistence with out merit. I close with my original suggestion; occupy a job and be part of the solution.
"I know we can always count on sebekm and HMJC for a good ole tug of the forelock."
You've done your share of tugging on this site.
Glad to know that you do Murr... All joking aside, this is a forum where all are entitled to maintain thier own opinions, you included Murr. However, please dont make your return to the pages alluding that anyone that does not agree with you is uneducated or just wrong...Please continue to be a part, just try to be objective and leave the personal attacks for your friends and nieghbors...
Yes - I know what "tug of the forelock" means, presuming you meant:
"To raise one's hand to the forehead as a sign of respect, subservience or obedience."
My comment still stands: as it relates to the "tug of the forelock": you've done PLENTY around here. I'm sure you will continue, to the amusement of all.
"...just try to be objective and leave the personal attacks for your friends and nieghbors..."
HMJC: YOU must be joking. Murrelet comes here for one reason - to get his/her jollies by demeaning, degrading and insulting. He/she must have gotten bored at other sites so now he/she comes back here.
Anyone who is as intelligent as he/she claims to be wouldn't waste their time trying to provoke people on an internet site. He/she reminds me of the kid who pulls the wings off flies, or burns them with a focused beam from a magnifying glass just to watch 'em squirm.
There's an old saying by Robert Pirsig that "the world's biggest fool can say the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out." I'll add that the biggest fool is the one who thinks they are a genius, but doesn't realize they are only tolerated for the comic relief they provide.
It looks like you WANT to be banned from the site. You appear to have gotten their attention - and if that's what you want, I suggest you keep it up.
What else is new? But it was nice while it lasted: two months or so of disagreement without being disagreeable; very few if any demeaning, degrading, or insulting remarks; no taunting that I can recall.
I wonder what changed?
"They won't ban me. I haven't used any language that can offend....
"This comment has been removed for violating the terms and conditions of use."
It's not wise to taunt the webmeister.
Ha know, if your gonna fight, at least make it entertaining. Reposting the same old drivel id hardly simulating. Reminds me ofkids in the backseat, "He touched me." "Na-uh, she touched me."
I didn't know people "get gay ". Anyway that is another blog. The fact you keep dragging up Jimmy 's behavior to justify your own is a bunch of tripe. Jimmy crossed a line and paid for it. He learned his lesson and has been a model poster since then. No one, not me, Seb, IKY or anyone else is responsible for your behavior except you. Stop baiting people and post the intelligent blogs I know you are capable of.
Aww Murr, so nice to have you back. I find the pious comment unfortunete but expected. Murr it would be nice if you would actually have a point. It still seems that your blogging skills are limited to personal attacks and the need to validate your own qualifications to comment. Regardless Murr, I look forward to your demeaning dialouge and lack of perspective.
"Stop baiting people and post the intelligent blogs I know you are capable of."
Let's not lose sight of the issue here (and I'll continue the hi-jack, since it seems like everyone else is playing along):
When a comment is removed for "violating the terms and conditions of use," it means that it was:
"*damageable, injurious, defamatory, libelous toward persons or organizations
*obscene, vulgar, profane, abusive, bullying, harassing or threatening racially
*ethnically or religiously offensive, discriminatory in any way, advertising
*promotes illegal or criminal acts, impersonation of another person or entity."
So to have a comment removed, obviously as determined by the site monitor(s) one has "used...language that can offend" in one way or another, or has violated the terms and conditions of use in some other way. I can see where the deleted comments could have fit three of the above four bullet prohibitions. (If you want to see the actual comments, they can be viewed here - page 2 - 09/18/2012 16:59 p.m.
Further, that person is - according to the webmaster - on an open-ended probabion - quoting the mail message from March 9th of this year:
"Murrelet, After some complaints I have looked at several of your blogs and comments on others’ blogs. Your repeated abusive language and thinly veiled expletives add nothing to the conversation. They actually cheapen the conversation. If you do not moderate your language I will ban you from the site."
I don't believe the Courier puts site "hits" over upholding their site terms and conditions of use, especially when the hits constitute no real "contribution" to the site or its members. Continued violations simply serve to build a case against the offender for future action consistent with the webmaster's note above.
In sum: According to the Courier's stated policy, bloggers/posters are welcome as long as they comply with the terms and conditions of use. I for one am not going to tolerate anything I consider a violation - particularly when it is directed toward me - and I will report such to the webmaster.
I encourage others to do likewise.
...and Murrelet: Not tolerating a bully or abuser is not whining. Since you appear to be incapable of seeing that, I'm sure you will continue to build the case against yourself. Sooner or later, the straw will break the camel's back. Jimmy realized this - and he's said so himself. That is why he is still here.
The rest of us realize it as well. That's why you haven't gotten any sympathy or support.
Why don't you just grow up?
I don't care whether ANYBODY is "impressed" with me or not. Nor do I care how long you've been blogging here, or what your opinions are. You have made yourself the subject and the issue.
When in my opinion you have crossed the line, I intend to report it. Every single time. If you keep it up, the case will be built and the toleration will be gone - regardless of the "hits" to the site.
I seriously doubt that you bring any significant hits here anyway.
Murr has a lot of good strenghts Jimmy. It is just frustrating that she wastes her gifts on activities that are beneath her level of intelligence
Common sense from you again, UP2. And thanks for the kind words regarding my reinstatement here. :)
Murr does indeed have a lot of good strengths.
She however gets brutal at times.
Jimmy Mack, you too have done the same in the past.
You both are well informed and each of you are gifted wordsmiths.
Murr's comment on this blog screen is a very profound assesment and I for one agree with her often but not always.
I am referring to the post of Wed Sept 19, 2012 at 14:51.
sebekm, no personal offence intended but we don't agree but about half of the time.
However I do appreciate the gentalemanly approach you adhere to in your posts.
Murr I'm glad you are back.
Let's all dig a little deaper into this issue.
Probably should have been gentlemanly and I'm really not sure.
I'm not nearly as skilled as most of the rest of you.
Bear with me please.
"I would't get too wrapped up in this, the sideshow will end swiftly I predict."
"She however gets brutal at times."
HMJC: I'm not, but I fully intend to follow through with what I say - as always. I told the webmeister back in March that I was not trying to get her kicked off the site - I only wanted her to "play nice" (my exact words). Another way to say it is for her to "watch her mouth" - just like the rest of us do. After all, it's only a matter of common courtesy, etiquette and respect, isn't it? We don't have to be disagreaable to disagree, and personal attacks, name-calling, and bullying have no place on this site - especially when the terms and conditions of site use SPECIFICALLY PROHIBIT IT.
If you've followed my posts over the past few years, I've tried to make this point to Murrelet in other ways. And you can see that the bullying/abuse or violation of site terms and conditions continues and is basically limited to just this one person.
Pat Watkins assured me (as quoted above) that he would continue to monitor her posts to ensure she was abiding by the rules. After all, what does name-calling add to anything anyway? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It just let's somebody get their jollies off. Well - I've had a connection to the Coastal Courier for 30 years, beginning with a subscription and a son who delievered the paper. (Of course, that meant that I often delivered the paper, on those occasions all parents know who have kids with a paper route.) I believe the Courier truly is "the conscience of the community"; I am invested over many years in their operation - both emotionally and financially; and I believe that their online site deserves better than being a repository for potty-mouthed trash-talking.
No HMJC, I'm not getting "too wrapped up" in it - no more than I get too wrapped up in anything else I do. (People who know me know I tend to be an all-or-nothing/all-in type of guy.)
TOT said: "...but we don't agree but about half of the time."
And that's perfectly OKAY. But we don't call each other stupid idiots, liars, bitter old men, patronizing jerks, frauds, etc., do we? NO! Why not? Because as mature adults we realize that:
*Different people will have different opinions.
*This country is based on freedom of expression, but that doesn't mean that you can say ANYTHING to ANYBODY at ANY TIME for ANY REASON.
*Name-calling says more about the caller than it does about the target. Anybody who has learned a thing while living knows that if you want to intelligently discuss issues, the last thing you do is to alienate your audience. The only people who do that don't care about intelligent discussion - they only want to antagonize, bait, and hurt. And every mature adult of today knows that's behavior you see in kids starting at an early age. Successful parents eliminate that behavior in their own children through teaching/coaching/training - whatever you want to call it.
Obviously, some parents were more successful than others.
...but enough with the sanctimonious pontificating and the blogstring hi-jacking:
Here's some "advice" for the Occupiers, courtesy of USATODAY.com:
or...others of us did not have the intestinal fortitude to serve in the military and choose to belittle it due to a complete lack of understanding of the process
"Let's all dig a little deaper into this issue."
We've hit rock bottom. There is nothing left to dig. It is what it is. We're in the "dealing with it" mode now.
"or...others of us did not have the intestinal fortitude to serve in the military and choose to belittle it due to a complete lack of understanding of the process."
You know the old saying, HMJC:
Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate.
(Read "soldier" to include sailor, airman, and marine.)
"Some of us were taught that the world doesn't have to suck up to us just because we suck air."
Yes - and some of us know the difference between "sucking up" and treating others with respect - regardless of their "diversity," in appearance, beliefs, or opinions.
THAT's the issue here, and some of us can't (or refuse to) see it.
Seb as you are aware, most people with am understading of the military understand that serving is not tied to a motive. You dont serve because:
- to affect how one perceives you
- personal gain
- and darn sure not for the money!
I am a disabled veteran and hold no malice whatsoever towards the military. It was and always will be a part of my life. I served because I was something bigger than me. I served because I did and still do believe of the merits of service. I am no better or worse than anyone who did not serve. Just a Soldier that can look himself in the mirror and know that I did my part. I will ask though, that for those that have zero understanding of the military lifestyle, don't comment on something you have no qualifications to assess
My son is also a disabled vet. I think he served because he "wanted to follow in footsteps," and also got a push from the state of the economy back then. But I believe he was similarly motivated as you describe.
When I was on active duty, it wasn't for the money, either. But the job security in uncertain economic times (which between 1971 and 1998 there were plenty) was a "benefit" that one can not deny. As for recognition and how one perceives you - I've found it to be of little value outside the military, and sometimes a negative, especially during the Viet Nam era and just after.
I've worked in jobs outside the military as well. I think most people tend to be driven by a desire to succeed in whatever field they choose to pursue. The military is no different. Advancement is a prerequisite if you want to stick around, and the competition is ever-present. Much the same as in any job, but ordinarily on a much wider scale in the military. In my original career field, the competition was among thousands of people for sometimes only scores of promotions. And the system was "pyramid-shaped," so that those who did advance were competing for an ever-shrinking number of positions as they moved up the line. When I retired, I was filling a position which was one of only 57 Army-wide, and by grade there were only 15 or so of us. But I had to stick around for 26+ years and get promoted ten times to get there.
Back then, I kept my nose to the grindstone, my eyes and ears open, and my mouth shut. As you can tell from here, times have changed.
"And the whining, the self-justification, the narcissism go on and on, and on..."
Yes you do.
Good. That's the most intelligent thing you've said yet. Maybe you're finally LEARNING something.
In any event - as you said above - if you don't like it, don't read it.
I was directing my comments to HMJC and sharing experiences. I was also providing some background information for his frame of reference so he could evaluate my comments in perspective. I'm sure he understands. Most people try to LEARN from each other's experiences (and mistakes). I believe that those who reach a certain stage in life have an obligation to pass things along to help make things better for others. That's what CONTRIBUTING means, if you didn't know.
Whenever somebody posts on this site, they get a page which says "Thanks for contributing." Take a look at your comments on your profile page. In the vast majority of them, you don't contribute to ANYTHING. You're just here to pick at somebody and to make yourself look good at their expense.
that's a whole lot of tyring to say nothing Murr, good on ya though. If that is your objective response, so be it. I am not worried about it Sebe, I know what we have done and expect nothing.
"I love dust ups."
Then you should check this one out. It relates "private-made-public" emails - as opposed to our open-forum-with-site-rules here - and was undoubtedly published for political purposes. But it gives some insights into the defensiveness (but-not-yet-"bunker-mentality") that is beginning to pervade the Obama administration's State Department:
...but speaking of the occupiers, look who plans on meeting with them: