* TheCitizen.com site re-enabled (provisionally) for posting comments and blogs

Search the Archives

Contact Information

The Citizen Newspapers
310B. North Glynn Street,
Drawer 1719,
Fayetteville, GA 30214

For Advertising Information
Call 770-719-1880
or Fax 770-719-1976

Email us your news!
Letters to the Editor
Opinion
Sports
Names & Faces
Weekend
Churches
Weddings & Engagements

For technical difficulties
Click here to email the webmaster

Fayette | News

TheCitizen.com site re-enabled (provisionally) for posting comments and blogs

Wed, 09/13/2006 - 7:34pm

By: Cal Beverly

After a 24-hour moratorium on all real-time posting of comments and blogs by our registered readers, the site is once again being enabled to receive your comments.

The site was -- in effect -- locked down to prevent a particular poster from posting what the publisher believed was libelous content.

The newly re-enabled posting capability is provisional -- predicated on the hope that posters will observe the site rules about all comments.

To recap the pertinent rules: Posting is a privilege, the rules of which must be observed or the offending poster is banned from the site.

If the banned poster re-registers under another e-mail address and IP address, the whole honor system comes tumbling down.

No registered user should have more than one active screen name. Posters who post under several names are in effect defrauding the owner of this site and misleading our readers. Such multiple posters will be banned once discovered.

Keep the debate civilized, with a minimum of name-calling, which is a resort to brute verbal force when the name-caller lacks a coherent argument.

Obscenities -- including disguised obscenities containing marks like $$ in place of the actual letters -- will result from this point on in your posting being obliterated and your posting privileges removed.

The obscenities, profanities and curse words -- some of which are contained in the infamous "seven forbidden words" -- are forbidden on this site in any form, including a disguised form like a$$.

In addition, content that attacks a person's private life -- as distinguished from a person's public persona -- will be grounds for blocking and banning.

In clear text, don't post stuff you heard about somebody's private activities. Posters can be tracked electronically and legal proceedings will be brought against those who libel anybody on this site.

If you are blocked and banned and then sign back on with more posting, legal action will be taken against you for hijacking this site and trespassing on privately owned space.

Persistent banned posters will cause the suspension of all posting by everybody until we can switch to a moderated-type approach.

That would mean the loss of real-time posting, and any sense of a give-and-take that comes from being able to post and read replies within seconds of your posting.

Instead, a moderated approach would mean that all blogs and comments would go into a hidden queue, accessible only to Citizen editors, who would read every post and either OK it, edit it or trash it -- likely many hours after the posting occurred.

It would be a shame if a few bad eggs spoiled the posting experience for many people who follow the rules. But that is what will happen next.

Be on your good behavior, folks. This site can be fun and informative and the source of real debates and exchange of relevant ideas, but only if everybody plays by the rules.

-- Cal Beverly
publisher/editor
The Citizen
Fayetteville, Ga.
editor@TheCitizen.com

? for Cal

Submitted by PTCMomma on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 9:47am.

Cal,
Question.... Is it okay for two people in the same house to have different user names? Right now, it's only me but my husband would like to have his own. But if he did, that would be 2 from our IP address. thanks,
Mom to 3, plus a few strays

re:

Submitted by people4u on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:02am.

Thanks Cal. Keep it clean folks; this a great avenue if used correctly. We can disagree and state opinions without crossing the line. In the end all discussions can be very beneficial to all of us.

Politeness and Civility

Submitted by muddle on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 7:31am.

While the injunction to "be nice" is, taken alone, a saccharine substitute for morality, G.K. Chesterton once said that politeness and cordiality are "the shadows cast by the great virtues."

Similarly, in a National Review editorial in 1994, William F. Buckley, Jr. reflected on Tonya Harding's contracted assault on Nancy Kerrigan. Along the way, he noted the on-court rants of John Mackenroe and Dennis Rodman (just after his infamous crotch kick).
Buckley notes that the old code of sportsmanship, which led a player to say, "Good game," or "nice shot" to an opponent, has given way to a model in which the game, like Tennyson's nature, is "red in tooth and claw." A line from that editorial has stayed with me since I first read it: "Manners are the outward signature of morals."

The rudeness of the playing field has spilled over into the Public Square where important debates on morality and politics take place. Consider the program, "Crossfire," where the panelists regularly interrupt one another, shout, and hurl insults.

I once attended a meeting of the Wisconsin Philosophical Society where the keynote speaker was Alvin Plantinga, professor of philosophy at Notre Dame. Plantinga has established his reputation as a world class philosopher. Dissertations are written on his ideas; people gain tenure at Ivy League schools publishing articles that interact with him. At the time, he was on a kind of "furlough" from his lectureship at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, where he was delivering the prestigious Gifford Lectures.

One of the sessions featured a paper by a professor from one of the Wisconsin satellite campuses. It was critical of Plantinga's work on the problem of evil. Criticism in itself is, of course, perfectly legitimate. This is what philosophers do best. But his *tone* was acerbic and sarcastic, and his choice of language conveyed the impression that he had little respect for the man or his work.

The program called for Plantinga to reply to the paper. He began with, "I want to thank Ron for his careful critique of my argument. I'm not sure that I have a good reply to each of his criticisms, but let me try to offer a few comments." What followed was a reply that focused on the *arguments.* Though his manner was friendly and bathed with humility, his critique was characteristically devastating. I doubt that anyone in the room--other than the author of that paper--thought that much of anything of the paper remained standing after Plantinga had finished with a benevolent smile.

You see, people who have sufficient confidence in their research and arguments can afford to rely on the strength of those arguments rather than resorting to rude and uncivil behavior in public discourse. (Just as the truly gifted athlete can afford to rely on his ability on the field and approach the game with true sportsmanship.)

The same should hold for forums such as this one.

Footnote on Plantinga. A friend of mine studied with Plantinga at Notre Dame for a few years, and wound up attending the same church in South Bend. He told me that Plantinga was often absent from the worship services. Reason: he regularly did a stint working in the church nursery with the toddlers. My buddy walked past the nursery door to see this world class philosopher and Gifford lecturer down on his knees playing Tonka trucks with 3-year-olds. Just the right combination of undeniable greatness and personal humility.

Muddle: Politeness!

Submitted by dopplerobserver on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 7:54am.

Do you truly know how many citizens appreciate such flambuoyant wording as you produced about saying terrible things nicely? What difference does it make? Does it make people change if you can gently persuade them to become learned and to surround everthing they say negatively with whipped cream? I think not, not much anyway. I don't like heavy cursers either, nor idiots. However one must relate to those who say what needs to be said in their own way. President Bush is a good example. He tries but he also slips up often.

The Difference

Submitted by muddle on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:09am.

The difference is that it is the mark of a civil society. I prefer civilization to savagery.

The difference also is that to hurl an insult in debate is merely to "emote." It is of the same significance to the issue at hand as a well-timed belch or yawn. Arguments are settled in the *objective* sense only as a result of paying attention to their validity and soundness. "Consider the following argument" is simply more to the point than "Now, aren't you a complete moron?!"

If our aim was only to change our direct opponents, then lobotomy would be more effective than either polite debate or the throwing of fecal matter.

"Flamboyant?" Moi?

Muddle: Flamboyant

Submitted by dopplerobserver on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:28am.

Just the words are, I am assuming. I don't think we are on the same plane here. There must be three types of emoters: Yours; what I described; and idiots who say, "now aren't you a moron?" We have all three on here. Yet, it is important for people taught to emote with the complete alphabet and to skirt around being too direct, must learn to communicate with the other 90% of the world. At least until you can somehow change everyone into such skilled debaters as yourself.

Emoters?

Submitted by muddle on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 9:03am.

I'm not sure I can agree with you if you are suggesting that every party to a debate is "emoting."

Suppose that you analyze something that I have said and observe that it has logical implications that even I cannot accept. You have not "emoted"; you have *argued.*

The difference is not one of eloquence or the lack of it. Rather, it is the difference between relevance and irrelevance; fire and smoke. It's the fire that does the real work. Smoke serves only to obscure the real issues.

And if you don't agree with me then you must just be some kind of an idiot.

(Sorry. Just kidding. But I just *had* to do it. Smiling )

muddle: emoting

Submitted by dopplerobserver on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 10:42am.

Senator, I knew John Kennedy, and you are no John Kennedy!

How I would have said it: Dunderhead, stop dropping names like you knew them or studied their works. I doubt if you could read them. Indiana lawyers are the dumbest and worst trained, and the degrees can be bought, of any in the USA. You are pretty and rich is the only reason you are here. I can control you easily. Surely, the USA can do better than you as a candidate for anything!

muddle: you still don't get it

Submitted by dopplerobserver on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 10:16am.

You are in a class by your self. 90% of people on earth do not talk that way. They also don't read books written that way. You are not conversing, emoting, or debating with them, at all. I know these kind of things have to be said if you want tenure at Harvard, but we ain't there. Keep trying however, in another 4000 years maybe the number will be 85%, and tea and crumpets will be served at every discussion. Except in certain parts of Africa, Indonesia, China, India, and Mars: oh! That is most of the world isn't it?

Egghead?

Submitted by muddle on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 4:57pm.

Hey, Doppler.

The last thing that I expected was to be marginalized as some kind of "egghead."

Just to give one example: My wife and I are high school sweethearts. We agreed long ago that I would pursue advanced studies an d get my Ph.D. She sacrificed, raised our kids, and remained satisfied with her high school diploma (and my devoted love). I have 30+ years of experience, then, with a lady who never had the educational opportunities that I have had. (Her common sense has helped to keep my feet planted on the ground.)

What are we talking about here? I thought it was the basic issue of civility. Ought we, when discussing important issues with others, show some basic respect? One might have thought so. Why in the world should anyone suppose that such respect is limited those who have been privileged enough to go to school?

----

The Surfer: That was me in '73!

Question for Muddle

Submitted by skyspy on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:26am.

Are human beings civil?
We as humans pat ourselves on the back daily about how much more refined we are, than animals.

Then we go home at night and watch the evening news...........

Most animals only kill when they are hungry.

Humans and Civility

Submitted by muddle on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:56am.

Some are.

Perhaps most aren't.

Anyway, your question reminded me of this passage in *The Brothers Karamazov*

"People talk sometimes of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as a man, so artistically cruel. The tiger only tears and gnaws, that's all he can do. He would never think of nailing people by the ears, even if he were able to do it. These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children, -too; cutting the unborn child from the mothers womb, and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes. Doing it before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet the baby, laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four inches from the baby's face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and he pulls the trigger in the baby's face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn't it? By the way, Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say."

Geez muddle

Submitted by sweetpea8870 on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 7:47am.

Cant you just make it short and sweet? Why does it always have to be a book? I still love ya!

Writing and peanuts

Submitted by muddle on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 7:57am.

Once I get started I just can't stop. Smiling

psst Sweetpea!

Submitted by Basmati on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 7:55am.

"ollege-Cay ofessor-Pray!"

ig-pay atin-lay

Submitted by muddle on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:00am.

y-may udents-stay gree-aay ith-way eetpea-sway

Reopened on line comments by Citizen

Submitted by dopplerobserver on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 6:50am.

It tears at my heart that the newspaper threatens to electronically track me if they don't like what I say, and then sue me. I thought what the federal government was doing, tracking calls, etc., without even a dupe court, was bad enough, but here in this format we are only talking mainly about politicians who are fair game. If only bad words were eliminated maybe we can put up with that in this Bible belt, but it appears there are many other rules. A block can be created to eliminate a list of "bad" words if that is the problem. As to one saying supposed untrue things about a politician or supporters of a politician,(and elected or appointed officials are politicians) then you will be required to eliminate at least two thirds of your Friday columnists, especially Ann Coulter, who is a witch and a liar,(I can say that because she says it) selling books and columns by saying what ever is the most controversial. I don't want to see her eliminated either, however. I enjoy learning what not to do.
This thing can be magnificant if we don't reduce it to the AJC "vents" type of thing which is edited to death, and meaningless.

Very easy solution doppler

Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 1:48pm.

Start your own newspaper and website. Then allow folks to post anything they want. How hard is that?

Otherwise, the Citizen is in charge here, and I can't for the life of me see why that would "it tears at my heart that the newspaper threatens to electronically track me if they don't like what I say, and then sue me."

People can and should be held accountable for their statements.

DAWG: I'm not the one threatened

Submitted by dopplerobserver on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 2:28pm.

Now you sound like the Bush administration. "You are either for me or against me!" "Even when I am wrong." When I said I didn't think it was correct to spy on anyone for whom no warrant exists, I didn't mean just me, I meant everyone. Now maybe that is the difference in the way I think and the way you think. I have personally made no statements which will get a warrant issued for me. I don't want it to happen to anyone else either.

??? Doppler, we must be confused.

Submitted by McDonoughDawg on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 4:35pm.

Both of us. I think I misunderstood you, and you the same with me. I NEVER mentioned anything about warrantless searches. I simply said, "words have consequences". PERIOD. Nothing more was intended.

You acted like one should be able to say anything without consequences, maybe I misunderstood.

Fact is, this is Cal's site, and he can run it however he chooses. I think we probably agree, MUCH more than we disagree.

No harm intended.

DAWG: NO confusion

Submitted by dopplerobserver on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 7:36pm.

"Fact is, this is Cal's site, and he can run it however he chooses."
You said this. All I remember about the original rules were not to do personal attacks on private people and to be pithy. I never really knew the limits of "private" or "pithy", though. As I said before, I get the same concern here that I have about the federal phone taps and torture rules! No one is going to complain if an editor removes filthy language from a submission. Also, no one is going to complain if an editor deems a statement about a public servant or a politician to be untrue and sends it back for further proof. He can do what you said, but it will be the death knell if he does. May be what is desired. I also agree that he needs a few hours to edit, but the comments would then have to be left at least 24 hours to be read.

Private post

Submitted by Flydecajon on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:33am.

Yo chief this is a private post Cal can do as he wants all this is a reflection on his paper you should not print things that are not true without proof. If you have proof than ok without the foul language. Cal doesn't need a law suit. Get over it and play by the rules.

reply to dopplerobserver

Submitted by sweetpea8870 on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:29am.

In my opinion if you feel the need to Tear someones life apart who is already going through torture then I think you should be tracked and prosecuted by the paper!

No more blog?! Oh the horror!

Submitted by book worm on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 10:49pm.

Of course, I wouldn't mind keeping it civil for a very small fee Smiling $100 a week sound good? lol Hope they don't go anywhere, its nice to be able to complain about things.

Please abide by Cal's Rules

Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 10:16pm.

It's Cal's newspaper. No one is further from Cal politically than me as anyone who reads his paper and my letters, which he graciously publishes, will testify. This is a wonderful paper. I previously told Cal that I have traveled to over 70 countries, territories and islands and I assiduously read the papers wherever I go. Cal publishes the best local newspaper I have ever come across even though he is dead wrong in almost all of his opinions (sorry Cal). He publishes letters from people that he obviously does not agree with; and with his editorials, letters to the editor and Free Speech section has the most robust discussions available on national and local events I have seen anywhere. I have found that strong statements backed up by facts are welcome without criticism (at least from Cal). If you can’t post without using foul language, call up an on-line thesaurus. Please don’t blow this medium, which Cal gives us for free, in which we can discuss and debate critical issues. Benjamin Franklin would love this paper and its encouragement of free flowing discussion and ideas. Of course he’d still disagree with Cal’s editorials (sorry again Cal).

Cal, you've

Submitted by tonto707 on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 9:27pm.

been more than fair about this matter and we appreciate it. I'd suggest that the decent posters refuse to relate to the violators and perhaps they will come around or stop the violations.

Thanks for taking the bad ones to task and cleaning up the program.

OK, folks, act like you know what "civilized" means

Submitted by Cal Beverly on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:12pm.

I'm nervous about reopening this, but I'm giving it one more shot in this format.

Take care of your privileges.

Cal the reluctant censor
publisher
The Citizen
Fayetteville, Ga. 30214

Mr. Beverly - you banned the wrong blogger.

Submitted by Enigma on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 8:53pm.

If you truly read these blogs, then you must know that most of us feel you blocked/banned the wrong blogger.

User RetiredArmyMajor was pushed way beyond any normalcy or level of acceptable aggravation and was constantly inundated with personal attacks by the user named basmati.

The least you can do is acknowledge that you are aware of this intrusion and these personal assaults and inform us that both parties have been reprimanded as well.

Regardless, I will not be censored and monitored by a local paper. I welcome your competition beginning a web presence and a blogging site.

Enigma

Thank you Cal

Submitted by FayetteFirst on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 10:41pm.

For a job well done.
This is a service to us all.
Keep the Thugs off.
Our County is good the people who hide behind fake names bring us all down.

Sir, your newspaper is lopsided

Submitted by ManofGreatLogic on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 9:48pm.

Are you guys the ones running Ann Coulter and that other psycho lady, the Asian-American rightwinger?

I laugh at all you so-called conservatives. You consistently vote Republican and then get angry about developers. I have a refreshing idea: Vote for what serves your interests. Steve Brown was a better choice, and now you know it.

Well, the small minority (who know how to think independently) were outvoted.

You will get the government you deserve.

In the future, support NO-growth candidates. Peachtree City should only grow AFTER blighted areas are updated and AFTER infrastructure (roads and bridges) are 100% complete. Start putting the horse before the cart.

And who's idea was it to kill every tree in site in the West Village? Dumb!

No growth=huge tax increases

Submitted by nuk on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 10:14am.

Citizens demand vocally for more and more services from their local governments every year. Costs to run a city increase every year, especially in terms of insuring and paying the employees who work for the City and provide all the services the citizens demand. The money has to come from somewhere or the elected officials have to say "NO." When they say NO, they usually find themselves voted out of office and the people replacing them take note of the lesson learned.

It is impossible economically to have no growth without raising taxes, user fees, etc. Politicians have found that tax increases will get you thrown out of office faster than anything not illegal, so they wisely choose to sometimes allow some growth.

For the record, you can certainly be conservative and not in love with all developers or all development. Your coming from the same wrong side of the fence as Steve did when he said it was only developers opposed to him. Obviously, it was much more than developers who overwhelmingly voted him out. Oh yeah, this is the same guy who wanted to change a church into a large drug store but was out-voted by the rest of Council.

No-growth ideas are not anywhere close to being grounded in reality. Until the world stops making people or figures out a way to create more land(the moon maybe?), there is going to be growth and higher densities of people. That's simple common-sense.

NUK

Place your bets!

Submitted by Basmati on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:25pm.

The following initial odds have been established on posters violatin' one or more of the above rules in the next 30 days:

1:1 Git Real
3:2 PTC Guy
5:1 Basmati
8:5 Skyspy
9:1 ArmyMAJRetd
10:1 TheBiggun
12:1 Sweetpea8870
15:1 Muddle
50:1 Sandra Wilkins

Submitted by Git Real on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 8:45pm.

Revised odds

Submitted by Basmati on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 8:13pm.

1:1 Enigma
3:2 oldbeachbear
5:1 Git Real
8:5 Skyspy
9:1 bad_ptc
10:1 TheBiggun
12:1 bladderq
15:1 Hack (AF-10)
50:1 Basmati
100:1 Nuk
1000:1 JeffC

_______________________________________________________
Get your Klanpoints™ today!

Basmati, I was wondering where I fit in.

Submitted by AF A-10 on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 9:33pm.

I'm going to start fresh with a touchy-feely blog.

Smiling

Kevin "Hack" King

Cease and Desist for username basmati from private citizen

Submitted by Enigma on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 9:02pm.

April 05, 2007

Formal Public Request:

Please take this as a formal public request, posted in a public open forum, directed to the user known as "basmati" to cease and desist using the moniker and username “Enigma” in your blog post(s).

Rational:

Your 'klanpoints' is slanderous, irrational, unrelated to my username and affiliation and, I believe, libelous toward those indicated or inferred as associated with your 'klanpoints' and I do not wish to be associated in any way with your racist hate filled klan references.

This is a formal request from a private citizen.

Enigma - a private citizen.

Enigma: Thbbbbpt!

Submitted by the_assassin on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 10:33pm.

Why is it the victims of good satire and wit are the first ones to cry, "That's not fair!"

Plus, this sounds like it was written by an attorney or a legal assistant. BTW you should check your legal dictionary. Slander is verbal; libel is written.

And while you're at it, as long as you hide behind a username there's no way you can prove you're a private citizen. And you chose to mix it up on a very PUBLIC forum.

Unlike most of you "don't ban the major" bloggers I don't keep score as to who's who. Life's too short people. Grow up and get a life!!!

And yes, that means acting like an adult and NOT ruining a good thing (these forums) for EVERYONE ELSE!!!!!!

As Bill the Cat would say: thhbbbbpt!

DANG!

Submitted by bad_ptc on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 8:23pm.

I jumped in at number 5.

Is that the best I can get? 9:1, I could do better with the lottery.

Gosh, now I feel "impotent".

Bad-Ptc

Submitted by Enigma on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 8:41pm.

Cal! bad said impotent he did - and I heard him - Cal! Cal! Apology - state law- Cal!!

Wagering

Submitted by lawaboveall on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:33am.

Basmati,

You forgot bad_ptc and Jordan's sister Snark on your list.
However, the betting will be irrelevant if, like a horse race, most of these bloggers do not got to the post (no pun intended). The first two and bad_ptc have been conspicuosly absent from the discussion regarding Jordan, Johnson et al. After all the rhetoric and disparaging remarks they made about the two incumbents I read on this site during the pre-election period, suddenly, nothing. It is really sad that people like Dunn and Wells fell victim to the Johnson machine before all of this came out. It concerns me that Maxwell and Smith, who were so staunchly supported the sheriff are now in a position of responsibility that, had this come out before, they would never have been placed. Too bad there cannot be a write- in campaign for the two commission posts.

Damn, somebody loves me

Submitted by bad_ptc on Fri, 09/15/2006 - 7:36am.

lawaboveall, I appreciate the honorable mention but I think you have me confused with someone else.

I have no interest in what the Sheriffs office does short of arresting the thugs that come our way.

As far as the “drug” money is concerned, the DoJ will audit that fund again, as they do every year, and if they find that it was used inappropriately, then so be it. That’s what’s supposed to happen.

I don’t know any of the players in this. Never have.

You said Damn.

Submitted by Enigma on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 9:03pm.

I'm telling Cal.

Pay Up Girls

Submitted by Git Real on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 10:57pm.

Ok...for the record....I'm not conspicuosly absent on this subject. Let me just say that I still support the sheriffs department and all our police departments. I am under no illusion that there are bad apples in law enforcement. My hopes were that corruption such as that alledged toward, Jordan, Johnson et al (as you so put it) were not true. That however may not be the case. My hopes were that Bruce was clean on these accusations and that the hoopla would have been for naught. This apparently may not be the case.

I have stayed out of this arguement because for myself this whole ordeal has been disheartening. I am unashamedly a staunch supporter of our law enforcement folks and I relish seeing the bad guys get taken down and getting their just due. With that said if we have a bad cop in the bunch then he needs to be held to a higher standard and dealt with more harshly than your everyday street thug. A bad cop is treasonous in the highest degree. So Lawaboveall that is the primary reason for the silence along with me being out of town for the last 10 days or so.

As for the Dunn and Well loss I have no regrets. I reaffirm my votes for Donald Duck and Jack Smith. What would be the point to rehash my reasons for working against Greg and Linda. Let's hope the new guys do the job they were elected to. No use discussing that issue any further let's see if the new guys do a good and decent job. If not then rest assured this site will go after their throats.

In regards to the wagering I am honored that I have taken top honors in the odds race. But do you really think I'm worried. Not only am I one of the moderators on this site but it helps if you are related to the editor. Right Dad?

Oh..PS BIG TIME: Thanks Law guys for the great jobs you do! Don't let this stuff get you down. Contrary to the trashing you guys are getting the majority of folks are grateful and very supportive for the work you do.

There....Happy? I broke the silence.

Only one of the bloggers

Submitted by fcteacher on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:39pm.

Only one of the bloggers listed may violate the rules. I have found it very interesting that the "usual" blogging crowd chose to stay away from this one. I wonder why?

Teacher

Submitted by Flydecajon on Thu, 09/14/2006 - 8:51am.

I have noted the same thing I wonder why estp. Git Real..

Time?

Submitted by OldSchoolFootball on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 8:45pm.

It's only been up for about 25 minutes missy....just hold on to your pointer. I hate that anyone would violate the common decency of PUBLIC behavior. I hope Cal can find those responsible and have them prosecuted. Good to be back on - enjoy!

OLD SCHOOOLLLLL!!!!!!! W E L C O M E BACK!!

Submitted by AF A-10 on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 9:39pm.

You were missed, man! I've had to make up Nellis stories in your absence. Speaking of Nellis, did you hear about the F-22's debute at Red Flag? Do you know what blue on blue X 3 means? Kind of like an avenger team: If it flies, it dies. I look forward to the conversation.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Old School is 2006 posting.

Submitted by trentrivers on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 9:49pm.

You are saying that to posting of 2006 by old school footbell? Where is Red Flag? Is this a camp?

Thank you
Trent

Trent: old footbell

Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Fri, 04/06/2007 - 8:12am.

No, red flag not um camp. But, white flag isum.
Footbell and 2006 little um beehind!
Old footbell wore bell on footum to scare away vicious bars on um trailum. Unfortunate how sum evr, white scout heard and shootum him hard.
Now all other injuns ware um bell on nose--harder to hitum.

Hi Trent. Did you see my posts to you over the weekend?

Submitted by AF A-10 on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 10:07pm.

Red Flag is a military flying exercise in Nevada. Oldschool worked there previously. I wandered into history without knowing it.

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Sober Up Hack.... You Can't Fly Like That

Submitted by Git Real on Thu, 04/05/2007 - 9:47pm.

Did you check the date stamp. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah....you meant to do that. Sorry.

I agree

Submitted by JeffC on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 10:29pm.

I agree with OldSchoolFootball. The end of the world is surely near.

Why do some date s say 2006?