Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

I strongly agree with you, Joan. Emporia already has a very comprehensive and effective smoking ban. Introducing another is unnecessary and only serves to create far more problems than it would presume to solve.

Please ignore all the slanted propaganda, fear tactics, misinformation, and downright lies being rained upon Emporia by CAE and special interest groups using big bucks from pharmaceutical companies and tax revenues.

Vote for freedom, rights, choice, tolerance, and common sense. Vote "NO" on April 7.

March 20, 2009 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

crackinsack posted, "we are a city that allows its citizens to be harmed by the actions of others"

" If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth. "
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany

Stop the lies. Vote NO!

March 20, 2009 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shadou (anonymous) says...

Ms Hummel, that is a delightful piece! Would that there were enough people in the districts of Representatives Hill and Mast and Senator Barnett who could and would read your argument.

Better yet, that folks would realize that we have a choice about tobacco smoke but not about the pollutants of coal-fired energy plants (which will only benefit a very few employees in the western part of the state), that seriously effect ALL of us!!

It is not for lack of effort on my part that our (dis)representatives lean heavily on their hypocrcacies. I realize that they can "round file" my correspondence. But I'd truly like to know their rationale. They condemn tobacco smoke but extol the virtues of coal smoke! I often wonder what is in for them, what it is that they are not telling us.

Good job. Don't forget to write to or call or e-mail your Reps. and the Sen. Stay on them and demand that they divulge! And remember them at the polls.

Sincerely,

Doug Morrisey
(A non-smoker)

March 20, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Maybe instead of adding more coal plants, we could have just added another reactor vessel at Wolf Creek. You want to talk about an economic incentive... Yeah, that would have definitely been it!

March 20, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

shadou (anonymous) says...

Josie, that would be fine by me.

March 20, 2009 at 8:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

Welcome back, Matt.

March 20, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Hello Joan,

Maggie & I completely agree with you on the owners rights vs people that like to make laws limiting our freedoms. At the same time, we completely disagree with you on the coal fired plant. A fair amount of the electricity will be used here in Kansas and we have plenty of coal. This will be a "state of the art" plant and yes, there is always some pollution in just about anything we do. If the "greenies" have their way, we will never be able to work our way of the coming depression. Kansas needs this.

Dale & Maggie Linn

March 21, 2009 at 11:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

crack;
Why does everything that is done by anyone intheir life or Emporia have to be about, what it is going to or has it done for you and the other smoking ban advocates. Does everything anyone does have to be about CRACK, CRACK, CRACK or anyone else.
And how is the smoking restriction law that has been in effect for 20+ years and is fair, imparshial to everyone and allowing people to smoke in certain places and doesn't allow people to smoke in certain public places holding us back and tearing us down.
Good grief crack everything that is done in life is not done for you or about you or other smoking ban advocates !
Controlling and dictating how certain people or groups of people must live their lives is not progressive in the least. As I have said before, the action of controlling and dictating how certain people or groups of people lives is regression back to the times of Tyrannical Rulers, Kings, Emporers, Dictators, etc.

Joan, I agree with you 100%.

March 21, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

old time Methusla,
100%, hmmm. I just wondered why you are against the coal powered power plant?

March 21, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

1st off;
Another good letter Joan!

an aside to the Linn's:
While I would much rather see a nuke or wind powered plant, I agree with you that Kansas needs the development and construction jobs these plants would bring to the state.

However for our three local reps to be voting for this while at the same time voting to curtail our rights because of the health issue of cigarrette smoke is the height of hypocracy. Those coal fired plants will release more pollutants in 1 hour then all the smokers in Emporia could release in a decade.
Steve

March 21, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Hello Dale!!! In response to some of your questions. First,
when asked what percent of energy would be used in Kansas,
it was stated "approx. 15%" Jobs? Dale, do your research,
these plants will only employ a low number of jobs to maintain.I oppose because we have a "Nature Resource", the
wind. Why not take that money and BECOME a city that
thinks ahead and OF its people, by using the "modine" plant to build the proponents for such, not only creating jobs for
OUR people but iron manufacturers etc,PLUS planning for
generations to come. It is time to take action but lets be
honest in those actions. On one hand they want to "ban"
smoking but on the other hand add "coal plants" that
will add a million times more pollutants to the air then smoking. They want to talk "health issues", do your research concerning what carbon dioxide emissions will do to the
body.This truly is just another way that "big" business wants
to control and DICTATE what, WE THE PEOPLE, do. For once, "WE THE PEOPLE" do have a CHOICE, by voting "No"!

March 21, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Well Sandy,

I haven't looked into how many jobs (ongoing) will be provided, but I'm thinking that there are billions of dollars that will go into our economy when this plant is built. There will also be money coming into our state on an ongoing basis for the energy that goes out (the energy will be sold that we do not use). As an added bonus, we will have access to energy! I don't see the price of energy going down. We need energy to keep our economy going. I am also, as Steve is, in favor of nuclear and wind, but wind doesn't blow all of the time and will not fulfill our needs. You (little assumption here) greenies don't want nuclear, coal, or for us to drill for oil. That puts us in a real bind, not to speak of the bind we are going to see in the years ahead from the economy.
Hmmm, I might also point out to you that there are no restrictions on Co2 emissions that I know of. Unless you want to count make believe ones from from our current governor. Co2 emissions are put into the air everyday from many varieties of things, including us humans. I'm really not aware of any Co2 hurting me or any of my family. see: http://environmentalchemistry.com/yog... Please don't be trying to pull any sandies on me..........Dale

March 21, 2009 at 4:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Hey sandman & Dale,
instead of arguing, Let's try to agree that if we could get a wind turbin manufacturing company in the Emporia area it would be great for our economy. And so close to all that Kansas wind. Do you think the Chamber and RDA under Kent have sent out feelers to any big manufacturers? Probably not. But I just sent out a short e-mail to SEIMENS , one of the leaders in turbin technology touting our small town as a place they should look at. I know 1 e-mail to a company that employees over 300,000; but maybe if a few more were sent, the name of Emporia will be remembered when they are looking to build a new plant.

Steve

March 21, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Steve, I don't mind making the call, and would, but I have some concern about the people that don't want giant windmills "cluttering" the landscape. I hate to make the call only to have people getting together to stop it. How did the "putting giant windmills in the Flint Hills" end? I don't remember. I do know that there were well meaning people against it. I think they look kind of neat, although I'm sure some birds would fly into them. I can hear animal rights already.........Dale

March 21, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Hello Dale!
Nice comment and say, I mispelled "components", Woe,is me. Now in reality, what we do need to be thinking of is
ways to bring industry HERE, not only affecting our citizens but also helping those in the state.

Also, Dale, Mr. Hill stated that only 15% of the energy made by the coal plants would stay in Kansas. Yes, it does give us
the availabilty to use the energy, if needed, but at what price?
Let's think of generations down the road, please, I'm not sure
this is what we should be doing for them. Yes, the money
for the purchase of such would be nice, but what are we giving
up for that money? Joan
Joan

March 21, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Yes there is a lot of that "NOT in MY BACKYARD" mentality, but consider this. The pollution haze from coal fired plants could be so great in 100 years , That no-one will able to see the scenic Flint Hills. You and i will be gone but our childrens grandchildren will have to live with our legacy.

March 21, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Steve, Send me the info where you are getting the "The pollution haze from coal fired plants could be so great in 100 years". I sometimes wonder at statements that say "could". I could be around in 2046, but I doubt it. Technology has and is advancing. The proposed plant would be lower polluting than anything built to date. The big (stimulus) spending plan that was passed even contained money for a new coal plant (despite what Obama has said about coal plants) to be built near Chicago.

March 21, 2009 at 6:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

Sandyman, We do disagree with manmade global warming and believe that the naysayers of the coal plant appear to be somewhere in the same category. We will probably hold those beliefs until we see solid evidence to the contrary, not Al Gore type evidence.

March 21, 2009 at 6:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Please go to: www.sciencedaily.com. Perhaps this will help
in the understanding of what CO2 does do and WILL do to
our area, mainly western Kansas and its people.

Dale, Scott died, not from cancer, but Agent Orange did created that cancer. He died from "MYRSA" a staph infection. If my memory serves me correctly, during Vietnam our government did this to HELP our troops, not knowing the true affects it would have on those troops. Mainly, this is what I'm trying to say. Is this the BEST way to create energy and MONEY?

March 21, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

sandyman,
Science Daily is a large site. There's a lot there. A lot of the information is iffy, as it has to be. There, of course, is better technology and tracking all of the time. Also to be figured in is the bias of these tracking agencies (more money to be attracted to their studies). I certainly don't know all the answers, but I do know that Kansas has a lot of coal that we can take advantage of. If (and again that word if) technology can protect us from emmissions, we should take advantage of it. It is certain that energy and probably water are going to be in great demand in the future. If we don't find ways to utilize our resources to our best advantage, we will be in dire straits. We can't just depend on wind, we can't be funding terrorists, it won't be long before we not be able to afford much energy at all. Again, we need to utilize our assets. If (again that word if) Co2 emissions become a problem, the appropriate measures need to be taken. Right now, a lot of it is "Al Gore" scare tactics. I think nuclear is a great option, but it has been stopped with all of the scare tactics. What do you think is "best"? Everything you or I could name has it's drawbacks. My wife and I believe that the best answer is to utilize all of our possiblities. The only sure thing is that Washington/New York has moved all of our manufacturing out of our country and now we will bear the results of not protecting what we had. This also tempers our choices.

March 21, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

oxen, you are correct in the usage of the word "could"

Seems like it is used a lot these days. I could be wrong:>)

March 21, 2009 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

oxen;
I am sorry that I have not gotten around to replying to your earlier question to me, until now .
I am not totally against a coal fired power generating plant, if there is technology that will remove all the toxins from the smoke that will be belching from the stacks and the smoke is tested and safety regulated on a daily basis and if a coal fired generating power plant is a measure of last resort for generating power and no other safe less poluting alternatives are available such as wind or solar or geothermal or possibly even nuclear if safety measure are improved and instituted judiciously ! I guess what I am trying to say is, there must be alternitives to coal and I am not really crazy about the idea of plants that may use the most polluting of substances be used to generate power to be used for other surrounding states. If Colorado, or any other state need power that bad. Then they should be the ones to allow them to be built in their states for their own use and let them deal with the possible hazards of the pollution !

March 21, 2009 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

methusla, I think I'd better just shut up for awhile (after this). I guess I would say that given there are negatives to any method of obtaining energy, you are being pretty hard on coal. I would not think of it as a last resort. Granted, I want as little polution from whatever we use as possible. I think I already pointed out that this would be the least polluting coal powered plant in the world. I think I already pointed out that the federal government (can't believe I'm using them) has passed a bill to fund a coal fired plant in our president's home state (despite him saying that he would bankrupt any coal plant before signing this bill). I have heard at least two people cite "what is the cost down the road" type comments. Well, much of the anti coal plant propaganda has been put out by natural gas. Case in point as to how that works is Tiller's propaganda (his money) about Kline. It just was not true, but we elected a thug in his place anyway. I think that right now I'll just quit and tell everyone, "have fun on the old bandwagon", although we might be paying for it in the future. Our future does look rather bleak for quite awhile. We'll keep things going for who knows how long on our credit card, though. I think that's about enough from me.

March 21, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Oxen, what is best? I have no idea BUT building TWO coal
plants? Also, if my understanding is correct, they will not
only be using coal but WATER,a lot of,at these energy plants.
If we had "wind" farms, at the "low" times, we do have other
sources that we currently use, to back up.Gee, if I had the answer I would be alot richer then I am, not only financially but
BRAIN power!!!!!!!!!!

March 21, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Pragmatic1 (anonymous) says...

Wow, it seems like smokings going to be banned just about everywhere pretty soon! Fortunately for me, though, smoking bans (and ridiculously high tobacco taxes) don't affect me (even though I smoke a pack a day) ever since I switched to electronic cigarettes. If this smoking band happens eventually, you should too. Hell, even if it doesn't, you still should. E-cigarettes are much safer than regular cigarettes, and you can smoke them anywhere cigarettes are banned!

I found this blog that helped me figure out which brand of e-cigarette I should buy. If you're considering switching over, I hope this page helps you like it helped me:

http://greensmokes.blogspot.com

And here are some videos with information about how e-cigs work:

http://www.youtube.com/healthysmokes

March 21, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...

Dear Fellow Kansans,
Tobacco use remains the most preventable cause of death and disease in the U.S. and in Kansas. It typically begins as a choice and quickly progresses to an addiction that substantially impacts all Kansans – individual tobacco users as well as those exposed to secondhand smoke. Approximately 3,900 Kansans die from cigarette smoking every year1, and more than 290 Kansans die annually from secondhand smoke.2
The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Tobacco Use Prevention Program follows the agency’s mission of promoting responsible choices to protect the health of all Kansans. The program is working to improve Kansans’ health by reducing tobacco use, preventing kids from starting to use tobacco and reducing non-users’ exposure to secondhand smoke.
Kansas has made progress in all of these areas with limited funding, but much work remains. Studies show 1 in 5 Kansas adults are current smokers3 and more than 1 in 4 Kansas high school students are current tobacco users.4 If current smoking rates among people younger than 18 continue, an estimated 54,000 of these Kansas youth are projected to die from smoking.5
Non-smokers are also harmed by tobacco. The U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, provides a clear message on secondhand smoke in his 2006 report The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke. According to Dr. Carmona, secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults.

March 22, 2009 at 12:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...

Many Kansas cities have responded to the Surgeon General’s report by passing clean indoor air ordinances. To date, 26 Kansas cities and two counties have passed clean indoor air laws to protect their citizens from the health dangers of secondhand smoke. However, these laws only protect approximately 28 percent of our state’s population. All Kansans deserve the right to work and play in smoke-free environments.
Through the work of committed coalitions, well-trained staff, and health-conscious lawmakers, Kansas is making progress toward reducing the harmful effects of tobacco use. We must continue and expand our efforts to improve the health of all Kansans through tobacco use prevention.
Be well,
Roderick L. Bremby
Secretary, Kansas Department of Health and Environment
http://www.kdheks.gov/tobacco/downloa...
--Posted by Emporians for Common Sense

March 22, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

commonsenseemporia (anonymous) says...

References in above posts:
1 Smoking Attributable Morbidity, Mortality & Economic Cost, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrh..., accessed April 2008.
2 The Toll of Tobacco in Kansas, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/settl..., accessed January 2008.
3 2006 Kansas Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Office of Health Promotion, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, http://www.kdheks.gov/brfss/index.html, accessed April 2008.
4 2007 Kansas Youth Risk Behavior Survey, Kansas State Department of Education, http://www.ksde.org/CNWPortal/CSHP/KC..., accessed April 2008.
5 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs – 2007. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; October 2007.
6 American Cancer Society. Cancer Prevention and Early Detection Facts and Figures. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2007.

March 22, 2009 at 12:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dalelinn (Dale Linn) says...

commonsenseemporia,

The only thing that I know is "guaranteed" to kill everyone of us is living. It kills us everytime. Don't you think you should take away that right, too.

March 22, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Well someones true colors came out last night. Whoever stole all those VOTE NO signs I hope you did it by yourself, or at least with friends you can trust. We are offering a $500.00 REWARD for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those stealing the VOTE NO SIGNS. police reports will be fiiled today.
Steve Corbin

March 22, 2009 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

and by the way, what about all those green signs that are on public property? maybe the Gazette should publish the guidlines for posting political signs on private / public property.

March 22, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

MisterO (anonymous) says...

Steve, these are the types of people who are trying to pass legislation to make us all just like them: dishonest, deceitful, unwilling to allow those with opposing viewpoints to express their views; thieves.

You have someone claiming to be a veteran, who's very first posts insult other veterans as though his serivice is somehow more valuable than their service.

You have a crackpot who continuously lies about someone being harmed, yet is unable to show how. The same person who regularly slanders a local business owner by claiming the air in his business is unhealthy and is killing people and yet is unwilling to have the air tested. The same crackpot who threatens to physically harm those who dare to disagree.

You have someone with no apparent common sense copying and pasting opinion pieces from other websites as though they were facts. Someone who posts theoretical numbers generated by a statistical analysis computer program and wants us to believe those numbers represent actual bodies.

You have those who are willing to invoke their friends' past trauma to try and silence those who point out similarities between the current actions and the actions of a tyrannical monster.

You have so many who lie about this being a health issue, yet turn right around and say they want the ban because they don't like the smell of smoke.

You have some who use their letters to the editor to deliberately twist other's words into something they are not.

You have a well-funded group sending fund-raising letters to citizens with lies about local business owners and opponents being funded by tobacco companies.

And now you have those who are willing to go onto private property and commit theft because someone isn't willing to agree with them.

These are the types of people who are trying to govern our lives. They want everyone else to be just. Like. Them.

I say, no thank you. I don't WANT to be like you.

March 22, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

driveonby (anonymous) says...

Ask Bremby where ALL the funding for this is coming from. Follow the money trail all the way back to Johnson and Johnson, and their Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. J&J market Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Chantix. Ask your newspaper who is paying for ALL the ads supporting the anti position. Also, check with local radio stations re their ads. When you are told that the Kansas Health Foundation is buying the ads, which you will, then look up this private Foundations source of funding. Guess what? Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a huge source of their revenue. They do not want to tell you who is paying. It's just about money, folks. They want to decide WHICH nicotine you'll use. Simply banning ALL nicotine products for sale in Kansas would stop all this nonsense. You notice that Bremby and friends ARE NOT lobbying for this. This would eliminate nicotine replacememt products too! What hypocrites! Vote NO! Put Barnett back in private practice. There he can put people on expensive nicotine replacement to his hearts content.

March 22, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

MisterO, driveonby;

Bravo to both of you for your straight forward, to the point and informative posts ! Thank you both .
The people that support such a life controlling ban, will not stop at any means thay can to bring about this ban. Also, as you have seen, when anyone of the smoking ban opponents throws any kind of comment or information at them that refutes their claim that smoke/SHS is the primary cause of death and disease, the ban supporters immediatly begin to insult, intimidate and degrade that particular ban opponent and do so repeatedly .
And I would like to ask commonsenseemporia, do you actually believe that if this smoking ban is passed, that will be the absolute end to the banning frenzy ?

VOTE NO !

March 22, 2009 at 11:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

Goebbels! I missed you! When I saw you posted on here, I figured you were going to call me an "arrogant idiot" again! Thanks for not doing that!

March 22, 2009 at 12:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

Any way the count of stolen signs is now at 29 and a police report has been filed. We are contacting crime-stoppers mon. a.m. to post the $500.00 reward. Why were the yellow signs stripped in block after block while the green signs remained? Makes one think that perhaps COMMITTEE FOR A HEALTHIER EMPORIA has a few crackpots working in their behalf. They haven't even banned our rights yet and they are taking away our right to free speech.
Steve Corbin
mad as hell

March 22, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

josiesbar (anonymous) says...

"All opposition must be stamped into the ground." Maxim of the Nazi SA (brownshirts)

Not that I'm calling CAE Nazis or anything, but am I the only one seeing some parallels here?

March 22, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

wyse_guy (anonymous) says...

Looks like some low life scum of the earth group of thiefs were out last nite. I for one expected no less from the cae and thier leaders,the control freaks of Emporia.First its a smoking ban then its prescription drugs. Ive talked to my kids about both issues. I told them if you ever find out what kind of drugs these people are on stay away fom them look whats its done to them.

March 22, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

1sgt_retired (anonymous) says...

IT's easy to blame. The reality is that whoever took the signs are scum. From where were the signs taken?

March 22, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

The Police have a list of property owners names and addresses. As they were pretty much located in central & N.W. Emporia. Too many to list here, but we will have them replaced soon. I hope cooler heads will prevail.
Steve

March 22, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

methusla (anonymous) says...

josiesbar;

First of all welcome home ! All or most of the ban opponents do see a parallel here . But the CAE and their supporters absolutely do not !

VOTE NO !

March 22, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Steve,
First, I'm very sorry concerning the signs. To place blame without proof is wrong BUT this could be turned into a plus for "Open for Business" by front page coverage Monday. All
the people of Emporia should be made aware and the fact
that who ever took them will NOT stop "Freedom of Speech"!
Just remember that in the end, truth does overcome.

March 22, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...

sandman, I have not placed blame on anyone. I am sure that Che in no-way condoned the thefts. I am saying that some over-zealous pro-ban person stole the signs as the other signs were still standing in the same blocks. I just hope that whoever did it did it alone or has real good freinds helping because you know $500. could buy a lot of beer.
Steve

March 22, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sandman (anonymous) says...

Steve,
I understood you were not placing blame but questioning why
the yellow signs and not green, which in everyway you had a
right to question. But some might get so involved to do so and
sure don't want to give CAE any reason to talk TRUTHFULLY, let them "blow" but without justice. Sorry that I left the
thought that I was putting blame on you, never happen!!!
You folks have been able to "hold" those heads up high, I
just so want that to continue. Joan

March 22, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...

I agree with sandman (Joan) that this doesn't shine a positive light on the pro-ban side---not the committees and organizations per se, but that camp as a whole. I am glad that this will be widely reported as it could turn a few fence riders' heads toward a no vote. There definitely is an irony, as serioulslyfolks pointed out on another thread, that there is a group of people who are willing to make/support a law restricting one portion of the population but they don't bother to feel restricted by current laws themselves.

March 22, 2009 at 7:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...

I'm not placing blame but is it just me or did the word crack come to anyone else's mind when they first heard that the signs were stolen. I wonder if there is an investigation if the Gazette will release his/her name as a suspect.Again I'm not blaming the crackster, I'm just saying that he/she is a suspicious character(to say the least).

March 22, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )