Comments by sociallyconsious
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on September 7 at 1:05 p.m.
I believe this article talked about banning flavored cigarette to discourage young people from smoking. I don't remember reading anything about "the smoking ban" in this article.
I have friends who smoke and even though they smoke, they discourage their children from doing so. These cigarettes may be enjoyed by all age's, but the tobacco companies continue to create and market products catered to our children and teenagers. They are the real villians. If they would stop their practices, and market to adults then this discussion may not have been necessary.
As someone who has a parent who has inoperable lung cancer caused by years of smoking, I want to do anything I can to prevent my children and myself from possible suffering in the future.
Posted on September 7 at 12:52 p.m.
Although I know this will not be the supported view, I agree with Gwen. Free speech may be a right, but it also is a privledge. As adults we ahould have learned by now how to be tactful. Just because we have an opinion it does not mean we have to be rude, hateful, distasteful or accusing. This is especially true with rumors and innuendo's.
You can be angry or passionate about something and still get you point across without offending. I am not just talking about this post but posts in general.
If some of the people who post on these forums would take a moment and think before typing, putting their name in place of whomever they were starting rumors or commenting about, they comments may still be angry, but not so hateful!
Posted on September 5 at 9:38 p.m.
I find it interesting that in the last few threads people are saying that "I had read many of the posts before they were deleted and saw nothing but truth in them. No names other than the ones already mentioned in the articles. i.e. Jean Woods. No foul language, no defaming of anyone. " However I remember several comments which had derogatory comments made about Jean's family members and Main Street.
No where does it say that any of her family was responsible for the actions which brought on this mess. But the posters on this site seem ready to blame anyone connected. Are you responsible for the actions of your family or your employer? Her family may have been employed in the business, but it does not mean they controlled the check writing or paying of the taxes. Yet people on this forum are ready to deframe them. Jean created this mess, they didn't.
Posted on September 4 at 2:06 p.m.
Business owners make decisions every day. Some of them are good ones and some are bad ones. No one but Jean knows the "How or Why this happened". People speculating on the reason serves no purpose.
I would encourage anyone who has a need for quality clothing, prom dresses or even a wedding dress attend the auction. In this economy if you are able to get a good deal on something you need, you should. I plan on attending if for no reason than to continue supporting my community.
We all make mistakes, and some are bigger than others, and unfortunately more public than others. Unless you are perfect, you should not be so condeming.
Posted on September 2 at 12:13 p.m.
I would lke to agree with history_nerd. I have also gotten excellent service at Madelynns. I have found Jean and her staff to be courteous and knowledgeable. I really hope this is a mix-up because they carried good quality products and was an asset to Emporia.
Posted on September 1 at 10:25 p.m.
Henry VIII you were very presumptive when you made the comment "I wonder what this means for Emporia Main Street and their beloved director... How's a person supposed to manage all of Main Street when they don't even pay their own taxes?"
Do you always blame people for actions which they are not responsible for. The person you were refering to just happened to work in a family business. A business he did not own, and was not responsible for all area's of the business, or for the actions of the family member who did own it?
So does that mean you are responsible for the actions of your employer, or a family member?
Before we start laying blame on innocent people please get your facts correct. The person(s) who own Madelynns does not work for Main Street. You really should not slander someone over something they had no control over!
For the record the owner of Madelyns is not named Madelynn,
Posted on April 10 at 2:51 p.m.
Where in the gazette do you see that the ban was defeated? According to everything posted online it states that the band was enacted. Which means the yes votes won. This is exactly what it states at the top of this blog. Where's the confusion? Emporia has a smoking ban.
Per earlier comments both sides stated they would not ask for a recount. Democracy worked. Lets move on. Tomorrow is a new day....
Posted on April 5 at 12:36 a.m.
SFIns you are incorrect on your facts. Broadview Towers has never been owned by Action Management LLC. For a while they were the mananging agent; however, they have not been involved with the property since 1996. Broadview Towers is owned by Broadview Towers Inc., and managed by a management company who has NO OWNERSHIP. It is a non-profit, has always been a non-profit and must remain one to continue with their HUD designation to remain low income housing for the elderly.
Posted on April 1 at 7:46 p.m.
SFIns for your information Broadview Towers Owners is not looking for a way to save money. Broadview Towers is a non-profit housing complex for the elderly in Emporia. Like most non-profits they do not have money to do all the big ticket items which sometimes need done. They are just looking for a way to continue serving this community like they have done for many years.
I am sure the owners and the elderly residents on fixed incomes which live there had no intention of pushing anything down your throat so they could reap the rewards! They were only looking for a way do some work on their home which is needed.
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on October 27 at 1:42 p.m.
Many of the comments posted keep refering to lousy parents or parenting skills. Good parents have kids who get into trouble sometimes. My kids were good kids and we were very involved in their lives. One of them went to a friends house and the police came. The police found alcohol and drugs. Since our daughter was underage we were called. When we picked our child up we had them drug tested.
To me this is good parenting. It enabled us to find out if we were being lied to, as well as if they were positive for substances, to watch for side effects.
I stand by my decision to drug test and would do it again. Parents who believe their child will be honest with them, and never try something dangerous or illegal because they are a Good Kid has their head in the sand.
On Drug test your child at home