Subscriber Login

Forgot Your Username?
Forgot Your Password?
Columns offer humor and more PDF Print E-mail

Dear Editor:

Byron McNutt, in the second part of his April 10 “People Make the Difference” column, wonders what we think of the examples of pairs of items set out, even suggesting we might live in a country run by idiots. Right off, your columns are read, solid material, humor and flip stuff.

Most readers are probably too busy to deal with contents suggesting expansion, and that is our loss. I have a couple to cover.

The first one: “If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction?”

A). Evolution in the curriculum is the only rational and proper thing to instruct, as no other facts and findings exist to consider. The connotation implicit in the first part of that item is that the belief-system approach is neglected.

B). I know nothing of the particular “construction project”, but I have read of on-going studies of strong spider silk something about tensile strength greater than steel. Maybe this “rare spider” spins silk that has tremendous scientific value. (Something for a future letter?)

The second item mentions something I did not know of, namely that “a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched” by the TSA. The TSA should be faulted for that position, considering the current world situation. I believe that women in hajibs, burkas and traditional habits require strip searches if the wearers do not show up for air-flights in “regular clothing.” Claims of First Amendment violations cannot supersede the safety factor.

This brings to mind how the Amish actually argued the First Amendment when required to put the reflective triangle on the rear of horse-drawn buggies when on vehicle highways.

Dave Alspaugh

Three Lakes

Tuesday, April 16, 2013 2:23 PM


-29 #26 Frank Gabl 2013-04-30 02:11

At first glance your response probably sounds quite reasonable to the casual reader. In reality though, there’s so much to pick apart that I’ll have to get started if I want to keep it short like usual.

As for giving you credit for supporting my right of expression; I don’t believe for a second that such a show of support was the driver behind your initial comment, but rather just a vehicle to throw that blind-sider at the end like you’ve done in the same fashion several times before. Besides, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but for that parting shot.

And there’s no way that we had gotten to “talking past one another” in the debate over whether or not “illegals pay taxes.” Obviously, my lengthy theatrical sarcasm left you no room to operate, which is what I intended, however, I expected some sort of response.

Cont. below:
-28 #25 Frank Gabl 2013-04-30 02:07

Again, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but for your parting shot which brought it all up again.

That leaves us with your benevolent suggestion that I change my style in order to garner favor with the readers. You can’t be serious!?

I truly could not care less about acquiring fans. I’m more interested in putting forth the truth in an audacious manner which just happens to turn most people off because what I’m illustrating is so hard to believe (or don't want to believe), yet, is absolute fact.

It might take as much as another year, but those who are moderates, passive conservatives or even old-fashioned and irrelevant Kennedy Democrats, will come around once this stuff actually starts to affect their own lives and their self-imposed state of denial or apathy can’t help them escape reality any longer.

Cont. below:
-28 #24 Frank Gabl 2013-04-30 01:56

In any event, I’ll change my ways when the stand-up comedian occupying the White House and the black hats, in general, changes theirs. Or, in other words, get used to it.

Be my guest and have the last word if you like. I almost promise not to respond.

-19 #23 Frank Gabl 2013-04-30 01:41

I surely did not see that coming.

I can’t imagine having any more respect for you than I do right now.

+22 #22 Denny Erardi 2013-04-29 18:30
I should not have commented on your arrogance and condescension. I apologize and will not do that again. Also, I shouldn't have labeled you as polarizing since that's a personal aspersion. I should have denoted the manner in which you frame your arguments as polarizing.
-23 #21 Frank Gabl 2013-04-29 11:22

I would have followed your instruction not to reply if what you had to say didn’t beg for one. But in any event, just like you, I alone choose what requires a response.

So I’ll respond with a simple question.

When it comes to your charge of name calling and ad hominem attack, why did you play the innocent card knowing full well that it was you on Feb. 15, in one of your inaugural posts on this site, who initiated what you’re now telling me to “knock off,” when you said: “Your arrogance and condescension are astounding ... you're as extreme and polarizing on the right side of the aisle, as you accuse the most left leaning liberals.”

Cont. below:
-23 #20 Frank Gabl 2013-04-29 11:19

Don’t get me wrong; I don’t mind what you call me or attacks my character in this forum. Just spare me the sanctimonious reaction when you're the one on the receiving end.
(See posts 35 & 43)

Furthermore, if your explanation about my use of links to back up what I write is in fact sincere, then just utilize the same advice you offered Dawn, “No one is forcing you to read what he writes.” And give your “hate” for “what I do,” a little rest.
+20 #19 2013-04-26 21:00
You could at least give me some credit for supporting your rights of expression. I'm sorry you feel that I "ran away" in the tax debate -- but the truth is that most people have a sense of when to end a discussion. Usually that occurs when the two sides are simply talking past one another. There is a time to stop repeating the same old arguments when there is really nothing left to argue. I think you are lacking in this basic awareness.

You may have noticed that, of late, many of your comments have received fairly strong negative reviews. Now, I realize that as a warrior for true "American" values this fact will not deter you in any way (nor should it). But it might make you wonder about a change in style.

In a few words: know when to stop. Or, if you like, know when to run away.

Jeff Laadt
+21 #18 Denny Erardi 2013-04-26 18:19
Thanks, Frank, for the insight into my intellect, my research capabilities, and the criticisims levied about the manner in which I post. It's amazing the abilities that you have to characterize the emotion and personality behind what I write. It's even more amazing how you're able to hone in on exactly how much research I do or don't do prior to my posting. It's like you have xray vision or somethin'.

I said that most of what you post here are links - that's a fact. It didn't denigrate your research, didn't say that you don't research...simply said I didn't like what you factually do. I didn't call you a name, I didn't infer nor imply that you were stupid, pompous, or any of the other traits that you've ascribed to me. So how about you knock it off? I stated that I disagree with almost everything you say, and categorically support your right to do that. No personal attack ... your response is unnecessary.
-23 #17 Frank Gabl 2013-04-26 16:25

Have you no self-respect?

We haven't heard from you since you ran away during our latest dustup when you finally realized that your nonsensical generalization about illegals paying federal taxes was indefensible.

So, like usual, you let a little time go by and then bravely jumped on someone else's bandwagon in order to throw a dig at me at the end of your response to Denny.

You might as well consider posts 15 and 16 as if they were meant for you as well since they fit you like a glove too.

Add comment

Comments exceeding 1,000 characters will not be accepted. Please refrain from using texting language and spell out all words. All comments are reviewed and must be approved before they are posted.

Security code