Comments on: Friday Roundup: I’m Going to the Special Hell for Item One

By: Ed Cognoski

Ed Cognoski — Fri, 01 May 2009 19:51:27 +0000

amanda: “I hold elected officials at any level, any position accountable. Im holding Gary Slagel accountable. Period.”

Good.

By: amanda

amanda — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:12:54 +0000

@ Don, to answer your question, I received the Katie Award from the Dallas Press Club for Magazine Writer of the year.

Sorry for the delay in response, my phone doesn’t always update comments on blogs.

By: amanda

amanda — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:22:53 +0000

@El Rey…good points. The seemingly petty rules are meant to protect the weakest. I understand “paying the debt,” but it seems to be a problem that can’t be “fixed.”

By: El Rey

El Rey — Fri, 01 May 2009 17:17:07 +0000

* So the CHILD PREDATOR / SEX OFFENDER failed to report that he was working at a place with with children nearby? “That business – the target of consumer-fraud complaints from around the country – shares a parking lot with a day-care center and is around the corner from a middle school.” I understand it is a murky issue, but would you encourage an alcoholic to work between a bar and a liqour store? The high recitivism rate for sex offenders is also something to consider. My personal solution involves etching the word “PERV” with acid on the foreheads of every child predator. I think this would help children identify them and serve as adequate punishment for a first offense.

* Pooh – awesome!

By: Will Harrell

Will Harrell — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:55:57 +0000

Ed,
Sarcasm is just dandy in the world blogging, no problem there.
Here is the problem, on your blog you portrayed Tom Bache-Wigg to be a person lacking in character, yet your only evidence is that he stood up for himself against what was an obvious degrading remark mailed by the RC. I’m not going to debate on the language used in the mailing, it was slanted, period. It made him sound as if he hasn’t been able to hold a steady job over the last twenty eight years. You endorsed that remark from the RC by slanting Tom Bache-Wiig’s response.

I said this on your blog and I’ll say it here. You attacked someone who you self admittedly know little about. You mocked Tom Bache-Wiig’s approach of being a servant-leader because he stood up for himself and you implied that a servant-leader shouldn’t do so, if he does he’s just being temperamental. Again, let’s be blunt and honest. What is the issue with Tom Bache-Wiig, give us some actual reasons you deem it necessary to slander his character. I second Amanda’s comment, where’s the CONTENT?

By: Don

Don — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:57:20 +0000

Really, Amanda? Congratulations! What award did you win and what did you win it for?

By: "amanda"

"amanda" — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:55:39 +0000

@ Daniel…*swoon* or “*swoon*” Not sure anymore…Ed is policing language and feelings now…

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 01 May 2009 15:19:18 +0000

I would vote for a candidate just because he’s named Bache-Wiig. Because you can be pretty damn sure he’s not hiding behind a pseudonym. In these days of anonymous assholes popping wise, it’s refreshing to see a person of character.

–”Daniel”

By: amanda

amanda — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:36:58 +0000

@ Ed…it must be fun to start a blog and invite comment, but hide behind an anonymous name. As an award-winning writer, I don’t have that luxury. I call ‘em like I see ‘em.

I hold elected officials at any level, any position accountable. I’m holding Gary Slagel accountable. Period.

Cute little blog you’ve got. Maybe someday you can get some traction.

By: Ed Cognoski

Ed Cognoski — Fri, 01 May 2009 14:23:52 +0000

Amanda, I chose those three words deliberately. Reviewing them after your response, I have to say I still find them to be appropriate, maybe even more so.