Oh ... Really?

Category: Oh ... Really?

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

An even more interesting thing happened at the newspaper

Actually, this has turned out to be pretty hilarious. It just shows how one can really make a fool of oneself when one is intentionally mean, spiteful and hateful. At the same time, it's also kind of sad, with a grown adult behaving like a spoiled 8 year old who can't have her way ...

In my previous post, I recounted some of what we heard and learned in the carry permit class we took. I remarked on the variety of the students, both in age and socio-economic background, but not so much in political ideology - we were definitely of like minds, especially on 2nd amendment rights, guns and how we feel about the current president's stated aims to take some, if not most, guns from the hands of the populace. Of particular interest to me, being the direct descendant of one of the most prominent characters in the story, was the recounting of the days immediately preceding the start of the Revolutionary war and how that gave the writers of the Constitution the impetus to specify the right to bear arms.

Imagine my amusement when I see that a blogger at the local newspaper took my post out of context and twisted it to imply that the class instructor was indoctrinating the carry permit class students. Sorry, we came in to class pre-indoctrinated, thank you ... by our knowledge and understanding of American history and the US Constitution. We also had in common our desire to defend ourselves, our homes and families by a means we feel is effective - which is, by the way, not to go crazed spider monkey all over an attacker. We are not animals!

But I digress.

Then Ms. Granju continues her post to insinuate that Rich had been carrying his handgun illegally. She cites as her evidence of his misdeed his posts in which he writes about the new gun he bought a few months ago, taking it to the firing range and breaking in a new holster for it. You can almost visualize her batting her eyelashes in feigned innocence as she asks - purely out of curiosity, mind you - how someone can carry a gun around without a permit:

And here is a question asked honestly and open-mindedly about the whole gun permitting issue: the blogger I quote above is talking about how she and her fiance, a very articulate local gun-blogger, recently attended a handgun carry permit class together. But her fiance has already blogged about carrying his handgun. What am I missing here? I welcome a clearer explanation from those of you who know more about the technicailities of handgun carry permits than I do on who can carry a handgun, and when, and what permits are actually required in which circumstances. Educate me (but not about the American Revolution, thanks. I've already got that covered.).

Again, I am asking this question with respect, and I am not suggesting anything improper. I am just legitimately curious as to what the rules say. When do you actually have to have a permit and when do you not? If you can have a handgun without the carry permit, why would you get licensed?

We both replied to her, explaining in great detail exactly what "carry" means in regards to handguns, what is legal without a permit and what is not, and further, that his actions were not in any way, shape, fashion or form illegal. Still she persists, asking: "I was (and am) legitimately curious why a gun blogger would need a carry permit if he or she is already carrying. What are the advantages of having the permit? I remain curious."

No, you remain vicious, petty and hateful in your attempt to smear and perhaps cause legal difficulties to a good, upstanding, Christian man who has more moral integrity in his little finger than all the gun-grabbing lefty liberals do put together. You also remain a chicken-shit, since you decided, in the face of a couple dozen comments that quite bluntly pointed out how insanely dumb your post was, to delete the most egregious part of it as well as the relevant comments made.

But no worry ... Google cache caught the original post, which I have placed in the extended section below, with some of the comments that were deleted.

As I noted in one of my comments there, is it really any wonder that newspapers are going belly up left and right if this is what constitutes journalistic ethics and integrity these days?

Posted by LissaKay on 03/18/09 at 02:26 PM in ~ Go Bang Bang ~ Local News ~ Oh ... Really?
• (4) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Monday, May 07, 2007

Is EVERYTHING Partisan Now?

The Atomictumor gang is all excited about this band, Christabel and the Jons. AT saw them last weekend at a Knoxville night spot, and they are slated to appear this week at Sundown in the City on Thursday, then again in Oak Ridge on Friday. AT has some awesome taste in music, so I went to check them out a little more. If I can work up the courage to actually go out in public by myself, I might even go see them. It also happens that they are appearing at Vestival on Saturday, which is an arts and heritage festival being held in South Knoxville. I read of this in the Metro Pulse ... an alternative paper for the Knoxville area. Therein lies the crux of my rant ...

This is not about the politics of AtomicTumor, or Christabel and the Jons, or Oak Ridge or Knoxville - that's just for context ... it IS about the general climate in this country, of which this is an example.

They're expecting a big crowd. Saturday at 9:30, police will even close down Maryville Pike. But a lot of people are wondering what the crowd will look like. Festival organizers are inviting everybody, old and young, and they've got keen interest from across South Knoxville's often-contentious political spectrum. It's safe to say that the particular group of people who will convene at the old Candoro place have never been in the same place before.

WTF? Just how does politics play into an arts and crafts festival? Why does it matter what the political persuasion of the other people is at this festival? It's not a rally or protest is it? There's not even an upcoming election for candidates to stump for. Why is this even mentioned? It would also seem to imply that there have been similar events where people of a certain political persuasion were not invited or welcomed.

Has America really become so politically stratified that one has to check out the pulse of a crowd before one goes, lest they find themselves in a minority amidst people who hold differing opinions? Are we afraid of catching cooties from each other? Are we no longer mature and dignified enough to be able to agree to disagree on certain topics and remain friends otherwise? Or at least get along enough to be able to attend events together?

What the hell has happened to America? Have our individual identities been reduced to what political party we vote for or align with? Must we choose, else we don't "belong"?

This is disgusting. This country needs to get a grip and grow the hell up.

Posted by LissaKay on 05/07/07 at 02:24 PM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (1) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Monday, June 26, 2006

Freedom of Speech and Opinion?

Not if it isn't aligned with the Left ... and if they hate the messenger, anyone who agrees with the message is hated in a similar manner.

Strolling through Bloglines this evening, I happened upon a post at No Silence Here. Michael Silence quoted, among others, Joe Powell, who stated, "Like others, I don't think much of the anti-immigration stand, but they did have a permit and this IS still a free nation (isn't it?)." My eye drawn to "anti-immigration stand" I traveled over to see if he, like so many others, confuses anti-ILLEGAL-immigration with anti-ALL-immigration, and hurls the ever so tiresome racist and xenophobic barbs at those who wish to keep our sovereign land sovereign.

Good God in Heaven above. I waded into a cesspool of mindless, irrational, illogical diatribes of the looniest kind. Not so much on the ILLEGAL immigration protest, or even the pretty good post on the Fear of Fat, but just below that were two posts ... I am still trying to make sense of it.

Joe Powell says about Ann Coulter, "You are either for her or against her. Since Ann Coulter has found much money for painting the political world in her two-tone dialectics, then it's time to paint her and her supporters with the same brush." And goes on to further state if you agree with her in any way, you endorse her crass way of stating her views.

Whut Da Hell?? He is telling me how I must think? That if Ann Coulter has a viewpoint that I happen to agree with (and there are a few) that I then endorse her crude way of stating them? Or conversely, that if I abhor her ways of stating her views, then I have to oppose her views as well? Hey Joe? Does that mean I have to disagree with her on everything? What if she likes double-fudge marble ice cream? Do I have to hate it lest I be painted with the same brush of scorn she has brought upon herself?

Then, a commenter takes on Joe and his echo chamber. He makes some good points, but Joe et al pull the usual underhanded "debate" tactic of arguing a point not made, when they aren't clapping each other on the back. Inaccurate accusations fly too ... the commenter is said to use vulgar language throughout. I count two craps and one horseshit. Joe's buddies rack up at least four instances of cussing, including some name-calling. All the while staying off topic, not addressing the point being made.

Very juvenile indeed.

The post that follows continues the flow of foam from their mouths ... it seems they caught the attention of the folks at Tongue Tied, a site devoted to pointing out breaches in the right to free speech. I don't always agree with all the views expounded there, and I have stated so in comments, but the site bears watching. Anyway, Kim's comment is quoted by Joe and held up as an example of a "hard core Party Faithful." Um, Joe ... you might want to spend a few minutes over at Kim's place, and then consider perhaps retracting that statement. It makes you look quite the fool. (I am quite liking Kim myself though ... we straddle that neither left, nor right political fence much the same.)

Joe rants on about the commenter on the prior post, totally mistating what they said and accusing him of vulgarity, when he and his buddies are guilty of far worse. I should screen shot those comments, as I bet Joe will race to edit out the Bad Words™ to make themselves look like choir boys. But Joe still doesn't get it. At all.

Try this one on, guys ... I don't like Ann Coulter. I didn't like her before her classless book and tirades recently on TV. She is just the sort of person I don't like. And her political views factor into that not one bit. You see, I have the intelligence, the maturity and the logical capability to separate the person from the opinion. That is why I can debate with friends and still be friends. I can also share opinions with people I do not like, as I do with Ann Coulter and the Jersey Girls. But hey, if it makes it any easier for you to fathom, instead of agreeing with Ann Coulter, let's say I agree with Dorothy Rabinowitz instead.

Does that work for ya, Joe? Can I have my opinions back now?

Posted by LissaKay on 06/26/06 at 09:59 PM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (4) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Friday, April 01, 2005

Have Fun Today

April Fools Day ....

Heh ... cynics will spoil all the fun. Just so ya know ...

cool smile
Posted by LissaKay on 04/01/05 at 01:01 PM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (0) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Sunday, February 27, 2005

Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Forum

*WAVES* to the people visiting from thread #291672 and #32300 ... that's where you say nasty things about me, right? Like you all do to Joe, Ken and Dawn ... such lovely people you are.

Heh ... the fact that I am now being attacked directly tells me that I hit that nail dead on the head. I should be shocked at these vicious reactions, but then again ... The question now is, should I take those attacks public so everyone can see the true nature of some of these people? Oh and thanks for reminding me about Mel ... that makes 4 ... that I know of. Mirrors are pretty inexpensive, perhaps a good investment ...


Truth is a funny thing. We all hold it up to be an honorable concept. Lies, deceptions, fibbing are all bad ... we are taught this from when we first learn to express ourselves. We base our sense of trust around the truth ... we trust those who do not lie to or betray us. But I have found that sometimes, the truth is not always a good thing. Well, it is a good thing ... but some people react to the truth in bad ways. Especially if the truth is about them, and they don't like it being pointed out. Those reactions can be vicious, and will tell even more truth about who that person really is.

By nature, I am very direct and blunt. In grade school, I failed to win friends and influence people with this directness ... if I didn't like someone or something they were doing, I told them so. Time, wisdom and maturity tempered this directness and taught me to hold my tongue in most situations. Those times that I just couldn't keep quiet, I used sarcasm or irony to make my point. Unfortunately, it would fly right over the heads of most people.

Recently, I pointed out a nasty bit of truth to some people. I was very direct about it. The reaction was, of course, just as nasty as the truth is. Heh ... yeah, you get all defensive and I know I've hit dead on the nail. The attacks that followed just prove it even more. These people are so beside themselves dealing with this truth, all they can do is strike out, making wild accusations and twisting anything else I have to say.

They even tried to make me go away. Sorry ... I'm too stubborn for that. The truth hurts? Aww ... my heart is breaking. Deal with it.

What was this bit of truth and who are these people? The people are participants in one of the discussion forums I frequent. The truth is, while they denounce racism, bigotry and discrimination, sexism ... or rather, derogatory statements and jokes about women in particular, are overlooked or ignored at best. At worst, several more join in on the joke or expand on the derogatory statements.

A recent example: A member posted about a recent study that pointed out the differences in the male and female brains. The article itself, after a rather interesting discussion of a very relevant study, ended with a sexist remark. In the thread discussing this article, a poster remarked, in reference to the studies findings that the two halves of the brain talk to each other better in women, that we now know why women never stop talking. He followed up to that post with the picture of the two dogs, one of which is yapping in the other's ear while he cringes. They are dressed up as a man and woman, the woman-dog being the one doing the yapping.

This was not posted in the humor forum, it was in the Health and Science forum. What was the reaction from the rest of the members to this sexist post?

*crickets chirping*

Posted by LissaKay on 02/27/05 at 08:37 PM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (5) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Bananas are racist fruits

Now, I have heard of the word "banana" used as a racial epithet against Asians ... but a woman attending a Civil Rights march in commemoration of Martin Luther King's birthday became offended at the sight of a policeman who was eating a banana.

What. In. The. H-E-double-hockey-sticks???

Michelle Malkin is hot on the case. Go figure, eh? Of course, this is not a subject that she is unfamiliar with, having had a word or two about petty grievances of the offended before.

But no kiddin ... a woman got all bent out of shape because she witnessed a cop eating a banana ...

Just think of all the ways a man might use a banana to offend a woman.

Then you may imagine why some people leaped to the wrong conclusion when a woman complained about a Columbus police officer eating a banana at the Civic Center as people gathered for a Jan. 15 civil rights march.

The woman was deeply offended, she told police. The police were deeply bewildered.

The offense was not what you might imagine it to be. I imagined the officer shoving the banana into his pants pocket to make others point at it and say, "Hey, is that a banana in your pocket or are you just glad to be here getting paid overtime?"

But that was not what offended the woman, who hung up on people who couldn't figure it out.

Then she called Mayor Bob Poydasheff. He said she just started berating him about the police. He told her he'd heard only compliments about how officers handled the weekend march in which the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other longtime civil rights activists led 8,000 people from the Civic Center to the Government Center.

"She said, 'No no no no, when the buses pulled into the Civic Center, I saw a policeman eating a banana.' And I didn't know what to say," Poydasheff recalled. "I was stunned. I said, 'What's wrong with that? Police were on their feet for eight hours. They had to get potassium in their system.'"

He said the woman told him the banana "was an affront to me and to others, including a former state senator." She wouldn't name the senator.

Why was she offended?

Well, it seems that in the context of the march, she took the officer's banana eating to imply an analogous racial slur relating black people to apes.

Gosh ... I wonder what other foods are offensive? And to whom? And why?

Grapes ... they are used to make wine. Men use wine to get women drunk so they can have their way. Grapes are part of the evil oppression and subjugation of women! Because of grapes, women have become nothing more than sex objects!

Bonbons are offensive to full-time mothers because of the old joke about laying on the couch eating bonbons all day watching soap operas!

Fruit! That must be offensive to gays, right? Any kind of fruit! Oh dear ...

I can't think of any more right now ... feel free to contribute ... what food items could be potentially offensive to some sub-group of humans?

Geez ... unreal!

More bloggage on this idiocy:
Ramblings' Journal

Posted by LissaKay on 02/15/05 at 04:34 AM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (0) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Friday, February 11, 2005

When you get to the end of your rope ...

Les and John had better be sharing some of dat stuff ...


Oh yeah ... that's what I be screamin' ...

Via Parenthesis

Posted by LissaKay on 02/11/05 at 04:52 AM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (1) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Tuesday, February 08, 2005

Through the looking glass

When the world has turned on its side ... when up is down, yes is no, right is wrong, black is white, hot is cold ... how does one keep from letting loose with one long, loud primal scream?

Last week, I took my son in to the doctor's office. He has been having chronic knee pain. Diagnosis: Osgood Schlatter's disease. It's very common in teen-age boys, especially following a period of rapid growth. Sonny boy has grown a good 6-8 inches in the last two years ... yup, that's pretty rapid. Comfort measures are the first line since it is a temporary condition that rarely gets severe ... heating pad, knee braces, aspirin.

Then I ask if the doctor would possibly consider prescribing his medications for his bipolar disorder. Losing TennCare means also that he can no longer take advantage of the services at the clinic where he was seeing the psychiatrist. Private shrinks charge anywhere from $200 to $275 for an initial visit and $90 to $125 for each follow up, every other month. This is not covered like regular medical visits for a $20 co-pay. There is a $500 deductible, then it pays 80% of whatever they say is reasonable office fee. Lab tests are subject to the regular outpatient hospital deductible. Those are $350 each and must be done quarterly. The co-pay on his medications is $56 a month on top of all that. I had to just about terrorize Blue Cross Blue Shield to get this much information ... they didn't want to even speak to me about his benefits because I am not on the policy, it is his father's. I set the bitch-switch to full throttle though, climbed through the ranks of clueless supervisors and got to someone that would cough up the info. Throwing around the insurance comissioner's name helped a little bit too.

So, if the internist could prescribe and monitor, he could be seen for the $20 co-pay. That office has its own lab, so no deductible for lab tests. The med co-pay I could handle in this situation. So, Doc ... how's about it?

Well sure ... he can do that, no problem, but my son would still need to see a psychiatrist at least twice a year.

*blink blink*

Posted by LissaKay on 02/08/05 at 03:23 AM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (0) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

An observation

When I hear or read of someone who feels it necessary to "brag" about how wonderful their life is, how good they have it, and that others who have, in their opinion, less financially or materially ... it seems more like they are trying to convince themselves. It also shows how shallow and petty they really are.

I mean ... I don't go around bragging that I have never been convicted of crimes against children, or any crime at all ... nor have I spent any time in jail ...

I'm just sayin' ... ya know?

Posted by LissaKay on 11/24/04 at 02:28 PM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (7) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Saturday, July 31, 2004

Just wondering

If one hires a professional to do a job, and then the job becomes twice as easy as it was to start with, is it appropriate to ask for a partial refund of the fee paid?
Or ...

If the entity that one is doing battle with hands one more and more ammunition, and then stands on high ground, outside of cover, is it fair to keep shooting?

Eh ... of course it is. Fire when ready, Gridley!

Posted by LissaKay on 07/31/04 at 03:44 AM in ~ Oh ... Really?
• (0) CommentsPop UpPermalink

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >