Comment history

Art cancellation

Well done, Katie. Just a couple points in response to the unfortunate but typical incivility posted here. First, people who hate art/artists are not compelled to like artists or buy their art, but neither is there any need to disparage them for doing what they enjoy or desiring a place/way to offer their creations for sale. Also, I don't see how any reasonable person could think someone's innocuous, valid complaint regarding an unrelated Lawrence community event somehow undercuts the tragedy of the Greensburg disaster, much less how it's even possible to compare the two.

May 11, 2007 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Exhibits lacking

"The president of the board is head of the museum studies department at KU, responsible for educating future curators and exhibit designers."

Gracious, maybe the Watkins is just where bad ideas from the museum studies program go to die.

Anyway, it looks like it isn't necessarily that the ol' museum folk haven't recognized the need for many of the author's suggestions, which they have, they just haven't made much progress toward those goals since they set them in 2001:

I certainly agree that it's a community problem, and particularly a lack of interest, membership and contribution toward the museum or the Douglas County Historical Society, which runs it. After all, the Society is a private non-profit that does not have the benefit of city or county tax revenues. Then again, it's pretty tough to raise interest and money when there's not a whole lot going for the museum besides the building itself, so they're in a bit of a pickle.

June 29, 2006 at 3:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush should retire to Baghdad

Apparently the sarcasm of the piece was lost on a few people. Quite the furor over a funny article, folks.

Kevin, xeno, all you stalwarts: do you have jobs, hobbies, interests, that kind of thing? Other than posting on this site, that is? I'm just curious.

June 22, 2006 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Protesters take to streets

Posted by Pilgrim (anonymous) on May 2, 2006 at 4:04 p.m.

"So again, we are forced to ask what part of "illegal" do you not understand?"

The part of "illegal" I don't understand is the implication that all "illegal" immigrants are breaking criminal laws due to their presence on our soil. That's a civil offense, not a crime. They are only criminals to the extent they crossed the U.S. border unlawfully. An immigrant who remains here after his or her green card or student visa has expired, for example, got here "legally," remains here "illegally," but is not a criminal, for example.

But that's just me. Other folk might not understand why egal is ill in the first place, and what that has to do with anything.

May 2, 2006 at 4:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Protesters take to streets

Illegal immigrants are committing a civil offense (like speeding or sexual harassment) by virtue of being in this country, not a criminal offense.

Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. Some neat Kansas misdemeanors include furnishing alcoholic liquor or malt beverage to a minor, unlawful parking in handicapped accessible parking, setting off a bottle rocket, unauthorized disclosure of a computer password, and good ol' consensual same-sex intercourse. So, individuals who engage in those activities and don't get prosecuted are also criminals.

Thus, I say we prosecute all the latent misdemeanor criminals as felons and build a federal prison in every Congressional district. It would not only create hundreds of thousands of construction jobs that every red-blooded American-born citizen is dying to get, but put away all of the dirty illegals, inconsiderates, homosexuals, fireworks enthusiasts, and college kids.

May 2, 2006 at 3:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Residents oppose building proposal

Good points, classclown. I suppose the end result of holding on to a homestead until death mainly impacts whichever of the owners' heirs or assigns ends up with the residence after distribution of the estate, whether it appreciates or not. Still, what new owner wants to inherit an investment that has depreciated? (I say investment because, typically, owners of inherited residences do not live in them.)

April 14, 2006 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Residents oppose building proposal

"A better indicator would be to evaluate the number of vehicles on the street in the evening or the weekend."

I'm familiar with this neighborhood, and I can't remember there being more than 5 or 6 cars on the entire street in the evenings or weekends, unless someone was hosting some kind of gathering. I think it's safe to say there is not a whole lot of traffic in that part of town at any time of day.

April 14, 2006 at 10:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Residents oppose building proposal

To the folk who want the only consideration to be the potential harm the development would bring to the residents of the community and who dismiss its potential benefits to that community as irrelevant: Do you always let the negative factors control when making a decision, instead of weighing the positive and negative? How's that working out?

April 14, 2006 at 10:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )