Comment history

Abercrombie & Fitch to close Aug. 18

Does it have anything to do with the fact that every time I've walked into that store the employees have been stuck up and rude, not to mention unhelpful and the prices are outrageous? It's not just the prices though, I've seen a couple of items in there that I liked enough to pay a bit higher price for but I couldn't purchase because I'm not a size 10 or smaller.

August 8, 2007 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Japanese denial of WWII military brothels shocks former professor

Casualties at Hiroshima were estimated to be as high as 140,000 and 74,000 for Nagasaki. Funny that is still less than the death toll that China suffered when Japan invaded Nanking, raped, tortured, beheaded, executed, and boiled babies for entertainment.

I do not believe that anyone on here has implied that a decision like dropping the A-bombs is an easy one to make, however if Japan was thinking of surrendering before we dropped any bombs, then why did it take two to actually get them to surrender?

And I am infinetly thankful that because of the decions made in 1945 that the additional loss of American lives remained hypothetical and did not become a reality. My Grandfather fought in New Guinea and my great uncle was shot out of a Church steeple by a German sniper. Our first obligation was to American lives.

March 5, 2007 at 11:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Japanese denial of WWII military brothels shocks former professor

True, the bombs were a warning to the Soviets but the Japanese HAD NOT been thoroughly defeated and were definitely not ready to surrender. In their culture it is more honorable to die fighting than surrender. The A-bombs were used in order to avoid prolonging the war by years and loosing hundreds of thousands more American lives. It was a tough decision, but the right one.

I suggest that those who don't know much about Japanese history seriously follow the suggestions of some of the other bloggers and read up on Nanking and the atrocities Japan committed during WWII and the years leading up to it. And yes, they deny it all. In fact, they don't even print it in their history books, and they do not teach it in their schools.

March 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Statewide ban

Maybe the smokers should have gone where the smoke is. Way to support a local smoking establishment.

All the smoker has to do is not go where they don't allow smoking.

February 23, 2007 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Statewide ban

I'm not a liberal, thank you. Just someone who enjoys not sitting in other people's smoke.

Manufacturers do not intend for you to fall off your ladder.

If someone hits your car and kills you, that person killed you, not your car.

If the lawn mower "gets out of control" and kills someone, that is not the original intent of the manufacturer.

Paint gases, once again, not the intent of the manufacturer.

Bath tubs, their original intent is souly for the purpose of cleansing oneself, not slipping.

Snow shovels do not induce heart attacks. Bad example.

A motorcycle doesn't kill it's user, however the user can be killed while riding a motorcycle.

It seems to me Marion attempted to stray from the subject of the Letter in order to be sarcastic. Never seen that on before. Let's stay on subject, shall we?

Bottom line is that smoking is harmful to the people around you. And it is not outrageous for them to ask that you take it outside. Smoke all you want, I really don't care as long as it doesn't affect my health as well.



February 23, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Statewide ban

I do believe that the smokers of Lawrence were given a chance to support a smoking establishment; The Men's Lounge (Ladies welcome) and it is already out of business. It seems they chose to go to non-smoking establishments instead of somewhere they could have smoked indoors. Hmmm.......

Tobacco is the only legal consumer product in the United States today that when used as intended by its manufacturer, can kill you. Ponder that!

February 23, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence bar owners, activists weigh in on state smoking ban

You got me there. I just can't understand why it's such a big deal anymore. It looks to me like the smokers and non-smokers are doing fine with the indoor smoking ban. And we all know it's better for public health. Did anyone see my first post about the costs Kansas faces alone each year?

January 18, 2007 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence bar owners, activists weigh in on state smoking ban

So is the degredation of personal rights by a fellow citizen acceptable? Do I have to accept that when I am in a public place you have the right to pollute my air and damage my health? Sorry I don't like to enhale a side of rat poisen, cyanide, methalol, carbon monoxide, DDT, arsenic, etc with my food or with the occasional drink. SMOKE ALL YOU WANT!!! I don't care if you are a smoker, just don't jepordize my health, only your own!!!

And it works both ways-nobody is forcing the smokers to enter a restarant or bar that is non-smoking. There are plenty of smoking establishments (for now), just not in Lawrence.

January 18, 2007 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence bar owners, activists weigh in on state smoking ban

Smokers do not HAVE to suck down a cigarette with their food.

Smokers do not HAVE to go to a bar or restaurant which prohibits smoking. Thus far, the ban is not state-wide.

I wonder how business owners would feel if non-smokers really didn't go to their establishments anymore. Then they really would suffer being that non-smokers make up approximately 75% of the population.



January 18, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence bar owners, activists weigh in on state smoking ban

If you are against the smoking ban do yourself and the rest of us a favor and educate yourselves before you post. Reading some of these posts is making me sick seeing the amount of ignorence about the subject. Allow me to clear some misperceptions up with some facts:

"Smoking accounts for at least 30% of ALL cancer deaths and 80% of lung cancer deaths."

"Smoking is associated with increased risk of AT LEAST 15 types of cancer; nasopharonyx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, lip, oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, lung, esophagus, pancreas, uterine cervix, kidney, bladder, stomach, and accute myeloid leukemia."

"Smoking is a major cause of heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema, and is associated with gastric ulcers."

"Secondhand smoke contains numerous human carcinogens for which there is NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE."

"Seconhand smoke contains more than 4,000 substances , more than 50 of which are known or suspected to cause cancer in humans and animals, and many of which are strong irritants."

--American Cancer Society

With a smoking ban everybody wins. 100% of people can go to the establishment. And 100% of the smokers can still smoke as many cigarettes as they want. Just in a different location- outside. We can all enjoy the establishments Lawrence has to offer. If you want to pollute your body that's fine, just not indoors where other people including infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and the rest of us have to breath it in too. The smoking ban is a compromise.

It is unrealistic and irrational to say "if you don't like smoke, don't go out." You have to come up with something more mature than that.

January 18, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )