justsomewench

Follow

Comment history

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

i *really* want to know who smitty is. it's taken a concerted effort to train myself to ignore her/his posts.

October 9, 2013 at 4:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

FWIW, even though I rarely comment anymore, thought I'd let you know I've always enjoyed your posts (and many others...and the others that engaged them - Marion and Enforcer were a force to be reckoned with).

Professionally, I won't be taking the leap over to the new side and, as readership declines, I won't be investing my company's advertising budget to the sustain the poor paper's agony.

Truth is, I only come here for the comments and Chad's updates on what is happening in local business/politics. If I am stuck reading Pat Kindle's dry, daily demotivationals, I'll find somewhere else to be entertained and informed.

October 9, 2013 at 4:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

From a professional point, as the paper continues to disengage from the community it depends on to financially support it and with the continued modifications (Google surveys, restricted commenter privacy), I will assume that readership online and off- will continue to decline.

This policy change would appear to be another nail in the coffin of your advertising revenue, LJW.

Well played. <blank stare>

October 9, 2013 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

So, all users will be suffering the consequences for the bad behavior of some and LJW’s failure to simply ban the users violating current policy.

Brilliant!

October 9, 2013 at 10:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Homeless shelter seeks $725,000 loan from city

i make a practice of being an informed person, jafs. i have a strong opinion about wet vs. dry shelters.

you expend yourself according to your beliefs and i'll do the same. that's how it works.

would you have preferred the fact that LCS is a wet shelter go unmentioned? if so, you might ask yourself why. surely you want everyone to make informed decisions that honor their own values, no?

September 18, 2013 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Homeless shelter seeks $725,000 loan from city

From LCS' application for monies to be allocated from the City's Special Alcohol Fund (https://www.lawrenceks.org/assets/bud...):

" LCS’ program also provides immediate shelter to homeless individuals, and does not require any type of treatment or requirement that guests be sober at the time of arrival."

So, nope. It's a wet shelter still and has no intention of changing that based on the model they cite basing their program off of. For that very reason, I will never back funding the entity. It's called 'enabling'.

September 17, 2013 at 9:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Homeless shelter seeks $725,000 loan from city

I think you answered your own question.

"Does this tell where the problem is? 'Loring Henderson, director of the shelter...'"

September 17, 2013 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous