Comment history

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

All you have to do is delete your cookies on the Urinal. Of course you have to do it quite often, as I think they allow 10 story viewings before they kindly ask you for money.

October 9, 2013 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

I dont. When I am asked to type an answer it looks like "aadflgbvh" or "oejraln." Whichever string of letters come first from button smashing.

October 9, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

Very good point, didnt even think of that. I dont recall ever seeing an Editorial where there was a name by the "by." Will editors start taking credit for their own opinions in the Editorals, as they are forcing everyone else to do?

October 9, 2013 at 4:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

This is certainly the most lively comment section I've seen in some time. Hopefully LJ World will take cue & relent on this move, but I doubt it.

October 9, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

City leaders want to meet with Indian tribe over future of North Lawrence land

Good luck on that one sir. If they are travelling on taxpayer dime & meeting as representatives of the city of Lawrence, then yes, an exact transcript should be available in my opinion.

October 9, 2013 at 11:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Journal-World websites to require commenters to identify themselves

Dont have a Facebook. Wont get one for this reason either. I enjoy commenting, & really have nothing to hide, but agree that those of us in the professional world sometimes dont want our identity known. I have never posted anything questionable, or factually untrue, or bullied anyone, but do not want my identity known for fear of backlash or retribution in the professional world. Yes, KCStar is now a ghost town after they made this move, & I assume LJ World will be the same. I understand the "motive" behind it, but agree with other posters that Facebook has its fair share of fake accounts, & this will most likely not stop those bent on spreading hearsay & attacking others. Sad day.

October 9, 2013 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Supreme Court justices grill lawyers during school finance appeal

Because they haven't stacked the courts yet. Wait for the changes to the way the KS Supreme Court judges are chosen, then they will start going after the constitution.

October 8, 2013 at 5:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Other districts offer advice on Lawrence tech ed project

Perfect for Brownbacks little experiment. Good little worker bees who are trained only for the technology used today, leaving them inept if/when the technology changes & their skill is no longer needed. This was a main concern, learning useable & transferable skills, not skills on how to work exclusively at HiPer.

October 8, 2013 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Health care providers raise concerns about KanCare

While I agree, the parallels are very similar. New insurance/medical program having difficulties, huge outcry against one program, while not against the other. That's the point I was trying to make. The same Tea Party/Repubs are admonishing the ACA in its infancy, but keeping conveniently quiet on this one, which has had alot more time to work out the problems. Not only are they keeping rather quiet, they are willing to admit that there would be "inevitable problems" w/their own program, but not allowing for the same transition period w/ACA.

October 8, 2013 at 11:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

City commission to consider $725,000 loan to homeless shelter

They have no income, they sell no services or products. They give their product away for free, that is why people have a tough time believing they will pay it back. I cant imagine everyone here is so heartless they would wish for worthy individuals to go hungry & sleep in the cold. Its that some of these people barely have enough money to feed their own families, & are one mis-step away from the shelter themselves, & are being asked to pony up more $$ for an entity that has no revenue streams to repay the loan, except what people give them.

I too am curious how this roof issue was not noticed during the inspection/purchase phase? Lack of oversight? Intentional? Who knows, but it does seem peculiar. If we are being asked to give our $$, then we should be given all of the information. But as with all of the other money pits this commission has indebted us to, we will never see an ounce of honest truth on this one either. Best case scenario, the misdeeds will be trickled out after we have fully committed to the project & have no recourse. Worst case, we will pay up, never hear a single bit of info, & grin & bear it. What else can we do? We voted them in, they know what is best, they're the experts.

October 8, 2013 at 7:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )