Jump to content
Allen, I understand the basis of journalism, and the importance of reporting pertinent details, but I agree with Brenda. What, about the family dynamic and law enforcement history of both Dennis and Stephan, was relevant to the actions of, and current charges Logan Otis is facing? One had nothing to do with the other, and for a family that is already reeling, why would one feel it necessary to air out the remaining immediate family's dirty laundry? It is irrelevant, and in extremely poor taste. How has ANY of that information been helpful to the reporting of the facts surrounding the tragedy? Or this case?
“Using lands within view of the affected area may establish injury-in-fact when the aesthetic and recreational value of the lands would be harmed by the challenged activities,”
The most asinine statement I have ever heard. The 'aesthetic and recreational' value will be obsolete, when no one can afford to take in the view, or play in these parts. We have become a country that trips over a dollar to pick up a penny, all under the blanket term of political correctness.... These idiots would rather win an argument, than face reality.
Judge Jackson, hamburger doesn't come from the store, water doesn't produce its self from the faucet, and your lights do not just 'magically' turn on when you hit a switch. I may not be a sitting judge, but, even this rural housewife can see..... Common sense, just isn't that common anymore.... When there is no longer a working class, to support those who lack employment, how will we all survive?
Allen, the newspaper is free online, here and there you complete a few questions in order to continue viewing it FOR FREE. I would surmise this is due to the financial needs of our local paper, as the staff, passionate though they are, do not have the luxury of working for free, with the only benefit being your constant scrutiny. Although, the longstanding 'Ike and Tina' relationship that you have with The Craig Daily Press, leads me to believe that nothing they will ever do will be to your satisfaction. I imagine you even take issue with the way they publish your works. I, for one, stick to the old adage, "Do not look a gift horse in the mouth." My suggestion would be to purchase a subscription, and have it delivered to you, it seems like a sure fire way to avoid this problem. But, then no one would see your handwritten comments at the bottom of EVERY article..... I can see wherein the dilemma lies... Good Luck with your tough decision. In the meantime, it does not bother me to answer a few menial questions about my cell phone provider in order to have the benefit of viewing my community's current happenings. FREE.
I realize this seems abrupt, but your argument about something so trivial, appears rather imbecilic.
Sorry for jumping in the middle of your business... Much can be lost in translation, in this type of forum.... Your concern for your friend was evident... :)
I find Dennis, that you have an awful lot to say with regards to CDP's news articles. I could not have picked this boy out of a crowd, I say this only so that you know, I have no dogs in this fight.
With that said, it is a hell of a way to express your 'condolences' with your 'backhanded' comment. Although, your speculation may prove to be a contributing factor, it was in extremely poor taste.
Patrick, I was absent from this week's meeting unfortunately. I am only responding to your comments because, as a member of this board, I think that you should know what 'our facts are'. Yes, it is 'one-sided', it is an opinion piece. We look at the facts that are presented, and give our take on the situation. I do not always agree with my fellow editorial board members, but, in this case, I absolutely do. This man was reckless with his actions. He is an extension CRFPD, and is representative of that entity at all times. His personal opinions are absolutely going to be associated with those of the dept. because of his close ties and association with CRFPD. Any right minded person knows that if you are a public figure, with close ties to any organization, anything you do has the potential to be associated with, or effect the perception of said company. He is entitled to have his opinions, as you or I, but he must take greater care of his display of those feelings. I think that you are confusing this editorial board, with your own personal rants, and although, I can see where you are 'put off' by the fact that your own diatribes have been over looked, the comparison between what is done weekly by the board, and intermittingly by you..... apples and oranges, my friend.
There is no shooting of the messenger. Because, quite frankly I am not sure exactly what message it is that you are trying to convey, Is it one of hypocrisy, or is it one of jealousy and entitlement? Your chosen use of the phrase 'landed gentry' has many meanings, but the common thread amongst all of them would be 'those who have'. So my question is, the crude way in which you pointed out that you do not agree with the way Mr. Kinkaid has chosen to represent this county, is it because of an underlying jealousy of what you perceive to be a 'good ol boy' establishment, that you personally feel excluded from due to your current 'have not' status? Because, if that is the case, I completely understand now why you have chosen THIS forum, and THESE circumstances to pick at Mr. Kinkaid's political career and personal life, because, you otherwise consider yourself subordinate to the people of political stature in the community, which is really your own hang up, and has nothing to do with this article in the first place, other than your comments about integrity, which I think we're undermined above, when the paper explained his actions, in the what was done and why.
(I have never met John Kinkaid. I do not have any dogs in his political or personal fights.I understand the meaning of your words about integrity, although, I do not necessarily agree. What I do not condone or understand is why you would allow the meaning of your original message to get muddied with phrases such as, 'then he goes back to the pills'. It seems like a spiteful, jab, added last minute to demean a person, and yet diminishes your original point. I think were it not for the anonymity of the Internet not only would you have left out the last bit, but, I would think you wouldn't have commented in the first place, so my final question, am I wrong?)
Disgusting, Yamparob. Care to pull back the curtains on that glass mansion you must be inhabiting? We all falter, it's how you rebound that counts. I guess there is a certain superciliousness, that comes with the anonymity of the Internet. I would imagine that you would find yourself far less vocal and judgmental if you had to attach your face and name to your pointed statements.
Honesty is an attribute we should all be in possession of, not just a standard we hold elected officials to.
I find it admirable that not only has Mr. Kinkaid shown complete transparency in light of what he and his family have endured the last few months, but, he funded it himself, donated the county salary he drew during this period to a major county function, and continues to hold his head up. We all have our trials and tribulations in life, it's how we overcome them that makes us the folks we are. I would say The Kinkaid Family is a shining example of how you should work through your troubles, and responsibly, privately, handle one's affairs. I wish you continued success in all future endeavors.
I think the issue here, is that there is certain legislation that has been passed that is 'un-enforceable'. For instance, how does one determine if my non stamped high capacity magazine was purchased yesterday , or thirty years ago? How is law enforcement to any more prevent the private sale of a firearm, If I drive 45 minutes north, or two minutes to the grocery store, when they are no better equipped to prevent say, a drug transaction. (Although, as responsible gun owners, we SHOULD already be compelled to do our own homework.) Colorado, in effect, has tied local law enforcement's hands behind their back, by capriciously passing such vague legislation, so my question to you sir, would be, ' Exactly, HOW, have our state law enforcement officers been given any REASONABLE means to inact newly passed gun laws, without possibly infringing on our rights?'
Last login: Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.