The Observation Deck

My good friend Ken Warren has inquired

What does Mr. Batdorf know?

Whose interests are infused and infusing with Mr. Batdorf's knowledge?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Ken, you my respect for you is immense, but I must state, that in the Batdorf matter you seek reason and depth where there is none.

Answers to the inquiry (in order):

1) By virtue of that which has been displayed, nothing of consequence.
2) His own, for whatever purpose dictated by his inner voices
3) No...I don't think so....I think we're all just tired of his logical gaffes

DL...think I'll try some strawberry glop!

Jeff

blank

Say Jim D.

Try a non prescription Knobb Creek....great med, great bourbon. But always be sure to enjoy it in moderation, and PLEEZE, no driving!

Matter of fact Guinness and I are enjoying the spring weather, having a cigar and a bourbon on the stoop!

Happy times...keep on truckin'

Jeff

*claps hands* bravo mr.dustin, bravo.

it fascinates me that a person can start a post like this one and then disappear from it. Maybe the 6 pages of reasons why this is so bogus and phony scared him away, but then again who am I to say a thing like that.

Maybe terry's finally looked up the definition of Boycott on dictionary.com, and is boycotting the forum..

heh, and pigs can fly.

Kenneth Warren wrote:Joe:

Get a clue. You are a Kiwanian brother. This ain't about Doctor Laura and Gladd bags.

Heated civic debate about issues between dissenting neighbors is what this board is all about.

Do smears such as this lead to a more servicable citizenship?

Mr Warren,

Let's put aside the Dr Laura example as I don't think you're understanding the point I'm trying to make here. Look at the ACLU. I'm told to accept what the most can easily call blasphemous as art. Even the defenders in the court of ideas of the ACLU all say the same thing: they don't agree with the artist's opinion, but they have every right to make it.
Protest is another thing I hear all the time from the left. Why is Cindy Sheehan an icon while Terry must be silenced?
The patiot act is another perfact example. We put in laws to protect us from another 9/11 and somehow the president and congress was wrong to do so as it stifles free speech. I believe the argument is that somehow the law destroys the principles of democracy. Aren't you making the case that we should have some sort of Lakewood patriot act?
The Hollywood elite is another group that never misses an opportunity to say whatever they want about The President at every opportunity they can. Now, Jim's the president and Terry's the movie star bashing him.

To both you and JO - the only point I'm trying to make here is that Terry has the right to say what he wants. I have heard this over and over again from the left on issue after issue. You're looking at the macro while the only point I am making is to look at the macro as well. I am not participating in this probalably pointless boycott. Quite the opposite I have told friends, relatives, and coworkers that this is a great sight for news, info and discussion about Lakewood. However, now you're saying someone is wrong for exptressing their opinion, regardless of whether it's valid or not. If you're going to make an argument, you're going to have to stay on one side of it.

Joe

blank

Joe

Please go back and read my posts, and understand where they are coming from.

I stated "I will defend Terry's right to post on this board," as I do yours. No one has tried to shut Terry down, just the opposite. People are trying to understand Terry's position, so that a discussion is started. One of my the things I do not understand about a good American like you is, that you fight for Terry's right to post, the fight should be for everyone's right to post.

Terry signed on, and went on the attack with statements so false they were laughable. "Mail order bride" is just wrong for variety of reasons. The board since day one has been pretty much, challenge the candidate, leave the family out of it. Add in she is not a mail order bride, it becomes libelous.

Then we have the problem that maybe you can understand maybe not. Terry would seem to want this board shut down. I would hope that even you think that is over the top. The correct response in my small mind is that you and Terry should be recruiting more from the right to take part in the discussion. Let's use Rush for your example, the man is way over the top in my mind. But I would never try to shut him down. That is the work of fascists, not conservatives. Joe, you and I started off on the wrong foot, but face to face at Kiwanis you realized I was not Satan, just a guy with an opinion that differs. At the same time I think you realized I was more about addressing the problems of Lakewood than worrying about things out of my hands. I would think you have to agree that the paper does not represent my views.

What bothers me most is that no one including me gets paid at the Observer. This is because the group, dare I say all 415 of us are trying to address the needs of this community in this economy. This is why the schools, library and city hall have been promised a page each without outside comment. Let each of these groups of public officials put out their ideas on the table, then at least we have a base for the conversation that follows. This only makes sense, it is in my mind a decent thing to do. After all I did not elect them, WE elected them.

As far as boycotting businesses in Lakewood, it would hurt the community far more than us. What many do not know is in the early days of the paper most of the people were ready to kick in out of their pockets with no advertising, I was ready to pay 6 months of printing out of my pocket. In the end working with my lifelong friend DL Meckes, we came up with a board similar to other websites we worked on together. Extremely deep and rich boards that can almost run themselves. The reason I mention this is this board will be in this city running, long after I am gone. Do not believe me, check my/our other websites that continue to run decades after I lost interest. However as Lakewood is my home, not just to me but also my businesses, lack of interest is not going to happen. What Dan Ott and Rami have added to the program is youth and skill. So even when the old people move on to prunes at the rest home, the next wave will be approaching their 30s!

if you do not believe it look at how the board and paper has moved. I started off editor/publisher. Soon Heidi stepped up as editor, with a handful of editors ready to step up if needed, and behind them are writers, that are becoming editors. The project is now a sustainable even without the founders. The next step is so exciting it has been very hard to keep quiet about it. It has all been done without asking a single person about their political beliefs. Why, We don't care. This is again why the screams of "liberal paper" are laughable.

Go back and look at the members list. There is something I am extremely proud of, the names Mary Anne Crampton, Suzanne Metelko, Jay Foran, right next to the names Farris, Timieski, Wiltse. These are names that were featured in the last great civil war in Lakewood. Yet they all realized something this city needed a place for adults to talk, kick around ideas, without baseless/faceless attacks. A place they would be talking with someone, a human, not a faceless cartoon character, not a name that accepts no responsibility, and has no pride in their statements. Even more importantly, using real names, now the conversation is not only framed as intelligent and responsible, but is also protected by the laws of the land.

What disappoints me is that Newbies that come in from the land of faux names, go to flame. They accuse this board of censorship when there is none. Change the last name on the web address, and you are deep in the land of edited, deleted posts. How can we have a political agenda when there is no editing, or deleting. it would seem our only agenda is "Intelligent Fair Discussion" One could ask what is the agenda elsewhere, and who(the board of one) that decides it. The Lakewood Observer is nothing more than Lakewood's mirror.

Joe the one thing I know about you is that you want the best for America, and Lakewood. You want this country to be right, and sustainable. You want this country to be everything it can be, and with your membership in the groups I know you belong, like me you want to be pro-active in making Lakewood the best it can be. This, is what this project was all about and I for one am very glad you, Terry, Jim, Jeff, Joan, Jay, Suzanne, Don, Lynn, Mark, Ken and others share their time and show support. This board is Lakewood, your neighbors. This board is America, and our neighbors. This board is yours, mine and anyone else with the respect to take part.

.

Joe:

One last time, in the spirit of Kiwanian brothers seeking truth about the norms of servicable citizenship in Lakewood.

I am not attempting to silence Mr. Batdorf. On the contrary, I am inviting him, and now you, to speak the truth about how you would characterize his loaded statement.

Thus Mr. Batdorf:

"I was just matching my liberal counterparts. Fortunately, I havent sunk as low as the Bush haters that call to assassinate him. Those are your peers, open your eyes and look around."

Are these "the peers" on the LO Deck and newspaper that you see when you "open your eyes and look around?"

Read my posts carefully and you will discern the focus is very narrow, that is, on Mr. Batdorf's effort at "matching my liberal counterparts" with a statement linking "the Bush haters that call to assassinate him" to "your peers," presumably posting on the LO Observation Deck.

While Mr. Batdorf has been free in expression, his statement and inference about the LO has been put under considerable scrutiny.

You continue to evade the fundamental question that I have posed to you, my Kiwanian brother.

Does your embrace of truth justify Mr. Batdorf's statement and inference about your liberal peers and neighbors on the LO deck or demand its condemnation?

Kenneth Warren

Kenneth Warren wrote:

You continue to evade the fundamental question that I have posed to you, my Kiwanian brother.

Does your embrace of truth justify Mr. Batdorf's statement and inference about your liberal peers and neighbors on the LO deck or demand its condemnation?

Kenneth Warren

Mr. Warren (and Jim), I have not evaded this question, I don't support a boycott, I won't participate in a boycott, but am asking, once again, this type of action is done by the left all the time and not condemned (most are made heroes simply by getting on the bandwagon), what's so different about what I'm doing? I gave you numerous examples of the left doing this, which you choose not to address.
I'll make you a deal: I'll condemn Terry statement if first you and Jim make sure to condemn every statement made against conservatives on this board and make sure that new ones are condemned as they are posted.
I posted numerous examples in my last post about how the left does exactly what Terry is doing. I have been taught to accept these extreme measures as protected under our First Amendment., something that I may disagree with but have to allow anyways. Besides what I posted there, The Left condemns our president for protecting us, boos at our military, says outlandish things (some would call them lies) over and over again and I'm told to accept it as free speech. You didn't address these; Now you're pleading with me not to give Terry the same benefit of the doubt.. Can you explain why this is acceptable behavior from the left but not the right?
That is the main question I've been asking since I started posting on this thread, a question no one has yet addressed. Not only have they not addressed it, they don't see where it could be a double standard. I have asked and asked without any real answer. As soon as people on your side stop trying to have their cake and eat it too, I'll be more than happy to condemn Mr Bardorf's remarks, that I have already said I repeatedly I don't agree with.

I am simply making the argument liberals have made since I've been alive: "I don't agree with his opinion, but he has every right to make it."
Let me know when you start condemning liberal posts and I'll condemn Terry's; but make sure you continue to do this or the deal's off.

And, thanks for letting me know that the Nation's longstanding policy of civil disobedience is something to be laughed at.
Joe

Joe:

While I commend you for not participating in a boycott tainted by a lunatic and slanderous assertion about liberals posting calls for assassination on the LO deck, I will say that your post requires a shave.

Here’s Occam’s Razor: “entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.â€Â￾

For the sake of brotherhood in search of truth, I call this operation in civic discourse with you the Kiwanian cut.

The Kiwanian cut is about neither the Holy Week Boycott of the Lakewood Observer nor deal-making at the level of the lowest common ideological denominators. The Kiwanian cut is not about packing examples of lefty boycotts, and then constructing from my refusal to stitch them into a half-baked cover for Mr. Batdorf’s assertive slander, a deal between brothers.

Bottom line for the Kiwanian cut occurs between the two of us:

I condemn any statement from the right or left calling for the assassination of a President.

I condemn any assertion that our peers on the LO deck have made such statement.

Therefore I condemn Mr. Batdorf's irrational statement and slanderous inference about our liberal peers and neighbors on the LO deck.

Can you make the Kiwanian cut?

Kenneth Warren

Sounds to me like a good profer for all

Since it costs a lot to win, and even more to lose,
You and me bound to spend some time wond’rin’ what to choose.
Goes to show, you don’t ever know,
Watch each card you play and play it slow,
Wait until that deal come round,
Don’t you let that deal go down...

*taps foot and stums the guitar*

happy easter all!

"Keep on Truckin'!"

Happy Easter

Joe

You and I have one fundamental difference. I do not see everything as liberal and conservative. Maybe this is because I am both. I want the government out of our lives and to be as fiscally responsible as possible.

BUT I am very liberal on social issues, especially in this economy. People are falling through the cracks, people families do need help. And 41's thousand points of light have dimmed to handfuls of lights.

We here of the faith based initiatives, but guess what the churches in Lakewood, can sustain their level of support as cut after cut has been made to other programs.

I believe ALL American have rights and should be served by our government, not just those that can afford it.

I see the "war mongers" as being so off base and so blind they can not see the forest for the trees.

I am a conspiracy freak, and I hate to say it but go to other boards and look at my posts, you would think I am a psychic! But I am not, it was just very easy to do the math and see the future for this administration.

For some reason you have decided that all liberal views are wrong and bad for the country, and all conservative values are right. The truth always is somewhere in the middle, and that needs to be understood by all.

As far as this board, do you really think Rush would allow the pro side of a discussion about a boycott of him to stay so high on the conversation list. Or do you think he would shout it down? Have I ever asked you not to participate, or have I begged you to participate? When was the last time you begged a "liberal" to participate?

Finally, the "right" has complete control of this government and do you really think we are better off today, safer today that 6 years ago? You are way to smart to say yes.

As always thanks for taking part. Everyone letter and note is appreciated and read.

.

It occurs to me, that it seems that with every presidential administration, that same question can be asked ever since it was first "coined", and looking back, going even further in the past. Have we been better off, after ANY presidential reign, since maybe Eisenhower then Kennedy? If we had been, then wouldn't we have stuck with either one party or the other? Apparantly not, so in the most simplest terms, the ball seems to bounce back and forth, full of campaign promises, but unfulfilled or screwed up one way or the other.