ok how about you kiss my ass, cause you don't have balls to write. its an internet forum if you spell check yourself on this shit you might as well boot yourself in the balls. back off boulder and write something worth reading idiot.
you're the kid that sits back and tells everybody how to blunt when you can't even roll. so shut the fuck up.
ok how about you kiss my ass, cause you don't have balls to write. its an internet forum if you spell check yourself on this shit you might as well boot yourself in the balls. back off boulder and write something worth reading idiot.
you're the kid that sits back and tells everybody how to blunt when you can't even roll. so shut the fuck up.
Casparmike, your a special person. This is the thanks I get for helping you learn how to back surf last summer? I don't know what all the attitude is about, maybe your pissed you don't live in Colorado, the skiing has been great so far!
i'll work on learning how to write properwy in these forums, fuck, shit, balls. my name is mike, i am iwiterate, why am i such a toowl, hitting the shift key is too difficalt
Are you sure you weren't the 8 year old that ran into that old guy?
Last edited by ihateboulder; 01-08-2008 at 11:02 AM..
its an internet forum if you spell check yourself on this shit you might as well boot yourself in the balls.
Point 1: That's right, it is an internet forum. It is a place to exchange ideas, get information, state opinons, argue, etc. Or in your case deliver rambling, incoherent, nasty tirades. But if you want to be heard, you should be able to write at least a patially coherent sentance. That means peppering your rants with a few periods and commas so that people can understand your point. Otherwise, people will constantly call you out for your elementary grasp of the english language, and for generally being an idiot.
Point 2: While extremely hard to understand, I was able to gather from the jibberish that you think this guy is a total asshole. And while I hate to admit it, for once I do actually agree with your take on this situation. That guy should go kick himself in the balls.
So this was in the paper today. Richard did a good job writing this, but I don't get how my blog was censored, but Richard was able to write about it. Anyways, I find it most interesting that he says the plaintiff has other skiing related lawsuits that he has previously filed for skiing mishaps.
1st and foremost I don't have children so it would be tough for me to be a shitty parent. Secondly I don't think that this has anything to do with parenting. This seems to me an accident. Did the 8 year old have mallicious intentions to "take out the 60 year old"?
I guess what it boils down to in my opinion is that we protect children because they are incapable of protecting themselves i.e. the term parenting and the nature of animals raising their young until they are ready to go out on their own. Is it your opinion that an 8 year old is ready to leave the nest and provide for themself? Should an 8 year old be concerned as to the safety and well being of a mature 60 year old?
With that said the 60 year old should have taken action to prevent the event. Most likely being twice the size and having 6-7 times the life experience to avoid the situation he should have been able to protect himself.
I guess you missed the part where I said THIS guy sounds like a money grubbing tool, but in a hypothetical case where it WAS the 8 year old's fault I absolutely would sue. I guess you also missed the part where I said it would be the parent's responsibility, even though I said it twice in what, 5 or 6 sentences?
So to extend your rationale, if an 8 year old got into a car and ran over a senior citizen, the senior citizen should have moved to prevent the accident?
the kid couldn't have been moving fast enough to cause 75,000 in damage. do you know any 8 year olds that really are out of control? that age would be more like 12-14. if anybody sees this dude i hope they give him karma, from the fist to the face!
So I'm still kind of pissed that the Daily didn't run my blog entry about the case. The editor said that it was too sensitive a topic, etc. Anyways, here is my response, we'll see if they run it.
Don’t Read This Blog! Vail Daily Censoring Blog Entries
blog(n.) Short for Web log, a blog is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily, blogs often reflect the personality of the author. (Webopedia.com)
I’ve been censored by the Vail Daily.
Yes, that’s right. I’m coming right out and saying it. Censored. Even the word itself seems like an obscenity to a journalist or a newspaper publisher. Maybe it is even too controversial a topic to make it to press (or to the e-equivalent). Playing the censorship card feels like a cliché. First amendment, freedom of speech blah blah blah.
Most of us played the ‘ol freedom of speech card as soon as we learned about the Bill of Rights in elementary school. I believe I used it when defending myself after talking back to my parents as a new know-it-all 5th grader. “But Mom! Telling him he’s a butt-face is my legal right! It’s the FIRST amendment, look it up! It’s the one about freedom of speech!”
While my days of dramatically claiming censorship every time my parents told me to shut up are over, I must admit that I was taken aback when I submitted a blog entry, and got a response from the managing editor, Alex Miller, that it would not be allowed to run. The blog entry was regarding a cover story from the Vail Daily entitled “Boy, 8, sued in Beaver Creek ski collision”. (Click here for that story)
I felt strongly about this article. It sparked something in me that inspired me to create a blog entry voicing my opinion about the story. I sat down and whipped up my thoughts on what I had just read. The title was “Pick on Someone Your Own Size”. I will admit that my writing wasn’t that good, the piece was cynical, and my response was pretty inflammatory towards one of the people in the story. My understanding is that as (volunteer) bloggers, we were meant to write about our views on local issues, and be sort of an online voice for the local community. For me, it was a good way to practice my writing skills, and test the waters of a new hobby. By definition, a blog is a type of journal, a communication to the rest of the world, whether anyone is listening or not. The format of blogs can vary widely, and basically it fall somewhere between rambling in a journal and op-ed journalism. That’s why I was surprised when I got this back after submitting my piece:
Thanks for your blog entry but given the litigious nature of the party in question and some of the colorful assertions you've put in here, I'm going to pass. If you'd like to take another stab at it and talk about these kinds of suits in general -- and not focus your attack solely on this one guy -- I'd have another look.
Thanks
--
Alex Miller
Managing Editor
Vail Daily | Vail Trail
I won’t bore you with the details, but I responded back and forth, and basically the gist of the conversation was: yes, blogs are screened for content, and my topic and stance was too controversial and risky to be associated with the paper. No, you can’t write about what you think about the specific case, try writing about these types of cases in general.
What?!
Since when did newspapers shy away from writing commentaries on legal cases? What about all that stuff about O.J. and Michael Jackson? Surely I wasn’t the first person to write something opinionated about someone involved in a law suit. Was I?
Maybe I was. After a while, I decided to let it go, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth. I didn’t want to write about ridiculous lawsuits in general. I wanted to write about the one in the paper. I could have lived with just about any other reason for not posting it. I figured “you write at a 7th grade level” would suffice just fine.
While the original cover story inspired me to write “Pick on Someone Your Own Size”, Richard Carnes’s editorial, “Sue no longer means Mom” (Read it here) inspired me to write this. Richard’s piece was outstanding and hit the nail on the head for what seemed like most of the readers I spoke to. It was a total grand slam in my opinion (hopefully my opinion isn’t the “wrong” one). I even read the entire thing, despite my tendency to get bored or lost by the second paragraph of editorial pieces.
What inspired me wasn’t that it was such a well written piece (it was) but the content. Richard’s take on the case was exactly the same as mine, only expressed more convincingly (he even mentions picking on someone your own size). The question is, why was Richard’s hard-line take on the story acceptable, but for my blog, the topic was too controversial? What were the real reasons behind my blog being cut? At first I thought the Daily was just being chicken, but now it smells more like something fishy.
The Daily even did an “Our View” editorial by Tamara Miller (here) with more opinions regarding this story.
I imagine if blogs are being screened for controversial content, this entry I give you today may never make it past my outbox. I hope I am wrong. Newspapers and magazines love to print editorial content from someone complaining about some aspect of their publication. It makes them appear to be more credible and balanced by showing that they are willing to accept both sides of the story—the good with the bad.
__________________ It takes a big man to cry...It takes an even bigger man to laugh at that man.
Linear Mode
