Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/21/17 9:28 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/21/17 12:49 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/20/17 11:47 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017 18:31:50 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/20/17 2:59 PM, wrote:

Yeah, I was a people person back then. You were a back room machine person.

I am sure I met more people in my average day than you did, fetching
coffee for the real news writers. I am sure if we could ask Truman who
he had lunch with that day, your name would not come up. He might
remember there was a "gofer" there but I doubt he would remember much
more. Did you read him something someone else wrote, like you do here?


Heheheh. What a little mind you have.

You certainly seem to keep your intelligence under a box.



That you think I was a "gofer" at The Star is hilarious. I was a
full-fledged reporter from my first day at the paper, and after my short
indoctrination to learn the paper's style book, I spent my time there as
a street reporter, general assignment reporter, and feature story
writer. My last year there, after my reportorial assignment work was
done for the evening, I moved over to the copy desk, where I edited and
marked up copy for typesetting, and in my last six months, before I was
recruited by the Associated Press, I was acting World News Editor
because the actual World News Editor had taken a year's leave and
suggested to the managing editor of the paper that I fill in in his
absence. I was an AP Newsman and then an AP Chief of Bureau. I met
interesting people throughout my news career and, of course, afterwards.

I don't bother to do much enterprise writing here. It's a waste of
effort, what with the plethora of no-nothings and what-about-itis
posters like you.


They must have had low standards to hire an untrained person as a full
reporter.


Where did you get the idea I was "untrained" as a reporter? I needed to
learn the paper's style book, which had a number of Star peculiarities,
such as never referring to a car as anything but a "motor car," and at
least 100 more of those kinds of descriptors. I'd been a "stringer" for
the paper for almost a year, and was recommended for the summer job by a
journalism professor who was pretty well connected at the paper, even
though I had only taken a couple of courses in the j-school because my
majors were in the college of liberal arts. As soon as I got to the
paper, I started writing under the tutelage of the assistant night
editor, who helped me get started on the right foot. By the end of that
summer, I was offered a regular full-time job tailored to my remaining
college class schedule. I worked five nights a week, from 4:30 pm to
12:30 am, with Wednesday and Saturday off, on the morning Star which,
for convenience sake, was called the Kansas City Times. Funny thing was,
the circulation of the Times back then was greater than that of the Star.

Whatever the standards were, I'm sure they were higher than whatever
standards you faced for your first professional job. Every summer, the
paper got hundreds of applicants for the two summer jobs. I got one of
them. The other guy was hired by the PM paper...we shared a desk,
typewriter, and, of course, spittoon.

Here's a picture of The Star building...

http://tinyurl.com/y73a322k

The presses used to be on the building on the right, but they've been
moved to another facility.


You even admit you did not have a journalism degree. As to a style book,
does not make a reporter. As to professional qualifications, mine were a
lot higher than yours.



The ability to be nosy, to be able to research, and the ability to write
are the usual requirements for a new reporter. A journalism degree is
neither required nor necessary. The first day on my job at The Star, the
day city editor told me to "forget anything you learned at
J-school...we'll teach you our way." Fortunately, I had taken only a
couple of courses at journalism school, one of which, typography, was of
no use at the paper, but useful later in life, so there was little to
forget. I took the J-school courses to be closer to my sweetie at the
time, a delicious redhead who did graduate from j-school.

What was that saying at the engineering school...oh, year... "Yesterday,
I couldn't spell engineer, but today I are one."


Sounds like a Liberal Arts saying about engineers.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/21/17 9:28 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/21/17 1:47 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:49:04 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:


They must have had low standards to hire an untrained person as a full
reporter.

I guess they had the journalistic standards of an interstate rest stop
bathroom wall, based on the writing we see here.


I've stated this many times: I see no reason to waste any time or effort
on the writing of posts for this pigpen.


So, proof you are intellectually lazy.



No, Bilious, it isn't "proof" of anything like that.


Proof.

On 8/22/17 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 09:37:09 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/21/17 11:44 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:01:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

I guess they had the journalistic standards of an interstate rest stop
bathroom wall, based on the writing we see here.


I've stated this many times: I see no reason to waste any time or effort
on the writing of posts for this pigpen.

Sounds like a pretty lame excuse for the supposed word smith you
profess to be.
Real writers write. bull****ters bull ****.



What it it *sounds like* to you is of no concern to me. As I have stated
many times, I am not interested in your whataboutery or whataboutitis,
nor in your direct and indirect support for extreme right-wingery, or
the fact you apparently believe there are *nice* Nazis or KKK'ers.

Sadly, you are the best of the right-wing bunch in here, when it comes
to any sort of political or current events discussion.

I just said the racists were better behaved in Charlottesville than
the BLM/antifa people and that is easily seen, simply by what did not
happen.


Yeah, except for the Republican-NAZI-KKK'er who ran over the woman, eh?

Several accounts I read stated the righties were not following in a
significant way the terms of their permit. In any event, the righties
were chanting some pretty horrible ****, and they certainly were trying
to see who they could egg on. Oh, and their lovely interviews added to
the problem.

The righties, despite what Trump claimed, *DID NOT* have a permit for
their activities. According to the city:

The City agreed to issue the applicant for the “Unite the Right� rally a
permit for McIntire Park rather than Emancipation Park. The applicant
chose to file a lawsuit to go to Emancipation instead. The judge issued
an injunction late Friday ordering the City to allow the event to take
place in Emancipation Park. This quick turnaround, and the court order,
meant that a formal permit for the event was not issued. The City did
comply with the court’s direction.

The counter-protestors did have permits, but for a different space.
According to a law professor, no permit was needed for them to be in
Emancipation Park because it is a public space, a point backed up by the
city government.

Be that as it may, I find it disgusting that anyone decent would give
"shelter" to the NAZI-KKK'ers for any reason. There are limits to free
speech, and these Trump supporters go way beyond them. They knew better
than to pull their crap in Boston, though...the KKK-NAZIs were
hopelessly outnumber and if they started up their usual crap, they might
have been slaughtered.

I still am enjoying the "outing" of the right-wing pigs in terms of
theme being disowned by family members, losing their jobs, and being
"afraid."

Many decades ago, George Lincoln Rockwell showed up at the Kansas campus
for a perfectly legal presentation of his typical college hate talk. He
was using a blackboard and chalk in the student union to draw a
cartoonish picture of a Jew, complete with a very large nose. One of my
proudest college moments was shouting out, "How about Pinocchio, you
asshole, was he Jewish?" Well, that broke up the audience, and that
particular NAZI pig was not able to continue, because virtually everyone
was laughing at him.

I'm not sure whether it is legal to call out Donald Trump, as in "Hey,
Trump, you're a lying, ignorant asshole...why don't you quit?" That
seems okay, maybe, but of course physically threatening him is not.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:18:20 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/21/17 9:28 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 8/21/17 1:47 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2017 16:49:04 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:


They must have had low standards to hire an untrained person as a full
reporter.

I guess they had the journalistic standards of an interstate rest stop
bathroom wall, based on the writing we see here.


I've stated this many times: I see no reason to waste any time or effort
on the writing of posts for this pigpen.


So, proof you are intellectually lazy.



No, Bilious, it isn't "proof" of anything like that.


Proof.

Hard to prove an event that did not occur.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:26:42 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

cIntire Park rather than Emancipation Park. The applicant
chose to file a lawsuit to go to Emancipation instead. The judge issued
an injunction late Friday ordering the City to allow the event to take
place in Emancipation Park. This quick turnaround, and the court order,
meant that a formal permit for the event was not issued. The City did
comply with the court’s direction.

The counter-protestors did have permits, but for a different space.

Then they didn't have a permit to be where they were. The court gave
the nazis their permit.
I know you don't like courts when they disagree with you tho.
In fact it was your buddies, the anti war protestors who gave the
nazis the right to march. When the draft protestors went to court to
overturn SCHENCK v. U.S. it became legal to "cry fire in a crowded
theater" and to use language that might present "a clear and present
danger" (both phrases coming from Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Schenck
decision).
As long as the message is wrapped in a political context, you can
march and say any "****ing" thing you want
("****" being protected speech too, coming from another decision
about war/draft protestors)
Rockwell used those decisions to fight for his Skokie march and I
assume came up in the Charlottesville case.
You really have to be careful what you wish for when you pursue
unpopular free speech suits.

On 8/22/17 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:26:42 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

cIntire Park rather than Emancipation Park. The applicant
chose to file a lawsuit to go to Emancipation instead. The judge issued
an injunction late Friday ordering the City to allow the event to take
place in Emancipation Park. This quick turnaround, and the court order,
meant that a formal permit for the event was not issued. The City did
comply with the court’s direction.

The counter-protestors did have permits, but for a different space.

Then they didn't have a permit to be where they were. The court gave
the nazis their permit.
I know you don't like courts when they disagree with you tho.
In fact it was your buddies, the anti war protestors who gave the
nazis the right to march. When the draft protestors went to court to
overturn SCHENCK v. U.S. it became legal to "cry fire in a crowded
theater" and to use language that might present "a clear and present
danger" (both phrases coming from Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Schenck
decision).
As long as the message is wrapped in a political context, you can
march and say any "****ing" thing you want
("****" being protected speech too, coming from another decision
about war/draft protestors)
Rockwell used those decisions to fight for his Skokie march and I
assume came up in the Charlottesville case.
You really have to be careful what you wish for when you pursue
unpopular free speech suits.


I'm aware of the legalities for these marches, but I don't have to agree
with granting permits to actual hate groups with a long history of
violence and whose marchers openly carry firearms, wear masks, and
obviously are itching for a fight. Obviously, it is difficult to draw a
line, but there shouldn't be any doubt about the Klan or the NAZIs.

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 16:07:29 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 8/22/17 3:17 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 14:26:42 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

cIntire Park rather than Emancipation Park. The applicant
chose to file a lawsuit to go to Emancipation instead. The judge issued
an injunction late Friday ordering the City to allow the event to take
place in Emancipation Park. This quick turnaround, and the court order,
meant that a formal permit for the event was not issued. The City did
comply with the court’s direction.

The counter-protestors did have permits, but for a different space.

Then they didn't have a permit to be where they were. The court gave
the nazis their permit.
I know you don't like courts when they disagree with you tho.
In fact it was your buddies, the anti war protestors who gave the
nazis the right to march. When the draft protestors went to court to
overturn SCHENCK v. U.S. it became legal to "cry fire in a crowded
theater" and to use language that might present "a clear and present
danger" (both phrases coming from Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Schenck
decision).
As long as the message is wrapped in a political context, you can
march and say any "****ing" thing you want
("****" being protected speech too, coming from another decision
about war/draft protestors)
Rockwell used those decisions to fight for his Skokie march and I
assume came up in the Charlottesville case.
You really have to be careful what you wish for when you pursue
unpopular free speech suits.


I'm aware of the legalities for these marches, but I don't have to agree
with granting permits to actual hate groups with a long history of
violence and whose marchers openly carry firearms, wear masks, and
obviously are itching for a fight. Obviously, it is difficult to draw a
line, but there shouldn't be any doubt about the Klan or the NAZIs.

That applies equally to BLM and antifa. Unfortunately they all have
more rights than a sane person would give them. Thanks 60s guys.