Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 14 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Thanks!
[Read the article: Big love]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you, Josh, for standing up for us big girls. I've been blissfully married for 11 years to a man who always thought he wanted a thin woman until one day he realized he wanted me and didn't care what kind of package I came in. It's not always been easy - sometimes it's downright difficult, but his willingness to love me in spite of my size is probably the greatest gift anyone has given me. Julie is quite lucky you found her - and it's wonderful that you consider yourself lucky she found you!
-
Lame Ad
[Read the article: Flash! Lame political ad never airs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is anyone familiar with David Zuker's political leanings outside of this ad? I ask because that ad is so incredibly bad that I almost have to wonder if perhaps he isn't a liberal and made the ad that bad deliberately so as to waste the GOP's money by giving them something they would never be able to air. Or maybe I just hope that's the case since I've usually been a fan of Zuker's work and I'd be very disappointed to find out he's (a) a Republican and (b) willing to turn out that level of crap as a serious attempt at something.
I also find it rather amusing that the GOP keeps hounding on how "the Democrats" had their chance for 8 years to keep North Korea from making nuclear weapons. Gee, guess what, guys? During that entire time, they didn't make ANY! It wasn't until "the Republicans" took over that North Korea actually got a bomb built. Hmmmm.... whose policy was more effective again?
-
Big Dig ad
[Read the article: Political ad contest: The best -- or worst?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's, uh... very interesting. I'll give it that. It made me laugh, that's for sure, but I don't know that it would make me vote. However, whenever I hear that phrase from now on, I'll have a great mental image to go with it! LOL
-
The problem with the OJ book/interview
[Read the article: Memo to O.J.: Kill yourself]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even though OJ Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal trial, a civil trial DID find him liable for the deaths and the jury ordered him to pay Ron Goldman's family over $30 million dollars. Simpson has sworn that he will never voluntarily pay Goldman's family a penny, and will do whatever he can to prevent them from being able to place a claim on any of his profits from the book and interview. Whether or not he actually committed the murders, by refusing to pay a lawfully obtained judgment against him, he is violating the law and anyone who airs the interview or promotes the book will be helping him to do so. He had the option to appeal the civil verdict if he felt that it was in error or unfair, but he chose not to, and thus is required make good on the award granted to the Goldman family.
Judith Regan may be quite sincere in saying that she is motivated by a desire to see some measure of justice for herself, Nicole and other abused women, but this isn't the way to accomplish that. Even if we assume that he's guilty and that what he says in the book is exactly what happened, he's still not taking any responsibility whatsoever for his actions, and in paying him for the book and interview, knowing (as she must - everyone else does) that he has no intention of paying anything to the Goldman family, she is actually HELPING him to evade the one small measure of justice that has been granted to his victims. All that is being accomplished is that the Goldman and Brown families have to, once again, have a terribly personal and painful tragedy splashed across the papers and television where they will be hard-pressed to ignore the hype and publicity surrounding the book and interview, and OJ gets to, once again, be in the center of the spotlight, getting attention and flaunting the probability that he got away with murder.
-
Second Life
[Read the article: Is virtual rape a crime?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In Second Life, communities are allowed to create rules for their various communities, and the owners and administrators of those communities have the power to enforce those rules - and, if they want their community to be successful - they will. There are a variety of options to use for penalties, including totally banning the law-breaker from that community's land.
Yes, there are areas that could best be described as "lawless," where ANYTHING goes, but no one is forced to go into those communities, and if you wander into one inadvertently, you can teleport back out immediately. In addition, most of these communities will provide an avatar with a notecard describing how their area functions before the avatar can enter the area and be endangered, so you can avoid actually going into the area all together.
Additionally, in my experience, anytime an you go to equip an object that would take control of your avatar's actions, or anytime one that doesn't need to be equipped is near enough to be able to affect your avatar, you get a drop-down box asking for your confirmation that you want to let the object control your avatar. Even if you say yes, however, it doesn't control ALL of your avatars actions - you can still walk or run away, teleport out of the area, and either detatech the item, so it will stop controlling you, or use a "Stop Animations" function to cancel the effects of a nearby controller object. Lastly, you cannot be teleported into an area without your permission, so if you know someone is trouble, you can reject any teleporter requests from them.