Posted by otterfan (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is free speech constantly being attacked. If you don't like to read the comments than don't scroll down to that section. Pretty simple.

Posted by mrssaf (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Typical Fergus Falls and FFDJ... don't like something, shut it down, forget the US Constitution and the rights that come with it. Unless you are Fergus elite that is...

Posted by justme (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

touche.

I'd like to also take this opportunity to inquire about the new warning statement just recently attached to the comments section. Did you obtain permission from the St. Paul Pioneer Press to use it - verbatum, except for the insertion of your publication and location, or did you come up with it yourself? Pretty clever.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding your “Editors Note” above, while that may be true in this instance, there are many editorials in the Fergus Falls Daily that are unsigned by anyone and therefore anonymous. One such example is your unsigned, anonymous editorial from May 14th, (yesterday) entitled “Music Deserves Saving”.

Posted by OhYou (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, chiparooski...you're just asking for it. Every time you state fact, poof! Your comment is gone.

For some reason, the FFDJ seems to like bickering. They envoke most of it. A little creepy, isn't it?

Posted by thethinker (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is freedom of religion and speech such a childish endevour? I am an adult and let me share with some of you what I do if I don't like certain things.
I do not like country music (rock-n-roll, baby!). In my opinion, it all sounds the same and it is annoying. When it is on the radio, I turn it off or change the station. Shocking, I know. I also do not like several shows on the TV. Much like the radio, when a show comes on that I do not like, I either turn off the TV or change the channel. Again, shocking. Certain sports are as boring as watching paint dry (like soccer and the NBA). I choose - like adults should - not to watch them. This pattern also applies to books, magazines, newspapers, talk shows, etc. If you don't like something just avoid it instead of complaining about it and asking for it to be removed. Most questionable events or things in life can be handled this way - but in America, if a few people don't like something it must be banned so the minority view is not trampled. Sad.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

On a related issue (newspaper incompetence) perhaps someone, perhaps the editor , could explain how (in your “multimedia section”) students “conglomerated” at the Ottertail County Museum.

Posted by Vampire (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey chip, did you ever think that students in Fergus Falls are being taught more than we thought?

Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i was wondering in the leter to the editor section why do all the letters have add a comment section except this one?
"City administrator out of touch, overpaid"

Posted by Redcloud (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Because rodentboy, you can't comment on city government here unless it is to heap praise on the city or it's departments. Silly boy!!! Chipmunk made his last post here at 8:27 p.m. I wonder what will come first, chips post being chipmunked or "conglomerated" removed and replaced with the approproiate word.

Posted by tracy (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:58 p.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by jhage (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Regarding "There are many editorials in the Fergus Falls Daily that are unsigned by anyone and therefore anonymous. One such example is your unsigned, anonymous editorial from May 14th, (yesterday) entitled “Music Deserves Saving”.

Basic newspaper structure goes like this. An editorial, in almost every newspaper across the nation, is the opinion of the newspaper. They are written by members of the editorial board. Editorials are not signed, because as editorials, they are the opinion of the editorial board. Every editorial ever written in this newspaper has been written by a member of that board - the same goes for the Star Tribune, Fargo Forum or any other newspaper. Once again, editorials need not be signed because they are the opinion of the newspaper.

The writing at issue in this letter to the editor is an opinion column. We run one every day on the editorial page. These are the opinions of one person. Tom Hintgen writes on Mondays, Alan Linda on Tuesday, Jerry Ness on Wednesday, Debbie Irmen on Thursday, myself on Friday and Joel Myhre on Saturday. With these opinion columns, not only are they signed pieces, but include our photos, as well.

To sum things up:

1) All editorials are written, and have always been written, by a member of the editorial board. Editorials express the opinion of this newspaper. It's that simple.

2) Columns are opinion pieces that express the views of an individual writer. The writers of columns are clearly identified.

Jeff Hage, editor
The Daily Journal

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 11:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Newspapers can not have an opinion anymore than my car or house can have an opinion, they are not human and therefore can not have an opinion. Only living humans can have an opinion. Editorials that are unsigned, are anonymous by their very nature and lack of a signature. Your editorial board simply provides cover for individual employees who wish to express an opinion without a signature, thus depriving the reading public of the opportunity to discern a conflict of interest. Many newspapers across this nation have come to the same conclusion and now sign editorials. But since you were explaining the inner workings of your system why did you not explain your reason for removing Tracy’s comment? Tracy’s comment violated none of the parameters contained in your so-called disclaimer. Her comment was witty and timely, but I suspect you also do not understand the meaning of the word “conglomerated” and therefore thought it must be something nasty and should be removed and so rather than accept Tracy’s good natured joke and correct your mistake elsewhere on the front page you took the easy way out and removed Tracy’s comment.
Excuse me, I should not have said “You” removed it, it was removed by the “site staff”, tell me is the site staff the same body as the editorial board?

Posted by ffprofessor (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 11:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Listening to Jeff Hage attempt to justify anonymous editorials is like listening to Rush Limbaugh describe the “Swan Lake ballet” to one of his blind dittoheads. Come on Jeff, do the right thing, change “conglomerated” to something else, tell whoever wrote it to do better next time and leave little Tracy alone.

Posted by sweetpea (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to know……who did Tracy defame?,….who did Tracy attack?……who or what did Tracy abuse?….who did Tracy threaten?

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd like to know who wrote the headline "City administrator out of touch, overpaid" - the letter does not even mention the City administrator and there was no reference to compensation.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

alright, well for the record, conglomerated was me... and though it might not have been the best

con·glom·er·ate (kn-glm-rt)
v. con·glom·er·at·ed, con·glom·er·at·ing, con·glom·er·ates
v.intr.
1. To form or gather into a mass or whole.

(source: www.thefreedictionary.com)

when students "form or gather" into a "mass"... such as, if you watch the video, in front of pierre the pioneer there, they would be conglomerating at the museum in my opinion... sorry if you found that truly confusing, but I stand by my word choice, even though someone else changed it.

Posted by yepUbetchya (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All of this humor aside, I think the real travesty here is that the paper, and its staff, misused the word MURDER to sell its papers. wasn't that deemed improper by the Courts? That kid, took, destroyed, or harvested that cat. He is in no way a murderer, nor should he be labeled a murderer. So, when we get past the humor of who has the right to say what, we should stop and look at what D. Erman called that kid and think about whether that was proper journalism. Ted Bundy - murderer. that boy - no.

Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

i kind of like this Sam Kiefer guy. at least he owns up to his mistakes and or explains what and why he does stuff. i have seen it a couple other times here.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm feeling the love rodentboy. Thanks. When you go to enough student gatherings, "students gather" gets a little boring... I was just trying to spice things up for all of us. (mostly me)

Posted by sweetfergusgirl (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam, I think you're doing a fine job. You can't please everyone, especially any of the people posting on here apparently. Just keep up the good work.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

also in defense of Debbie, and because I'm in a copy paste mood, per www.dictionary.com (tossing things up again)

mur·der Audio Help /ˈmɜrdər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mur-der] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.

if you look to line five... I think we can all agree that a stabbing in that context is, by the definition of barbarous, both savage and cruel... so perhaps, just maybe, even though you don't agree with it, the word is correct in its context. (and let's not rag on my grammar... I make videos... I know I'm bad with commas)

Posted by rodentboy (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sam, does that mean you will quit deleting me?

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wish... though I have the power to delete comments, I have yet to do so, and I'll try to keep the streak alive. Now, as to what others do, that is beyond my control.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Conglomerated, = made up of different businesses: made up of and controlling many parts of an industry a "conglomerated corporation".

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the streak will continue forever... bring up unused powers and they will likely go away... also, thanks sweetfergusgirl, even though a statement like that seems pretty in line with your user name, it seems I'll never grow tired of kind words... I know I haven't yet.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

funny how American English works, and one word can have multiple definitions, isn't it?

Posted by yepUbetchya (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

kind of like Pompous. adj. 1. suggesting ostentatious display. 2. marked by pretention or self-importance. 3. bombastic. 4. Sam Kiefer.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry if I came off that way, it just seems odd to rag on someone for what turns out, by dictionary definition, is in fact proper use of a verb. Then after the dictionary definition has been provided, after the verbiage has been changed anyway, to go back at it and bring your own non cited definition to the party. Maybe I'm pompous, but at least I cite my sources, so if the shoe fits...

Posted by yepUbetchya (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now you are calling me pompous? I was not disputing the definition of the word murder, I was challenging that the choice of that word was to incite anger. i.e., to yell fire in a crowded theatre. A kid murdered a cat. Murder? No. That was my point from the beginning, of which you and so many others want to overlook. Maybe if I put it this way, again: The next time you sit down to eat, order at a restaurant, or purchase at a store - all the Murdered chickens, cows, pigs, ducks and fish. There is nothing humane about our great country's feed lots, turkey farms, fish farms, slaughter houses. Bottom line, it was a poorly chosen word.

I cited, without identification, a dictionary. But since you have brought about that point, maybe you should rethink your demand before you make demands for citation and sources. I have read the FFDJ, there is alot of room for improvement. sorry.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was actually referring to the chipmunk definition of conglomerated, at least your definition looked like it was from a dictionary... that's close enough for me most days... it seems to me the difference, at least in my mind, between cows and pigs raised for slaughter, being lead to slaughter, and chasing around and stabbing a cat in its home are pretty evident, and I'm not a cat person. Now as to the choice to incite anger, or as you claimed earlier sell papers, that seems a little tough from page four. Also, as noted by the:

"Editor’s note: Unlike the blogs, Debbie Irmen shared her opinion and put her name to it. That's what you do in an opinion column on an editorial page."

It was an opinion column... on the editorial page.
lighten up a little, will ya Francis? It might not have been a murder in your opinion, but I'm willing to bet, as it was in Debbie Irmen's opinion column, that it is murder in HER opinion.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and I wasn't calling you pompous, I was actually agreeing with you that sometimes I am guilty of Bombastic language. And you're guilty of making me more verbose, by adding Bombastic to my vocabulary.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I got my definition from the dictionary on Microsoft Works Word Processor. Sam Kiefer got his from the Thesaurus on the same processor. Either way the use of the word conglomerated to describe students gathering is pretentious. I will agree with rodentboy that it is refreshing and almost unprecedented for a Fergus Falls Daily employee to come forward with a defense, congratulations. I’m still waiting for someone to tell us why Tracy’s comment was deleted. Until then I will (justifiably) assume it was for spite, in as much as it violated none of the proscribed conditions of posting.

Posted by tracy (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who are you calling “Francis”?

Posted by tracy (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really don’t mind having my comment chipmunked, it just shows how little minds work.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's nice that you assume I use a thesaurus, because there is NO WAY I could come up with a word like that on my own... as free thinking and verbosity have no place at a small town paper... obviously. And though it might seem pretentious to you chipmunk, and I'm not surprised that it does, that seems a large shift from "newspaper incompetence" (Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 15, 2008 at 8:27 p.m.), which to me means something completely different from pretentious, but then again I'd have to check my thesaurus/dictionary to be sure.

Also as a side note, I work on videos, which is generally a Mac/OS sort of thing. There is no Microsoft word processing involved in my day... ever... so I'd have to take a trip and visit someone that's running MS Works to actually have access to those utilities.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sam, when I use the word incompetence I was referring to your boss, when I use the word pretentious I was referring to the word, “conglomeration”. When I use the words arrogant or ignorance or witless or pompous I will again be referring to your boss, as he has done much to deserve such labels. Thus far, you do not qualify for such labels.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok... I was just a little confused in how my "pretentious" use of conglomeration was in fact an example of editorial incompetence... Still am to be honest, as it was held up as an example of incompetence last night at 8:27PM by you, and yet now, it's become pretentious, which I agree with. Next time I will work to bring my verbiage down to the appropriate reading level, as obviously my ostentatious language needs to be stopped.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don’t want to beat this to death, it was incompetence until you explained and defended yourself, then it became merely pretentious.

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 16, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well then you should probably concede that I shouldn't have needed to explain and defend myself as it was just as pretentious yesterday as it is today. I take serious issue with incompetence being associated with me. Pretentious, pompous, conceited, grandiose... these are words I am familiar with in reference to me, and will accept wholeheartedly. I'd actually take a lot of other adjectives before incompetent.

Posted by chipmunk (anonymous) on May 16, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, you win, I will now concede that your were pretentious yesterday and today, and incompetent both days. Happy now?

Posted by luvmyboys (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Self-absorbed" could be a word to use too. Good grief, someone likes to see their words in writing. Although your definition is accurate, it was incorrectly used. The word should have been "congregated". Take defeat, and go write on something else. Your MANY paragraphs above are becoming "redundant" (-adjective: 1. verbosity or UNNECESSARY REPETITION in expressing ideas) YAAAAWWWNNNN.

Posted by daidres (anonymous) on May 17, 2008 at 10:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Like I said, this needs to be cleaned up, on both ends!

Posted by heylunchlady (anonymous) on May 18, 2008 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What I find disturbing is that people are so hung up on word definitions, they miss the point entirely: If someone broke into my house, chased anything around with a knife and shed blood on my carpet, I would want that individual to go to jail. Furthermore, is the Daily Journal or its blogs required reading? Some of you critics of grammar and word usage ought to go back to school, become editors, and start a paper of your own in your free time. I am all in favor of free speech. I am also in favor of taking responsibility for your speech (and actions) and owning your opinions by identifying yourself instead of posting jabs and insults under the cover of anonymity. --Dawn Synstelien

Posted by GrammarNazi (anonymous) on May 19, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think the "conglomerated" dispute may be one of denotation (by-the-book dictionary definition) versus connotation (commonly understood meaning). While "conglomerated" may be an acceptable denotation in Mr. Kiefer's original sentence, I think it lacks a bit in terms of connotation. When I think of conglomeration, I think of small water droplets coming together to form one larger droplet, or mass. The sentence as originally written made me imagine the students congealing and being transformed into one massive 50-foot, 10-ton student, which would have been something to see.

Posted by bucksteel (anonymous) on May 19, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Kind of like the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man in "Ghostbusters".

Posted by samkiefer (Sam Kiefer) on May 20, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

For the record, that's how I saw them. Also, the Howard Huntsberry version of Higher and Higher was playing inside my head...

and they were covered in ectoplasm.