Comments by samkiefer
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on August 19 at 10:19 a.m.
wow... i've never seen my statements misconstrued like that olson736... and I have no affiliation with PEG access. it just seems like a whole lot of confusion all around. The movie WILL bring any PERCEIVED negative light no matter what, and we're still going to be stuck holding the bill on this building unless Anderson and Co. come through with this business college. Kaufman stated repeatedly that the film will NOT portray the treatment center in a negative light and even offered to sign an anonymity contract to protect the interests of fergus falls and the CDG. My point was any perceived negativity is going to happen regardless of whether they film here or anywhere else, and I would have liked to see us at least take the money while it was on the table. and positively perham is right. the actual history speaks volumes.
If any parent was on the fence to the point where a low budget movie that will likely have a hard time getting distributed out of state can make their decision for them... Then they would already have been dissuaded by the ACTUAL history of the RTC. I'd rather know my dorm room had a girl in ghost makeup walking through, than know the little I know about what actually happened there.
Posted on August 13 at 1:08 p.m.
I was there for the interview... it was actually a different monkey that riding a border collie that was "Whiplash" the monkey in the taco john's commercial.
"hang my hat at home on the outskirts of Tupelo, MS." is the quote on Tim's website www.teamghostriders.com
Posted on June 9 at 10:05 a.m.
I have to agree with all of these congratulations. I was riding in a car for the route they ran, and that was enough to tire me out.
Posted on May 20 at 10:14 a.m.
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.
Posted on May 16 at 5:23 p.m.
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 on May 16 at 5:04 p.m.
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 on May 16 at 4:15 p.m.
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 on May 16 at 3:05 p.m.
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.
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on August 19 at 3:10 p.m.
chipper072, at 23 years old I don't deny that I have a lot of growing up to do, but a simple look at your posting history shows that you are not a great example of how an adult should act. making personal attacks does not bring much to your arguments against this film. So far, in your eight post two week history on the Daily Journal comment boards you have tried to pick on six people and tried to get all comments removed from the site twice, and only on stories pertaining to the RTC film project by Kaufman. really makes me question your motives... but by all means stick to personal attacks and questioning whether a free and open discourse on the subject is good for the (your?) CDG project.
On Council votes down RTC film