- David Pearce
- February 13, 2013 - 11:19
Yeah, Wakem's a classy guy, no mistake; now if only he could write.
- Aunt Lizzie
- February 12, 2013 - 10:54
If profanity is the best way you can think of to express yourself, then you must lack either vocabulary or imagination, or both. There are plenty of powerful words in the English language that can be used to express any fact or opinion with devastating force and clarity, without resorting to profanity. As a supposed journalist, Mr. Wakeham, perhaps you should take the time to learn some of these words - and so should Randy Simms.
- aubrey smith
- February 09, 2013 - 19:11
Come on now Bob,you know Randy Simms is the best of the VOCM hosts .He has a broad municipal experience , years of air time, is feisty when necessary and is a damn good debater and very intelligent .Personally though I am not a great admirer of Randy because of an incident some years ago with a lady from St. John's whom he unjustly besmirched by asociation .I wrote him and asked him to aplogize but he wasn't man enough to hold up to his mistake in that incident .Yet, despite his hubris, I can admire his positive points. Signed Aubrey Smith GFW,NL
- Herb Morrison
- February 09, 2013 - 12:20
Nowisee. What George Carlin's material may have lacked in the area of taste, there was a lot more truth than humor in some of the things he said.
- Winston Adams
- February 09, 2013 - 12:15
Bob, your views here are mostly correct , I beleive. Swearing is a minor offense compared to the others you cite. But it seems to me that you're anti- religous positiion can get confused, by the reader, with anti - Christain views. But your views suggest to me that, at the core, beyond that gruff tough image, you are on the way to the true understanding of the teachings of Christ. Not St Paul, certainly. I may be wrong, of course.
- February 09, 2013 - 10:27
Just for the sake of argument, how would you or anyone else possibly react to the following scenario: Your task at hand is to discuss important issues with someone in a postion of legitimate authority and influence over his group. Now for whatever reason, say the person put in this position actually has very little skill or ability to advance or defend a point of view in an objective, rational or consistent way, and he or she has no desire or incentive to be perceived as amicable or conciliatory. In fact, past precedent clearly indicates that this group and this leader much prefer to antagonize, provoke and threaten than to reasonably and rationally exchange ideas. Now ..... how might YOUR interview with this person go ?
- February 09, 2013 - 10:14
Anyone who has to use a quote from George Carlin should not be writing articles for a newspaper.