- James McNulty
- June 23, 2012 - 10:31
It's sad that people still think they have a right not to be offended. Sometimes people make sounds with their mouth or put scribbles on paper that you don't like. Get over yourself and grow up. I love how you tell the author to write about things that matter. Can you see the irony here?
- Paul Morgan
- June 25, 2012 - 09:34
re: James So your answer to everything is to roll over and accept everything? I do have a right not to be offended, and to speak up when I have been offended. Who are you to tell a person with a different opinion that they cannot speak up? If I called you an asshole, would you would get offended and speak up? Sure, you would, and you would be right to do so. But it seems you want to take that away from other people, does that make you a grown up? I don't see irony in your post, only hypocricy and censor.
- Ron Tizzard
- June 21, 2012 - 07:32
Paul, people, people...settle down and give Bob a break. Bob's tone serves an excellent purpose within the world of 'written oration'. His tone lends colour, balance, an opportunity, INDEED, for our very quiet physical and psychological systems to be exercised froM time to time. Bob is not a constant nay-sayer, a constant reviewer from a dark perspective...EXAMINE YOUR OWN PERSPECTIVE...his offerings, are the tints you pay for, yes indeed, pay for when you visit your local Paint Shop once every few years. He is the person who makes your sun shine that much brighter for you...if you'll just settle and ponder the variations in just about everything else about us...imagine reading nothing but good news, positive reporting forever and a day...after a week, you wouldn't pick up the paper...at all. Colour does not exist only in the paintshop, it's all around us, it's who we are. Imagine openning the Telegram, and all the articles being the same, apart from the od typo. The frame of mind I just shared with you...is my Rx. for the next time(s) you read Bob's offerings, and others...keep my remarks in mind...and you'll soon be bugging the Telegram for more, more, more...of Bob. NO CHARGE.
- Baked Ham
- June 20, 2012 - 09:19
I expect nothing than the worst from Wakeham. He needs to go.
- June 20, 2012 - 08:06
i agree with Bob and I must say it is great to have someone at The Telegram who tells it like it is. His is the first column I read when I receive my Saturday paper. CBC wasted millions by showing this crap over and over. No, I didn't watch, i just turned it off.
- June 19, 2012 - 13:26
It's impossible to write a column that is topical and engaging without offending someone. In this case Wakeham has offended Paul Morgan and no doubt other like-minded star-struck, sycophantic, rabid royalty watchers - people content to live vicariously through those society has chosen to put on a pedestal instead of getting out there and living their own. Wakeham employed sarcasm, hyperbole and humour to characterize the institution of royalty as something of a surreal anachronism. Our world may be technically advanced but it is still dominated by a small privileged, opportunistic, self-serving class - i.e. the one-percent. For much of its history, this province was the victim of just such a cabal of political and economic exploiters. Our ancestors endured untold poverty, abuse and injustice at the hands of the powerful, privileged few. The single greatest symbol of that ruling class has always been the British monarchy. The monarchy no longer wields great power - the queen being referred to as a 'titular head'. Indeed it no longer performs much useful function in the British parliamentary system and even less so in our own. Its main value to Britons is as a means of boosting tourism - its castles, characters and self-inflicted calamities imparting something of an adult Disney allure for the weak-minded like Mr. Morgan. Morgan sees the critics of his royalty as resenting their social betters and being 'too lazy to better themselves'. He exhorts Wakeham and his ilk to 'earn their paycheques'. Is Morgan so dazzled by the pomp and ceremony that he fails to grasp the reality that it is the queen and her dysfunctional family that need to understand what it means to earn ones keep? Morgan can choose to be among those dwindling numbers of Canadians who don't resent spending hard earned tax dollars to keep Liz and her extended family of misfits in the style to which they have become accustomed. Like most Canadians, Australians and other denizens of the realm (and with all due respect to Britons whose company I very much enjoy), I would be happy to opt out of this royal charade at the earliest opportunity. I don't think I'm alone. It is perhaps revealing that, despite CBC's lavish spending on its coverage of the queen's diamond jubilee, it managed by its own account to attract as few as one million viewers. Compare that with the 1.4 million Canadians who tuned into the season opener of the local low budget production known as the Republic of Doyle. Does this suggest that Canadians have a much stronger preference for a republic over a monarchy? We can only hope!
- Paul Morgan
- June 20, 2012 - 17:17
" like-minded star-struck, sycophantic, rabid royalty watchers - people content to live vicariously through those society has chosen to put on a pedestal instead of getting out there and living their own"? Damn, if I knew wakeham's mother was going to respond I would have put on my best shirt. I critisized the column without name calling or ignorance and this is the best Mrs Wakeham can do? I can see now that Wakeham really does write to his audience. Dysfuntional family, that seems to be bandied about. Is it because some are divorced? Puts them up there with 22% of Newfoundanders. Is it because they all serve in the military? What exactly makes them dysfunctional? Last point, can you tell me exactly how much of your hard eared tax dollars go towards the Royal family? You don't seem upset about the tax free status of church and the fact union dues are written off. You seem to be an insulting and angry little person who bears a lot of bitterness inside. So Canada takes a vote and becomes a republic, all ties are cut and backs are turned on history, will it put food in the plates of hungry children, will the next and all other days be sunny? Or would it just give little angry people like you one less thing to bitch about?Wakeham probably did use sarcasm, hyperbole and humour to prove his obscure point, but please don't forget the words "juvenile and immature" to put in front of them. Hey, again he is really really writing to his audience. . So mother Wakeham, I bid you a good evening, give Bobby a rub on the head, bllow out the lamps and head to bed. You'll have another tough day defending the indefensible tomorrow.
- June 19, 2012 - 09:47
I am not a big fan of the Royals but, as John Smith commented, Wakeham writes garbage. It's time for the Telegram to get rid of Bob's column,
- ron seaward
- June 19, 2012 - 08:23
socially higher?? Get your nose back where it belongs before you are as blind to sight as you are to thought.
- John Smith
- June 19, 2012 - 08:22
Don't be surprised...all Bob Wakehams pieces are utter garbage...