Topps Meat Goes Out Of Business

Wal-Mart’s idea of making meat safer? Ruthlessly exhaust your suppliers’ resources and then, like a parasite that will feed off you till you die, move on to the next one.

Are you 110% certain of your statement, Alex Goldschmidt?

Topps operates in the NYC/NJ Metro area—anyone who has been reading this blog knows first-hand this is a part of the country that has historically been very unfriendly towards Wal-Mart—I seriously doubt they would’ve “changed” solely for Wal-Mart.

I’m willing to bet most of those 87 workers have...I mean had...union cards.

Nice try, Alex, but your smarmy comment didn’t get you a gold star, today.

Bill

Alex are you saying topps was cutting corners to please wm ? I thought Topps sold to all kinds of stores. Problem I have with this is some of those products are still in wm freezers as of wed this week. OHIO .  Will not ring at checkout . So a shoplifter can steal and get sick .

Nick has been banned from these forums! This is cowardly censorship of the worst kind!

WMW is run by frightened cowards.

I’ve told you before, Nick, it’s John Galt, not Gault.

Q:If you can’t get that right, what chance is there you interpreted Ayn’s philosophy correctly?

A: None!

NICKS GONE ? DIDN’T NOTICE.

Nick is gone?

What’s the deal?
I’m not one much on the inside track on this blog but what happened ?

I liked Nick.

How can one know the light, without darkness?
Even Apostle Paul had his thorn.

For what use is one sided debate?

That’s the Whole Point, Cazar!

“How can one know the light, without darkness?” ~Cazar

It does seem lighter “in here” now that Nick isn’t posting as much.  WMW showed more restraint and tolerance of Nick’s outrageous posts by letting him hang around longer than I would have.

“For what use is one sided debate?”

Yeah...this is what Nick tried to tell us too, Cazar.  Whoever said this blog was about “debate?” It’s about an editorial point of view.  It’s about taking a stand against Wal-Mart.  Let the readers decide if they agree or disagree with the views that are presented here.

If they disagree, they have two options.  1) stop coming here.  or 2) Start a blog of their own.

Nick is already trying to worm his way back in here by posting as John Gault.  Not many people realize that Nick used to post as “Nick in Galt’s Gulch.” This is just one of the many online identities Nick has assumed.

I agree with SDV when it comes to Nick… “Good riddance!”

“Whoever said this blog was about “debate?” It’s about an editorial point of view.  It’s about taking a stand against Wal-Mart.  Let the readers decide if they agree or disagree with the views that are presented here.”

OMG, I’m still not off the floor from laughing at the latest of the ScrewedbyWal-Mart edicts!!!!  For all of the readers out there who pay attention to Wikipedia please indulge me to this post of an important aspect of a “blog” .... “The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format is an important part of many blogs”

But then again, glad to know that ScrewedbyWal-Mart and the rest of the anti-walmart community can’t stand the heat in the kitchen.  Talk about loosing your marbles… ScrewedbyWal-Mart, you take the cake on this one!!!!

Screwedby,

“Whoever said this blog was about “debate?” It’s about an editorial point of view.  It’s about taking a stand against Wal-Mart.

Here is WalmartWatch’s mission statement:

“Our aim is real change—transparent and lasting—to benefit Wal-Mart communities.”

Just where in this statement, do you find the words “stand against Wal-Mart”!!  Saying that you want Wal-Mart to disappear, is not seeking real CHANGE, in the vein that WMW is talking!!  They want to ‘benefit the Wal-Mart communities’, not get rid of them!!  You are the one who is posting against the mission, not us!!  We are just disputing your false claims!!

Guess that is why you have a hard time understanding why they allow people to keep posting, when they disagree with YOU!!  They want to change Wal-Mart for the better, for it’s employees, not close the stores and put those employees out of work!!  See, in order to solve problems, you have to look at both sides and then decide whether or not it is feasible to make the changes!!  Maybe you are still in anti Wal-Mart ‘movie’ mode!!

Please...Pick Me Up From the Floor...I’m Laughing Too!

““The ability for readers to leave comments in an interactive format...” ~Mary

So what’s the problem?  Nothing in your definition says anything that the people doing the “commenting” are required to “debate” each other.  Nothing in your definition says that others aren’t going to flame you without mercy, if you take a contrarian view.  Nothing in your definition addressed the issue of Trolls.  For the uninitiated, a Troll is a person who deliberately makes posts to a blog which holds a viewpoint they are diametrically opposed to.  This would be like someone who is Pro-Life trying to post on a website that is dedicated to Choice.  The results are predictable.  Instead of walking away and simply saying, “I disagree,” the Troll will post inflamatory remarks, hoping to lure others into a “debate.” Their goal isn’t necessarily to “enlighten” anyone with the “truth,” but rather to cause a disruption or a distraction, and to take the “discussion” into areas it was never intended to go.  In the minds of some of the more delirious Trolls such as Nick and RDS, it’s as though someone were actually keeping the score.  Trolls think they are providing some kind of a “service” by using their superior “logic” to set the record straight for all of the readers who are less intelligent than themselves.

“It’s about taking a stand against Wal-Mart.”

“Our aim is real change—transparent and lasting—to benefit Wal-Mart communities.” ~WMW Mission Statement

I’m surprised you find these two statements to be contradictary, RDS.  You mean somebody can’t affect “real change” by being against something?

Screwedby,

“This would be like someone who is Pro-Life trying to post on a website that is dedicated to Choice.”

Your problem is, that you think this SITE is an ANTI WAL-MART site, the words in the ‘mission statement’ are “to benefit Wal-Mart communities” (benefit means PRO, not ANTI), not “Down with Wal-Mart”!!  If anybody, is a troll, it is you who goes against the object of this site!!

“I’m surprised you find these two statements to be contradictary, RDS.  You mean somebody can’t affect “real change” by being against something?”

There is a difference between being against something to affect ‘change’ and calling for the destruction of that thing!!  You are not seeking “Change”, you seek the elimination of Wal-Mart, you don’t want “benefit” for Wal-Mart employees, you want them to lose their jobs, when Wal-Mart goes out of business!!  You want Wal-Mart and the world, to return to the days of your youth!!

“So a shoplifter can steal and get sick .”

Your point BEING, oo??

(If you even try and defend that statement, your worse-off than I gave you credit for).

Bill

Screwed,

“...Trolls such as Nick and RDS...”

OK, I’ll give you this much—Nick’s agenda/recent behavior could be perceived as “trollesque”, but what’s the big deal with RDS?

Afraid he may actually say something to convince a passer-by to actually buy something from Wal-Mart?

That’s rich.

IMO, he’s just a person who is posting a counterpoint to the material presented/trumpeted, here. 

Hell, even the Saturday radio addresses by the President and the opposing party have been doing that for the past 20-something years…

If you disagree RDS opinions, Tom, perhaps you’re little more than a hypocrite in the things you present to your flock of sheep.

Bill

Generally those who post pro-business or libertarian comments fall into one of two categories. Given that this is a site devoted to reforming Walmart we can narrow the generalities to specifics.

1. True libertarians. They believe that the marketplace will solve all problems. They believe that people are responsible for themselves and that they are free to work or shop elsewhere. It’s an unrealistic philosophy, but at least it’s coherent.

2. Shills. Given that Walmart has used shills and phony blog sites in the past one should always be alert to the fact that those who support the firm are paid to do so.

As to “debating” both classes of people, it’s unrewarding. The first category hold their beliefs so strongly that any evidence that throws their utopian views into doubt is dismissed. It’s a psychological thing.

The second group is paid to post. They are not going to bite the hand that feeds them. I’m not accusing anyone specifically of being either type of poster, I haven’t read enough comments and I can’t see into people’s minds, but if the shoe fits…

As for the libertarians, I have several essays on my web site which deal with the inconsistencies in their worldview. Rather than rehash them again, you are free to read them if this is a topic that interests you.

Screwedby,

I appreciate your response.

“Whoever said this blog was about “debate?” It’s about an editorial point of view….  … …” ScrewedbyWal-Mart.

Yes, in fact the ‘blog’ itself, conforms to that common definition.
WMW and its staff present various forms of news and editorials, which is THE ‘blog’.

Early ‘blogs’ were no more than online diaries, or pure commentary, and it was not until the building of better software did we find the ability to post comments or host forums.

Let me suggest that this began to change the nature of ’blogs’ entirely.
For they went from just website postings, to ‘hostings’, the minute commentary was invited.
And the two are very different animals.

For the one (The ‘Blog’) gave a particular point of perspective on the subject matter, while the other (The ‘Comment Invitation’) opened a gateway, so to speak, allowing confirmation, praise, disdain, an opposing perspective, or an entirely different thread altogether.

And this is to be expected when one chooses to publicize, on a public medium (in this case a world wide medium) and in turn invite comment.

So an evolution has occurred in which ‘blogs’ from their single-sided purity, have evolved more and more into ‘forums’, and unless one is incarcerated, ’forums’ generally infer some area set aside for public discourse.

And public discourse has many forms either formal or informal, but one underlying principle remains true and that is argumentation, which is in fact ‘civil debate’.

Now call it what you will, by whatever terms you choose be it ‘conversation’, ‘dialogue’,
‘discussion’, ‘persuasion’, or ‘salesmanship’, the fact remains when you invite public people into a discussion, there will always be elements of debate involved.

In such a public forum, such as this site, and I say ‘public’ for the fact it is published on a public media (WWW), and ‘public’ for the fact I did not ‘pay money’ for membership, and for the fact this site ‘invites’ commentary from such a general readership under the terms I just described, I find it appalling that anyone should be banned, for whatever reason, period.

I find it appalling that anyone should be banned, but that is my opinion, and I am thankful I have that right to voice that opinion, as I have yet to be banned also.

Yet it my greatest fear, at what point shall ‘Cazar’ be banned?
And who will determine such?

How about you sir, Screwed?
When shall we ban you?

For the minute we allow the banning of individual speech, no matter how vile, how corrupt, how unlike our concepts of propriety, we go down a path, so clear in history, paved by despots, dictators, and witch hunters, the minute we begin traversing that path, we kill those freedoms men have spilled blood for across all nations.

I could care less if Nick were a ‘Troll’ or a toadstool.
I am an adult.
We are all adults here.
I need no one to ‘protect’ me from Nick.
I can post past him, I can ignore him, I can engage him, I can cuss him, as long as I am given that opportunity.
As long as I am given that opportunity.

But now some aspect of that ‘opportunity’ is gone now is it not?

And now what opportunity of freedom is lost?

cazar,

Nice post!!  FYI, Screwedby (Tom Boese), was banned himself in the past, as was I!!  The ban is usually only temporary, after awhile, they let you back on!!

Robert,

“Generally those who post pro-business or libertarian comments fall into one of two categories.”

I tend to fall into catagory #1!!

“ The first category hold their beliefs so strongly that any evidence that throws their utopian views into doubt is dismissed. It’s a psychological thing.”

I tend to disagree to a point, if you present evidence that can be proven, I will be willing to change my view on the subject!!  But, if you talk about things like ‘living wage’, but can’t tell me what that is, sorry, I will continue to hold fast to my belief in wages paid based on the work performed!!  Or, if you talk about lack of ‘customer service’ and don’t even shop there, but base your argument on what others have told you, while I do shop there and have had no problem with ‘customer service’, why should I change my view?  I’m sorry, but, I will not change my beliefs based on hearsay or people who admit they have an agenda opposite of mine!!  And, while I believe that workers should be paid fairly, I also believe that they shouldn’t be overpaid, just because of their needs!!

But, you failed to mention anything about those who post anti-business or Liberal (now called Progressive) comments, what about them?

Canadian writer Dr. Arnold S. Relman referred to the demographic you describe, Robert, as being “blinded by unshakeable faith in market ideology”.

“Our free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it.” ~ Barack Obama

Barack Obama… now there’s a brilliant mind with a whole lot of credentials and experience to back him up!!

Two comments:

1. Walmart uses illegal methods to achieve its aims. Even a true “free market” believer should oppose that. The ones that come to public notice most often have to do with violations of labor law. Right now they are the defendant in the largest sex discrimination case ever filed (1.5 million workers). Other areas having to monopoly and monopsony power are harder to prosecute given the lack of enforcement of the relevant laws since Reagan.

Even when firms don’t break the law explicitly the institutions are set up so that the employers have an advantage. You need to study the history of the labor movement to see why organized labor arose in the first place. People who work in fairly pleasant conditions nowadays may think that this a right, but these things were only won by decades of, sometimes violent, confrontations between workers and owners. If labor becomes too weak there is no reason that such abuses won’t return.

2. Strong (usually conservative) beliefs have a psychological underpinning. There is a strong correlation between those who believe in a hierarchical organization to society and a strong leader and those with conservative outlook on social issues. The psychologist Robert Altemeyer has taken his 40+ years of research in the area and turned it into a free, online book.

You can read it here:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

He acknowledges that libertarians don’t fit his analysis very well. I think the fact that they constitute such a small percentage of the population makes it difficult to get a big enough sample to analyze. He doesn’t explain why people behave the way they do, or why they developed a certain way, he just describes the correlations.

For those who get into never-ending arguments with people over the same points again and again, I think you may find his book will explain things to you.

It’s All About Semantics!

First of all Cazar...sleep well, I don’t think you run the risk of being “banned” simply for expressing a point of view that’s different from the “host” of this blog, WMW.  If that were true, then RDS would have been history a long time ago.

Nick crossed the line of what is commonly viewed by most people as human decency.  That is why he was “banned.”

Semantics… call it what you want.  “Banned” or “uninvited.”

“...when you invite public people into a discussion...”

Nice analogy.  Suppose you were having a dinner party at your house and you invited guests.  Would you as the host not have the right to “invite” someone to leave?  Again, your last respose ignored WMW’s reserved right to do exactly that.

robertdfeinman:

Very eloquently stated.  This is where I’ve been coming from all along.  I’ve compared “debating” people like RDS and Nick to the task that Sisyphus had...rolling the rock up the hill for all eternity.  As you pointed out, it’s a pointless task to engage in “debate” with someone who is so psychologically entrenched.  When anyone comments or makes a post that goes against their belief system, they are quickly dismissed or minimized with comments like, “you’re too emotional,” or “you don’t have the facts,” or “I’m logical and you’re not.”

Congratulations robertdfeinman… I see your post registered with RDS.  He seems more than a little defensive.

What was that I told you once upon a time, RDS?  If the shoe fits...?  You replied that you have lots of shoes.  How right you are!

Cazar:Iwanted to comment,if i may,on your views on Nick’s retirement.I,for one, am gratified to see that there is a standard for acceptable discourse on this blog.I understand the concept of free speech and the relentless necessity for it in the public sphere.But my understanding is that this is not funded by government money,am i mistaken?Isnt this funded and partnered by private donations and union dues?The partners listed on the home page are dedicated to more civility,or at least thats what their mission statements say. Why would anyone want to underwrite hate and bigotry ,certainly there are other sites that would welcome these diatribes.Free speech,certainly,but responsibible speech-especially when youre a guest on someone else’s dime.

“As to “debating” both classes of people, it’s unrewarding.” Feinman.

On the face of it, this seems a perfectly logical proposition.

However it is claim based on presupposition, and offers no support but opinion.
It is more warrant than proposition.

I mean no disrespect here, only my own opinion and observation.

The problem I have with the statement (pending proposition), is that is presupposes in a given set of interlocutors having ‘debate’ or ‘conversation’ that any of them are in fact seeking ‘reward’.

It may be found that none, all, or some, are seeking reward.
However I cannot rely on the opinions of others to make that analysis for me.
To do so puts my own reasoning at risk, and on subjects of expertise, gives (my reasoning) readily over to field-dependant warrants.
Which I am loathe to do.

This is not because I am un-teachable, or unwilling to learn, but as you have so intellectually pointed out there are certain interlocutors on all sides well armed ’to the teeth’ choosing to foist their expertise as the primary support of their argument.

Not until we engage in some dialectic (albeit informal), do all the actors/interlocutors , come to light.
For if we do not engage in dialectic, alas, I can only rely upon, once again, on those field-dependent warrants of the ‘experts’ who are left uncensored.

And in a ‘forum’, not all are in fact interlocutors, but some silent coasting vessels, listening to the dialectic, and forming within the reasoning power given to each, their own conclusions.

These benign interlopers, may be in fact the true reapers of rewards in any dialectic.

Screwedby, ddrb…

Thanks for the response.

I’m not here all the time so I guess I missed all the hate speech Nick posted.

Could someone link me back or refer me to that?

Thanks.

Cazar,Your’e more than welcome,sir.But I’m technologically challenged in being able to help you out-I do remember specifically Feminazi references,and i recall one post where i think you took him to task about Katrina victims...asked him to take back his remarks,that you would pray that the same thig might happen to him?Was that Nick you were chastising?

Could someone link me back or refer me to that?

I have neither the time nor inclination to search Nick’s posts but two leap immediately to mind. The first had to do with killing the scum of this country without reprecussion, and the other was he talked about his gun-toting friends would shoot many of us for our unpatriotic views.

I thought blaming the feminist movement for the decline of the US was a little over the top, but not necessarily banable, but then this isn’t my site.

We’re all guests here, and as Screwed pointed out, subject to being invited to leave, humiliating as that may be.

Mary… Your Credentials Please!

I don’t recall seeing your credentials and experience Mary.  Where can I find the book you authored?  And we should consider you “more brilliant” than Obama because...?

Screwedby,

“As you pointed out, it’s a pointless task to engage in “debate” with someone who is so psychologically entrenched.”

And, people on YOUR side are not psychologically entrenched in their views?  It would seem to me, that people who do not engage in either shopping at or working at Wal-Mart, might NOT have a very good view of the situation, yet you claim to know all about it!!  Could your view come from the time you spent making an Anti Wal-Mart movie, with an anti agenda?

“When anyone comments or makes a post that goes against their belief system, they are quickly dismissed or minimized with comments like, “you’re too emotional,” or “you don’t have the facts,” or “I’m logical and you’re not.””

But, calling people idiots, morons and other such names, or commenting on how people should go to a site that agrees with their views, because they don’t agree with yours, is to be considered perfectly normal behavior, right?  How about when a ‘new’ poster here says that they work at Wal-Mart and don’t see what you say, and are pleased with their job there, they are quickly dismissed as a troll, shill, Paid PR person, or someone posting under a different name!!  In fact, people like Ken, SDV, and yourself, don’t even try to hide the fact, that you refuse to hear any other view that is opposite of yours!!  You even advocate that ‘debating’ not be allowed on this site, as if you own it, when in fact, your point of view is the one that is directly opposite to the theme of this site as mentioned in their mission statement!!  Your view is to put Wal-Mart out of business and have the employees lose their jobs, while the sites view is to help save Wal-Mart and benefit their employees!!

mary,

Don’t you know, that if you were to write a book, that would automatically make you an expert?  Screwedby considers himself an expert because he help produce a movie!!

Well there you go again off the handle ScrewedbyWal-Mart.  Where did I ever say that I was “more brilliant” than Barack Obama?  How about comparing Barack Obama to other candidates in the field, which is a more logical comparison.  Lots of times you let your “agenda” control your words and you don’t take the time to stop and think.

Back to the topic of meat under the heading of…

When it rains, it pours!

Sam’s Club Beef Recalled After Illnesses

Class action, anyone?

I’ve suggested reading Bob Altemeyer’s book for an understanding of a certain class of people’s psychological makeup.

He, himself, has postulated that the “right wing authoritarian” people that he is describing won’t. There has been some discussion of why he hasn’t studied “left wing authoritarian” people. The reason was practical, during his period of research he couldn’t find enough to create a meaningful sample. This wasn’t always true, during the 1930’s the US had many such people, now generally called the “old left”.

Perhaps there is a new group emerging centered around issues of global warming and conservation. Regardless of whether they are left or right leaning the important characteristic is their inability to examine issues from other viewpoints.

They are closed-minded, intolerant and usually resort to things like personal attacks rather than discuss the underlying issues. When I said debating with them was “unrewarding” I was being kind. Debating with them is a waste of time, you might as well debate with a stone.

I don’t point to any specific people on this site since I don’t know anyone’s positions well enough, and even if I did I wouldn’t presuppose that I could determine their personality by remote control.

I’ll repeat what I said previously, those who defend the indefensible are either shills, ideologues, or those who owe their livelihood to Walmart .

When I post I usually try to reference some supporting material. Even if I don’t have any effect on those who have already made up their mind, the material may be informative to others reading the comment. In this case the reference was to this:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Ken V,

“Cargill learned of the issue Friday, when a compliance officer from the federal Agriculture Department visited the company’s ground beef facility in Butler, Wis., Klein said. Officials had traced the patties to that plant.”

Seems to me, that as this facility was in Butler, Wi. (Screwedby’s backyard) and the Topps company was located in New Jersey, it looks like most of Wal-Mart’s problems are coming from the NORTH section of the U.S. and not just China!!  And, isn’t the north, where most of the unions are?  Wonder if the Butler facility was union?  Maybe Screwedby can tell us!!

robert thanks i will visit there often, your another one that makes sense. THANK YOU .  IF THEY DON’T GET THE POINT DON;T GO BACK TO TRY TO EXPLAIN TO THEM. THEY DON’T GET IT PERIOD. SOME JUST WANT ATTENTION.

Feinman,

If you would allow me to comment again.

I find your constant reference to a rather minor professor in a minor college, rather redundant.
Altemeyer is by no means a world renowned authority on the psychology of political development.

I perused the writing you offered, and I found nothing extraordinary.
In fact what I found was a typical academician, trying to once again parse human behavior, through the lens of political ideology.

Which is, in my opinion, about as useful a parse, as delineating ’love’ into specific sets of human behavior .
It is the same old, same old.

In the ’real world’, no-one actually cares about any of the academic analysis.
Think-tanks full of ‘academic’ egg-head thinkers populate K-Street.

Left wing, and Right wing, scurry about vying for political access.
It is a game, not a process.

So when people like you wish to add to the ‘white noise’, with comments like:

“They are closed-minded, intolerant and usually resort to things like personal attacks rather than discuss the underlying issues. When I said debating with them was “unrewarding” I was being kind. Debating with them is a waste of time, you might as well debate with a stone.”

You yourself sound like so much the blabber you criticize, and a good thinking, reasonable person, will turn your radio dial off.

...those who defend the indefensible are either shills, ideologues, or those who owe their livelihood to Walmart.

I don’t know how we got off on the wrong foot, Robert, but that quote is a keeper for sure!

Food Source,sleeper cell ,candy,oct. anyone watch GLEN BECK?

...those who defend the indefensible are either shills, ideologues, or those who owe their livelihood to Walmart.

Ken,
I wish no offence but when I see such a diatribe such as quoted,
I cannot help but to back into it.

It is a proposition, lacking support.
It is opinion lacking, warrant.

It is the weakest of argument based on hyperbole, and opinion.
It really is quite pathetic a statement.

For one, the statement intimates that in a given universal set of people, that set may be readily divided into sub-sets.
While that may be true in terms of age, sex, and weight.
I find it very supercilious, no.. downright ignorant of the empirical, to even begin to define sub-sets of people and their complexity based on very rude science.

It does not take a genius to realize that what is being said is circular.
Bending back upon itself!

The number of those with a legitimate motive to “defend the indefensible” is quite small. Robert believes it is limited to Sam’s spawn and while I think the loop is a little larger than that, then number is still very small.

All others are either part of the Beast or being devoured by it.

“Trick My Verbiage…Pimp My Vocabulary!”

In case anyone wonders how I came up with the lead in to this post, I was inspired by those 2 cable shows… “Trick My Truck” and “Pimp My Ride.”

OK…we get it already, Cazar.  You’ve read a few things in your life and you pride yourself on your vocabulary.  For example:

“The problem I have with the statement (pending proposition), is that it presupposes in a given set of interlocutors…”

”I find it very supercilious, no.. downright ignorant of the empirical…”

”Not until we </b>engage in some dialectic</b> (albeit informal)…”

”…but some silent coasting vessels, listening to the dialectic…” This sounds like a reference to the “silent readers” that Ken V referred to some time ago.

Allow me to paraphrase that 1997 country hit, “"(This Ain’t) No Thinkin’ Thing,” by Trace Adkins. According to the lyrics in that song, “right-brain, left-brain, love ain’t no think’in thing.” Well…right-brain, left-brain, Wal-Mart is a stink’in thing!

How’s that for an “opinion lacking, warrant?”

Try not to think so hard when it comes to Wal-Mart Cazar.  To undersatnd the myriad of ways that Wal-Mart is bad for the world, it doesn’t take a college degree, or require membership in Mensa.  The TRUTH is out there!  Your vocabulary is lost on all the Billy Bobs and Betty Lous who shop at Wal-Mart.  You might make more headway if you liberally sprinkled your comments with terms like “shucks” and “golly.”

cazar,

“Your vocabulary is lost on all the Billy Bobs and Betty Lous who shop at Wal-Mart.” ~ Screwedby

Sounds like it is lost to Screwedby as well, (you confused him royal), maybe there’s a little Billy Bob in him as well, with that song example he gave, “love ain’t no think’in thing”, ah shucks, seems he has a lot of ‘hillbilly’ in his soul, listening to that ‘hillbilly country’ music!!

I Triple Dog Dare You...

I would love to arrange a meeting between you and Trace Adkins, RDS.  I would dare you to call him a “hillbilly” to his face!  That must have been another trollism you generated, right?

For the record...I’ll match my vocabulary against yours anytime, RDS.  My 7 years (3 yrs post grad) of college have given me the ability to read and understand Cazar’s posts without launching my online dictionary...but then I’m not representative of the “typical Wal-Mart shopper.” Unlike you...I can hear you thumbing through your dictionary way up here in Wisconsin.  As a matter of fact, didn’t you and Mary admit that the word “troll” wasn’t in your dictionary?  About the only thing I feel “confused royally” about, is why you keep hanging around.

The point I was trying to make, (which obviously was lost by you), is who is Cazar’s target “audience?”

Easy, gentlemen. The level of comments on WMW is currently in...um...transition. I’m encouraged by the number of smart people with writing skills posting here these days.

I’m sure we’ll settle down to a level somewhere between “shucks” and “golly” and “given set of interlocutors”.

KenV: Lest we forget the benign interlopers and silent coasting vessels.

Screwedby,

“I would love to arrange a meeting between you and Trace Adkins, RDS.  I would dare you to call him a “hillbilly” to his face!”

First, I didn not call Trace Adkins a ‘hillbilly’, I called YOU one, in your soul!!  Trace is a ‘capitalist’, selling his music to people like you!!  Where do you think his type of music originated?  I just hope that he doesn’t do a promotion for Wal-Mart, or he will end up on your grill!!

“My 7 years (3 yrs post grad) of college”

Too bad you didn’t take some time to do a course in Economics, while you were there!!

“Unlike you”

There you go again, talking like you know me!!

“As a matter of fact, didn’t you and Mary admit that the word “troll” wasn’t in your dictionary?”

NO, I believe we said that we couldn’t find your ‘definition’ in our dictionaries!!

“About the only thing I feel “confused royally” about, is why you keep hanging around.”

Gee, we seem to feel the sme about YOU, as you say you have ZERO interest in Wal-Mart, you don’t work there, nor do you shop there, so what do you care what happens there?

“The point I was trying to make, (which obviously was lost by you), is who is Cazar’s target “audience?””

Surely, it wasn’t you, or you wouldn’t have had to retort!!

Ken V,

“I’m sure we’ll settle down to a level somewhere between “shucks” and “golly” and “given set of interlocutors”.”

And, that probably would be possible if people like Screwedby and SDV, would stop calling people names, like ‘Hillbilly shoppers’ and ‘Bentonville slobs’!!

THIS REMINDES ME OF THE JAILHOUSE SCHOLAR on in living color. comedy show.ha ha ha.

If your posting contains the word “I” or the reference to another poster by name chances are that you are not contributing anything of a factual nature to the main discussion.

It is much to easy to get outraged by another’s inability to accept what is, to you, blazingly obvious, but calling the other person names isn’t going to win you the argument either.

I hoped that my reference to Altemeyer’s work would allow some of you to realize the futility of such arguments. The type of people he analyzed don’t see themselves in the portrait so it is to be expected that they dismiss his work. In fact he has even analyzed this effect as well.

In general I let Altemeyer defend himself (if you want to insult him he has a comments section on his web site), but I will say that he is not quite as obscure as you might think. His work was the basis for John Dean’s recent book “Conservatives without Conscience” and Dean has gone out of his way to explain Altemeyer’s ideas. In fact it was Dean who persuaded him to write the book. Dean is currently discussing the issues, again, on his blog which can be found on the findlaw.com web site.

I think this thread has gone on too long and has gotten pushed down too far, so if you want to continue with the philosophical or psychological discussion I suggest you do it on a newer thread. You are also invited to comment on The Writing on the Wal site. You can even cut and paste your comments from here to there if you wish.

robertdfeinman in Long Island,NY: Listen up folks,this gentleman’s initials is rdf, not RFD,so you country folks need to mind your manners!

Me included!

Screwedby,

Sorry I meant no offence to anyone.
It is an old habit that continually creeps up on me when I sit down to write.
One I inherited from my mother.

She began me reading books around age four, and made me promise to read lifelong.
I grew up in a house wall to wall with books.
With at least ten gigantic dictionaries.
Two were always open on huge wooden stands for reference.

She was the first woman in our state to apply for the bar exam, of which she was denied.
She passed away at the age of 87, two years ago.

She always taught me that language was the knife that penetrates the soul.
If it foul, it dull and useful only to dullards.

If it poetic, it artful, and useful only to artists and poets.

If it precise, well then that is the ‘tooth’ of the animal called logic.

Sorry if I offend anyone.

Cazar in:Your post was addressed to Screwed,but I’ve noticed that he(?) usually posts later in the day or evening.May I?You were so very fortunate to have a parent and environment that elevated the act of education into an art.My native language is not English,so language and selecting"le mot juste” has always been paramount to me...but I never heard the importance of ones choice of vocabulary expressed quite so eloquently. And at the risk of sounding impertinent,how did Walmart “land” you?(I really don’t expect a reply on that one,its O.K.)

“ddrb”,

No I wish to explain.
Wal-Mart did not ‘land me’, I ‘landed myself’ into their lap.

Although I had led a very ‘discretely nice’ income lifestyle, I soared on the wings of alcohol.
My suits were expensive, my shirts starched, my ties silk, my boxers full of shit.

After loving Vegas, Chicago, and Atlanta, and all the booze of success, I went down in flames.

I spent two years a useless drunk. I wasted years of earnings, as a total drunk.

A good friend, a childhood friend, who unlike me had been on a path, one of less education, of simple earnings, he worked at Wal-Mart.
He worked at night at Wal-Mart, and he told me to get off my self-serving, self-pity, drunk ass to come to work with him.

I went to work at night. The first night drunk.
And then over time I re-learned what simple work was.
I re-learned basic stuff, basic values.

My background allowed me to advance at Wal-Mart, and I worked there for many years.

My background, is a lot about why I very much dislike ideologues .
To me ideologues are no different than drunks.

One uses alcohol to forget, the other uses adrenaline to become stupid.

Cazar:That is so gracious of you to take the time to explain such private,personal information,and that is one amazing and inspiring story!At the risk of sounding flippant,I just couldnt fathom how you wound up there.No doubt the drink took far more than it gave-i hope the same was not true for Walmart, and that you were duly compensated.Now this is a success story that will make RDS’s day-Personal resonsibility at its finest example.....Your mother must have been so pleased.

ddrb,

“Now this is a success story that will make RDS’s day-Personal resonsibility at its finest example”

You are very correct, I too was in the hands of booze, myself at one time and it almost destroyed my life!!  Therefore, I understand fully his situation!!  I think cazar might agree, that nothing ‘good’ ever comes from drinking!!  I am proud that he had the backbone to see his situation and work it out, and not to sound crass, but Wal-Mart might have played a part in his recovery!!

This is a prime example of how ‘personal responsibility’ can work and shows, that feeling sorry for yourself is no substitute for doing something to change your life!!  And, it takes a ‘brave’ man to admit his shortcomings, and why I respect his views!!

...who is the target “audience?”

Despite my diplomatic colleague’s sledgehammer delivery, that is the central question.

Reader’s Digest used to have a feature called “Towards More Picturesque Speech” and I’m all for that but one man’s picturesque may be another’s flowery, verbose, or even condescending.

Without putting too fine a point on the demographics of those that read and/or comment here, I am willing to go out on a limb and say we’re mostly regular people with a fair to middlin’ grasp of the English language.

And ‘whilst’ no one appreciates a well-crafted turn of phrase more than I, basic communication should come first.

Here’s to plain talk and clear understanding. ~ Sidney Greenstreet The Maltese Falcon

Although this thread was supposed to be about meat,the intro,where it says “exhausting your suppliers resources and moving on, reminded me of Cannon Mills,which went out of business,thanks to WalMart.