• 

Letters to the Editor: Sept. 28, 2018

Educated, informed voters

I’ve been seeing a lot of letters to the editor in support for Jennifer Chapman for circuit court judge in Yamhill County. In these letters, people are expressing nothing more than an uneducated, subjective and unsubstantiated opinion in declaring their support. Such a position declares them as uneducated and uninformed voters — the worst kind. Criminal law has a higher burden of proof than civil law. In addition, applicable law and sentencing guidelines are far more complex than the punitive, contempt and other punishments allowed under civil law.

For a criminal attorney, moving to civil law is easy. However, it’s not so easy for a civil attorney to move into criminal law without knowledge or experience, and Chapman admits she has no criminal law experience as either a prosecutor or defense attorney. That makes her unqualified to become a judge in a court where the criminal docket significantly outweighs the civil docket. Moreover, it would take far too long for someone like Chapmen to get up to speed on criminal cases, placing an undue burden on the other judges to hear criminal cases. This could result in cases being set over, possibly violating the accused’s right to a speedy trial. The only qualified candidate in this election is Lisl Miller. She is by far more experienced in criminal law than Chapman, and she is familiar with how the Yamhill County Circuit Court functions on a daily basis. It would be a smooth transition for Miller, a difficult transition for Chapman.

Be an educated and informed voter. Vote for Lisl Miller, the only qualified candidate for judge.

Troy Spurlock

Newport

 

Justice applied equally

I took the opportunity to go to the forum for candidates for judge in April. Having listened to the full slate speak and answer questions from the audience, I found my choice for the primary was an easy one, as Jennifer Chapman was the only candidate able to speak clearly of her dedication to justice applied equally to everyone, within the law.

I have since had several occasions to speak with her, each time solidifying my impression that Jennifer Chapman has the skill, the heart and the integrity to be a great judge. She would be an asset to Yamhill County.

Glenna Green

McMinnville

 

Voting is a sacred duty


The 2018 election may be the most important in our history. Will we continue along the path toward fascism or begin to correct course back toward democracy?
And it will be only the beginning. We should all pay attention to and participate in every election.

People have died for the right to vote. Don’t take it for granted.

Oregon has led the way in making voting as simple as possible, so there is no excuse for not voting, other than apathy. I am reminded of a sign I once saw:

Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand.”

Alisa Owen

McMinnville

 

The ‘real’ Ken Moore

There’s exciting news for Oregon’s House District 24. Ken Moore is back — the “real” Ken Moore.

Ken will be standing up to ensure that each person he represents in District 24 will be heard and valued. His new sign, “JUSTICE, Each of Us for All of Us,” reflects exactly what he believes.

Ken sees too many people hurting these days. He wants to work hard to ensure fairness and equity.

He realizes it’s important that corporations that use Oregon services pay their fair share. He’s ready to fight for basic needs, such as affordable housing, health care for every Oregonian, fair wages, a strong and decent public education, safer gun laws and a healthier environment.

Ken is ready to bring our voices to Salem and fight for our values — every single day. You can be sure that he won’t just represent a few, that he will be a leader for all.

In District 24, remember to cast your vote for Ken Moore.

Liz Marlia-Stein

McMinnville

 

Hey, McMinnville: Wrap it up!

This is not about wrapping up the Hill Road project or landscaping the median planters on Hill Road or Second Street. This is about the utility boxes abutting the sidewalk on Adams Street, near the McMinnville Public Library. Even with landscaping likely to eventually help obscure them, these boxes will still be eyesores. There’s a remedy: Wrap them up. A website says, “More and more often, cities, municipalities and towns are turning to utility box covers (made of vinyl) to eliminate the eyesore factor from these inescapable necessities.” Utility boxes can be wrapped in “any high resolution image or artwork,” the website says, continuing, “Choose from photos of flowers or bushes to camouflage the box, or choose abstract artwork if that is more your style.” Are you unhappy about these utility box eyesores? If so, the city of McMinnville can wrap them.

Tim Marsh

McMinnville

 


Kulla what county needs

I am writing to show my support for Casey Kulla for Yamhill County commissioner. He is what Yamhill County needs.

I believe he would make a great county commissioner. With his intelligence, kindness, honesty, passion and commitment to serve his community, I don’t think we could go wrong. We need a change and he is it.

He is open-minded, thus open to new ideas and suggestions. He will look out for the majority of the members of our community, not a small minority.

He is a leader, scientist, farmer, rural resident, entrepreneur, family man and a all-around good guy. I have seen first hand how dedicated he is.

He worked endlessly and tirelessly during the search for Meighan Cordie. And he was hugely compassionate for everyone involved.

We worked side by side for days, and he impressed me. I could see he was a natural leader.

That’s what Yamhill County needs, a leader that won’t be bought off, works for the people and has the community’s interest first and foremost. I encourage voters to check out his website, ask him questions, get to know him and, most importantly, get out to vote for Casey Kulla for county commissioner.

Kathy Ginther

Carlton

 

Vote Jaffer in House 23

I endorse Danny Jaffer for the position of state representative in Oregon’s House District 23.

He is an exceptional man of high integrity and intelligence. He possesses all of the life and educational experience to represent us well.

I ran for the same position in the Republican primary. I met many people and talked about issues and concerns important to them.

Incumbent Mike Nearman does not do that. He prefers to be the voice of “no” in Salem.

He never proposes any legislation that would be beneficial to our district. He does not work well with the other legislators, Republican or Democrat, either.
Danny would be vastly different. He listens well and encourages people to let him know what is important to them.

As the voice of the future, he will help Oregon move forward. Join me in November in casting a vote for Danny Jaffer.

Kris Bledsoe

Dayton

 

Issue is balance of power

Abortion is the hottest of all the hot-button issues.

Do you believe in the sanctity of life or freedom of choice? That’s how we’ve been programmed to think, but I believe it hides the real issue.

If you strip it all down and consider the human male — alone, with no cars, clothes or stuff of any kind — his power is derived from his physical strength, which he can use to force himself on a woman, whether she’s interested or not. The ultimate power is to impregnate her.

But regardless of how big and brutish and cruel the man is, a woman can always undercut him.

Abortion is the ability to nullify man’s power, and boy, oh, boy, do some men hate to be defied. So if you are sick of patriarchy, support abortion and any politician who does.

Larry Treadwell

Sheridan

 

An attack on our neighbors

Singling out people because of the color of their skin, or their accent or their perceived immigration status, is WRONG!

This is what proponents of Measure 105 are asking you to do. But it is racial profiling, pure and simple.

Oregon’s “sanctuary law,” ORS 181A.820, was passed almost unanimously by legislative Republicans and Democrats more than 30 years ago. And it has served our state well.

It does not provide physical sanctuary for anyone, nor does it protect criminals. It does protect our neighbors from unfair racial profiling.

Research has shown the rate of crime is lower in states with sanctuary laws. In those states, law-abiding immigrants, including those who may be undocumented, do not have to live in fear while doing basic things like going to work, school, church or a doctor, or reporting a crime to the police. 

The passage of Measure 105 would result in harassment for sure, along with the distinct possibility of having families torn apart. That makes it a fairness issue.
Keep in mind, as you fill out your ballot, who is initiating and funding Measure 105. The primary groups are Oregonians for Immigration Reform (OFIR) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).  Both groups have been labeled hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Faith leaders, state and community leaders, police officers and businesses large and small oppose Measure 105. I urge you to join them and me in voting no.

Janet Langenwalter

McMinnville

Comments

T.W.S.

Glenna Green - "...as Jennifer Chapman was the only candidate able to speak clearly of her dedication to justice applied equally to everyone, within the law."

Did you have filers on your ears when listening to Lisl Miller or what!?!

Jennifer Chapman has NO CRIMINAL LAW experience, NONE!

Lisl Miller has BOTH Criminal Law and Civil Law experience. Lisl has been working in the Yamhill Circuit Court for over a decade and knows by experience the ins and outs of that courthouse in its policies, procedures and rules whereas Chapman DOES NOT!

Chapman would cause an undue burden on the other judges hearing criminal cases until she reached all the remedial criminal law training necessary to hear them. That could violate the rights of defendants in their right to a speedy trial.

The only logical choice here is DDA Lisl Miller for the next Yamhill County Circuit Court Judge.

T.W.S.

Janet Langenwalter - There is NO SUCH THING as "racial profiling," there is ONLY "offender profiling." PERIOD! Just because a person of color (POC) is arrested, etc. or pulled over for any of numerous traffic violations DOES NOT = your ignorant so-called 'racial profiling.' It is obviously because they committed a traffic violation, or criminal violation.

The research you allude to DOES NOT account for the offspring that increase criminological statistics . Those coming here do NOT report crimes, but the subsequent generates do as well as committing MOST of those crimes.

You really need to learn how to read the data, because you are WAY OFF on your obvious ignorant interpretation of it.

Local Guy

T.W.S. (aka Troy Spurlock), you do not live in this County. Why you care as much as you do is unclear. You are wrong about Jennifer Chapman and her experience. You also wrong about what the next judge will be doing when she takes the bench. And, you are wrong about the work that is done by our courts every day. People get divorced, they have child support issues, they have landlord tenant issues, they have business disputes, they have car accidents, etc.. Please stop with your anger and false statements. It is not doing your candidate any favors.

Mike

TWS (aka Troy Spurlock) I'm retired from law enforcement. There is racial profiling, even when we struggle against our implicit bias. Your attitudes are not law enforcement's friend. I can tell you like to argue and use emotionally charged words like "obvious ignorant interpretation". Your approach doesn't win arguments. It often just causes fights. I'm sure you don't want to fight. Do you?

T.W.S.

Local Guy - The Wildlife Society; Tivoli Workload Scheduler; The Wilderness Society; Texas World Speedway; The Shaolin Warriors...T.W.S. means a lot of things....aka aside, NO, I am 100% spot on about Jennifer Chapman.

It is interesting that you keep claiming I am wrong but offer no evidence to back it up.

You are also conflating anger with passion, passion for facts and not your fiction. Try looking up the court calendar for any period of time and you will find far more "state of oregon vs." cases than cases in the civil realm.

T.W.S.

Mike - Oh Mike, racial profiling is not only illegal, it is also against department policy. As such, it is NOT used if an officer wants a citation or case to stick. Hence, offender profiling (aka criminal profiling). Fact, law enforcement's friend as it is an "investigative tool...to identify likely suspects and has been used by investigators to link cases that may have been committed by the same perpetrator." Being retired LE, you should know this.

Ignorant means lacking in knowledge or information about a subject, it is not "emotionally charged," but an apt adjective describing that obvious lack of knowledge of the subject under discussion. Common misinterpretation of the term, as is often the case.

My approach is using facts over fiction, and those facts do in fact win arguments, Mike. The only ones wanting to "fight" are the ignorant ones who do not understand the difference between apt adjectives and nouns, much less facts over fiction, becoming all emotive about it, and resorting to red herring and ad hominem fallacies.

Life is short, so I am direct. I do not care to or like to beat around the bush. I tell it like it is. Facts. Apt adjectives to describe others lack of knowledge and obvious behavior, demeanor and attitudes expressed in writing. Not that difficult, if one is willing to look. Then again, there are a lot of denialists in the world. Many who simply cannot handle the truth. Like Local Guy and...

T.W.S.

Larry Treadwell - wow. I've read a lot of arguments in support of choice and against it, but that is one unique argument right there.

T.W.S.

Alisa Owen - well said!

Sponge

Stick it to the man: have an abortion. I understand defending legal access to abortion, but I have never heard of advocating the act of abortion as a progressive value aimed at the demise of patriarchy. If this argument is not intended as a bad joke, we truly are in trouble.

Lulu

A new broom sweeps clean. To that end, vote Jennifer Chapman.

Mike

TWS. Words matter. Your "apt adjectives" are emotionally laidened to insult and demean. You do not win arguments with 'facts' that way. And maybe you believe because something is labelled 'illegal' it does not exist.

Jeb Bladine

Occasionally, we highlight pieces of the N-R policy on Reader comments. Part of that policy urges readers to identify themselves, but allows them to make anonymous comments. We believe others should respect that choice and not try to reveal the identity of someone making that choice.

At the same time, there are times when self-identification should occur. Consider the policy statement speaking to that point:

"Readers who desire anonymity can create a “Screen Name” for comments, but we encourage people to use their real names. We also urge readers to acknowledge significant personal or financial interests related to their comments. In general, the News-Register will not reveal actual identities of people who post comment on our website. However, such identities may be revealed in response to a legal subpoena."

T.W.S.

Mike - "Words matter."

Yes, they do. Which is why, for example, 'ignorant' is more apt than 'stupid.' The latter being your so-called "emotionally charged" or "laidened" (sic) term, not the former, which is the sort of wording that is meant to insult and demean. Words matter, and choosing the correct terminology to describe that which is being correctly observed, matters.

Mike - "You do not win arguments with 'facts' that way."

Sure I do, have done and continue to do so in any given venue I choose to partake in when debating another person about a subject that I am far knowledgeable in than another.

Mike - "And maybe you believe because something is labelled 'illegal' it does not exist."

Strawman fallacy.

T.W.S.

"A new broom sweeps clean. To that end, vote Jennifer Chapman."

Episodes of Lucille Ball comes to mind reading that...LOL!!!

But hey, as the rest of the saying goes: "...BUT an old brush knows the corners!"
That being said, when and where experience matters, vote Lisl Miller!

T.W.S.

Qualifications vs Experience and why one matters more over the other.

Both Chapman and Miller meet the fundamental qualificaitons under Oregon Revised Statutes, so the only real issue up for debate is experience and why experience matters.

It is easy to let qualifications seduce and dazzle us, but candidates whom have amassed experience in the relevant position are typically far more versed in industry issues, pressures and interrelated demands of that position - experience that will make them better equipped to hit the ground running.

I looked at the court calendar for YCCC for a one month period, 9/29/18 - 10/29/18, there were 14 PR cases, 34 DR cases, 1 SC case, 16 CN cases, and 473 CR cases filed. That is 473 criminal cases.

Clearly the numbers show that there are far more criminal cases being heard in this court for which both candidates are aiming for as the next Circuit Court Judge. Having a fresh new face in the county court system might look and sound nice (i.e. looks good on paper), but functionally it is not necessarily the right decision. Which is why experience overrides just qualifications.

Lulu

Who wants a tired ineffective brush that will simply rubber-stamp the same kinds of bizarre rulings and outrageous sentencings handed down by the old guard, raising the ire of the majority in Yamhill County?
And if your candidate fails at the polls, you have a great big ocean nearby in which to drown your sorrows.
You be the judge.

T.W.S.

Lulu - "Who wants a tired ineffective brush that will simply rubber-stamp the same kinds of bizarre rulings and outrageous sentencings handed down by the old guard, raising the ire of the majority in Yamhill County?"

Wow. The irony is remarkable...you use half an idiom and failed to comprehend it in its entirety. The message of that proverb is that those with prior experience have far more knowledge.

And new judges do not rule exactly like prior judges. Every person is their own unique individual and rules according to the law as they interpret the law based on their experience and wealth of knowledge. If anyone has issues with their rulings, they can take the appropriate and necessary steps to have that ruling reviewed. Having said that, your tripe about the old guard is completely illogical and wholeheartedly nonsensical. As is the case with most of your comments, Lulu.

Mike

Thank you Jeb for the reminder.

Lulu

Every person is "his" own unique individual, not "their." "Person" is singular; "their" is plural. "Straw man" is not one word, but two.
I must say, however, your million percent endorsement of Miller never falters, even though it occasionally swerves into a kind of creepy mania.

Trafik

I needed a chuckle so I visited the latest remarks on this thread.

I find it amusing that the person decrying the absurdity of an emotional response is easily the most emotional person on the page — bordering on hysterical. It must be difficult to type through all the tears of outrage.

And while he is apparently quite proud of his status as an a-hole, I suspect he is completely unaware he comes across as a moron.

tagup

Note to self:
the “vote for my candidate or you’re stupid” approach doesn’t seem effective.....

Lulu

Reminds me of Trump's warning tirade,"If I get impeached, it's YOUR fault!"

T.W.S.

Lulu - "Every person is "his" own unique individual, not "their." "Person" is singular; "their" is plural."

Wrong. Prior to that sentences is the plural form of judges, and there can be both male and female judges. "His" doesn't work as it is not inclusive of "her," but "their" is in the context given.


Lulu - ""Straw man" is not one word, but two."

It can be either or.

Lulu - "I must say, however, your million percent endorsement of Miller never falters, even though it occasionally swerves into a kind of creepy mania."

Ad hominem fallacy.

It's rather humorous when another tries to play grammar Nazi and cannot even get that right. ;-)

T.W.S.

Trafik = "I find it amusing that the person decrying the absurdity of an emotional response is easily the most emotional person on the page — bordering on hysterical. It must be difficult to type through all the tears of outrage."

*facepalm* You're conflating emotions ("tears of outrage") for focused passion for the subject matter. Passion as in a focused interest.

Traffic - "And while he is apparently quite proud of his status as an a-hole, I suspect he is completely unaware he comes across as a moron."

Typical immature, juvenile and banal retort with the classic ad hominem arguments. Textbook case of an intellectual coward addressing the messenger and not the message. Congrats! You just demonstrated exactly that which you are excusing me of. Bravo!

T.W.S.

tagup - "Note to self: the “vote for my candidate or you’re stupid” approach doesn’t seem effective....."

Yet another straw man fallacy. You're batting 0 for less than 0 here, tagup.

Trafik

Dictionary.com defines passion as "any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling..." so on your own terms, T.W.S., you're powerfully emotional. You might benefit from expanding your vocabulary. And getting yourself a hankie, while you're at it.

While we're on the topic of learning, I'm actually versed in Latin, T.W.S. I could give you a whole bunch of Latin terms with which you could bury all the stupid people posting here. Who knew a classical education would come in handy in this forum? Some of us learn something new every day.

tagup

I’m “ batting 0 for less than 0”.....??.....Ouch!.....

Although that is likely the number of voters persuaded to support Ms Miller by your barrage of comments.....

Sponge

tagup: Not only is it unlikely that any voters are persuaded to vote for Ms. Miller by this guy's vomitous spew, but I suspect some voters may find her name losing credibility due to her link to him and his demeanor.

tagup

Yeah... I think he just likes to argue....

T.W.S.

Trafik - "Dictionary.com defines passion as "any powerful or compelling emotion or feeling..." so on your own terms, T.W.S., you're powerfully emotional. You might benefit from expanding your vocabulary. And getting yourself a hankie, while you're at it."

Cherry picking a definition out of context won't help you here, trafik.

My passion is a strong liking to the truth. Conviction. Drive. A deep interest in. Liking something, having conviction, drive and a strong interest in something is not an "emotion."

aut pati clausos

T.W.S.

Sponge - "tagup: Not only is it unlikely that any voters are persuaded to vote for Ms. Miller by this guy's vomitous spew, but I suspect some voters may find her name losing credibility due to her link to him and his demeanor."

If someone were to actually vote based on comments posted online, then that is exactly the kind of voter identified in the letter to the editor that no one would want to have voting in an election. And for either of you to even suggest anyone would vote as such is, well...it speaks for itself.

Shame on you both.

T.W.S.

Look at the bright side, my presence is increasing responses to the comments, and likewise readership and some $ for the N-R. And at the same time, it exposes those inclined to attack the messenger over the message with what is truly the negative commentary here, which speaks volumes about them.

Case in point, for every factual or objective statement I've made (e.g. comment on experience over qualification), they have been categorically ignored in favor of various logical fallacies directed at me, the person, and not the statements given. Which demonstrates that these negative commentators cannot rebut what was posted, so out comes the double-fisted handfuls of mud being hurled. So no, I think it is to those like Trafik, Lulu, tagup, et al who are the problem here, not I.

tagup

“My passion is a strong liking to the truth......”

Appears that your passion is only to feed your own ego.....others have noticed and commented.....and your response is everyone else is wrong..... I think you have given everyone a pretty good picture of who you are.....I certainly hope your candidate has a better approach to communication.........”case closed”.....

T.W.S.

tagup - "“My passion is a strong liking to the truth......”

Appears that your passion is only to feed your own ego.....others have noticed and commented.....and your response is everyone else is wrong....."

You gave the same diatribe on another thread...and I said there, not everyone, just you and those like you reading comments through the exact same emotive filters clouding rational judgment and responding at the messenger and not on the message.

tagup - "I think you have given everyone a pretty good picture of who you are.....I certainly hope your candidate has a better approach to communication.........”case closed”....."

Nope. Neither you or anyone else will truly know who I am until you know me, and you do not know me. As such, you have no basis in fact form which to assert such asinine attacks upon my character. Such attacks speaks volumes about you and others commenting on par with you, commenting at me and not the message.

And your attacks on Lisl Miller's character via your attacks upon me is utterly deplorable!

tagup

I have made no attacks on Ms. Miller's character....any negative conclusions about her candidacy are strictly a result of your own posts.....

T.W.S.

tagup - "I have made no attacks on Ms. Miller's character....any negative conclusions about her candidacy are strictly a result of your own posts....."

Uh, yeah you and others have. And it is in black and white for all to see, except those with the same emotive filters as you employ.

And none of my commentary is negative towards her or her campaign, *facepalm*, it has all been in support of her because between her and Chapman, Miller has the experience necessary for the position that stands above Chapman's similar basic state qualifications with no similar experience as Miller.

tagup

Really?...show me...Point to any post from me that attacks Ms. Miller....I'll wait....

T.W.S.

tagup - "I certainly hope your candidate has a better approach to communication.."

You are clearly questioning her interpersonal communication skills in the absence of even knowing her, or even having heard anything she has had to say, publicly. Thus inferring she may not have "a better approach to communication," but you can only "hope" that she does.

Finch

T.W.S. While it is always interesting to read comments and ponder ideas of others you are exhausting. While we obviously won't always agree on all subjects it is interesting to share and gain perspective of others but not to the aggressive point you take. Certainly you must have other things to do during your day besides argue continuously with others. I think we are all aware at this point who you are supporting.

tagup

Actually it's questioning YOUR communication skills while acting as her advocate.....Interesting that you seem to be looking through an "emotive lens filter" when it comes to your own behavior and motives.....
Anyway...This "conversation" is clearly off track and unproductive, so I'll save us both some time and end the discussion.....

Sponge

T.W.S.: You have no standing to call "Shame on you both." The sad truth is that most voters don't do their homework. As a result, they rely on other people's offered opinions to help lead them to a decision. You may cry shame on uninformed voters for their apathy, but not on the messenger pointing it out. But, since you already called dibs on the " don't shoot the messenger" plea, I guess that means "shame on you", too.

T.W.S.

tagup - "Actually it's questioning YOUR communication skills while acting as her advocate....."

Uh, I am not acting as her "advocate." I am simply an individual who supports her candidacy. Nothing more, nothing less. And you questioned her communication skills by juxtaposing them to your subjective interpretation of mine.

tagup - "Interesting that you seem to be looking through an "emotive lens filter" when it comes to your own behavior and motives....."

The only filter I have is truth, logic and reason. When you read something, you have to read it as a whole and not focus on trigger word(s) and go warp speed on your emotive filters, which is exactly what you did to begin with and have continued to do throughout all these foolish rebuttal comments of yours.

tagup - "Anyway...This "conversation" is clearly off track and unproductive, so I'll save us both some time and end the discussion....."

The moment you addressed me and not the message, yes, this "conversation" went off track and has been entirely unproductive to that end. Your problem, not mine.

I will defend myself, personally, against any ad hominem arguments, and expose the foolishness of anyone for those attacks. The more you continue, you can expect a comment to demonstrate the errors in those fallacious comments.

T.W.S.

Sponge - "T.W.S.: You have no standing to call "Shame on you both." The sad truth is that most voters don't do their homework. As a result, they rely on other people's offered opinions to help lead them to a decision."

Birds of the same feather, flock together. Those voters will find opinions that support their own, or those they are emotively drawn to. So yes, we do agree that most voters are apathetic; and that is one of the main underlining problems with elections of any kind.

Sponge - "You may cry shame on uninformed voters for their apathy, but not on the messenger pointing it out. But, since you already called dibs on the " don't shoot the messenger" plea, I guess that means "shame on you", too."

This makes no sense. I have not criticized anyone for pointing out the apathy of other voters. I agree that voters are apathetic.

What was being criticized is the notion being put forth that just because an opposing viewpoint is given, that that alone would cause a would be voter to chose the opposite candidate without further thought or consideration. As such, the inference within the comment read as encouragement that others do just that, inciting spite over a sound (rational) decision in casting their vote. That is what was deplorable.

T.W.S.

Finch - "T.W.S. While it is always interesting to read comments and ponder ideas of others you are exhausting. While we obviously won't always agree on all subjects it is interesting to share and gain perspective of others but not to the aggressive point you take."

What is wrong with being passionate about a subject, and asserting your position on that subject? Without passion and substantiating one's position, just taking what others say on its face, we eventually succumb to gullibility. That's not me and I won't apologize for standing my ground, especially when being attacked with ad hominem arguments. That is what is truly exhausting as others continue to address me, the messenger and not the message.

Finch - "Certainly you must have other things to do during your day besides argue continuously with others. I think we are all aware at this point who you are supporting."

Who I support was rather obvious from the git-go. Clearly the "arguing" is a result of those commenting with ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the merits of my comment(s) on point.

And how I spend my personal time is of no concern to you or anyone else. Addressing that is tantamount to an ad hominem argument, if not a red herring.

Your comment is no different than anyone else where I am concerned. From the git-go, you are addressing me, personally, and not any of the content (merits on point) of my comment(s). That alone speaks volumes.

Trafik

I'm unsure I've ever seen someone so utterly unaware of how his presentation is received. Confusing a strong opinion with a strong intellect is a mistake which leaves the maker confident he's delivered a sound argument when all he's really done is spouted hyperbolic phrases with little meaning to an appalled audience.

Repeatedly, T.W.S, you've admonished readers to target your message, not you as messenger. Speaking for myself, I do not take issue with your message — two close friends who are attorneys advise me how to vote in judicial races. I do, however, take issue with the oafish manner in which you deliver your message. Hyperventilating and screaming kind of drowns out the information you're trying to deliver — you're certainly not convincing anyone with calm, well-thought-out logic.

You admitted your passion. I took the first definition of the word I encountered — I cherry-picked nothing, certainly not miscontextualized. You come across as a highly emotional person, T.W.S., whether you like it or not. Again, I remain neutral on your message — but the blundering emotion you use to deliver your words reflects badly on your candidate.

You might want to calm down a little. You seem close to panic.

tagup

Yawn>>>>>

T.W.S.

Trafik - "I'm unsure I've ever seen someone so utterly unaware of how his presentation is received........"

Ad hominem through and through. Emotive subjective tripe.

Trafik - "Repeatedly, T.W.S, you've admonished readers to target your message, not you as messenger. ..... I do, however, take issue with the oafish manner in which you deliver your message. Hyperventilating and screaming kind of drowns out the information you're trying to deliver — you're certainly not convincing anyone with calm, well-thought-out logic."

*sigh* Oafish is descriptive of those like yourself attacking the messenger and not the message. What is said is more important than how you think it is said (i.e. indicative of being triggered and retorting on par).

Trafik - "You admitted your passion. I took the first definition of the word I encountered — I cherry-picked nothing, certainly not miscontextualized. "

By merely picking the very first definition, especially one suited to your narrative, is by definition cherry picking. Words have a specific meaning when used in context, and you did not pick the correct definition within that context, so I corrected you with the correct definition of passion.

Trafik - "You come across as a highly emotional person, T.W.S., whether you like it or not. Again, I remain neutral on your message — "

So in remaining neutral on my message you are just solely intent on addressing the messenger. To what end? To be a jerk, accusing me of exactly what you're doing?

Trafik - "but the blundering emotion you use to deliver your words reflects badly on your candidate."

My words are my own; My words reflect my argued position, NOT my candidate's. My rebuttals defending myself are my words and have no bearing on my candidate. Period.

T.W.S.

Those who cannot address the message with integrity, consistently addressing the messenger with unwarranted and unsubstantiated spite, and losing that fight, often find themselves yawning due to a lack of a cogent thought(s) with conviction on point (topic at hand).

Sponge

You are seriously missing the point, here, T.W.S. My comment had nothing to do with people voting contrary to the unassailable logic of you voluminous output simply to be contrary, but rather to the point that uninformed voters will react negatively to your demeanor, and translate that negativity to the candidate you support. As illogical as that is, it is similar to voters who will make their decision primarily based on the endorsements garnered by each candidate. Again, you may not be willing to acknowledge the damage your overzealous passion elicits, but there is no shame in pointing it out.

T.W.S.

Sponge - "You are seriously missing the point, here, T.W.S. My comment .... rather to the point that uninformed voters will react negatively to your demeanor, and translate that negativity to the candidate you support."

Hence the uninformed, apathetic and highly emotive (i.e. triggered) foolishly (and ignorantly) juxtaposing my words as if they stick like glue to the candidate I support. She is not a walking stick of fly paper, Sponge. And all you are really doing here is insulting the voters of Yamhill County vehemently asserting they are intellectually incapable of making a rational sound voting decision just because of my comments defending myself against people like you addressing me and not the message.

Sponge - "Again, you may not be willing to acknowledge the damage your overzealous passion elicits, but there is no shame in pointing it out."

Well, the overzealous passion of liberals did not get Hillary elected...now did they! Why? Because people voted based on who they knew was going to be the better of the two candidates. That is all that matters. Voters will decide for themselves who will be the better of the two candidates running for Circuit Court Judge in Yamhill County. Not you or I.

My comments are to inform via my opinion, and to correct misinformation given in others opinions.

If you don't like how I say something received through your emotive filters, scroll down or change the channel. It's that simple.

Attacking the messenger and not the message isn't winning you any favors, nor does it affirm your subjective unsubstantiated emotively filtered opinion about what I've said or me, personally (and since you don't know me personally, none of what you claim is based on fact, just your subjective emotive fiction).

Trafik

Sponge is quite right.

I consider myself a disciplined voter — I am generally well-versed in the issues and candidates of elections. I've worked in the legislature and am familiar with the process. I read the actual text of ballot measures before I vote, not just the synopses.

As I admitted earlier, however, in dry judicial elections, I tend to accept the advice of two attorney friends to direct my vote. With apologies to officers of the court everywhere, I acknowledge this habit is a bit lazy. But I believe I'm generally better informed than average. In this case, I have no trouble separating your breathless overstatement from your candidate. But many voters might take your shrill endorsement like a nod from David Duke.

In the simplest possible terms, Sponge is stating that voters might associate your vitriol with Lisl Miller, voting for her opponent as a result. Whether or not they should do this is not the point, T.W.S. But it's absolutely why a calm, considered, logical and polite approach might be better than the bull-in-the-China-shop method.

tagup

response in 3-2-1......

T.W.S.

Trafik - did you ever stop to think that if you and our cohorts ceased attacking the messenger and actually addressed the message, there just might be an actual civil discourse here? Given the continued comments on par with the rest attacking the messenger and not the message, it is clear that no, you didn't stop to think that, and neither have your cohorts.

Trafik

I can only speak for myself but I am not attacking your message, T.W.S., because I take no issue with it. I am addressing its messenger, however, because he comes across as obnoxious, rude, condescending, berating, high-strung and not particularly bright. In my opinion, those qualities render meaningful discourse difficult or impossible.

Sponge

It is quite obvious, T.W.S., that you have never run a successful contested campaign for public office, hence the desperate force of your demeanor. I made no "juxtaposing" of your words, as you claim, but I know human nature and have run successful campaigns for elected office. I am simply suggesting that your laser beam approach may be counterproductive, based on my experience. But I have been entertained by your frequent use of "emotive filters" as a dog at your detractors.

T.W.S.

Trafik - "I can only speak for myself but I am not attacking your message, T.W.S., because I take no issue with it. I am addressing its messenger, however, because he comes across as obnoxious, rude, condescending, berating, high-strung and not particularly bright. In my opinion, those qualities render meaningful discourse difficult or impossible."

Those qualities wouldn't come to bear if I was not being personally attacked. It is the one doing the condescension that is at fault here, not I.

Your subjectivity is not proof of an argument. Rather, it is indicative of the egocentric fallacy. As demonstrated by yourself, tagup, Sponge, et al.

Meaningful discourse can be had, but it is thwarted the moment you and your cohorts do exactly what you have been doing from the git-go.

T.W.S.

Sponge - "It is quite obvious, T.W.S., that you have never run a successful contested campaign for public office, hence the desperate force of your demeanor."

Uh, probably because I've never ran and had no aspiration to do so. And there is no desperation on my part, that is to you and your cohort with your continued ad hominem rebuttals.

Sponge - "I made no "juxtaposing" of your words, as you claim, but I know human nature and have run successful campaigns for elected office."

Yes, you did juxtapose my words. Denialism on your part. You [know] human nature? Where did you matriculate to earning a psychology or some other human behavior degree?

Good for you for being a campaign organizer, PR person, or whatever.

Sponge - "I am simply suggesting that your laser beam approach may be counterproductive, based on my experience. But I have been entertained by your frequent use of "emotive filters" as a dog at your detractors."

If the truth entertains you, so be it.

While my approach "may be counterproductive," at the same time it can be equally productive. It is up to the reader and their subjectivity premised on their personal experiences, and whether or not they are prone to apathy as previously commented upon, or actually taking an interest in elections by informing themselves and making educated decisions. Which, I believe, was the point of letter to the editor on par with same.

Trafik

Now we're just repeating ourselves. Oh, wait. We've already been doing that.

I'll stop now. Wouldn't want anyone to think I'm a dullard.

Sponge

For the record, T.W.S., I have been elected multiple times, and I believe I have a better sense of campaign strategy than you ever will. But, seriously dude, when you get to your destination, quit peddaling.

Lulu

Will this be on the final exam?

tagup

Exam?...I hope not...I've already failed the math part...I'm "0 for less than 0"...:)

T.W.S.

Sponge - "For the record, T.W.S., I have been elected multiple times, and I believe I have a better sense of campaign strategy than you ever will. But, seriously dude, when you get to your destination, quit peddaling." (sic)

Good for you, your resume is not material or even remotely germane to this subject. I am an individual expressing an opinion in support of a candidate. Nothing more, and nothing less.

More than that, you and your cohorts and demonstrated, I have had to spend more time defending against your asinine collective ad hominem arguments that have caused the topic to go so far off the rails you blame me for what you and your cohorts caused.

Practice what you preach, hypocrite.

Sponge

Get a grip, dude. You're becoming unhinged.

T.W.S.

Sponge - "Get a grip, dude. You're becoming unhinged."

Oh, that's just rich coming from you. Got a word for that, and it begins with an H.
(hint: hypocrite).

Sponge

...says he who denigrates (over and over) ad hominem arguments. Good call, dude.

T.W.S.

Sponge - "...says he who denigrates (over and over) ad hominem arguments. Good call, dude."

Ahhh, hypocrisy at its finest on display right there folks!

For the record, I would defend my argued position ON ANY SUBJECT as equally, if not greater than that which I am defending myself against presently against continued sophomoric emotive ad hominem attacks.

It's funny how a few of you are asserting my comments are negative and speak the same about myself and the candidate I support. Funny in the sense that what I am arguing I would do it no differently on any subject matter; so according to your illogic, any subject I defend, or in defense of myself in response to attacks in a thread on any given subject matter, anything I argue is essentially a double negative. If that were true, then the same illogic applies to you pompous individuals doing exactly what you claim (albeit falsely) I am doing. Goes both ways. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

And the sooner you realize that when you cease with the unwarranted witless ad hominem arguments, the sooner this railroaded diatribe can end as I would have nothing further to respond to in order to defend myself and expose your mania.

Mudstump

Larry Treadwell - The ability to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is about trusting women to make that decision without government interference. Right now a woman can consult with her health care provider, significant other/partner, clergy member and her own conscience to determine what is best for her and her family's future. It's also very much about freedom.

tagup

It certainly is interesting to see how people react when confronted with criticism....Some will accept and adapt...others will deny and deflect...either way, it provides an intriguing snap shot of personal priorities and how people view themselves in the world.....

Mudstump

tagup -Merriam Webster definition

bloviate (intransitive verb): to speak or write verbosely and windily

tagup

Is your comment directed at my post?

T.W.S.

tagup - "It certainly is interesting to see how people react when confronted with criticism....Some will accept and adapt...others will deny and deflect...either way, it provides an intriguing snap shot of personal priorities and how people view themselves in the world....."

And the exact same drivel would apply to you and your cohorts just the same, hypocrite.

tagup

In the immortal words of Sargent Hulka...."Lighten up Francis".....

Mudstump

tagup - "Is your comment directed at my post?"

Absolutely not....it was about the subject of your post.

T.W.S.

tagup - "In the immortal words of Sargent (sic) Hulka...."Lighten up Francis"....."

Sergeant Hulka was "blown up, SIR!"

T.W.S.

Mudstump - "tagup - "Is your comment directed at my post?"

Absolutely not....it was about the subject of your post."

Which would include Trafik, Sponge, Lulu and others herein.

tagup

Obviously missed the point....

T.W.S.

Oh no, I got the point. Perhaps you should practice what you preach and give it a rest.

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS