So the Grand Old Party can't be blamed for this fiasco.
The naysayers may have been right: Seattle's multimillion-dollar, high-tech public toilet program looks like a washout.
. . .
A recently completed report found the unattended toilets have been well used -- both as they were intended, and as a refuge for drug use and dealing, booze drinking and prostitution. Some homeless people now avoid the toilets because of the social problems they attract, the report found. Meanwhile, there's been a steady increase in how much human waste crews clean each day in downtown alleys and walkways.
Would attendants solve the problem in Seattle? Maybe not, judging by past experience.
While the utilities department and some officials agree any solution will likely require hiring attendants to staff at least some public toilets, that alone does not appear to be enough. The city closed a five-stall public bathroom in late 2004 because of drug and prostitution problems -- despite staffing it with such an attendant.
(One would like to know more about why that failed.)
Other cities have solved this basic problem. The suburb where I live, Kirkland, has a public toilet in a very heavily used park, Marina Park. To the best of my knowledge, there have been only minor problems associated with it. There are even big cities that do better than Seattle. There may even be big cities dominated by leftwing Democrats that do better in providing this basic service — but I don't know of any.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(There's a picture of one of the automated toilets here.
Note to commenters: Given the subject, some will be tempted to make crude comments. Please don't give in to that temptation. Let's keep this family friendly.)
Posted by Jim Miller at March 25, 2008 02:28 PM | Email ThisBy the way in San Diego the dem's said let's give away clean syringes in the Balboa park area to help stop aids. Well more were found on the ground and the druggies chased away everyone else.
OOPS!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2008 02:45 PM'may' have been right?
Posted by: Palouse on March 25, 2008 02:48 PMSo what constituency is the City Council paying off with that monster maintenance moola? Who benefits?
And why, oh why, did it take the Council (and the P-I) so long to remove the blinders and face up to the debacle that was so well predicted during the silliness that produced these monstrosities?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on March 25, 2008 03:06 PMBecause dem's are NEVER wrong, just misunderstood. LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 25, 2008 03:09 PMLet's say it's 2/3 intended activity. 66 x 7 pods equals 462 uses per day or 168,000 uses per year, and therefore 1,008,000 total intended uses during the life of the plan.
The cost of the pods was $6,800,000. Add $500,000 annual contract fee and the total from 2001 on is around $10,000,000.
That would be almost $10 per void. The breakdown of void type is not known.
Alleys have traditionally provided adequate privacy for both relieving oneself and for illegal activities.
Perhaps a good solution to the bodily waste problem might be to place a bounty value on solid matter. Something UNDER $10 each.
Clean alleys, employment, treasure hunts.
Vote for me for mayor.
Over in the comment section at the PI website, many people are bringing up the examples of public facilities in some European cities. Many places have paid attendants because this is that particular government's form of "work for your welfare check". No way will that work here.
The few free facilites that were available suffered the same problems as these overpriced thrones. The public facilities in the places we visited were cleanest in areas where riff raff aren't tolerated. Until that problem is dealt with, no one in their right mind is going to want to offer facilities to the "down and out".
In the meantime, if the mayor and clowncil members are that concerned, they should have these bums share their restrooms. Wonder how long that would last? Bwahahahahahahahaha!!
Posted by: Burdabee on March 25, 2008 04:01 PMNo solution as described in the above posts?
I'd say remove them in Seattle, and remove them at highway rest stops too - the frequency of illegal activity is probably less, but it isn't zero...
Posted by: BA on March 25, 2008 04:51 PMBut No..Don't listen to the Taxpayer...No..
Listen to your D Bretheren
These are the same pwople who support a candidate who after 20 years of listening to a preacher, has never heard a disgraceful word from his mouth!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: GS on March 25, 2008 05:44 PMhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25cnd-mccain.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Drawing a sharp distinction with the Democratic presidential candidates, Senator John McCain warned Tuesday against hasty government action to solve the mortgage crisis, saying “it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.”
Finally -- we're starting to see some distinction!
Posted by: John Bailo on March 25, 2008 06:03 PMThe rest of the US does not have the problem that Seattle has with their unattended facilities
Seattle needs to decide if they want clean public restrooms and if they're willing to not tolerate unacceptable behavior
Posted by: Green Lake on March 25, 2008 06:57 PMarm citizen posses with carry-concealed permit sprays from local mall candle shops; BummenSpritzerCorps)
relo all potties to mandatory 50 yards within any elected official's residence; problem then solved in 20 mins of sensible & productive local legislative debate;
somehow try to include "it's for the children" in this whole mess to market the idea; bingo--solved;
I can see it now, I nice brass plaque on the public toilet that says "Adopt a Toilet - Sponsored by HorsesAss.org bloggers and commenters."
Progressive values, right!
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 25, 2008 09:40 PM2. Cities have always attracted the very wealthy to the very poor and everything in between. Many of those on the street have substance abuse and mental issues. The question is how are these issues to be dealt with? Some of these problems are so big and they really are state and federal issues because a lot of residents from other communities find their way to the cities.
3. Because many of those elected to city councils are typically from at least upper middle income demos and probably associate with same, many of them have no clue as to what a person living on the street needs. Probably this high tech thing appealed to them because like Michael Graves implements, it had a good design. People who live and work downtown know that what is needed are hygiene centers and basic public toliets scattered throughout the city. The idea of attendents like in Europe is actually a good idea as it makes the public places more secure and clean.
4. One-party rule of either party doesn't lead to good government.
Posted by: WVH on March 25, 2008 10:19 PMI am so enjoying you ignorant uninformed thoughts, libertarians never being able to win an election seem to just spout off angry words.
Now, you have no clue whether I am liberal or conservative other than I don't agree with you. I just don't agree with people that are:
a. Uninformed
b. incapable of making an argument with a rational basis.
Now, Seattle has everything from billionares to the homeless that reside within its limits. Other than Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet, how many billionares do you really think are liberals? Quite a bit of international money is here, those folks, liberal? Not. If you check the Sound Events you will notice a couple of republican districts located in Seattle. Guess all those great conservatives should be blessed with your good wishes for their city of choice.
Contrary to your moniker, no you are not a FreedomLover, you are just an ignorant pip squeek that hasn't thought beyond picking the name of your moniker and you have no clue about who really lives in the city of Seattle.
Posted by: WVH on March 26, 2008 12:10 AMWell, the Clowncil once again craps in its own mess kit, so to speak.
Homelessness is only a problem where toleration exists. Homelessness dramatically expanded when state mental insitutions were emptied out under the guise of freedom. Used to be 98% of us didnt have to tolerate public defecation, the 2% who did so were either institutionalized or run out of town.
Punish the majority by coddling disfunctional minorities:
-homelessness and the attendent behavior
-light rail wet dreams for the 2% who use it
-govt employee unions trashing public education
What goes around comes around, fools......
Posted by: Hank on March 26, 2008 06:41 AMReligion: No Christians, please, Everyone else, welcome!
Political Representation: No conservative Republicans, but a token Rino...perhaps.
Public School Administration: Only nutcase leftist union apologists need apply.
News Media: Who needs fair and balanced? We'll tell you all you need to know.
Editorial Boards: Well, our opinion is the only one that counts....right?
Sexual Preference: What do you mean my dog and my sister and I can't get a marriage license. We all love each other!
Racial Inclusion: Yes, the big tent includes illegal aliens, just not conservative whites....or conservative blacks (see Condi Rice), for that matter.
Public Opinion: Sorry, no conservatives. Why would we, ya'know, want to be bothered by something as biased as the truth, ya'know.
My earlier comment was deleted due to profanity. But I'll rephrase. I'll enjoy Seattle going down. Hard.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 26, 2008 09:27 AM1. Probably hasn't traveled outside their zip code. Canada is a much of a foreign country as they want to go to.
2. Afraid to go downtown in any urban area any where in the country as they are afraid that they will be mugged. Bellevue used to be a great town until all those "folks" started moving to Crossroads.
3. Last book they read was an edition of Readers Digest condensed books.
4. Thinks that knowing some one who lived in Duluth is their idea of knowing someone from a different culture.
5. Blames every evil in this world on the liberals, the Blacks, the Jews, the Mexicans, the _________ and they, themselves are perfect.
6. My religion is good, but the other person's pastor or church is a lunatic.
Do you think you might resemble the above remarks?
Most who have commented simply have no understanding of urban areas which is why the republican party is a party of small towns. Problem is, small towns are losing population as the children leave for other opportunties. The burbs who used to be reliably republican are going for dems because those who live in urban and changing suburban areas want solutions, not prather from small minded idiots.
Posted by: WVH on March 26, 2008 09:39 AMReally, you will enjoy the demise of Seattle, really? Do you know what happens to a state once the economic engine is removed? What happens is economic decline. I suppose if you are a libertarian and want to harken back to the Jefferson ideal of living on a farm and growing your food, that might be fine if you own your own plot of land. Right now, WAMU, for example is in the toliet. If we lose another corporate headquarters as we lost the coprorate headquarters of Boeing, there will be ripples throughout the region. Talented people have always collected in cities and what happens is talented people bring ideas which create economic activity. So, unless you are some truly rugged individualist who is totally self-sufficient, you might want to rethink your hatred of cities. It is interesting that Islamofacists who want to go back to the 13th century remind me very much of today's libertarians who want to go back in time as well. It is interesting that both groups hate many of the same things.
Posted by: WVH on March 26, 2008 09:49 AMThat you equate 13th century Islamofascists with libertarians proves your ignorance. I suggest you read up on Ayn Rand and reevaluate. Ayn Rand would be the biggest enemy of the 13th century-types.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 26, 2008 10:43 AMAll done under the one party rule of Democrats. So with that said,
-Will the last person out of this burgh please turn out the lights?-
Posted by: Rick D. on March 26, 2008 10:47 AM1. If libertarianism is not 13th Century, you would never know it from those that post here. Unless we survive a post-nuclear meltdown, we are not going back to an agarian life which is the only societal unit which really supports libertarian ideology.
2. So, Rick D., since you have been driven out of Seattle and King County, do you now live on an island somewhere?
The reason that we have one-party rule in this state is that republicans have given up on competing in urban areas and urban counties. I don't particularly like either PARTY. One-party rule, no matter the party is a recipe for inefficiency and corruption. Unfortunately, many of the posters here are so rigid in their ideology that they want to run out the candidates who might be successful in urban areas and increasingly in ring suburban areas. Sound fiscal policies and making sure the infrastructure works is a winning message. The social agenda of repealing abortion and other social agenda issues probably will not allow a candidate to be competitive in an urban area. It is interesting that the dem candidates who run in Eastern Washington try to match their campaign pitch to the area.
The problem is the republicans don't want to run and win in urban areas. So, we have one-party rule. Deal with it.
Posted by: WVH on March 26, 2008 11:12 AM1. so what factors do you think contribute to a mass exodus from the so called "Urban areas"?
2. ...and why is it a crime to gravitate to a suburban area without those factors we encounter in "urban areas"?
What is your vision of an "urban village"? and does Seattle city council develop and implement policies that bring that "vision" forward?
Time to step out of the shadows and quit hiding on the fringes with your non-committal stances on subjects WVH.
Interesting you want solutions when your only solution is to lambast everyone different from you.
City folks want what every one does, a decent quality of life:
a. Good schools that educate in basic skills not indoctrinate in political thought.
b. Responsible budgeting and fiscal accountability
c. Infrastructure that makes sense and maintenance of the infrastructure. People that have visited Chicago and Boston know that their transportation systems are basic, not frilly, but they move people.
d. Tax policies that encourage business development and growth. Policies that encourage business retention.
e. At the state level, policies that deal with the mentally ill and substance abusers who gravitate to cities.
d. A look at growth policies to see if they raise the cost of housing for average workers.
So, what is your list?
King County gaining as well.
What "mass exodus" are you referring to?
Posted by: BA on March 26, 2008 11:55 AMPot, Meet Kettle...
as to the questions, lets go down the list.
No answer to #1? or more likely as an apologist for such behavior you, like the city council, ignore the factors and hope it goes away.
No answer to #2? Thinking you are in an "urban village" and are somehow superior to those who choose to gravitate to the suburban areas is classic liberal ideology...I see you share that same eltist attitude. An answer to the question asked would be nice, but not expected from you WVH.
As for your vision of an "urban village", do you think the Seattle city council develops and implements the policies that will make this vision a reality? You managed to dodge just about every question WVH, but luckily, I didn't expect much in the way of substance...just superficialities.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 26, 2008 12:05 PMWhy did the City think they had to get in to this business too? Were they afraid that the private sector was doing too good a job, and it was making them look unnecessary?
By the way, I suspect that compassionately conservative Republicans would have screwed this up just as badly. The issue is not which of the two, big, mostly-corrupted parties is in charge. The issue is the growth of government in to areas it has no business being in.
Unlimited government is the biggest problem we have going forward, and these toilets are just one symptom.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 26, 2008 01:24 PMThe "government" could have simply hired the private sector to provide "public bathrooms" - and let that creativity provide the solution.
Though, to be honest, this failure was using a private sector solution...it cost so much money because the City didn't want advertising on the sides of the boxes to pay for it instead.
Posted by: BA on March 26, 2008 03:50 PMI think it's the one he made up to try and justify his bullet point. =P
Posted by: Cato on March 26, 2008 03:50 PMThis exodus from inner cities did happen, and is now being reversed in many, many cities in our country. At the same time, our suburban communities are looking more and more urban...
Posted by: BA on March 26, 2008 04:06 PMEntrepreneurship and private charities are all highly compatible with libertarianism.
As long as there is enough of that kind of behavior, we libertarians can get along just fine. But when statists and socialists try to force their utopian schemes on us, they limit our ability to live as we choose.
That's the asymmetry: a socialist is always free to form a socialistic enclave within a minarchist country, but a libertarian can not live as a libertarian in a socialistic country. The socialists force their big government, utopian schemes on everyone.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on March 26, 2008 04:16 PMhttp://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Population_Demographics/Prior_Censuses/1900-2000_Population_Housing_Trends/DPDS_007028.asp
Key phrase to look for:
"Suburbs grow faster than Seattle.
Between 1990 and 2000, population growth in Seattle represented 21 percent of the county's growth."
I'm less sure of your statement that people living for any length of time in Seattle moving out, and those moving from California are moving to escape "liberal policies" - what's your source for this conclusion?
Posted by: BA on March 26, 2008 05:00 PMOf course you won't dispute those conclusions as they come from the Seattle city government website. You wouldn't be calling Greg "saddlebags" Nickels a liar would you?
@43- "I'm less sure of your statement that people living for any length of time in Seattle moving out, and those moving from California are moving to escape "liberal policies" - what's your source for this conclusion?"
Experience. You need to get out more BA. That said, why should I bother doing the legwork for you when you'll just poo poo it like you did with the one I gave you above.
The question is, can you disprove my statement? or look like a fool like the previous one.
Survey says?
Posted by: Rick D. on March 26, 2008 05:45 PMI'm aware of Seattle area demographics because the information is available in great detail from the Census Bureau, the Puget Sound Council and other public, and private sources that measure this - which is probably where the City of Seattle got their information.
You're right though - I was being lazy because you didn't make the distinction between rate of growth versus actual growth - and I figured your broad statement was fairly meaningless with out definition anyway. I should have called you on your shallow level of understanding.
However, now that I know your source for determining the movement of folks from Seattle to the suburbs, and California to Washington, is based on "Experience"... well - there you are - proof!
I'm skeptical of your statements because they're grounded in what appears to be intentional ignorance - might make for interesting conversation after too many drinks - but doesn't bring any light to the conversation.
Posted by: BA on March 26, 2008 08:57 PMNow, have you been able to disprove my statement that many Seattlites "have been moving out to the suburbs while the transient population from other states, to include the continued infiltration from California (seeking refuge from liberal policies there) are the increase in population that you speak of."?
Are you disputing that Californians are moving to Washington in larger numbers than to any other state in the Union, BA?
...or is that your "intentional ignorance" showing?
Posted by: Rick D. on March 26, 2008 10:05 PMEvading questions, really? Have you ever told us your education background? Oh, I forgot that is just those who graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law that have to do that.
1. What mass exodus from Seattle?
Population Trends: Size & Growth
At 563,374 people, Seattle has surpassed its previous high of 557,087 in the 1960 Census and now ranks 24th in size among U.S. cities.
Click here to view a larger version of the graph:
Seattle's 2000 Population Surpassed 1960 Peak
Growth rate doubles from 1980s.
Since 1990, the City of Seattle has grown by about 47,000 people, or 9 percent. This rate is twice as fast as the city's growth between 1980 and 1990 and close to the national increase of 10 percent growth in central cities.
2000 population caps twenty year growth spurt.
The current growth continues a trend since the 1980 census, which reversed a period of population loss. From 1960 to 1980 Seattle's population declined 11 percent.
City grows faster than Seattle's Comprehensive Plan target.
The city's Comprehensive Plan set out to accommodate a population growth of 72,000 over 20 years-- from 1994 to 2014. The estimated growth from 1994 to 2000 reached 45 percent of that projected increase.
Census finds higher growth than forecasted.
When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, an independent economic forecast said the city would have 536,000 people in 2000. Estimates by Washington State and the City of Seattle had put the city's anticipated 2000 population at between 540,000 and 548,000. The 2000 census found more people in Seattle than were projected by these three entities.
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Research/Population_Demographics/Prior_Censuses/1900-2000_Population_Housing_Trends/DPDS_007028.asp
2. You said:
"2. ...and why is it a crime to gravitate to a suburban area without those factors we encounter in "urban areas"?"
This is unclear, did you mean why does crime gravitate to suburban areas? Projecting onto your thought process, the question probably has a racial component.
This article from the University of Chicago explains that crime fell in the 1990s:
Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s ...
pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
3. Now, regarding Urban Villages, I believe that it a policy of Mayor Nickles. You might want to contact that office.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/321480_population28.html
People are moving further out to get bigger houses than they could afford in the cities.
Posted by: WVH on March 26, 2008 10:30 PMthen, answer it in the 2nd post when you say:
"What is driving a lot of outer ring suburban growth is the cost of housing in the urban areas. This article from the PI in June, 2007 explains a lot:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/321480_population28.html"
Posted by WVH at March 26, 2008 10:30 PM
Thanks for making my point WVH. In your confusion, you both questioned and answered my original assertion that people are moving out of "urban areas" into suburban areas. Perhaps the next time you post a link to an article, try reading it...key sentence for you:
"The city's (growth)rate still lagged behind those of the county, state and many smaller cities."
ex·o·dus -noun 1. a going out; a departure or emigration, usually of a large number of people.
Posted by: Rick D. on March 27, 2008 04:34 AMFacts, history and reality; the only conclusion is that the Mayor is doing his job and accomplishing his goals as excrement production in public places is increasing.
Next time you step in a homeless "care package" left just for you, WVH, praise your Mayor as he is meeting your stated policy goals:
subsidize the (fill in the blank), torture the majority
Blanks:
teachers unions
homeless
global warming cultists
chronic alcoholics
developers/mega construction companies, trade unions/light rail bedwetters
the victim list relentlessly expands....
There is no mass exodus from Seattle. What is happening is urbanization of the Puget Sound region and that makes it harder for hate mongers like you. There is in-migration to Seattle from those downsizing and the young. Many move to the burbs when they have families and desire more space. That has the effect of changing the character of the burbs and making them less likely to vote tor KKK type libertarians.
Right now, there is a slowdown, but north Sno County and other areas that are republican now are a couple of mass housing developments away from more moderate political thought as many of those younger and more moderate families move in.
If you are one of those who migrated from California, I guess your next move is to the wilds of Alaska, isn't that the last frontier? Haters like you could probably start their own little settlement.
Bellevue is now a big city, not a suburb and as other areas urbanize they will face many of the same problems that Seattle has faced and is facing.
The issue is urbanization of the region. No, Mr. Hate, I did not make your point. What is happening is regional urbanization. Seattle will continue to attract people and grow and so will the suburbs. Rural areas will shrink and lose population.
Hate is a heavy burden, isn't it?
Posted by: WVH on March 27, 2008 10:31 AMWhen the orderlies don't have you in the straighjacket, try perusing this article by a local Emeritus Professor of Geography from UW..
http://www.crosscut.com/real-estate/4944/The+new+population+figures+show+slow+growth+in+Seattle+and+big+growth+in+outer+counties/
You'll see that he backs up my assertions that I posted in the threads above.
Between your flagrant stupidity and your race baiting antics:
"hate mongers like you", "KKK type libertarians",
"Haters like you could probably start their own little settlement.","No, Mr. Hate, I did not make your point","Hate is a heavy burden, isn't it?","Projecting onto your thought process, the question probably has a racial component."
Personally, I think you should share what you post on-line with your therapist and try to cure whatever mental illness that has afflicted you. God speed in that endeavor and recovery.
Still any word about YOUR credentials? Thought so.
I guess that you didn't go to Columbia and Harvard Law. Wasn't there a comment about you being former military. So, we know you at least have a GED.
I don't suppose you have noticed, that there is a recession. There will be slow growth in most places. Your former state, California is experiencing real estate decline.
Now this is what the article you cited says:
The new population figures show slow growth in Seattle and big growth in outer counties
The region is growing smartly, particularly as you get farther away from Seattle, and in amenities-rich hotspots like Whatcom and the Columbia River valley. The new figures show what high costs will do in cities with lots of economic growth, pushing families and other residents farther and farther out.
By Richard Morrill
Those who might have hoped that population growth would slow significantly in Seattle and the Northwest will be disappointed by recent news from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Washington Office of Financial Management. Growth remains quite strong, just as it has in the latter part of every decade since 1950 -- an amazing cycle!
Growth in greater Seattle was actually a little lower (9.4 percent) than in the rest of the state (11 percent), contrary to what you would think from the local media. Our local growth was fueled by both continuing job growth but also by our popularity with the confident young. This local growth is a little slower than might be expected from the job opportunities, partly because of the high cost of living, especially housing. Fastest growth is in Clark County (suburban Portland), the next tier of counties beyond the core four counties of King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish: That is, in Thurston, Skagit, and Kittitas, and beyond in Whatcom (Bellingham), and in Benton and Franklin (the Tri-Cities of Kennewick, Richland, and Pasco).
Again, contrary to recent headlines, the growth of the city of Seattle was very modest, and the population is still below its maximum of more than 600,000 back in 1955, at the height of the baby-boom. With a vast amount of construction all around, you might find this hard to believe. The explanation is that housing units are increasing much faster than population, because of the loss of families to the suburbs and beyond and the small average household size in the city (apartments and condos average fewer than two persons per unit). This is not so much because of dissatisfaction with the schools, as is often claimed, but rather with limited housing choices and high costs for families..."
If you will note the key comments from the article:
1. I said this at post #51:
"There is in-migration to Seattle from those downsizing and the young. Many move to the burbs when they have families and desire more space. That has the effect of changing the character of the burbs and making them less likely to vote tor KKK type libertarians."
The article says this:
"The new figures show what high costs will do in cities with lots of economic growth, pushing families and other residents farther and farther out."
2. The article said this about growth in Seattle:
"Growth in greater Seattle was actually a little lower (9.4 percent) than in the rest of the state (11 percent), contrary to what you would think from the local media. Our local growth was fueled by both continuing job growth but also by our popularity with the confident young. This local growth is a little slower than might be expected from the job opportunities, partly because of the high cost of living, especially housing."
The reason the outline areas are growing is the cost of housing. That is fuelling the rise of supercommuters as people go farther out to find affordable housing. This is also true of cities like Bellevue, Mercer Island, and Redmond.
Far from me needing a therapist, have you ever thought about going to college and taking some classes?
Hate rots your brain.
@53 "Far from me needing a therapist, have you ever thought about going to college and taking some classes? "
Posted by WVH at March 27, 2008 12:32 PM
Yes, WVH, I did. Unlike you though, I graduated.
Meanwhile, a phony poster like you claims to have a doctorate in Eduacation, while making countless spelling and grammatical errors within your posts. The only fool you are fooling at this point is the one you stare back at in the mirror.
Also, when you say "hate rots your brain." - Of course it does, and you're exhibit "A" of that, WVH.
Cheers!
And let me add that I found them especially annoying this time, because there was a substantive discussion that was spoiled by the insults.
Posted by: Jim MIller on March 27, 2008 03:06 PM