Marcie (Mary Lowe) says...

Never done this before so hope I answer ok.
My husband was stationed here in the early '80's. We saw then that it was difficult to get labor for the fruit industry etc. And I mean truly difficult. We left and came back 10 years later. We saw the difference due to the Hispanic population.
Today I know people who are illegal but often are working 14+ hours a day. Never complaining. Try and find a legal who would do that. Our fruit industry would not survive.

September 24, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

Thanks for that, Mary. I spent a winter in Oaxaca (city), Mexico a few years ago. The people there were so kind and generous to me - despite the fact that I had far more money than they did (and I'm not remotely rich by US standards) - that it makes me truly ashamed of the way many people treat (talk about/blame/etc.) Mexicans who come up here to work hard (much harder than most of us Anglos do) to try to give their families a better life.
.
I'm always happy to read about people like you who recognize and respect the common humanity we share, even with "others" who may talk differently or look different than we do.

September 24, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Genie (Genie Lutz) says...

Thanks for your comment on the humane society article, putting the fantastic contribution into perspective for the reading audience.

January 29, 2010 at 7:49 a.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Tim (Tim Lamb) says...

Norm, I suppose I thought I was taking responsability for my actions by my regret. I don't feel what I said was wrong, only that it caused harm to me and obviously to others by saying it.
But, Norm, I have enough trouble with you on line, please do not contact me this way again. It was nothing but a rude, needless attack.

February 9, 2010 at 10:45 a.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

pruitt (Brianne Pruitt) says...

Norm ~

If you read the text above the comment box, it explicitly states that comments will be disabled if the conversation strays off topic. I froze the thread for that reason.

Visitors to our Web site are more than welcome to discuss illegal immigration, and have, on stories or blog posts about illegal immigration. But to continue a conversation that has nothing to do with data centers is not productive or conducive to the type of community we are hoping to create on this Web site.

As for removing your copy and paste job, I have not closed down that thread, since it is relevant to the topic at hand, so you posting a comment stating that I had shut it down is incorrect information.

Regardless of your opinion on the value of a discussion that changes course, that is not something the Wenatchee World wants to promote. So, on stories, photos or blog posts where the discussion veers from the topic at hand, conversations will be halted.

Thanks for your continued participation and interest in wenatcheeworld.com. I hope this has answered some of your questions.

~ Brianne

February 9, 2010 at 1:19 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

" I hope this has answered some of your questions. ~ Brianne. "
.
No, it hasn't. My question wasn't whether or not the WW has a policy of closing discussions not focused on the original topic - I've read the policy statement and have seen evidence of its enforcement. My question is what purpose does that policy serve? The portions of your statement related to that question:
" a discussion that changes course...is not something the WW wants to promote" and
" is not productive or conducive to the type of community we are hoping to create on this Web site. "
Seems more like an avoidance of the question than addressing it.
.
As I've said, its clear that a discussion that becomes rude and insulting "is not productive or conducive" (etc.). What's not clear to me is how/why a discussion that evolves to address other topics "is not productive or conducive...". If a discussion of topic A is considered productive and conducive when it occurs following a story about topic A, I don't see how that same discussion necessarily becomes Not productive and conducive when it arises following a story about topic B.
.
If the goal is to prevent a stifling of a discussion of topic B, I don't see how closing a thread furthers that goal. Anybody who has something to say about B is perfectly free to jump in at any time and post what they have to say, and anybody who wants to respond to that is also perfectly free to do so. The situation is different from an in-person conversation in which only one person can speak (or at least where only one person can be heard) at a time. It's also true that by sustaining a conversation following story B, story B remains more easily accessible (the link remains on page one) to someone who has something to say about B. So I guess that raises the issue of whether a continuing conversation under the heading of B crowds out new topics from page one of the links. If that is the issue, an easy way to solve that would be to provide a link that says "see more" under the "Popular Stories" section that leads to a page dedicated to links to conversations, thus making it easier to access topics that fall from page one. {There could even be a heading for "discussions that have veered off topic" as a way to move them off of page one without arbitrarily ending them.} For example, I was participating in a conversation about water use in (Snohomish?) county that I kind of dropped because its hard to find a link to that discussion.
.
So anyway. I'm not as interested in a direct response to my question here as I am in requesting that whoever is responsible for setting the WW's discussion board policy consider and discuss among themselves whether or not this portion of the policy (closing threads that go off topic) is the best way to attain the goal of "build(ing) better stronger online communities facilitating stronger conversation in NCW. " (quoting Genie Lutz. see also Genie's page for further comments I made on this topic.)

February 9, 2010 at 2:21 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Genie (Genie Lutz) says...

Norm,

We are evolving our policy with respect to comments and we really appreciate your feedback. Our recent survey of both paper subscribers and registrants completed about a fortnight ago was very informative. Please call me 661 6380 so I can share our thoughts about next steps and discuss how your views fit in, which I believe they will.

Genie, Director Online and Strategic Marketing
Wenatchee World

February 10, 2010 at 10:53 a.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Mom (Susan Feil) says...

Hi Norm, Are you involved with the Southern Poverty Law organization? Just wondering since you seem to be especially interested in justice and equality for all. Also, I agree with pretty much everything you say. Susan

March 8, 2010 at 8:16 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

ChemEngDad (Steve Milner) says...

Norm

Just addressing your comment and that made by another commenter.

I agree that monoatomic gases like argon and diatomic gases like nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb thermal radiation. I should simply have written as you suggested, stated that I was looking through a window that demonstrated the greenhouse effect. In my desire to make the piece readable I went to far in referring to the inert gas as a greenhouse gas.

I trust that you are satisfied with the other two examples of the greenhouse effect presented (commercial furnaces and microwave ovens).

The mechanism that makes low - e windows effective insulators however is the thin coating of metal that is applied ot the glazing. The metal film adsorbs and reradiates (reflects) thermal insulation back into the room. The inert gas that fills the gap prevents the metal layer from oxidizing and losing its abiliity to absorb and re-radiate the thermal radiation.

Idially (and impractically), the glazings would be separated by a vacuum. While the heat transfer properties of the noble gases are preferred to those of air, air is not suitable because of its ability to oxidze the metal coating.

Convective heat losses from the window are most significantly minimized by optimizing the spacing between the glazings thereby inhibiting convective currents and reducing the overall heat transfer coefficient of the system.

Hope this is helpful. Thanks for your comment.

June 26, 2010 at 8:18 a.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Tim (Tim Lamb) says...

Norm you twist words as bad as anyone here and I have lost all respect for you. I have never said a bad word about a person, homosexual, Muslim, only their belief system. I speak out for truth, but for you that is an attack on people.

I don't want to debate you any longer.

September 11, 2010 at 5:47 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Tim (Tim Lamb) says...

Norm, can we upgrade the value of our on-line relationship? We have devolved into a system of who can discredit the other one and it is not only unflattering to both but serves no good and discredits us both.

You make some sound and factual and logical comments that make me think when you aren't focused on making me look bad.

Truce?

September 22, 2010 at 10:21 a.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Norm (Norm Messer) says...

"Norm, can we upgrade the value of our on-line relationship? We have devolved into a system of who can discredit the other one and it is not only unflattering to both but serves no good and discredits us both."

Sure, but I don't really think its necessarily been that way, its just that we disagree pretty sharply on a number of issues. Yeah, one or both of us gets a bit insulting after repeating ourselves a few times in a given thread, but I've never really had the feeling that you're a bad person. I'm more polite in real life, and I bet you are, too.

For me, the thing that I do that sometimes offends people the most - you and others - is that I call out what I see as racism whenever I see it. And it may even seem like I pick on you especialy hard sometimes, but when I do, its often because I hold you to a higher standard because you claim to base your views directly on Jesus' views. That's a pretty high standard to claim for oneself. When I give you a hard time about Christianity, its not from the attitude of "The Bible's dumb" that some people have; my attitude is "Jesus is much better than that.", which I'm sure you agree with in princiiple, even if you may think I apply the principle incorrectly in a given situation.

Jesus was all about concern for the poor, and I don't think he was particularly concerned about their nationality. I've lived and worked with people called "illegals" and found them to be very good, generous, hard-working, honorable, and often devoutly Christian people. They are not to blame for the circumstances that made illegal immigration one of the few options open to them to provide a decent life for their families, and I and other Americans are in no way morally superior to them because we weren't born with such limited choices.

"You make some sound and factual and logical comments that make me think when you aren't focused on making me look bad."

Sure, and even I can see that you're often right about the things you say.

"Truce?"

I'll agree to a truce, but without agreeing to the idea that we were previously at war. Deal?

September 24, 2010 at 6:49 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

alcoaInmate (jeff Nunya) says...

You may not remember me but I read far more than I write. I would say I hold you in high reguard on most subjects and my thinking mirrors yours on most subjects. You often respond to others better than I would. Looking forward to following some subjects from others as time goes.

October 17, 2010 at 10:06 a.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

AmyJ (Amy Hendershot) says...

Norm,
I'm involved in several conservation initiatives in Central Washington and have read quite a few of your posts and think you have something to offer with your knowledge and perspective. Please email me at ahendershot@wsu.edu.

Thanks!
Amy

November 17, 2010 at 5:47 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

JustanObserver (Jay Patterson) says...

Recently I read a book called, "Blue Like Jazz" by Donald Miller. It was an excellent read, and one that I think you would find enjoyable. It was actually convicting on a number of accounts, and I just thought I would provide you a reading recommendation should you have time to pick up an addtional book in your schedule

March 11, 2011 at 1:26 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Stever (Steve Richardson) says...

Hi Norm: I have reviewed your circular argument in response to my comment regarding "leading questions." In all my years of practice, I have never heard an attorney object thusly: "Objection, Your Honor, that is a loaded question according to Wikopedia." Rather, I have heard, and made, objections as to leading questions based on the Rules of Evidence. The wife-beating example is often used in the better law schools as an example of a leading question. As a free practice tip, you would be well served to study the Rules of Evidence and Washington Practice instead of Wikopedia.

April 10, 2011 at 12:07 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )

Tim (Tim Lamb) says...

Norm, here is a link I would like you to read and study. I checked some of the claims but who to believe?

Please forget that this is a radically conservative web site and let me know what you think of the material. I don't like being suspicious but I detest being suckered.

http://www.newswithviews.com:80/Stute...

May 5, 2011 at 10:56 p.m. ( reply | permalink | suggest removal )