Karleen S

My Comments (271 so far…)

Remembering Coco Chanel (Photos)

You seriously cannot apply what we know now what people knew back then. That’s ridiculous. If you’re going to make such scurrilous accusations against people, at least have the courtesy to back them up.

Dear Margo: Marrying For Money Is a Tough Way To Earn a Living

I tried to get involved for the money once. It’s not as attractive as one might think. Just the idea of "being taken care" and what my end of the bargain would hold proved to be much too distasteful. I disagree with with Margo on one point, though. Yes, it is wrong. Morally and ethically wrong. That is, unless she’s up front with him about it. If her intention is to coo and bat her eyes just to get a fat allowance making him believe there is definite affection is duplicitous at best. Plus, she has to be able to bring something to the table other than her "good looks." She admits she has nothing to offer anyone, and I believe her! When her looks fade she would risk losing the lifestyle to which to so craftily became accustomed when some years after 30 her fat-walleted dunce falls prey to a new beauty of the same designs.

A Few Words About One Word, by Margo Howard

In terms of comparative familial wealth, it’s not only meager, but barely amounts to lunch money.

Dear Margo: A Personality Makeover, Courtesy of a Jerk

My spin is whatever it says was written a few thousand years ago by unsophisticated and superstitious person for reasons known only to him. "We aren’t supposed to understand god’s plan." Well, the "plan" is convoluted and contradictory, played out with no rhyme nor reason. Every other person who tried to convince anyone they had some kind of plan with that much disorganized thought being evident would be institutionalized.

Dear Margo: A Personality Makeover, Courtesy of a Jerk

I just had a contentious go-round on Facebook with a religious friend of my sister who said that it’s hard to be Christian because they cannot live their lifestyle, and he went off about gay marriage. Apparently he thinks that because people may gain the right and freedom to live a secular life without the dictates of someone else’s religious beliefs, his "lifestyle" of foisting his upon others is oppressed. I dunno. But he also misquoted a bunch of the bible and say he had more examples, but there were too many to list. I then replied that one is not suppose to take random words and phrases from the bible and make lists. The message, if there was one, is destroyed. And then I dropped him AND my sister. I’m totally straight and politically totally on the fence. I will consider any logical and reasonable issue. I’m just afraid logic and reason cannot coexist in a religious mind.

Dear Margo: A Personality Makeover, Courtesy of a Jerk

I think the people who call it "lifestyle" are the ones who believe gays should suppress their feelings and remain closeted. Lead a joyless life of fear, denial, and seclusion. That’s the "choice" they think should be made. That’s when I have a hard time with the whole god concept. If god created everything, why would he created something and then call it an abomination? You see simple minds and unsophisticated societies in all of those scriptures. For what people have upheld god to be is not who dictated those words. If you are to despise those things that god called an abomination, why don’t these nervous little haters shun shrimp, lobster, crab, clams, oysters, and a good steak of swordfish? Women in pants? They will say because when Christ came he did away with Mosaic law. If that’s the case, there’s nothing further to worry about. Leviticus was the first place it was written, and the few additional places in the bible are variations on that theme. You do away with the laws and abominations in Leviticus, you do away with ALL of them. In the end, those who believe god is love, and Christ accepted everyone, are hypocrites and probably viewed several rungs lower on the god scale than his faithful creations that are homosexual.

Dear Margo: This Kid's No Cinderella

I enjoy that debate. :) Even animals have morals. There are certain behaviors that are required and acceptable in a community in order for the individual to succeed. Monkeys share responsibilities for foraging, grooming, babysitting, etc., and when one takes the food and doesn’t contribute, or expects to be groomed while refusing to groom other members, they’re shunned from the group. And a monkey trying to live alone is quickly picked off by predators or simply dies from lack of resources. Our society has things it will and will not tolerate. Laws were enacted to mete out punishments, but even after a punishment is served, society will still reject what it considers an unworthy individual. Just ask anyone with a record. If you refuse to live by the social dictates, you cannot work, you cannot sell, you cannot buy, you cannot succeed. And not a single stitch of it is biblical. It’s just the way it is.

Dear Margo: This Kid's No Cinderella

I know what you mean by "not doing it right." It amazes me that people who preach about the all-knowing, all-seeing, caring, loving god also preach that he is so obstinately rigid that you can screw up your everlasting life by deviating a single degree away from a prescribed method of worship. I think not. Of course everyone thinks their choice of religion is absolute and true, otherwise they wouldn’t be practicing it. They also believe that all morals are biblical in origin, and that’s not correct. My family may believe I’m doomed to hell for my atheistic viewpoint, but I guess I would have to believe in god and heaven in order to fear hell and have their opinions carry any weight. I also know that I live a life more in keeping with religious dictates than many religious people who cast their stones my way, and I think if it turns out I’m wrong, that will be taken into consideration.

So Many Books (So Few Writers), by Margo Howard

I didn’t call anyone an idiot, nor didn’t I call anyone stupid. I said some stupidity came from her, but I’m not as into name-calling as others appear to be. As for support for my impression, I need only look here. Despite her assertions, she cannot even complete a sentence when asked to elaborate.

So Many Books (So Few Writers), by Margo Howard

It’s perfectly clear to me. Following the indents… or follow the items that concern you.

So Many Books (So Few Writers), by Margo Howard

Thanks for the illustration of my point. I appreciate it.

So Many Books (So Few Writers), by Margo Howard

I suspect the point was similar to the verbal admonishment that one is becoming shrill.

So Many Books (So Few Writers), by Margo Howard

You may have been writing for 40 years, but the ability for anonymous readers to talk back must be kind of new to you. Unfortunately, though sometimes amusingly, I’ve been engaged this kind of discourse since AOL was still a closed system in a DOS platform (c.1992). There’s a jealousy component that gets played out, along with some hollow victory of "telling off" someone famous. You can’t "win" anything because they’re in it precisely for the drama and rush. It doesn’t matter if it’s negative, you’re giving them attention, so they sling some more slop to get more tidbits.

I had seen you respond to an intelligent comment here and there, but I never would have expected you would notice one of mine, not to mention type my name out loud. I’m honored. I don’t blame you one bit for taking off the gloves and defending your work, reputation, and family. It’s beyond the pale even in my online experience to haul that out in desperate bids for attention. If I might give advice to the advice columnist, make an attempt to distinguished between the truly offended and those who make an effort to be so and respond… or not… accordingly.

So Many Books (So Few Writers), by Margo Howard

I see quite a bit of "pot, kettle, black" in you comments. If you prefer people not to presume to know anything about you, other than what you write and the manner in which you write it, I recommend setting an example rather then engaging in that which you claim to despise.

So Many Books (So Few Writers), by Margo Howard

Ms. Howard’s area of expertise is social commentary, and just because you didn’t like what she said does not mean it was bias, just not what you wanted to hear. I have seen her tide turn the other way, but I never never taken it so personally as certain people here seem to do. I have to repeat myself by asking, "Why are you even here if you don’t like it?" Like a bit like if I listened to Limbaugh. He’s a hypocrite, spreads disinformation people actually believe, an agitator, and I just don’t do it.

It’s not bias to said that one has observed conservative/Republicans expecting a black and white world, or an attitude of "if you’re not for us you’re against us." That’s what I’m getting out of this whole thing. The cons have a serious "us against them" mentality these days which is over-the-top and quite disturbing. Minds slammed shut and determined to find absolutely everything the new administration does as wrong no matter what because they didn’t get their way in a fair election. More fair, mind you, than the first Bush election where those same people were beating their chests and essentially calling everyone else crybabies.

It’s disgusting.

And if you have a problem with what someone posts, by all means report it. Just don’t get mad if the rules turn out not to be as you want them and you don’t get you way.