Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion: Weekly Wide Web

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Dan, if the founding fathers realized that facebook was a couple centuries away they may have gone back to England instead.

Posted by sangria on 05/09/2012 at 4:31 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

"April is busy as heck here at Weekly World Central."

Jimmy Boegle, this date...

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Red Star on 04/11/2012 at 7:48 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

There already is a second Facebook, its called "Google+".

Posted by mykl4now on 03/05/2012 at 8:51 AM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Thanks for the kind words, Dan.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Michael McKisson on 02/02/2012 at 4:56 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Apparently there was a brainstorming session or two down at Hemisphere Loop...

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Red Star on 01/25/2012 at 5:06 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Thank you Tucson Weekly/Dan. I thank God WWII was won by U.S.,U.S.S.R.&England. FOS & not 'getting everything' is the fun Dan as it make me follow the sacred 5'w's of Journalism:)

Posted by chasbass.blogs on 11/10/2011 at 5:04 AM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Bravisimo Tucson Weekly/Dan, Al Franken is working diligently to preserve what Paul Wellstone would be proud to be a part of F.O.S.

Posted by chasbass.blogs on 11/03/2011 at 5:37 AM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Excellent Drink Suggestion Tucson Weekly/Dan. Holidays just around the corner this is a good one and thanks for sharing reddit:)

Posted by chasbass.blogs on 10/27/2011 at 11:36 AM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Good one Tucson Weekly/Dan. Johnny Depp's is an option. How about SNL's Weekend Update Freddie & Venessa's Momee's friend sketch? voice normal then to a whisper.

Posted by chasbass.blogs on 10/06/2011 at 5:32 AM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

GOP, Dems, Private Sector, etc., Sen Al Franken's 'Net Neutrality Bill' is a tiny step towards naughty sapiens. Dan, we appreciate you & Tucson Weekly shedding some light as I can share from a personal and primary source gatekeepers exist on hundreds of levels and then there are some that are good and some...not so good. God knows.

Posted by chasbass.blogs on 07/28/2011 at 5:02 AM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Antenori represents my district--I've always voted against him--and he always votes with the "Phoenix block". I've never felt like he votes representing the majority of people in his district. Maybe if he runs for higher office and fails badly enough, he'll go away. I can only imagine that Republicans in this district just vote for the person with the "(R)" behind his name out of habit--bad habit. When they learn that he's truly not representing the majority, maybe they'll wake up and begin to realize they need to vote for someone looking out for their best interests.

Posted by grandma8 on 06/24/2011 at 2:31 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

My guess is readers of the weekly wouldn't be voting for him anyway........well I might but I'm guessing I'm not the majority.

Posted by moyla75 on 06/23/2011 at 2:29 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Unfortunately, the past liberal/Democratic bent of Tucson seems to be eroding. With the likes of Frank Antenori and Al Melvin "representing" Southern Arizona, Pima County and Tucson really have become almost irrelevant to legislative actions by the Arizona State legislature.

Maricopa County is now completely dominant and these Southern Arizona politicians just tag along, often throwing us under the bus.

Posted by JCC on 06/23/2011 at 9:19 AM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

Frank has been running for Congress since entering the Republican primary in 2006. My bet is he'll never again enter a primary in which there is 'serious', as in Jesse Kelly, opposition. And wouldn't it be entertaining to watch them trying to outshout one another at Tea Party events.

Posted by franklymydears on 06/23/2011 at 8:11 AM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

And for good measure


Graham Sorenson.

Posted by grasor on 04/07/2011 at 9:06 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

The Kardashian's are all trash! They are in the news way too much and for no reason. Who cares who Kim's new boyfriend of the day or week she is, she obviously has a HUGE problem keeping men happy and interested in her, beautiful or not. Can no one see that they are ALL publicity whores?

Posted by Breezy11 on 12/07/2010 at 7:38 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

The Hitler thing.....brilliant!

Posted by TheBigPeter on 08/03/2010 at 7:31 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

JD is the same stupid blowhard as he was when he was in Congress before. He failed back then, he would not be able to represent Arizona or the Republican party in a positive way. JD is too corrupt, filled with scandals like Abramoff, a complete hypocrite who says he is conservative, yet on spending, he is a big spender.

Posted by Shawn on 07/08/2010 at 10:37 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

The default display order is to show this comment, my conclusion, first, so after readign this sentance go to the top right and say "oldest first" on the pull down.....

Ok now that you ahve read my prior two reactions- actually brought here by the print edition despite it failing, last week, to mention last weeks free outdoor movie downtown for some reason! ( I only know there is a movie tonioght from yesterdays wildcat!)- now I continue to beg for some hint of how this is not the case- of how, and I decided to submit again because I ignored the methane, the gaseous crap, and want to rob anyone from thinking that's what i'm in fact ignoring.... so that some real reason where I'm nearly certain there isn't one, for not recognising that this is a VERY VERY SLOW SPILL BY TANKER STANDARDS ISN'T it!

It's slow not just long....

it's capturable by a robot using regular size condoms in fact! No kidding. Imagine what can be done with hot air balloon wide, miles long ones.

These are the shapes that matter- because miles is an exageration obviously. Not many hot air ballons can fit in mckale, standard height ones!

What is volumnious even a mile below, is the methane. No oil from water is on tv everyday. But gas from oil, Natural GAS, that's trivial to seperate and maybve the video's have shown taht already occuring?

Posted by karl on 06/17/2010 at 5:58 PM

Re: “Weekly Wide Web

"oil" isn't (shouldn't be euphymistically or whatever i have not figure out thsi platform speakk for sure yet) "hydrocarbons" even if NG is. I of course meant methane which isn't deep either as proposed for harvesting offshore. It is the yellow snow we shouldn't touch unless it's unstable as found.

The estimate matters as one scientist noted arguing for oeven more direct measurement then has occured since. Hundreds of millions is nice to know in terms of what revenue has been lost, even though as I mentioned aboev you assume it would of been sold, which it would not of, at todays price.

The variable of how much damage can be avoided has been ignored even now. Private investment beyond the responsible party has not been adequately leveraged.

Each barrel leaked from now on is how much further damage. In total how much damage can now be avoided by taking truly drastic steps? I don't mean bombing it.

Consider the multibillion dollarl number- how much of it is because it wasn't stopped from leaking freely in the first month. It's not about the fine!

We just don't see the first battle being fought with billions- at the leak. What kind of bag can be bought and dropped on this ocean floor for even a few hundred million? Can we boot up some old film factory, or reconfigure polycarbonate films to be made into tubes, like hot air ballons, in fact made underwater to increase there size as the tip fills?

Oh now it's leaking lower so that this 'condom' would hit the floor sooner, but nope, it's easy to move the oil short distances, just as it's easy to bag it underwater... it must be because then what, then what gets spent to recover it from the bag FOR SURE.

This whole time everyone has been banking that the dead bird at best tasted like chicken, and no one has to pay for what could of been made had it been sold at KFC instead of carried to the landfill I assume. Not even that.

No issue of compensativing for pain and suffering of not just the humans who survive even, but of all who died and contionue to die because people believe it is cheaper to let it spill as opposed to capture it near the bottom.

So that's the gain of always having a 'hope' to plug it in days. Not having to accept that a plan that saves the cost of avoiding weeks or months must be undertaken as well.

Yet they estimate weeks at least of additional very large amounts. Is it fair to let them -perhaps- correctly argue "but the damage is already done", ALREADY, not just for future wells as has been discussed. That's not even true. Capturing it within three fourths of a mile, within a mile at most, before it can get outside not of a small box like a stadium, but that sphere that stretches to teh surface, is doable. It is doable as it postpones the collection. Kind of like adding tobacco to the list of illegal substances or something.... worth thinking about at least.

(I guess I don't know how close to the surface you ahev to get it before the unemulsified oil isn't 'so' much lighter then the water to be baggable with doable materials. It can't be too close to chaotic currents and I assume that is trivial to accomplish.

The condom joke is really no joke of course. THis thing isn't ejaculating very violently at all- the video exaggerates it. Wrap it and worry about what to do with the filthy thing later which is of course the normal rule isn't it?

Posted by karl on 06/17/2010 at 5:50 PM

© 2017 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation