It bothers me every year that you put Book Stop and Bookman's in the same category. Bookman's is used m e d i a; its books are are respectably OK, but it is not in the same category as Bookman's. I've traveled the world visiting Book-Stop-like places; I do not do that for Bookman's-like.
How about "Best Fish Sandwitch?"
Best: Lucky Wishbone, by far and away.
All-time Worst: McDonald's
I suggest you actually meant the "New Mexico border."
("One of Our 50 is Missing.")
Hate to see you go off on this. It's a No. 10 can of worms. These are highlyhighly-devisive issues. You will change no one's mind. No one's. Get a copy of Katz; it's dispassionate and thorough. You have no proof of all this hate speech you have embraced as fact; I don't have any proof that what you say is not true. What?! He ate babies and kicked puppies?! Jeez, I'll bet he didn't floss, either. I mean no disrespect, and have no malicious intent - but - you're evidencing what I would call an "Evening News" mentality. Again, just sayin' – there is more to heaven and earth than what is presently demonstrated in your philosophy.
"It is believed that the infamous 1930s bank robber John Dillinger used this room before he was arrested in a Tucson neighborhood...." May I ask: B Y W H O M? Certainly not by anyone who knows the first damnthing about those events. These kinds of preposterous little lies are glibly tossed off only by those wishing to hype the hotel. "Some believe..." is always a tipoff that somebody's trying to blow a forest fire's worth of smoke up one's skirt. But it's in print, and it stands. It will be picked up by future writers and passed along ad nauseum as gospel until it finally becomes "true".
It confounds me that Mr. Danehy, or anyone else, could have a soft spot in their heart for poor ol' picked-on MacDonald's. Lookit: The woman required skin graphs fertheluvagod. That's not hot, it's freakin' unexcusably, criminally hot. What if the coffee had be spilled on a child? He/she could have been disfigured for life, because Ronald thinks first about the needs of some few suburban commuters, and then – if ever – about anything else. Much in the trial centered on how hot is "hot," and how hot does "hot" really need to be? The court had all the facts; Mr. Danhey obviously had/has few/none. Perhaps Mr. D. could answer those questions for us instead of offering a shoot-from-the-hip, tea party "harrumph!"
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation