Member since Jul 3, 2009

click to enlarge watershipdown3_jpg-magnum.jpg



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Earth 6,000 Years Old?


Yes it certainly could, but when one starts pointing out the high degree of physical and historical unlikelihood for things like: the Red Sea parted, Jonah in the whale, Christ resurrected and a six thousand year old earth, people's feelings seem to get hurt. Though this woman is clearly an idiot there are many people who are actually competent human beings who subscribe to such beliefs. Better perhaps to weed out the pea-brains using a different method.

Posted by marzipan on 07/09/2009 at 12:16 PM

Re: “Earth 6,000 Years Old?

"Its been here six thousand years, long before anybody had environmental laws and some how it hasn't been done away with"

This is just breathtaking. I had to rewind this sentence a couple of times just to make sure I was hearing correctly, but she actually does seem to be trying to draw a logical connection between an absence of environmental laws and earth's continued existence. I like the proficiency test idea, although one that had people flunking for the young earth stuff would have the religious groups charging discrimination immediately, but it looks like a simple symbolic logic test might be enough to boot the political chaff.

Posted by marzipan on 07/09/2009 at 6:23 AM

Re: “Rock The Council: Save The Rialto!

If the attacks on the Rialto management seem "vile", then I'm honestly sorry, but the use of eminent domain, to essentially hand back a property to someone who lost it in a fair business deal just seems wrong to me. And I don't see why criticism of the management should be off limits when the block has undeniably sat there derelict under their watch. Undoubtedly you bring a great deal of inside knowledge to all of this Mr. Powers, lets hear the arguments.

Posted by marzipan on 07/07/2009 at 1:29 AM

Re: “Rock The Council: Save The Rialto!

Red Star,

This thread is actually very much about "context." This paper is so far in the tank for Mr. Biggers, that its taken a few angry citizens to say "not so fast" and point to both history and the flawed arguments of he and his supporters, things that real journalists, who strive for truth rather than buttressing power, actually relish doing. Alas, Mr. Biggers is probably right and this probably won't "really matter" as the herd of cronies and uninformed people have been firing off form protest letters and are now getting ready to bleat obediently tomorrow at the meeting for their good shepherd. How sad for Tucson.

Posted by marzipan on 07/06/2009 at 8:31 PM

Re: “Rock The Council: Save The Rialto!

Agreed Mr. Boegle, why on earth would Downtown Julie Brown do such a thing?

Posted by marzipan on 07/06/2009 at 11:59 AM

Re: “Rock The Council: Save The Rialto!

"Wow. Downtown Julie Brown posting at 1:59 am, 2:53 am, 3;16 am and 4:13 am. I think you need to breathe deep and get a life. Your angst over Doug and his crew is a little over the top don't you think?"

Oh gosh, what a shame to wake up to this lame protest without a partner. I guess we'll never know "downtown julie brown" and what warrants deep breathing and getting a life, because the Weekly evidently has helpful standards that don't allow one to make an angsty case against "Doug and his crew"so we're told, (according to the weekly, community newspaper - or azghostdog - so hard to tell who's who) by the standards of pro-Bigger's partisanship. Credit your readers with enough intelligence to make up their own minds about the ugly machinations over the Rialto block. If someone has made baseless charges it would be nice to see a show of guts, by displaying the charge and allowing for rebuttal. A clownish display warrants ridicule and laughter if it truly is such, but a grotesque little moraliste, well . . . as a singer once put it: Oh my kindly friend the censor this can not be what you mean, to distill the very nature of obscene.

Posted by marzipan on 07/06/2009 at 10:53 AM

Re: “Rock The Council: Save The Rialto!

“ I didn’t “sell” the Rialto block to Don Martin in July 2008. He exercised an aggressive buy/sell provision in our LLC’s operating agreement that enabled him to make me an offer, giving me 30 days to match it or accept it. I tried mightily to raise the necessary capital, but failed at the last moment to raise the $1.7 million needed. It was a power play by Martin that was months in the making.”

Thanks for the parsing Mr. Biggers, now lets examine how much of a victim the above makes you. Your Limited Liability Company contained a provision that would allow one partner to force a buy or a SELL from the other. This was done, to a tune of $1.7 million and you lost. Boohoo. Did you not know about the provision, and whether the answer is a yes or a no, can you not see how its impossible to join you in feeling sorry for yourself? Finally, on the money that was received in this SALE, why not put it into creating a new green room in one of the cluttered and disused portions of the theatre? Instead you now wish to use the city as a goon squad with the repugnant weapon of eminent domain, in a desperate hope to reverse the car out of the ditch you put it in.

Posted by marzipan on 07/05/2009 at 6:40 PM

All Comments »

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

© 2018 Tucson Weekly | 7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 | (520) 797-4384 | Powered by Foundation