For two years, volunteer Frank Coyles has played Santa for chemotherapy patients at the Hollings Cancer Center in Charleston, S.C. This year, the center told him to stay away:
"Because of our state affiliation, we decided not to have a Santa presence this year," Hollings spokeswoman Vicky Agnew said. Hollings is a part of the Medical University of South Carolina.
Decorations will be "more secular and respectful to all beliefs," Agnew said. "We don't want to offend a volunteer with good intentions, but we need to think of the bigger picture. People who are Muslim or Jewish or have no religious beliefs come here for treatment," she said
That is just priceless. They want to get rid of Santa so they can be more secular. I do not think that word means what they think it means.
I probably shouldn't even comment since I'm agnostic on the whole Santa thing, which is why I refer to him as X Nick. Hey, makes him sound Muslim, which will please some people.
Comments
Swinkle I was accusing you of being Michaelk42 weeks before you decided to go all "stalker" on Turkette. And I was right.
Dan, this is the dude from those stupid "critical Mass" bike protests, new name, new cause same old tired tactics.
Tim, making baseless accusations without proof for a long time doesn't make those accusations true.
I know you'll never admit that you've lost, but it's entertaining to watch you and Turkette thrash about and make yourselves look worse. :D
Ohhhhh Swinger42, I haven't "lost" anything, I wasn't in a contest. I just called you out for using a fake name because it's ironic as hell when you accuse us of "hiding behind our keyboards" while Kalb and I and Phil and virtually everybody else that posts here (except Littlejohn) uses their real identity and don't hide at all behind our keyboards like you do. Thanks for playing though, you're entertaining as always Michael!
Where's your proof this isn't my real name?
Should I start using a fake name?
"Kendyl" has a nice ring to it. :)
BTW, looks like Michael has weighed in over here:
https://www.facebook.com/occupyfortwayne/posts/204661112945137
People are really just wondering what mental illness you and Turkette have that makes you behave this way.
But you're using the Swain persona on that link. Which is it? Swing, Swain or Kerney?
So indecisive.
Oh, and BTW YET AGAIN OH MAN
I forgot to include a link to form you'll be needing now man I'm real sorry about leaving that out. :D
Hey, if you can convince Facebook to take my real name you're welcome to it there.
Hey, you can use whatever name you like, we really don't care. Just don't accuse others of "hiding" when we don't but you do yourself. That's called being a hypocrite.
So you still have no evidence this isn't my real name then, huh Zank? :D
It's too bad you think so little of your buddy Turkette though. :D
Your posts are all the evidence required, you can change your name but not your personality. It shines through like a beacon.
Still have nothing I see. :D
Unlike Turkette's signed public confession up there that he has nothing better to do than troll a local group's Facebook like a 13 year old. :D
Do you honestly think the parallels are not noticeable to the readers here?? You can go back to our previous "dust ups" about McDonalds hot coffee and a handful of others, it's obvious ecause you never know when to just STFU.
Says the guy who hasn't provided any actual evidence and continues not to STFU. :D
What's the matter, Tim? Butthurt that your decepticon leader Turkette got busted?
Like I said, I could pick a new name! I see through search that the Zank name is quite well-loved in this area....
As illustrated no less than 30 times on this thread, there's just no bait you won't take Michaelk42!
Michaelk/Swing, are you surpised 15 year old girls would do such a thing? I'm not, teenage girls are catty and mean, grown adult men like you however are not supposed to act like teenage girls. It's more than a little creepy. Have you tried to "friend" her on facebook too? Good Lord are you a pedophile?
I fully understand one of the favorite tactics employed by people like you is to threaten the families of those with whom you disagree in the hopes they won't comment anymore. It's one way to win an argument I guess, albeit a cowardly and despicable way.
I know at this point in your life you think everything is "fair game" but posting that link to a tweet by a teenage girl pretending to be my daughter in this venue to hurt me is indeed a new low.
Someday, if you ever have children you'll regret posting that link, it shows you have no moral compass whatsoever.
Aw, gee Tim. You're pissed that people you care about are being ruthlessly googled and brought into your little crusade against me? LOL, "threat." Quick, let's call in Law and Order: SBU (Special Butthurt Unit.) :D
Tell you what, you leave my friends like Michael who aren't even involved out of this, and then maybe you'll have the moral high ground to claim outrage. You're already trying to use the tactic you claim to despise against me, you dumb cunt. And now you're stupid enough to act like you're innocent? Moron. :D
You are out of control.
Don't start a Googlefight if you're too stupid to use Google, Timmy. You never had control to begin with. :D
This HAS all gotten a little absurd...
As Dan admitted, he was a troll. He got banned because he was a troll, not because he disagreed with us. When counter arguments were laid out against his accusations towards the Occupy movement they fell on deaf ears because Dan was there to disparage and be combative. Had Dan been someone who disagreed but engaged in honest conversation then he wouldn't have gotten banned, he also wouldn't have started half a dozen other identities to continue his pogrom against OFtW.
It has become clear to me through my observations that Dan (and to a lesser extent Tim here) is the type of person who clings hard to an ideology, will defend it no matter what, will ignore its short comings, and will attack vehemently any competing ideology. Anyone who tries to hold up the Tea Party as a bastion of upright behavior while decrying OWS as filthy anti-American hippies has to be either drastically uninformed or deep in the throes of cognitive dissonance, or both. Have we forgotten Tea Partiers spitting on elected officials?( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/congressman-spit-on-by-te_n_516300.html ) How about when a Rand Paul supporter stomped on a womans head for showing up at a rally to express her criticism of Paul? ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/25/rand-paul-supporter-stomps-head_n_773857.html Video at bottom) Or when Tea Partiers openly carried weapons at rallies and Tea Party candidates placed bulls-eyes over Democrats up for reelection.
Ultimately, every movement has its bad apples and OWSs problems have been complicated by documented cases of the NYPD sending drunks and alcoholics to Zuccotti. But to try and claim that the movement is discredited by a small handful of bad eggs on either side is to show that you lack the ability to criticize the actual goals or intent of the groups and as such is intellectual laziness. So yes, Dan got banned, not because he disagreed with us but because he was a troll with no interest in honest intellectual discourse.
While I feel like Chris has acted a little immaturely here at times I have to agree that Tim's insistence on claiming that he's other people is childish and also intellectually lazy. Tim, Chris has explained the reason for the different names and anyone well acquainted with Facebook knows that their system can be ridiculous at times. His explanation is plausible and you appear to have no such apprehensions about Dan confirming that he creates alternate accounts to troll and sock-puppet his views. To continue pointing at something that he has already explained and asserting that certain Facebook friends of his are also his accounts is asinine and an argument for which you have no foundation. You're either projecting the traits of the trollish behaviors of Dan onto Chris or you're engaging in ad hominems to try and discredit him as a person rather than engaging him in what he says.
The way this whole thing has devolved is really just sad.
Admittedly, Tim was the first one to make a personal attack on another person (comment #5), and he pretty much kept it up the whole time.
But Chris was the first one to insinuate the use of force against another (#8). Chris was the first one to expand the
"But Chris was the first one to insinuate the use of force against another (#8)"
Fail, Phil. Pointing out the fact that someone is likely to get in a fight behaving in a way that actually gets people into fights in our society isn't "insinuating violence" against another.
"Chris was the first one to expand the
Chris,
No, you
"But Chris was the first one to insinuate the use of force against another."
"Nobody was talking about physical violence until you did."
So you've shifted the goal post from insinuating there would be violence to simply talking about it. OK. It's easy to be right when you keep changing what you're talking about.
"Chris was the first one to expand the
And in case you think you can weasel out of knowing EXACTLY what I said in the first place, bear in mind that Leo didn't actually delete the comment. He put it back in the moderation queue where I at least can still see it. Here it is, without the terrible link that must not be linked:
Christopher Swing Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
November 26th, 2011 at 12:49 am
Well, if you want me to get started on an actual fake account, that can be arranged, though I think someone beat me to that last December in one case. Such a well-loved family you have there, Tim. :D
...So Phil, what part of "I could make a fake account like you accuse me of Tim, but it looks like someone else already made a fake account almost a year ago you should be more concerned about" do you not understand, Phil?
No, you did insinuate violence with that remark. And I stand by my claims that no one was doing so before that and that you are responsible for degrading the conversation at that point.
OK, let me rephrase. You were the first to expand the
"No, you did insinuate violence with that remark. And I stand by my claims that no one was doing so before that and that you are responsible for degrading the conversation at that point."
If you strain hard enough to find malice, I suppose you'll find it Phil.
"Tim asked if you were Michael. You responded by saying he better back off or you will try to dig up dirt on his family. That was still another major degradation on your part.Tim asked if you were Michael. You responded by saying he better back off or you will try to dig up dirt on his family. That was still another major degradation on your part."
No Phil, he accused me of being Michael. Over a month ago. In another thread.
Where, exactly, did I say I would "try to dig up dirt on his family?"
"You introduced the subject of Tim
And the questions Leo STILL refuses to answer:
Since when is Tim Zank google-stalking people in an effort to shut them up
Chris,
There was no strain at all. You moved the conversation from mere ideas to talking about Tim getting his ass kicked. I didn
Ah, now it's just of-topic in your opinion. Great. Anyway...
That sequence STILL doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to present. I finally resorted to doing the same thing Tim had been doing to me for over a month, after WARNING him to stop. Something Leo should have been putting a stop to earlier. This didn't take place over a day or two. This has literally been a thing for WEEKS now.
"I didn