Kudos to my readers

4/17/2015

I'd like to take a minute to say "Thanks" to my readers. I have often thought that my readers were intelligent and thoughtful, no matter their position. The email and comments I receive prove the point to my satisfaction. I get far more email than you see. Some, who know me, have my private email address. All comments go straight to the blog, any warts and all. I received a comment today. It is very well presented, whether you agree with the local option, or not. It is thoughtful and intelligent. It can be found in the Comments section of "Sorry" post, but it deserves a special posting. It is below. I've got the best readers in the world.
_____________________________________

I wonder about a ripple effect if the citizens of Rowlett vote no on the liquor issue. I think it sends a signal that we are against progress, and I have to think that has some weight with whoever might want to come into Rowlett and do business.

I've listened to the mayor on this topic, and he's right. If we vote no, Garland and Rockwall will vote yes. We'll have liquor stores on the borders of our town, and we'll get none of the revenue. Kind of like all the retail around here...

As for any argument against it in Rowlett, I haven't heard any discussion about it. I have seen this debate in other cities before though, and am pretty familiar with the usual canards. Without fail, predictions of doom and gloom never materialized in those cities that voted for liquor, or even just to go damp. Not once. And everyone knows it. Continuing to argue against it on these faulty premises speaks to a person's intelligence at best, or a person's honesty at worst. My apologies to anyone in Rowlett arguing against liquor sales with an original and not yet dis-proven hypothesis.

2 Comments

Anna Knight

4/23/2015 10:33:35 am

My response to the "post" below is made at each of the writer's comments. How to delineate between original writer and my response, I do not know. Resident

Below is a "post" I just made to my blog. I am most pleased with my readers. They think, and vote. They are not the Facebook crowd.
______________________________________

I'd like to take a minute to say "Thanks" to my readers. I have often thought that my readers were intelligent and thoughtful, no matter their position. The email and comments I receive prove the point to my satisfaction. I get far more email than you see. Some, who know me, have my private email address. All comments go straight to the blog, any warts and all. I received a comment today. It is very well presented, whether you agree with the local option, or not. It is thoughtful and intelligent. It can be found in the Comments section of "Sorry" post, but it deserves a special posting. It is below. I've got the best readers in the world.
_____________________________________

I wonder about a ripple effect if the citizens of Rowlett vote no on the liquor issue. I think it sends a signal that we are against progress, and I have to think that has some weight with whoever might want to come into Rowlett and do business.

Processing his/her comments, to this writer and many other residents, approving and implementing liquor sales in the City may appear to be progress to the writer,
rationalizing the dire warning that businesses will levy the value of having, or not, a liquor license will ultimately determine a decision by companies to enter the market in Rowlett! Logically to this reader, depending on the business, it clearly would be a narrow-minded approach of marketing (by the city council), and the end results may or not satisfy the daily tab. Perhaps the more equitable decision would be to let the voters decide if they want their city to be "wet". Not all people are heavy consumers of liquor. The question then becomes, how many shoppers from in/around the City of Rowlett actually come here, or stop while passing through to shop?! Because a city the size of Rowlett - IMO - cannot sustain a stand-alone liquor store, and perhaps not be a value added to grocery stores.

I've listened to the mayor on this topic, and he's right. If we vote no, Garland and Rockwall will vote yes. We'll have liquor stores on the borders of our town, and we'll get none of the revenue. Kind of like all the retail around here...

Perhaps it is time for residents to vote in city "leaders" who understand what it is the people want and expect, rather than focusing entirely on revenue from liquor sales - or what "they" want! Surely the elected "leaders" can focus on other businesses of more intrinsic value to all residents and not just the revenue from liquor sales, which would appear to be short-sighted. To this writer, based on the type of businesses agreeing to locate in Rowlett, have not been comparable to those in, e.g., Rockwall.

As for any argument against it in Rowlett, I haven't heard any discussion about it. I have seen this debate in other cities before though, and am pretty familiar with the usual canards. Without fail, predictions of doom and gloom never materialized in those cities that voted for liquor, or even just to go damp. Not once. And everyone knows it. Continuing to argue against it on these faulty premises speaks to a person's intelligence at best, or a person's honesty at worst. My apologies to anyone in Rowlett arguing against liquor sales with an original and not yet dis-proven hypothesis.

Comment. Interesting that the writer must use the tactic of insulting the intelligence of all who disagree, based on his/her own self aggrandizement, ending the argument that the only interpretation of need is what he/she determines, and that is a most narrow interpretation of inherent "intelligence"!

The writer seems so intent on having the sale of liquor in the Rowlett City limits, irrespective of what the voters may, or not want. Of course the main thrust of city officials is "revenue"; more money = more spending. Failing to take into consideration that Rowlett is considered a "Bedroom Community", with the interpretation meaning "safe". The writer has made the declaration, quote "Without fail, predictions of doom and gloom never materialized in those cities that voted for liquor, or even just to go damp. Not once." End quote. And what a declaration! Unequivocally the writer can with absolute certainty that there have been no incidents, accidents! Rapes! Robberies! Shootings! Home invasions! Etc., etc., due to alcohol, is perhaps one of the most ludicrous and uneducated statement I have ever heard! The writer provides no statistical data, and no analysis of varied possibilities of "doom and gloom" - nothing. Nada! Niente! Nein!

Perhaps to understand the writer's passion for liquor to be allowed in the City of Rowlett, is in all probability less for r

Jared

4/25/2015 04:33:12 am

"! Unequivocally the writer can with absolute certainty that there have been no incidents, accidents! Rapes! Robberies! Shootings! Home invasions! Etc., etc., due to alcohol, is perhaps one of the most ludicrous and uneducated statement I have ever heard! The writer provides no statistical data, and no analysis of varied possibilities of "doom and gloom" - nothing. Nada! Niente! Nein!"

The claim is that alcohol sales will increase these horrors in a city. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. This should be easy, Anna. There are fewer and fewer dry places left in Texas. Nobody I ask can ever provide this proof, yet they still continue to make the claim. In fact, the only statistical research I have ever seen seems to point to an opposing conclusion.

You are asking me to provide proof of a negative, and that's just bad epistemology. It's not upon the disbeliever in a claim to turn over every rock because the evidence may just be under the next one.

It isn't that I think your claim is false, it's that I have no reason to believe it is true. There is a significant difference there. Without such evidence, the only reasonable thing for me to do is make decisions assuming it isn't true.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Kudos to my readers

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories