Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Dear Shonai Ben,
Nothing at all is wrong with drinking - if you can handle it. I can't so I don't. But I surely do wish I could. Have a cold one for me, will you?
Regards,
John

[Shonai Ben]

OK dude.Heres looking at you kid.
Cheers.

[johnslat]

Dear Shonai Ben,
Hmmmm - boy, did that taste good. How about pouring me another? ( Do you begin to see my problem? ).
Regards,
John

[Lynn]

I voted for B, honestly.

And I didn't abort the baby. honest

p.s. I thought the company was going to be Wal-mart.

edited for the p.s. addition

[Shonai Ben]

Hey John:
Not a problem for me.You pour and I will drink.
Kanpai!

[Will.]

Ok, third try at getting a post in.
One more non-drinker coming up.
non-drinker 10/12 pints in 2/3 years, in Britain. so not quite teetotal. I have no problem with drinking apple juice and fizzy water at the bar, looks like lager, tastes better, I go home sober and the pretty woman is still pretty. no hangover.
Now some torture for the wine buffs. The bottles of wine i am presented with by students each Christmas ......I use for cooking........ mnay a classy label has gone into my pressure cooker.

[johnslat]

Does anyone know why it's spelled " teetotal " rather than " teatotal ", which would seem to be more logical? ( But then, since when is English " logical "? )
Regards,
John

[Kent F. Kruhoeffer]

Dear johnslat:

Just when you think etymology is a boring subject, "teetotal" rears its ugly head and people demand an explanation. Here it is, just for you:

*teetotal - 1843, possibly formed from total with a reduplication of the initial T- for emphasis. It was recorded as such in 1832 in Amer.Eng. The use in temperance jargon was first Sept. 1833 by Richard Turner, a working-man from Preston, England, in a speech advocating total abstinence (from beer as well as wine and liquor). But it was also said to have been introduced in 1827 in a New York temperance society which recorded a T after the signature of those who had pledged total abstinence.

*etymology courtesy of: http://www.geocities.com/etymonline/index.html

Regards,
kenT

[Kent F. Kruhoeffer]

Dear Stephen Jones:

Thank you for providing that link regarding the accuracy of the statistics relating to the US Congress. I don't like to post things that are untrue.

I have read the information in the link you provided, and have come to the conclusion that this is not quite a black and white case of fact vs. fiction, but rather a question of how these statistics are interpreted, and whether they would be considered unusual in any given sample population of 535 individuals.

In defense of those original stats in my post, here is an interesting excerpt from the link you provided, written by the original author, Doug Thompson:

When contacted via e-mail, Doug Thompson, editor of Capitol Hill Blue, had this to say about the articles he published:

"Our five-part series where these statistics came from ran last August and can be found at:

Capitol Hill Blue: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/

Our information came from public court records, Lexis and Nexis newspaper searches, the Westlaw database and seven months of interviews and fact checking. Although the members of Congress named in our series (along with many who were not) have questioned our ancestry, none have denied any of the statistics or other information in the series."

The information has also been picked up and used by ABC News Overnight, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the San Diego Union, the Boston Herald and others.

Regards,
kEnt

[johnslat]

Dear kenT ( with a capital T ),
Thanks for that info - maybe I'll spell the word ( Teetotaler ) with a capital " T " from now on, because for me it's a " capital " idea. As for those statistics about Congress, well, I for one, have no difficulty believing that they're likely accurate - in fact, they might be a little on the low side. Our elected officials often seem to think that the law applies only to other people.
Regards,
John

[grahamb]

Are you sure Churchill drank whiskey with an "e"? Such bad taste! The best stuff comes from Scotland!

[Stephen Jones]

The Capitol Hill site does not have any evidence whatsoever to back up those figures and accusations.

Since you are the one that is saying they are true, may I suggest that you give us the links to where the names of the Congressmen and the charge is listed.

The fact that other papers may or may not have repeated the disinformation says more about their journalistic integrity than the truth of the matter.

[Kent F. Kruhoeffer]

Dear Stephen:

As usual, you make an excellent point. It is quite within the realm of possibility that several reputable newspapers picked up on this story and printed blatantly false accusations. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

However ... if you reread my reply, you'll see that I never said the accusations are undeniably true. What I did say was this: " I have come to the conclusion that this is not quite a black and white case of fact vs. fiction, but rather a question of how these statistics are interpreted ..."

I stand by that statement.

Regards,
kENt

[johnslat]

Dear kENt,
Prepare to be sued by the joint Houses of Congress for ( muffled laughter ) defamation of character.
Regards,
John

[Kent F. Kruhoeffer]

Hello johnslat:

Thankfully, you can't get blood from a turnip.

Dear Stephen Jones:

Below is the direct link to the entire 5-part series you requested, complete with names, dates and specific charges.

The series is entitled "America's Criminal Class: The Congress of the United States" and was found by searching the Capitol Hill Blue website.

Readers can now decide for themselves whether this story was fact or fiction.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/criminalclass082199.htm

AllTheBest,
keNt

PS: Here is the short introduction to that 5-part series, reposted verbatim from the link above:
________________________________________

**Over the past several months, researchers for Capitol Hill Blue have checked public records, past newspaper articles, civil court cases and criminal records of both current and recent members of the United States Congress (since 1992). We have talked with former associates and business partners who have been left out in the cold by people they thought were friends.

Using a scoring system developed by American Express, we ran credit checks on members and applied the financial and criminal record scoring procedures used by the Department of Defense to determine eligibility for a Top Secret security clearance.

All checks were made through public records. Our researchers were not allowed to break any laws or misrepresent themselves to obtain this information.


What emerges from this examination is a disturbing portrait of a group of elected officials who routinely avoid payment of debts, write bad checks, abuse their spouses, assault people and openly violate the law.


They include current Rep. Corrine Brown (D-Fla), whose trail of bad debts, lies to Congress and misstatements to the Internal Revenue Service have spawned a number of investigations. Then there is Rep. James Moran (D-Va) whose wife has charged him with abuse, who has assaulted other members of Congress on the floor of the House and is a former stockbroker whose judgment in trades is so bad he is broke from poor investments. The list also includes Joe Waldholtz, a con man and husband of former Rep. Enid Greene Waldholtz (R-UT) who kited more than a million dollars in bad checks and ended up in prison.


Others, like former Ohio Senator John Glenn, have driven creditors into bankruptcy because of unpaid debts left over from aborted Presidential campaigns. Even millionaire Senator Ted Kennedy has left a trail of unpaid debts from past campaigns.


In recent years, members of Congress have gone to jail for child molestation, fraud and other charges.

Our research found 117 current and recent members of the House and Senate who have run at least two businesses each that went bankrupt, often leaving business partners and creditors holding the bag. Seventy-one of them have credit reports so bad they can't get an American Express card on their own (but as members of Congress, they get a government-issued Amex card without a credit check).


Fifty-three have personal and financial problems so serious they would be denied security clearances by the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy if they had to apply through normal channels (but, again, as members of Congress they get such clearances simply because they fooled enough people to get elected).


Twenty-nine members of current and recent Congresses have been accused of spousal abuse in either criminal or civil proceedings. Twenty-seven have driving while intoxicated arrests on their driving records. Twenty-one are current defendants in various lawsuits, ranging from bad debts, disputes with business partners or other civil matters.


Nineteen members of current and recent Congresses have been accused of writing bad checks, even after the scandal several years ago, which resulted in closure of the informal House bank that routinely allowed members to overdraw their accounts without penalty. Fourteen have drug-related arrests in their background, eight were arrested for shoplifting, seven for fraud, four for theft, three for assault and one for criminal trespass.
_________________________________________

** repost credit to: http://www.capitolhillblue.com/ (August 16, 1999)
** credit to the authors: Jack Sharp, Marilyn Crosslyn, James Hargill