Amusing Monday: Size matters, or so they say
September 1st, 2008 by cdunaganWhy I got fired
For the last company picnic, management decided that, due to liability issues, we could have alcohol, but only one (1) drink per person.
I was fired for ordering the cups….
This joke has been floating around on the Internet for a couple of years. As with all of these, I spend some time trying to locate the source. I had no luck, but I have to say this is an interesting-looking group. It could well be a Kitsap Sun picnic. Some of the people do look familiar.
Oh, by the way, the cups can be purchased online at Limitids.com. They double as stools or storage bins.
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
lol Chris-that photo cracked me up! I want one of those cups!!! I’m hoping however that you weren’t really fired right???
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Chris,
The Seattle Weekly is running a good story on the overturning of King County’s Critical Areas Ordinance.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-09-03/news/can-t-keep-them-down-on-the-farm/1
Did your newspaper report on this?
September 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
I just finished reading the Seattle Weekly story. It describes the feelings, the science and the legal issues accurately, from what I know about it.
As for the Kitsap Sun’s coverage, for some reason, the Seattle office of the Associated Press failed to report on the court ruling, despite our request. I took a quick look at the court opinion and was unable to identify a clear precedent that would affect Kitsap County, our primary area of coverage.
I’ll take another look at the King County decision as the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners case comes before the Washington State Court of Appeals.
September 9th, 2008 at 7:45 am
“As for the Kitsap Sun’s coverage, for some reason, the Seattle office of the Associated Press failed to report on the court ruling, despite our request. I took a quick look at the court opinion and was unable to identify a clear precedent that would affect Kitsap County, our primary area of coverage.”
Really???
Given the rancor surrounding our Critical Areas Ordinance? You see no relevance in the court having thrown out a portion of King County’s? If I remember correctly, your paper – and our county officials – have, on NUMEROUS occasions – advocated similar clearing limits as those just ruled unconstitutional.
“As for the Kitsap Sun’s coverage, for some reason, the Seattle office of the Associated Press failed to report on the court ruling, despite our request. I took a quick look at the court opinion and was unable to identify a clear precedent that would affect Kitsap County, our primary area of coverage.”
Unbelievable. Literally.
September 9th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Furthermore, your paper has advocated Kitsap’s continued membership in the Puget Sound Regional Council; a body who also advocates the same clearing limits just ruled unconstitutional.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I’m not saying the King County ruling is not a story, and I’m not saying our paper shouldn’t have had it. But it is a King County story, and we usually rely on the AP for such regional coverage.
There are numerous court rulings on growth-management issues throughout the state. Some are more precedent-setting than others.
Kitsap County does not currently have any rules that limit clearing the way King County does. Perhaps you can point out to me what part of the ruling might apply to Kitsap County. I am not closing the door on doing this story, but I have plenty to write about without going to King County.
September 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Blue Light, while you’re at it, please identify where the PSRC advocated for the same clearing limits. Thanks