Comment history

tetelestai says...

So, I am genuinely curious, DDK - not trying to be snarky at all. But, you are ok with people spending their last dollar on alcohol, but not numbers? Could you kindly explain the difference between the two, please?

On Webshops economic vampires

Posted 18 May 2020, 1:37 p.m. Suggest removal

tetelestai says...

Couldn't the two work "hand in hand"?

tetelestai says...

Disagree, Bana10, this is "Jerry Falwell/Robert Jeffries/Pat Robertson" nonsense, masquerading as a form of spirituality - I intentionally did not use the word "Christianity". The moral argument either for, or against numbers houses has long since passed - like it or not, the PLP saw to that when they went against the wishes of the people. These so-called "pastors" are merely beating a dead horse that has long since been buried, prayed for and who's soul is with our ancestors.

On Webshops economic vampires

Posted 18 May 2020, 11:15 a.m. Suggest removal

tetelestai says...

Sheeprunner, Wayne will win this easily - it won't be that much of a "challenge". Actually, a novice attorney general counsel can win this case. You cannot discriminate against legal enterprises, period. This is very easy to understand.

tetelestai says...

Technically, they aren't crooks anymore, Sickened, regardless of how you may feel about them. What is being done is illegal - and Wayne has every right to defend his clients.

tetelestai says...

Well, they are a legal entity now, so they are not the "underworld" anymore. Don't shoot me, btw, I am just the messenger.

tetelestai says...

Wayne will win this case - easily. Whether we like numbers houses, or not, the fact remains that they are a LEGAL entity under our law. As a result, they cannot be discriminated against - such as the specious and silly edict that the PM gave that forces them to remain closed, though they have shown that they can provide curbside service. This will be the easiest money Wayne has ever made in court. It is funny that our PM and his band of merry men are so clueless that they do not understand this.

tetelestai says...

Can we ignorant Bahamians stop incorrectly using the term "would have"?
Would have implies that you were going to do something but didnt, because of something else. So, if Mr. Wilson says he "would have spoke with...", it means that he didnt get the chance to because something hindered him from doing so. Most Bahamians do this, thinking they sound so cultured, when in fact, they are ignorant as hell.
Another rant: can we please eliminate the overused term "persons"? Persons driving on the road (motorists), persons who go to the foodstore (shoppers)...the English language has a wonderful goup of collective nouns that can be used in place of the lazy "persons". Another use of a word that shows our ignorance and inferior education.
I would have thought that persons umderstood this.

On BPL union assured jobs safe

Posted 14 May 2020, 10:29 a.m. Suggest removal

tetelestai says...

True, banker, but you understand the point.

tetelestai says...

When you are right, you are right.

On Mrs Obama praises Princeton first

Posted 12 May 2020, 4:57 p.m. Suggest removal