Stay Away From Our Rock of Hawaii 👺

[dsi1]

Stay off this steenkin' rock - especially you white honkie devils... Hawaiian residents have been frustrated with over tourism... The U.S. backed overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by American sugar interests
was a really dirty deal... Hawaii Is Close to Shutting Down Tourism Marketing Agency...

https://viewfromthewing.com/hawaii-close-to-a-decision-to-stop-marketing-tourism-roundup/

"On a recent trip to Hawaii, it was very clear that locals really don’t
like tourists – if you look behind the beautiful local scenery, you
see dire poverty. It looks a lot like rural West Virginia and Kentucky
with the accompanying attitudes – Outsiders stay away! They’re
basically Hawaiian Hillbillies – but keep sending that government
check. Message received, there are lots of other places in the
Pacific that welcome responsible tourists – and that cost a lot
less money once you get there...

I also noticed that chickens that escaped after a hurricane were
allowed to roam free…and have become out of control as to
population….taking care of this issue would have been practical
and not interfering with normal animal habitat…in fact allowing
the domestically raised birds out - impacted the environment
negatively...

Is that a pic of the Hyatt Regency in Kanaapali? I can’t tell if I recognize
the hotel I was just at or every single Hawaiian resort looks exactly
the same...

I enjoyed visiting, but compared to other places I’ve seen in Oceania,
like Samoa and Tonga, it’s far from the advertised ideal. For
history, remnants of an interesting culture and a beautiful landscape
yes, as a tropical paradise, no. And the food prices are
astronomical too..."


https://skift.com/blog/hawaii-is-close-to-shutting-down-tourism-marketing-agency/

Hawaii Is Close to Shutting Down Tourism Marketing Agency

Dawit Habtemariam, Skift

March 22nd, 2023

The Hawaii Tourism Authority may not be around for long. Last week, the state legislature’s House committee approved a Senate bill that would repeal the Hawaii Tourism Authority and create a government office dedicated solely to destination management, leaving the island without a tourism marketing agency. The bill now has to face two hearings before leaving the House, bringing it closer to passage.

The Hawaii Tourism Authority has had a strained relationship with the legislature. Lawmakers have questioned its necessity, slashed its budget, removed its state procurement exemption and took away its transient accommodation tax fund source.

Hawaiian residents have been frustrated with over tourism. Feeling their quality of life and environment has suffered, they have asserted themselves and are no longer spectators in how tourism is managed. “What I’m cognizant of now is that communities are intently watching the visitor industry,” Hawaii Tourism Authority CEO De Fries told Skift.

The agency’s recent failure to award a two-year destination marketing and management contract was the last straw for the legislature. It repeatedly redid the procurement process and endured legal troubles and delays. It mostly recently had to split the contract between marketing and destination marketing and put both out to bid after a senior government official canceled minutes before his departure.

For the last few years, the Hawaii Tourism Authority has tried to pursue a sustainable approach. This has involved listening to residents, taking on more destination management responsibilities and pivoting away from mass tourism marketing..."

[Thomas Joseph]

GM/Dave wrote:

> Stay off this steenkin' rock - especially you white honkie devils... Hawaiian residents have been frustrated with over tourism... The U.S. backed overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by American sugar interests....................(then some negative stuff about tourism)..............


I can't disagree. It is only natural that a country that makes it's money off tourism is not a happy one. Tourism sucks. It has to be ugly. You don't have to be a genius to know this, even if you've never been to a tourist destination. It exists on smaller levels all over the United States and other points around the world where pristine beaches and other attractions are all the tourists see while only a block away a military phalanx is set up around the perimeter to keep unlicensed vendors from getting in on the action. The Smokey Mountains here in NC are the same. The town of Cherokee. It's an open air carnival. Indians whooping it up into microphones asking passerby to stop in and give their store a look. One shop after the other selling Indian curios and whatnot. I checked some out even though I wasn't buying anything. I saw a few that said, "Made in Peru." On the way into Cherokee I saw loads of trailers and wondered what that was all about. After viewing Cherokee I knew. That's where the carnival workers live. Not that there's anything wrong with a trailer. But it was one after the other on the way into Cherokee. I can't change it and probably wouldn't even if I could, but I have always thought that tourism is ugly. But then for all I know if it weren't for tourism things might be even worse. I do know that I don't care for it though.

[songbird]

dsi1 wrote:
...

> For the last few years, the Hawaii Tourism Authority has tried to pursue a sustainable approach. This has involved listening to residents, taking on more destination management responsibilities and pivoting away from mass tourism marketing..."

the sheer amount of repetition involved for people would make
it a horrible occupation. much like having to sing the same
songs for the rest of your life just because those became
popular with the fans.


songbird

[bruce bowser]

ds1 didn't write this.

[Thomas Joseph]

bruce bowser wrote:
songbird wrote:

dsi1 wrote:


> For the last few years, the Hawaii Tourism Authority has tried to
pursue a sustainable approach. This has involved listening to residents,
taking on more destination management responsibilities and pivoting
away from mass tourism marketing..."


> the sheer amount of repetition
involved for people would make it a horrible occupation.

Much like having to sing the same songs for the rest of your

life just because those became popular with the fans.


> ds1 didn't write this.

Does it matter? Someone wrote it. I assume most responses
would be to the text more than whoever wrote it. I am not
entirely insensitive. I can understand people not liking
their identity being used by others. But in general - speaking
only for myself - I am a selfish person looking for any
opportunity to hop aboard the talk train - any opportunity
to respond - *to anything* - in general I think most of us
respond to the text more than the person directly. If they
respond to the person directly only because they like or
dislike that person, then the response is prejudiced. In
some ways it might be better to not know their identity.
Thinking of the person first and not the topic could put
a damper on truth. So I do not feel guilty responding to
the post as opposed to the person, even when I am aware
the post is 'forged' or whatever word YOU PEOPLE use to
describe it.

I did not write this

[Bruce]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:06:28 -0700 (PDT), Thomas Joseph
<jazee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>bruce bowser wrote:
>songbird wrote:
>dsi1 wrote:
>
>> For the last few years, the Hawaii Tourism Authority has tried to
>pursue a sustainable approach. This has involved listening to residents,
>taking on more destination management responsibilities and pivoting
>away from mass tourism marketing..."
>
>> the sheer amount of repetition
>involved for people would make it a horrible occupation.
>Much like having to sing the same songs for the rest of your
>life just because those became popular with the fans.
>
>> ds1 didn't write this.
>
>Does it matter? Someone wrote it. I assume most responses
>would be to the text more than whoever wrote it.
>

That's where you're wrong. If you write "I barbecued a canary today",
the Sisterhood will go "A canary? Eew!" But if a Sister writes that,
the Sisterhood goes "A canary? Delicious!"

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:
Thomas Joseph

> >Does it matter? Someone wrote it. I assume most responses
> >would be to the text more than whoever wrote it.


> That's where you're wrong. If you write "I barbecued a canary today",
> the Sisterhood will go "A canary? Eew!" But if a Sister writes that,
> the Sisterhood goes "A canary? Delicious!"

I am not always right but I am never wrong. If you read my post
in full you would know that I pretty much covered the aspect
you're referring to. Exactly. Of course they respond on the basis
of who wrote the post more than what the post says because
they are prejudiced people. I don't care what they do, it's all
recreation of some kind no matter how corny or desperate. But
you are saying exactly what I said, that when they respond to
the person more than the post they are more apt to be very
choosy and phony on that basis. So while I'm exaggerating
I do still think sometimes it's better to not know who wrote
the post. Then they will either not respond at all, or if they
do it will likely be more the truth as opposed to some biased
viewpoint based on who they're talking to. Too many words
here from me. I feel sorry for people who have to plow through
them. But not sorry enough to stop. SOMEONE PLEASE stop
me NOW!

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:

> That's where you're wrong. If you write "I barbecued a canary today",
> the Sisterhood will go "A canary? Eew!" But if a Sister writes that,
> the Sisterhood goes "A canary? Delicious!"

"You talking to me? Well I'm the only one here."

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:

> That's where you're wrong. If you write "I barbecued a canary today",
> the Sisterhood will go "A canary? Eew!" But if a Sister writes that,
> the Sisterhood goes "A canary? Delicious!"

Especially if they live near each other. Then it can be not just
any old canary, it can be an East Carolinian Canary smothered
in boysenberry sauce and infused with organic Peruvian garlic.

"Man, you don't know jack shit about canary meat till you've
had it the way they make it around here."

[Bruce]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 17:21:09 -0700 (PDT), Thomas Joseph
<jazee...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>Thomas Joseph
>
>> >Does it matter? Someone wrote it. I assume most responses
>> >would be to the text more than whoever wrote it.
>
>> That's where you're wrong. If you write "I barbecued a canary today",
>> the Sisterhood will go "A canary? Eew!" But if a Sister writes that,
>> the Sisterhood goes "A canary? Delicious!"
>
>I am not always right but I am never wrong. If you read my post
>in full you would know that I pretty much covered the aspect
>you're referring to. Exactly. Of course they respond on the basis
>of who wrote the post more than what the post says because
>they are prejudiced people.

Good. Sometimes your posts are longer than my attention span, so I
stop reading after the first couple of sentences. It's nothing
personal.

[Bruce]

Well, the Sisterhood covers from somewhere in Canada, via Tennessee to
South Carolina. Quite a stretch.

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:

> Well, the Sisterhood covers from somewhere in Canada, via Tennessee to
> South Carolina. Quite a stretch.

I know. But the terrain of their minds is the same. In that way they
come from the same region like most of the people in this group (and
others). They are the Sisterhood, yes - but they lack the true grit of
the true sisters - like Sister Soldier for example. Doesn't matter where
they live, they eat and talk about the same type crap which leads me
to believe that most of them own too many things and expect too
much out of life.

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:

> Good. Sometimes your posts are longer than my attention span, so I
> stop reading after the first couple of sentences. It's nothing
> personal.

I tend to read my posts only after I've sent them. But sometimes
I am able to see how they might bore people because they bore
even me. But they are not long and I am glad to hear you admit
it could be your short attention span. I have a short attention span
too. I see a wall of text and begin to tremble with fear. No way am
I going to respond to THAT. From now on I am going to put asterisks
on my good stories no matter how long they are so you'll know to
read them anyway. I will not lie or steer you in the wrong direction.
If you see the asterisk - read the post. If the post is long and you
don't see the asterisk you have my permission to ignore the post.

Was that short enough for you?

[Bruce]

Yes, I think all members of the Sisterhood are from the same State of
Mind.

[Bruce]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 18:32:39 -0700 (PDT), Thomas Joseph
<jazee...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bruce wrote:
>
>> Good. Sometimes your posts are longer than my attention span, so I
>> stop reading after the first couple of sentences. It's nothing
>> personal.
>
>I tend to read my posts only after I've sent them. But sometimes
>I am able to see how they might bore people because they bore
>even me.

I don't know about boring, just long.

>But they are not long and I am glad to hear you admit
>it could be your short attention span. I have a short attention span
>too. I see a wall of text and begin to tremble with fear. No way am
>I going to respond to THAT. From now on I am going to put asterisks
>on my good stories no matter how long they are so you'll know to
>read them anyway. I will not lie or steer you in the wrong direction.
>If you see the asterisk - read the post. If the post is long and you
>don't see the asterisk you have my permission to ignore the post.
>
>Was that short enough for you?

Borderline, but I made it to the end.

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:
Thomas Joseph

> Was that short enough for you?


> Borderline, but I made it to the end.

The end is nowhere in sight. I can post my thoughts
all at once or post them in installments to make them
easier to take. It's trickery. Another trick that works is
using lots of paragraphs. Saying the same old shit
but with spaces between so the reader thinks, "Oh
great, we're moving on to something new." If they
even get that far. Take this post for instance. Instead
of sending it all at once as I just did I could send it
sentence by sentence or even word by word - one word
at a time - like playing a game of chess through the mail.

[Bruce]

Paragraphs help. I remember Sheldon's uninterrupted blocks of racist
and misogynistic text, that are now so dearly missed by the
Sisterhood. They were very uninviting to read.

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:

> Paragraphs help. I remember Sheldon's uninterrupted blocks of racist
> and misogynistic text, that are now so dearly missed by the
> Sisterhood. They were very uninviting to read.

Sometimes
It's good
To play poet
.............And why not?
Are not all poets playing?
Are not all who call themselves poets frauds?
But it is fun to do that
Write a bunch of shit
Then go in with your cursor
and make a "poem" out of it
Not for yourself
Not for me
Not for anyone in particular
But for the entire world
To read and absorb
To take your words unto their hearts
and blast them out like so many farts

[Bruce]

I think you've just invented the Jumbo Haiku.

[Thomas]

Did I miss an asterisk?
Should I go back and read it?

[Bruce]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 01:38:42 -0700 (PDT), Thomas <cano...@gmail.com>
wrote:

An asterisk?

[bruce bowser]

Please. You volunteered to participate in this news group. So, why complain? Either you enjoy this news group or go. [Je alsjeblieft, je hebt vrijwillig deelgenomen aan deze news group. Dus waarom klagen? Of je geniet van deze news group of je gaat.]

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:

> I think you've just invented the Jumbo Haiku.

I am a lover of poetry but only as found in non poetic things. I
never understood the haiku craze. It reminds me of a mandatory
discipline in the Olympics. Constrained. Limited. Stupid rules
about how many words or lines one can use. I go with free flow
man. SOC - stream of consciousness where the sound of the
words mean more than the words themselves.

Cooma travisto
con sego mule-hurrah
Dim summed super structure
Of Norwegian delight
Embossed with goofiness
and feltsparred the golden aperitif
of 'Ah-ven-tide'
In the oohl-tomic glowmentation
Of tomorrow's dreamscapes

[Thomas Joseph]

Thomas wrote:

> Should I go back and read it?

I do not want to force word upon word on you or anyone. I would
prefer that my readers concentrate on just one word or even the
period at the end of the sentence. Get deep into that period and
"feel" it. Groove on it. Go deep into it, beyond the words into the
chasm of the soul. One word only or even less. But you gotta go
deep if you want to get the true message - and not all are capable.
No, do not go back and read it. Do not waste your time with my
words. Just wait till this post is over, then stare deep into the dot
that marks the end of my sentence. In that dot will be contained
all that I tried to say above it with words. Forget the words, man.
Go deep into the dot like a scientist with a microscope and you
will discover the true meaning of my ultimate message. And then
you will be on your way to helping us turn this world around and
making it a better place for our children. (there is is, the dot. Get
into it. Concentrate. Go deep into the dot and a large wonderful
world will open to you.

I do this for my readership

[Thomas Joseph]

bruce bowser wrote:

Bruce wrote:

> > That's where you're wrong. If you write "I barbecued a canary today",
> > the Sisterhood will go "A canary? Eew!" But if a Sister writes that,
> > the Sisterhood goes "A canary? Delicious!"


> Please. You volunteered to participate in this news group. So, why complain? Either you enjoy this news group or go. [Je alsjeblieft, je hebt vrijwillig deelgenomen aan deze news group. Dus waarom klagen? Of je geniet van deze news group of je gaat.]

You are right, Bruce is a big time complainer. But in this case I
don't think he was complaining at all, just making an observation,
one I agree with. Not just with the sisterhood but with lots of
people. People do tend to have different thoughts on different
topics depending on who they're talking to. They will lie. This
does not mean they are scum or they are out to get you. It means
they are afraid of the truth and can't face it because they are addicted
to the serenity of the stinking status quo in their going nowhere lives.

[Bruce]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:51:26 -0700 (PDT), bruce bowser
<bruce1....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 8:13:46 PM UTC-4, Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> That's where you're wrong. If you write "I barbecued a canary today",
>> the Sisterhood will go "A canary? Eew!" But if a Sister writes that,
>> the Sisterhood goes "A canary? Delicious!"
>
>Please. You volunteered to participate in this news group. So, why complain?

I wasn't complaining.

>Either you enjoy this news group or go.

I wasn't complaining.

[Thomas Joseph]

Bruce wrote:
bruce bowser

> Either you enjoy this news group or go.

> I wasn't complaining.


Imagine an usher saying that to a patron in a movie theater:
"Uh Sir, either enjoy this movie or leave the theater." He walks
past the the viewers with a flashlight to check their faces. He
wants them to enjoy the movie even if it sucks. And if they
don't enjoy them he want them to leave.

Ticket taker to a viewer on his way out after the movie: "Uh Sir,
did you enjoy the movie?"

"No, I did not."

"Well, in that case don't ever come back."

[Bruce]

Bruce bowser was getting a bit worked up. Maybe he understood that
'Sisterhood' includes his idol Jill McBiddy and he became defensive of
her.

[Thomas]

****
?

[Thomas Joseph]

Thomas wrote:
Thomas Joseph wrote:

bruce bowser wrote:


> Either you enjoy this news group or go.

> "Did you enjoy the movie? No? Well, in that case
> please go and don't ever come back."


> ****
> ?


In response to Bruce Bowser's comment to the other
Bruce: "Either you enjoy the news group or go." I thought
it was funny. It had an "American, love it or leave it" vibe
to it. It made me think of an usher in a movie theater whose
job is to not only sit patrons but to also monitor their reactions
to the movie and if it seems they are not enjoying the movie
they will be asked to leave.