Gee! What happened?

You all sound like a bunch of old women. If it is all that bad why don't you find another job. None of you are under any type of contract to stay with A B & T. Why can't you be man enough to leave this job and move on down the road. The reason is no one wants you as an employee. The Division made it before you came and will do just better when you leave. Of course this is not going to happen. :devil:

All this drama...

Fact is the more time we stand around playing CYA; the less time Agents have to conduct pro-active investigations. So in the end the ones truly getting hurt are those who expect us to serve and protect. Folks need to set aside their differences and get back to work; which is what led us to this point in the first place!

Wow!

I'm now of the opinon that you're not with ABT because if you are, you certainly missed your calling. I'm really impressed because for reasons not entirely cognizant to me, this is an important and interesting issue. I will listen to a learned person for hours on because there's so much to learn from he/she with the silver tonge. Another one of my favorites is: "where you at?" coming at me over the radio. I usually respond: "right before the at" and I think one reason that I have an interest in all this is because what we say (or write) is a reflection of who we are in terms of education or lack thereof. To me this reflection is seen (and judged) by people that we interact with by the very nature of our job, i.e. we testify in court or hearings, assistant state attorneys read and review our reports and anytime we interact with people of similar interests they see us as representatives of our agency. In reading these posts one will see numerous errors that seem elemetary with one example being the use of "there" instead of "their". I know that some people are sensitive to another pointing out these mistakes and cry "grammar police" but for me, I want to either speak correctly and write with confidence that having done so, I'm as close to being correct as my talent and intellect allows. I know that your analysis in your initial post is probably 98.9% correct but while I feel that I have a pretty good handle on the King's english, you're head and shoulders above anything I'll ever hope to be. Thanks again for taking the time for an enlightening response.
Bar fly

*****************WARNING---COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC***************************
Thanks for your support Barfly. Most times I will not correct posters' grammar mistakes unless ridiculously egregious. No matter how much poor grammar and writing skills annoy me, I try to keep in mind Dave Barry's pithy observation about grammar--

"I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar.
What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good grammar. For example, I could say: "Bad grammar is the leading cause of slow, painful death in North America," or "Without good grammar, the United States would have lost World War II."

We have met on this field before, Barfly. I neglected to respond to your assertion that the general decrease in crime during the Eighties can be attributed to the relaxation of concealed carry laws (John Lott's theory) rather than the liberalization of abortion laws (Steven Leavitt's theory.) I own John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime." I can say that Leavitt's methods of statistical analysis also compare the crime rates of states that had legalized abortion pre-Roe with the states that prohibited it pre-Roe. John Lott comparatively analyzed crime rates of states that instituted more relaxed carry-permit laws (after Florida started the trend in the mid-Eighties) with states that hadn't legalized shall-issue permits. Since access to abortion is almost uniform throughout the US, it does not explain why crime decreased more preciptously in the states that adopted carry laws. Conversely, since not all states legalized concealed carry, the liberalization of gun laws does not explain why crime generally decreased for all states in the Union. The scholars' two theories can co-exist peacefully if you consider that legalized abortion led to the general downward trend of crime beginning in the Eighties, and in states that liberalized carry laws, crime rates dropped even more than in states that hadn't. Ain't causality a biatch? But I digress GREATLY.

Since you are well-known to stir up the pot politically, I will throw down this gauntlet. My private school education is responsible for the grammatical knowledge I displayed in a previous post. Everything I wrote was learned in PRIMARY school. Yes, every year in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades, I was required to memorize the 48 prepositions, and we were quizzed on them. We had about three minutes (timed) to write them all down, and if we forgot any or got any wrong, we were quizzed again the next morning until everyone got them correct. I diagrammed sentences, and I still can identify the part of speech of any word and its function in a sentence. This was all done in what they used to call "grammar school." The grammar knowledge I recounted earlier was information I could have handily related in the sixth grade. So, Barfly, I might rankle some sensibilities with the following statement-- I think all public schools should be abolished and parents should pay for their own kids' educations. Public education is the downfall of the Republic.

You all sound like a bunch of old women. If it is all that bad why don't you find another job. None of you are under any type of contract to stay with A B & T. Why can't you be man enough to leave this job and move on down the road. The reason is no one wants you as an employee. The Division made it before you came and will do just better when you leave. Of course this is not going to happen. :devil:

The only ones that need to leave are tolbert, cave, staab and decoursey. The true non-productive diseased human-beings.

Wow!

I'm now of the opinon that you're not with ABT because if you are, you certainly missed your calling. I'm really impressed because for reasons not entirely cognizant to me, this is an important and interesting issue. I will listen to a learned person for hours on because there's so much to learn from he/she with the silver tonge. Another one of my favorites is: "where you at?" coming at me over the radio. I usually respond: "right before the at" and I think one reason that I have an interest in all this is because what we say (or write) is a reflection of who we are in terms of education or lack thereof. To me this reflection is seen (and judged) by people that we interact with by the very nature of our job, i.e. we testify in court or hearings, assistant state attorneys read and review our reports and anytime we interact with people of similar interests they see us as representatives of our agency. In reading these posts one will see numerous errors that seem elemetary with one example being the use of "there" instead of "their". I know that some people are sensitive to another pointing out these mistakes and cry "grammar police" but for me, I want to either speak correctly and write with confidence that having done so, I'm as cloto being correct as my talent and intellect allows. I know that your analysis in your initial post is probably 98.9% correct but while I feel that I have a pretty good handle on the King's english, you're head and shoulders above anything I'll ever hope to be. Thanks again for taking the time for an enlightening response.
Bar fly

*****************WARNING---COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC***************************
Thanks for your support Barfly. Most times I will not correct posters' grammar mistakes unless ridiculously egregious. No matter how much poor grammar and writing skills annoy me, I try to keep in mind Dave Barry's pithy observation about grammar--

"I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar.
What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good grammar. For example, I could say: "Bad grammar is the leading cause of slow, painful death in North America," or "Without good grammar, the United States would have lost World War II."

We have met on this field before, Barfly. I neglected to respond to your assertion that the general decrease in crime during the Eighties can be attributed to the relaxation of concealed carry laws (John Lott's theory) rather than the liberalization of abortion laws (Steven Leavitt's theory.) I own John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime." I can say that Leavitt's methods of statistical analysis also compare the crime rates of states that had legalized abortion pre-Roe with the states that prohibited it pre-Roe. John Lott comparatively analyzed crime rates of states that instituted more relaxed carry-permit laws (after Florida started the trend in the mid-Eighties) with states that hadn't legalized shall-issue permits. Since access to abortion is almost uniform throughout the US, it does not explain why crime decreased more preciptously in the states that adopted carry laws. Conversely, since not all states legalized concealed carry, the liberalization of gun laws does not explain why crime generally decreased for all states in the Union. The scholars' two theories can co-exist peacefully if you consider that legalized abortion led to the general downward trend of crime beginning in the Eighties, and in states that liberalized carry laws, crime rates dropped even more than in states that hadn't. Ain't causality a biatch? But I digress GREATLY.

Since you are well-known to stir up the pot politically, I will throw down this gauntlet. My private school education is responsible for the grammatical knowledge I displayed in a previous post. Everything I wrote was learned in PRIMARY school. Yes, every year in fourth, fifth, and sixth grades, I was required to memorize the 48 prepositions, and we were quizzed on them. We had about three minutes (timed) to write them all down, and if we forgot any or got any wrong, we were quizzed again the next morning until everyone got them correct. I diagrammed sentences, and I still can identify the part of speech of any word and its function in a sentence. This was all done in what they used to call "grammar school." The grammar knowledge I recounted earlier was information I could have handily related in the sixth grade. So, Barfly, I might rankle some sensibilities with the following statement-- I think all public schools should be abolished and parents should pay for their own kids' educations. Public education is the downfall of the Republic.

I would certainly be dangerous had I the gramatical reach and understanding you display. It comes as no surprise that your learned prowess results from private halls of learning as compaired to the public arena of mine. What I like about your dialogue is that you do it with respect and I know that we can disagree without slings and arrows being unleashed. You may be surprised when I tell you that I consider myself to be "self educated" rather than a formal cetification. To be honest, it was necessary to become a member of ABT (State Beverage Dept) back in those times. This may help to explain my appreciation for having been given the chance to become better than what I had been before and I worked hard being appreciative of my good fortune. This may help to explain my contempt for those who take some of the important matters of life for granted or endlessly complain about such foolish and unimportant things. I look forward to future engagements with you on whatever subject being thrashed about.
Bar fly

PS..............................If memory serves me right, my position relative to John Lott's thesis on less crime and gun rights and abortion was presented as a "possibility" rather than an "assertion." Remember, we're talking the importance of words here.
Bar fly.

I love it when DeCoursye posts on here: it is the same post, usually. "Go somewhere else if you don't like it here." DeCoursey, take your own advice. Take Staab and Tolbert with you, stop characterizing the agents as not doing their jobs, they are the only ones doing their jobs in spite of all the negative and hostile things Staab, DeCoursey, Tolbert have done to the hard working ABT agents.

The post started with the question, Gee What Happened?

Well, last Friday PBA communicated with Liem and Drago and what happened next? Staab, DeCoursy, Tolbert had to reverse the latest hostile actions that they took against the Tampa agents that violated PBA contract. What also happened was Drago drafted and sent a letter to PBA that specifically stated that Ops Plans would no longer be used in Tampa the way Staab, DeCoursy, and Tolbert had been doing, and it stated that the Department would honor the 14 day provision of the union contract for scheduling agents. What also happened was Drago wrote that off duty work hours would not be reduced from 32 hours to 20 as Staab, DeCoursy, and Tolbert wanted them to be reduced.

Gee, A LOT HAPPENED.It was nice of Drago to check in and fix things for a change but Staab, DeCoursy and Tolbert have caused so much damage that fixing it would be a full time job for Drago and Liem.

I think Mr. Drago is a good guy overall and tries to do the right thing. He made a mistake by helping out an old friend and now he has to clean up the mess. But, remember when he came in and cleaned out the last bunch of tactless idiots, Huggs-his_nuts and the Wildabeast. I think Mr. Drago has a consistent pattern of righting wrongs. Let us just hope that he doesn't take his eye off the ball again. Honestly, the agents and personnel of this Bureau need to write letters not to the union or Mr. Drago, they need to write them to the Governor himself requesting some type of resolution by which this agency can only employee a chief who has come up through the ranks and is qualified. Furthermore, this agency needs to reinstitute some type of testing procedure for supervisors. All of Miami does not have one supervisor with any other experience than ABT and for two of them , that ain't nothing. I use Miami as an example but the truth is in the pudding and the pudding is in each and every office where you have inept supervisors who barely know and understand the complexities of beverage law let alone general law.

But hey, you know you can't even drink after 2cop...

The post started with the question, Gee What Happened?

Well, last Friday PBA communicated with Liem and Drago and what happened next? Staab, DeCoursy, Tolbert had to reverse the latest hostile actions that they took against the Tampa agents that violated PBA contract. What also happened was Drago drafted and sent a letter to PBA that specifically stated that Ops Plans would no longer be used in Tampa the way Staab, DeCoursy, and Tolbert had been doing, and it stated that the Department would honor the 14 day provision of the union contract for scheduling agents. What also happened was Drago wrote that off duty work hours would not be reduced from 32 hours to 20 as Staab, DeCoursy, and Tolbert wanted them to be reduced.

Gee, A LOT HAPPENED.It was nice of Drago to check in and fix things for a change but Staab, DeCoursy and Tolbert have caused so much damage that fixing it would be a full time job for Drago and Liem.

THANKS TO DRAGO FOR FINALLY DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS SITUATION-THERE IS MORE TO BE DONE, THOSES BEING HARASSED BY MANAGEMENT NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM STAAB AND CONSTANT UNION PROBLEMS NEEDS TO BE SOLVED, ALSO.