Thursday, August 14, 2008
What’s next for Kmail?
It has been over a week since the election and according to my Kmail sources they have not received a new Kmail dispatch. There is nothing but silence from Kmail? What is up with Keith? What’s next for Kmail?
This is an interesting question since Keith sent out a last ditch attempt to go after Paul Ward in a 07/29/08 Kmail. There were various (using Keith’s own words) “nauseating” and “nefarious” accusations made in that Kmail against Paul. But, in true Keith fashion he did not hold all the candidates to the same standard after he had sharpened his political dagger and took some swipes at Paul. It is safe to say Keith showed how Kmail was not interested in all the facts about all the candidates running in this election, just the one he wanted to attack. He was simply going after Paul full-throttle right before the election. It was such an act of desperation, even more so than his lambasting of Tim Griffin in April of this year.
The most basic way Kmail showed its true colors in this attack email was Keith’s tired line that Paul was not on the list of “qualified candidates.” Hello Keith, 100 or more Kirkwood voters signed a petition to put Paul’s name on a ballot in accordance with our City Charter. That is qualified in the real world! In addition, the St. Louis County Board of Election verified those names as registered voters and placed Paul’s name on the election ballot. That is qualified in the real world! Finally, unlike his other two opponents, Paul was previously elected by Kirkwood voters and served our community for 4 years on our City Council. That is … more qualified … in the real world!
In Keith’s Kmail Kirkwood the decision of actual voters in our community does not matter. According to Keith's declaration voters in Kirkwood do not know how to choose a “qualified candidate.” Only Kmail speaks for voters in our community in Keith’s world. Fortunately, not many in Kirkwood live in Keith’s world.
As readers of this blog have already seen Keith really does not live in the real world at all.
Keith’s past off-base election predictions were debunked in:
The Coming Prognostications of Kmail
The mystery of Kmail was cleared up in:
There Is No Mystery In Kirkwood About Kmail
Kmail’s “fabrication business” was dealt with in:
Can you give me a number between 1 and 10, Keith?
I hope with this posting Donkeith Corleowilliams will soon come to understand that just because Paul, Tim or any other candidate chooses to not take him up on his “offer they can not refuse” and decides to not submit to using Kmail, does not mean they are not a “qualified candidate” in our community. This is the second time Keith has tried to use this tactic. Thus, this is the second time the Kmail “unqualified candidate” has won and done so overwhelmingly in our community.
Will we see the same shameless candidate shake-down from Kmail in 2010?
We do not know, but Keith’s candidate Bob Sears (typo corrected from original post) is planning on being on the ballot. Bob declared his candidacy in the Kirkwood-Webster Journal's Letters to the Editor yesterday.
Wow ... so how far will Kmail go to prop up Bob Sears in 2010? What’s next for Kmail?
====================================================================
That's my take on the issue. What's yours? If you have your own take on this issue, then do not back down now! Click on the Comments link below and share your thoughts! Thanks in advance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
7 comments:
Joe, I am ready and willing to answer any questions you may have about my views on any issues so that you can make an informed decision about whether you can support me in 2010 (you will have the opportunity to select three candidates then).
I appreciate support from anyone who is interested in keeping Kirkwood a fantastic place to live. I received tremendous support from a very wide variety of Kirkwood residents and I appreciate every vote I received.
I also appreciate that several newspapers, bloggers and other media invited each candidate to offer statements for voters. If you become interested in getting information to your readers about candidates for office, I will accept such an invitation from joekirkwood as well in 2010. I believe it is important for candidates to get get information to voters. I want people to know that I am willing to work for them and I want to give them the information they are interested in to make their decision. The voters deserve to learn about candidates through the many sources now available to them.
While I appreciate support from all quarters, I do not want to be, nor have I been "propped up." If I cannot stand on my own, I do not deserve the office. I know that you publicly and energetically supported Paul, but I do not think you would characterize your efforts as "propping him up."
You imply in your post that there is something about me that was overlooked. As you wrote, "[Keith] . . . did not hold all the candidates to the same standard after he had sharpened his political dagger and took some swipes at Paul. . . . Kmail was not interested in all the facts about all the candidates running in this election . . ." Did you mean to imply that there was something about me that was kept from voters or were you speaking about just one of the other candidates? If you have something in mind about me, I would like to know what it is so that I may address it. I don't think there is anything there and would rather not leave the implication hanging.
May I respectfully make additional comments about your posting? While I appreciate free speech and everyone's views, I was dismayed that you would stoop to the obvious and intended inflammatory (and awkward sounding) "Kieth's Kmail Kirkwood." Of course, you can write want you want, but I think that such base devises interfere with your message rather than advancing it. Also, I know that it was a typo, but I wish to correct the spelling of my name which is Sears - plural Sears'.
The only question you asked me in this election cycle was early on when you called to find out whether I was induced to run by the "coming together" crowd (which I was not, I'm not even sure who that is). Even though we have not spoken about my candidacy, you and I have had a few very civil discussions regarding Park Board issues. I think you know that I have always listened to your views and that experience should suggest to you that I will continue to do so. I look forward to speaking with you if you would like.
Also, I appreciate the support you gave Paul as such work by interested people is necessary in our political process. I look forward to working with Paul as he continues in his work for the good of Kirkwood.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Bob Sears
Bob,
Thank you for your reply.
I corrected my typo the moment you pointed it out.
Now to the important issues you pointed out in your response.
First, I want to clear up your question on this issue,
“You imply in your post that there is something about me that was overlooked. As you wrote, ‘[Keith] . . . did not hold all the candidates to the same standard after he had sharpened his political dagger and took some swipes at Paul. . . . Kmail was not interested in all the facts about all the candidates running in this election . . .’ Did you mean to imply that there was something about me that was kept from voters or were you speaking about just one of the other candidates?”
I was making a general comment to point out the fact that Keith Williams’ election Kmail only attacked one candidate, Paul Ward. No cheap shots were taken at you or Michael Moore. I challenge you to re-read Keith’s election Kmail, so you can read a deliberately hyped, very base, low-blow attack that is designed to only do one thing … attempt to call Paul’s candidacy into question with Kmail readers. Keith took neither you nor Michael to task on any issue, much less take either of you to task in such a demeaning way.
This brings me to your second issue. You said,
“May I respectfully make additional comments about your posting? While I appreciate free speech and everyone's views, I was dismayed that you would stoop to the obvious and intended inflammatory (and awkward sounding) "Kieth's Kmail Kirkwood." Of course, you can write want you want, but I think that such base devises interfere with your message rather than advancing it.”
May I say that I am dismayed by either … your obvious hypocrisy or your unquestionable naiveté … on the issue of inflammatory comments in our community. I truly do not know which it is at this point.
This is only the second time I have intentionally used that phrase toward Kmail on the blog to see what kind of response it would elicit.
Thank you for giving your response. Unfortunately, you have shown you want to publicly hold me up to a standard you have not held Keith Williams publicly to. Did you publicly respond back to Keith’s election Kmail I just challenged you to re-read with this same dismay for his inflammatory comments? How about the numerous other inflammatory Kmails? Were you willing to risk a flaming Keith Williams’ response before the election?
In addition, when have you ever publicly held the members of “Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together for a Bright Future” (KCCTBF) for just their inflammatory comments made this last February, March and April? These outrageous and insulting attacks were in almost every newspaper in the region, plus in a St. Louis Magazine article and even in a NY Times article. Were you not in Kirkwood for those 3 months?
You want to say you are dismayed with my comment, but are willing to give these folks a pass on the inflammatory comments issue to such a point that you say,
“The only question you asked me in this election cycle was early on when you called to find out whether I was induced to run by the "coming together" crowd (which I was not, I'm not even sure who that is).”
Hello, Bob? You do not know who they are? KCCTBF members are your supporters like Kate Davison-Ives and the folks she represents. Kate Davison-Ives is right in the thick of the KCCTBF crowd, seeing she is a founding member of Kirkwood Alliance (KA) and the financer of K-Fair’s 2003 ward proposal. Other KCCTBF members are the Connie Karr supporters you clearly tried to court in this election.
I give Keith just a small dose of his own medicine and you want to be dismayed with me? Hmmmmm? Well, then I look forward to you publicly holding these other folks in our community to the same inflammatory comments standard you held me to the next time they go on one of their characteristic attacks. Keep in mind it is not a matter of “if” it is only a matter of “when” with them. Keith has only been at it for a few years now. But, some of the KCCTBF folks have honed their skills for the past 10 to 15 years in Kirkwood.
Which brings up an interesting point, for some reason as far as I have seen you have sat silent on the issue, up until my one comment?
Finally, any time you would like to sit down and have a chat about this issue or others, I would be open to that opportunity. I just doubt you are ready to have this discussion. Plus, I doubt you are willing to pay the price to stand up to these folks when they go on their next disingenuous, divisive, deceptive and destructive crusade in our community.
If Kirkwood history has taught us one thing about these folks it is they are only interested … as you said earlier … in “keeping Kirkwood a fantastic place to live” as long as it is only on their terms and only with them in charge. Sadly, they have shown they are not interested in the facts of an issue or anyone else’s point of view in our community or in moving from their intransigent stances.
Thank you again for coming to the blog and responding.
Have a great day!
Joe
Joe,
On Clarification
Thank you for clarifying some issues. I just thought that perhaps you were suggesting that there was something specific to attack me on that was left unaddressed. I am satisfied with your explanation that you had no such intent.
On your invoking the KKK.
Naivete? Maybe. Hipocrisy? No. As politely as I could I expressed my dismay with only one statement you made. That was your obvious invocation by implication of the KKK in your blog. That is all. I found it insensitive to this community and, since you used it "to see what kind of response it would elicit", let there be no mistake -- I find it offensive. I did not see anything approaching that tone in the newspapers, Kmail or other sources. I had no problem with the rest of your comments. You are merely expressing your views. If I see similar baiting from other sources, I will call it out.
On "courting"
In this election, I courted no group's support. I put my thoughts out and people in Kirkwood responded. I had help from many good people and no group. I suppose by knocking on doors and talking to anyone who wished to hear about MY views, I did, in essence, "court" individuals. But even that was not my goal. I believe that I should calmly, respectfully and clearly express where I stand and leave it to the people to decide whether that stance is consistent with their vision of Kirkwood.
Truthfully, naive or not, I paid no attention to who might be in what "group." It did not matter. I was not trying to mold myself to fit any group's view. I stated my own personal positions and received responses from very interesting and kind people who found some connection with where I stand on issues. Interestingly, from what I can tell, most of my visions of Kirkwood and views on issues, if not all of them, are also shared by you.
On encouragement to run again
I enjoyed tremendous encouragement from many of Paul's supporters which I appreciated. I look forward to working with Paul, his supporters, all of the council and government for the betterment of Kirkwood. I think you want the same thing.
On my backbone
You wrote, "I just doubt you are ready to have this discussion." First, thank you for accepting MY offer to talk about issues so that you may decide whether to support me in 2010. Second, I am now and will be ready, when you want to have a civil discourse on issues. It is because you do not know me very well that you could make statements such as "Plus, I doubt you are willing to pay the price to stand up to these folks when they go on their next disingenuous, divisive, deceptive and destructive crusade in our community." Please ask anyone who knows me how I would "stand up" to any such conduct. (I also do not know what you think the "price" might be. There is no price for standing up for right, there is only reward.)
On constructive dialogue
Joe, I truly mean for this to be a wholesome, fruitful discussion of issues. I do not want it to devolve into anything less than that ideal. If you are serious about talking about my thoughts on issues and your concerns and your ideas, please call me at any time and I will be pleased to meet with you. If you are in favor of improving Kirkwood while preserving what is great about it, we will get along just fine and I believe you will find you are able to support me for Council. If not, that is fine with me as well. You, like each of us, need to do what you truly believe is best and most constructive for Kirkwood.
Bob Sears
P.S. I didn't "publically" hold you to any standard. I did not mention anything about your posting in any media of broad circulation. I simply mentioned it here and you chose to publish it on your site. As your blog states "Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author."
Bob,
Let’s first deal with your “P.S.” statement. Yes, “Comment moderation has been enabled” on this blog like it is on the vast majority of blogs. But, I give the criteria of what is needed for a comment. This comes down to one essential thing – Your Name – for your comment. I am clearly looking for public accountability for your comment. Also, this blog is a FORUM on the WORLD WIDE WEB that I advertise and disseminate in a variety of ways in our community. So, I do not know how much more PUBLIC or BROAD you can get. (Reminder, if someone does not have web access they can go to our Library and get on for free to see what is said on the blog.)
So, yes you did publicly set a standard with your “dismay” comment, therefore, you did publicly try to hold me to it. I hope this issue is now settled publicly.
Next let’s deal with your comment,
“On your invoking the KKK.
Naivete? Maybe. Hipocrisy? No. As politely as I could I expressed my dismay with only one statement you made. That was your obvious invocation by implication of the KKK in your blog. That is all. I found it insensitive to this community and, since you used it "to see what kind of response it would elicit", let there be no mistake -- I find it offensive. I did not see anything approaching that tone in the newspapers, Kmail or other sources. I had no problem with the rest of your comments. You are merely expressing your views. If I see similar baiting from other sources, I will call it out.”
It is amazing. You continue to prove my point. I did not make a direct statement about Kmail. I did not say the Kmail was a part of that – to borrow two of Keith’s words – nauseating and nefarious organization. I used one alliteration on my – in your own eyes not a public forum – blog. Yet, somehow in your same eyes I am “insensitive” and “offensive” in “this community.“ My alliteration was, according to your eyes, setting a unacceptable “tone” in “this community.“
But, such is not the case with other direct comments in our community. Keith Williams and his KMail comments which are according to him sent to 1,000 email addresses in Kirkwood are certified “Grade A Prime” to you compared to my one alliteration. In addition, the public comments of the “Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together for a Bright Future” (KCCTBF) folks are completely acceptable when you weighed them against my one alliteration on your scales.
Have you heard the statement, “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” … ever?
Let me remind you of some of the comments in Keith’s election Kmail, since obviously you did not re-read it as I had previously challenged you to do. The July 29, 2008 KMail said:
“Candidate # 3 has been very shy about sending anything Kmail can print about his credentials. Unfortunately his silence continues, but now we know why! Me thinks Mr. Ward just shot himself in the foot. The grisly details follow.” …
“Not much sense in electing Mr. Ward when what you will get is instant legal and moral troubles for Kirkwood City Hall to have to deal with. 'Tis a shame.” …
“Thank you, Mr. Phillips, for sending Kmail the nauseating information concerning Mr. Ward. Kmail has checked out the facts. Very sadly, we find them 100% true as of today 29 July 2008. Whew, I still can't believe it! (shades of Matt Burghoff and Bouyer Ave ) Perhaps Mr. Ward should withdraw from this race until he can get his personal civic obligations under control.” …
“I have a question for you Kmail legal-beagles out there. Read up on how Mr. Ward operates (shown below), then explain what moral and legal assaults the City of Kirkwood will be faced with in the event of his election. Would't that be a mess !!!!” …
“What is the City's moral and legal remedy for Mr. Ward's nefarious activity (revealed below)? Is he disqualified from holding public office? Kirkwood doesn't need this sort of hassle right now.”
Let’s make sure, Bob, you got all the important direct phrases and words in your mind … “shot himself in the foot” … “grisly details” … “instant legal and moral troubles” … “nauseating information” … “we find them 100% true” … “should withdraw from this race” … “moral and legal assaults” … “moral and legal remedy for Mr. Ward's nefarious activity” … before we go on any further. All this public, nasty, political slice and dice of Paul was done for what?
Anyone can see that Kmail went far beyond “baiting” Paul! There was no “invoking” by an alliteration in those comments! It was even beyond a direct questioning of Paul’s character. I do not know how much more “offensive,” “insensitive” or nauseating and nefarious of a “tone” you can get with such a brazen attempt to character assassinate a candidate right before an election. This is especially the case when it is unprovoked!!
What did Paul Ward do to instigate such an attack by Kmail? Was Paul, with his City Council campaign or any other group he is a part of, going around publicly making outrageous accusations or some other unfounded mud-slinging or in any way attacking Keith Williams? Much less attacking any other citizen in this community? No! And NO! Paul was running his campaign above the board and communicating to folks his qualifications to serve them the way he wanted to communicate those points.
But, that was not good enough for Kmail. No way! Paul was going to pay for not submitting to Kmail’s candidate shake-down demands. Plain and simple.
Now let’s take you back to what you just said, ”I did not see anything approaching that tone in the newspapers, Kmail or other sources.“
So, if this is the case, then is this the kind of “tone” you want in “this community“ during an election season? This is not a rhetorical question. Is this how you want to be treated publicly in the 2010 election? Yes or No?
I seriously doubt you want to be treated that way in 2010.
Yet, I would like to point out I did not see you publicly "’stand up’ to any such conduct” on the part of Kmail before August 5, 2008.
Finally in regards to you questioning of my statement that you are not ready to pay the price to stand up to these folks. You said, “I also do not know what you think the "price" might be. There is no price for standing up for right, there is only reward.”
Bob. That character assassination Kmail is just a small part of the price you pay when you stand up to a certain group of folk in Kirkwood. If you dare stand up to them, then you become fair game for anything and everything they want to throw at you. These folks have proven they have no bounds and will go to every length to make your life miserable if you dare to question their stances or place the same demands on them that they place on others in our community.
Keep in mind I never said there was no reward. There is always a reward for standing up for what is right in your community. I talk to folks everyday that appreciate the fact that I listen to what these certain folks say, research the issue and then go the extra step to separate these folks’ disingenuous statements, from their deceptive statements, from their outright lies. Plus, they appreciate the fact that I call out our newspaper editors and reporters when they show their all too characteristic wavering from journalistic fairness, accuracy and balance when it comes to controversial issues in our community. That is without doubt a reward on a personal level.
But, there are even bigger rewards – the rewards for our community. One of those bigger rewards is that we do not have a ward system in Kirkwood. We have the better at-large system that has proven itself with superior election results compared to ward systems in our region. Plus, we do not have an uninformed and misguided editor of the Webster-Kirkwood Times thinking he can use his newspaper as a bully-pulpit to force our community to go to a ward system. So, yes there are rewards for standing up for what is right in your community.
But, never forget there is a price to pay to get there. Ask some of the folks from Citizens for United Kirkwood (CUK) the price they paid to stand up to K-Fair. These wonderful folks had their broad-based, anti-ward, citizens’ campaign. Plus, I had my own one-man anti-ward campaign. And there was a price paid by too many people in Kirkwood on way too many levels for standing up against K-Fair in 2003. Something the K-Fair folks never want to acknowledge or take responsibility for.
At this time I will not go into the statements of KCCTBF. Nor will I go into what myself and unfortunately even my wife have faced since 2003 when I began to stand up to the core membership of K-Fair, KKG, KA and KCCTBF – which have been made up of basically the same 2 dozen or so residents. I will wait to read your response to the Kmail issue first.
Have a great day!
Joe
Joe, I feel people should be free to use most language in ways that they wish, even when disrespectful, without being called out. I would wish they wouldn't be disrespectful, but it is not my job to police that conduct. I did not call you out for it either and, in that way, I have held you to no differing standard. As I said, I had a problem with one phrase you used, a phrase of a type I have seen noone else use. I mentioned it and expressed my view on it. It stood out to me among all comments I've read from all sources. In your view, perhaps, I am too sensitive to it. That may be, but it is where I personally draw the line. I will treat everyone the same on that issue.
I thought you screened the posts and could elect not to post them. That is why I wrote that my post was not directly publicized except with your approval. If I mistated that fact, I apologize.
No one should be subjected to mistreatment for taking a reasonable position on an issue. I regret that you and your wife apparently had such an experience. Interestingly, I heard very stinging and disturbing reports from several people on the pro-ward-system side of the issue who were similarly unfairly harrassed and subjected to rough treatment. Awful either way. But that is hopefully in the past and we should all move beyond any ward-related conflict and spend that energy on making Kirkwood great.
I know that you cannot point to a single time when I was anything but respectful to Kirkwood and to the other candidates during or since the campaign. I have no complaints about Paul or Michael and their treatment of me. I have stated publicly that this is the case, I enjoyed the civility of this campaign and I believe it reflects on the character of the candidates.
I know you understand that there is reward in standing up for what is right. I was letting you know that in my view, there is ONLY reward. If I do what is right and someone treats me harshly, I have not paid the price, that other person has. If the consequence of doing the right thing is that I lose an election, I have not paid a price, I have been spared having to represent a majority who do not respect what I've done.
Do not look for me to go back through statements made by you, Mr. Williams, anyone or any group from 2003 to the present. I found just that one thing in your writing offensive and beyond the pale. If I see something which rises to that level, I am likely to point it out - no matter the source. Using barbs, "swipes", tart adjectives, etc. are merely devices that you and others use to be creative, make for a more interesting read or to zealously make some point. I won't call anyone out on it (unless they purport to speak for me). I think we can all make our points without using such devices and that is my preference.
Please do not represent to anyone that I hold everything contained in Kmail “Grade A Prime” or that KCCTBF comments are "completely acceptable." First, it is absolutely not true. Second, I have never made any statement of the kind. Remember, I took issue with ONE 3-letter phrase and I clearly articulated my specific reason. I did not comment on the many words you used in your original post directed against your target, just as I have not done with any other writer or group.
Finally, I renew my invitation to meet with you if you care to do so. Please call.
Bob Sears
P.S. I am just personally curious. What do you mean when you say a candidate is "propped up?" You haven't addressed it in your responses. Did you "prop up" Paul? If so, there are many who propped me up. If you did not "prop up" Paul. No one propped me up either. (Although, I will give that credit to my wife and to my children who, I must admit, have done so more than once.)
Bob,
I can see your concepts of “dismay … offensive … insensitive … and tone” in “this community” are on some other level or plane unbeknownst to me. I see no further use in continuing that portion of our discussion because all that will happen is you will continue to skate around the issue.
On the issue of the use of the term “prop up.” I did not think I needed to address it. Yes, I supported – “propped up” – Paul as a member of his campaign committee. I volunteered on a variety of tasks for his campaign. Some of the definitions of “prop” from dictionary.com: to support or sustain … a person or thing serving as a support or stay … to rest (a thing) against a support.
Kmail clearly came out in support of you - prpped you up - since Keith selects at his discretion what comments he supposedly receives and puts in his Kmails. So, at end of my post I asked, “Wow ... so how far will Kmail go to prop up Bob Sears in 2010? What’s next for Kmail?” The title of the post is, “What’s next for Kmail?” Just to let you know, if I had known Michael Moore was going to run again in 2010, I would have added him to the statement.
I sure hope you considered the source of the comments of the supposedly “very stinging and disturbing reports from several people on the pro-ward-system side of the issue who were similarly unfairly harrassed and subjected to rough treatment.” They proved their word to our community was not worth much with what they produced with their secretly drafted ward proposal. It was interesting to read that you are so versed in what the K-Fair folks have to say about how they were supposedly mistreated. Surprising though, how you seem to only know one side of the story.
Ultimately, though I am glad to see you say this statement about the ward proposal,
“But that is hopefully in the past and we should all move beyond any ward-related conflict and spend that energy on making Kirkwood great.”
I can only hope you will continue to make that same statement publicly to all the K-Fair folks, especially K-Fair’s financer Kate Davison-Ives and K-Fair co-founder Kathy Paulsen. Plus, do not forget the editorial staff of the Webster-Kirkwood Times. These two sets of folks in our community proved in February, March and April of this year that they have failed to “move beyond.” Keep in mind, K-Fair’s core members have morphed themselves into Kirkwood Citizens Coming Together for a Bright Future (KCCTBF). In addition, please remember Don “Scoop” Corrigan’s editorial from 02-29-08 revealed that Mrs. Karr was still ignoring the facts of the issue and pushing the “ward-related conflict” over 4 years after it was so soundly defeated in our community. Sadly, Scoop once again ignored the facts of the issue, went to bat for the K-Fair folks and dug up that bone of contention as he closed out that editorial.
For more on Scoops’ Blatantly Biased Brilliance to see my postings:
What is a "mandate" at the Times Newspapers?
What is the name of Scoop's dog in Kirkwood?
Scoop + Bamboozle = Scamboozle!
(Just in case you are concerned – that was not a invoking of the BBB – the Better Business Bureau.)
Finally, I really did like your statement on the “ward-related conflict.” To me it has a lot of similarities to the last sentence in the very first Mailbag letter I wrote on the ward issue from the Webster-Kirkwood Times on 12-02-02,
”I wish the leaders of this ward proposal would take their time, energy and talents to build something better for our community and its future, maybe by focusing on one of those supposedly un-owned neighborhood issues, rather than wasting all of it on trying to bring such an inferior and divisive form of government to the City of Kirkwood.”
Here it is more than 5 years later and it continues to ring so true.
Have a great day!
Joe
Joe, I knew what "propped" up denotes. I was merely asking for clarification of your use of the term and what it might connote. Now that you have stated you merely meant "support," I fully understand and I appreciate and respect my proppers.
I do not intentionally "skate around" issues. If it appeared that I did, I would like to speak with you to address it directly so that there is no misunderstanding.
I don't know everything. I continue to learn. But I do know both sides of the ward story (although, admittedly, not the "price" you and your wife apparently paid).
Throughout the campaign, I have always said that there are pros and cons to a ward system and to an at-large system. The important thing is that the people should decide the issue based on a full and fair presentation of the issues. Both sides keep refering to events which are, as you said, 5 years old. I hope we can now all return our attention to the future and work together. That means burying hatchets some still seem to be honing.
Bob Sears.
P.S. Joe, While I have enjoyed this post/counterpost, this will be my last in this string. Thank you for providing the platform. I still would like to have that meeting I've been writing about. Please give me a call if you would like to as well.
Post a Comment