February 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28    

« The single most important post, ever | Main | RUCO »

Aug 05, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Spag - Let's be clear. Danny Thompson should be criticized. It was a horrible policy directive that focused on a singular solution and wasn't well thought out. His approach should be criticized because he mangled the issue. The issue itself, brought up by Danny, may or may not be a worthwhile issue for this Council to wrestle with. It seems the facts about the extent of the issue and how it has been dealt with in the past are now coming to light. That is a good contribution.

Ed didn't make this about you, and you are the only one making this about Ed. Why deflect the topic at hand. Break the habit Spag and spend more time on the actual issue. To help you with this part, I'm going to give you a hint: The issue isn't what Ed wrote, what picture he posted, or anything else Ed implied. If you don't see a problem with proposing permanent City policy by

1. Only talking to the department head 5 minutes before a Council meeting; and
2. Not mentioning this potential policy direction to the person you will be charging to carry it out (Mr. Young); and
3) That could cost the City thousands (hundreds of?) of dollars without knowing what the benefits are (remember Danny ONLY proposed software filters - nothing else.); and
4) Could end up with the City in court because a free speech group opposes the policy; and
5) If you think this is appropriate use of Council time when there are other more pressing issues.

You constantly complain that others hijack threads to avoid talking about the issue, but that is all you have done here. Move on.


Sam, you relied on Thompson's characterizations and they lead you to incorrectly assess the volume, nature and proportions of reported incidents. Those errors are understandable, you relied on Thompson's misinformation.

While your confusion is understandable, lashing out at me and Ed to cover your errors is not. We have corrected Thompson's misrepresentations and added accurate information for your enlightenment. Thompson misguided you. If you need to belittle someone to make yourself feel better about being duped, Thompson is the proper target.


I always thought Peter Cetera was big on women's lib.


"Why deflect the topic at hand."

GWO, that's Ed's trick. Throw something out there to stir things up and then deny you did so.

Why not take Ed to task for refusing to admit he was wrong? I didn't hijack his thread, I asked him to defend his position and like clockwork you ass kissers come to his rescue with the same bullshit about hijacking threads and "making it all about Ed" when it's really about making Ed defend his positions and words.

It's real easy for you to say "focus on the issues" now, but how many people lit into Danny from the beginning?

Roch, are you going to ask Ed to answer my questions? I mean, you are out to get people who make misrepresentations, aren't you?

Also, if Danny made any errors, those are Danny's errors, not mine. My argument has been about what Danny said and what others claim he said. Nice try, though. Once again your inconsistency tells us all we need to know about what drives you- and it isn't getting to the truth.

BTW, ever going to tell us whether Obama is a bigot? I'm going to Vegas on money and I wonder if they would let me bet that 1) you never answer that and 2) Ed never answers my questions on this thread.

Motion for summary judgment granted.


I'm just glad none of us are on the city council. Can you imagine how much we would get accomplished in a two hour meeting?

Michele Forrest

OMG, it would be my DREAM if you ALL were on Council. Seriously? I would bring popcorn, and never miss a meeting.

P.S. Sam is still winning this thread. Cowboy up, y'all. ;)


Spag -

Why do you care so much about what Ed thinks? We're waiting for your answer. Is stirring the pot bad? Does it lead to discussion? Are you calling me an ass kisser? Why are you asking Roch to make Ed answer your questions? Is "Obama a bigot" the topic of this thread? Are you hijacking the thread again? If 6 jurors here are saying you are making it about Ed and none say otherwise, are you still wrong? Why are you questions so special that Ed must answer every one? Is this a blog or courtroom?

We're waiting for your answers.


GO, why ARE you kissing Ed's ass? All Spag did was ask Ed some very specific questions pertaining to things Ed said at the beginning of this thread that sweet Michele rather easily exposed as deliberately cherrypicked and misleading. And Ed is nowhere to be found, letting the seven dwarfs do damage control in his absence, a luxury he is afforded quite often around here, and takes full advantage of. Is that something you admire? Why are you waiting for Sam's answers but not Ed's? Why do YOU care so much about what Spag thinks about what Ed thinks? Let's take these things in order, first-come, first-serve, and let people answer for themselves? Do you have a problem with that?

Andrew Brod

GO, to Spag the issue is always Ed. And as you're learning, to question that is to "kiss Ed's ass." So it goes.


AB, as if on cue, you just illustrated my point better than I possibly could have!


GWO, I only care about what Ed thinks to the extent that he was inaccurate in what he claimed Danny Thompson said. I'm simply asking for him to own up to it, but as history tells us the Fonzie Factor is high for Ed. He simply never admits making a mistake and certainly not when pointed out by someone like me.

My questions and comments weren't about Ed; they were about something he said that was wrong.

The comments to this entry are closed.