 Email link
 Read comments (66)
 Blog archive
 Share link
The great tool of debatePosted Thursday, September 3, 2009, at 11:58 AM
Debate is an amazing tool to be used to help resolve situations in a healthy professional manner. It helps us see all arguments for and against issues and to be able to outweigh those pros and cons. When the debate is hindered by a personal slander or ridiculous claim without warrant, you lose the debate. People who are judging you in debate and as tax payers, do not care about how witty you can be or how slanderous you are. In debate you have limited time to speak, you waste your time and make yourself look immature and absolutely ridiculous when you behave like that.
OM could be so much more effective for her 'side' if she would just drop the personal attacks. By burning the civil bridge between her and the WECRD directors, she has made it so they don't want to hear a word she say, weather it is a decent point or not. The best thing that OM could do, would be to use her amazing talents and knowledge of the WECRD in a professional manner to sway people to her 'side.' WECRD board meetings have turned into a zoo. The directors need to listen to the public... weather they want to hear it or not or act on it or not. Their job is to listen to the public. That is something that I really hope makes a change. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
I would like to blog about the WECRD updates and news. I would also talk about MHHS news. And any hot topic issues that come up in town.
I am a 17 year old junior. I love to write, read and have fun. I am the debate captain, I am a staff reporter for the Tiger Tribune. I an a National Honor Society member. I love living in Mountain Home and hope to live here or in Glenns Ferry when i am older. When I graduate I want to go to college, but travel as much as I can.
Hot topics Funding Cutbacks in Idaho Schools(10 ~ 2:55 PM, Feb 1)
Busy, Busy, Busy
WECRD Budget Hearing
Clarification
The great tool of debate
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mountainhomenews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Yob,
So tell me Becca, which "community leaders" are you referring to when you say OM is called "crazy lauric" If you count Boomerbeth, or WAYL as community leaders I am not impressed. What you have posted here under the title of "The great tool of debate" quickly turned into nothing more than your own attempt to discredit OM yet AGAIN..... Is that something they teach in debate class? I highly doubt it.
Yob,
In my opinion you are putting OM and the board on the same level incorrectly. The board are public servants. They need to engage the public. Not shut them down. In the budget meeting it wasn't just OM that they shut down. (By the way the parallels of how the board over reacted and tried to make a federal death penalty case out of a citizen taking down a budget notice is the exact same attitude as this thing with trying to get her ban.) They shut down a city council member, a member of the cldc board, five or six other people that spoke, and shut down any discussion after they would speak. OM does not by any means take a measured approach and is abrasive. Could anyone ask a question of the board that they would answer? At some point some righteous indignation and anger at our public officials is justified. From your comments I know that you have seen whats going on too.
Cantjustwatch.... that wasn't the point. It doesn't matter. I do not call her "crazy lauric" My point is that if she takes away any reason to not like her (other than she has a decent opinion and can do good research) then she would be more effective. If she can present her facts and knowledge without the circus... people wouldn't have a reason to dislike her. Sorry if I'm not quite making sense.. I am not trying to contradict the purpose of this post. I am trying to show how we can still debate and talk about without the immaturity.
AD: I do see it. I have said before, the directors NEED to let the people talk. They need to let tax payers be heard completely. I am not saying OM has an obligation to be respectful and civil... I'm saying she would be more effective. Weather she wants to take my advice or not... its my opinion. I am saying a lot more could be accomplished and issues could be focused on more if she dropped the circus.
I think you have unfairly singled out one individual in this blog. There are a number of people who post on here that fall into this category.
Diplomacy is a great tool in a debate but knowledge is the greatest tool to bring to any contest. Knowledge is what people fear, and diplomacy is one vehicle you can use to prove your knowledge. People fear OM because she has armed herself with knowledge.
jtrotter:
I was using om because I thought she would be the best example. If you think it is unfair, I am sorry. OM has put herself in a position in the public. When you do that you open yourself up for criticism. I agreee 100 percent that om is knowledgeable. It would be more effective if she were a bit civil.
Yob,
I can accept and agree to your viewpoint in regards to being more civil in debating issues, here and at WECRD meetings, and I will even accept that it was not your intent to single out OM in your blog, my point still remains the same, a reader of your blog is IMMEDIATELY lead to believe your comment IMPLYING that "community leaders" refer to OM as "crazy lauric" yet you leave that open to the readers interpretation, NOT FACTS.
How do you determine who qualifies as a "community leader" In my OPINION OM is a community leader, she has, as you stated "put herself in a position in the public" to champion a cause she believes in and I doubt she calls herself "crazy lauric" of course you never know she may at times consider herself crazy for taking on the task.
Smile folks ON BOTH SIDES of this issue everyone involved is doing what they feel is best for the COMMUNITY, right?
Cant just watch:
you're mussing my point about the "crazy Lauric" name... It was more to show, she has been called that a lot and I think when you bring those personal attacks into a political issue... you eventually lose sight of that political issue. My point was never supposed to be who called her that.
Becca:
Great "debate" tactic on this one. Even more funny is that you indicate you are involved with community leaders or know what they think (and state so). I do not consider Mollie, Jana and Marsha community leaders. Any "community leader" who would say something like that, while being a "community leader" is probably a loser anyway. My point. I do not care what people think of me. God will judge me one day and that is the person that I will answer to...NOT you people. I could be more civil but why? I am 38 years old and could care less who thinks what, says what and to whom. This is not high school and frankly Scarlet...(I am sure you know the rest since it is a classic). Your writing style is less than impressive and I fail to see your alleged talent in this one. Maybe refrain from personal attacks to get your point across---remind you of something? Oh yes, your lecture to me! Have a wonderful night.
I'm not trying to attack you Ms. Lauric, I'm sorry you feel that way. My opinion (and I apologize for using you as my example) is that if people would drop the bittermess, and immaturity you could get your point across just as well and people wouldn't have a reason to rag on you. It would also help voters focus more on the issues instead of the pointless, ridiculous, be-littleing attacks we have all made upon eachother.
I also make it a point (as a high school student) to not be involved in high school drama.... and I'm not. I'm involved in this drama... and you're right, this isn't high school... so why have you been immature?
I am also sorry you don't like my writing. I admit I don't display my best writing skills on here... I had an A in Journalism for the 5 semesters I was in it, and an A and B for the 2 semesters of creative writing. If you don't like it, don't read it. I'm not here to impress anyone with my writing skills that I admit aren't always that grand.
I also believe that a lot of the reason I am all of the sudden the 'nice police' is because I am going to be graduating. I am just trying to be nice and hang out with everyone. I am learning that when I don't have anything good to say it's better to say nothing at all(when its about a person). Really... what it is going to do for me to say something mean about someone...? nothing at all
PCbetty, JT, AD, and CJW...thanks. You have restored my faith in humanity once again. It is nice to know that some still have common sense around here. Take care everyone.
YoB,
Just a quick observation, had you included a second example of say a community leader that you felt displayed some bad debate traits it might not have seemed like you were picking on one person. Also had you not used her name, it might have been better. To the unbiased reader, one could argue that you have a personal dislike for OM and used this blog to display it.
While I do not agree with some of the antics of OM, I understand the message and in fact understand the message of both sides of this debate. I have not also agreed with some of the antics of the WECRD board. They say come to the office and talk to us but when are you supposed to do that? I have gone by many times and never once has anyone been in. I refuse to call them at home as it seems to me they should have someone in the office or a way for the public to contact them. How about the cell phones that they public is providing them?
But I have gotten off track of your topic. Yes if you spew out meaness, your message is less likely to be received. I have been on many the receiving end of those messages, and I can tell you, I blocked out whatever the person was saying.
OG: Maybe I do have a personal dislike for Ms. Lauric. I don't like her tatics. It's just my opinion. I used her as an example because hers is most prevealent on here. Also because she is one of the most knowledgeable on the issue. I'm just saying all of that knowledge is being tarnished by her attitude. I wrote this blog because I think this is all getting out of hand. The public hearing was absolutely ridiculous. I have never been so entertained at a meeting before... and that isn't a good thing.
YoB,
Understood. My question is why not give an example of the opposite? A good debate is one that is spirited without getting personal and sling mud. I was just wondering why not offer an example of both sides.
Because in my opinion... there is no example on the other side. Maybe you can help me there?
Hmm, how about one of the recent presidental debates .... or haven't we debated over the past year and while we have not agreed, I don' think either of us resorted to mudslinging. But then again I am biased on this one. LOL
I get what you're saying, Becca. I can't find it right now, but somewhere you posted about the 'exceptional talents (or skills) Ms. Lauric has" (not verbatim) So, I do see that you see her intelligence, regardless of your opinion of herself. And you've complimented her in this very blog. In an offhand kind of way. But I caught it! I wish others could have focused on that. You did use OM's name, and I betcha have wished maybe you'd done it another way.
But thanks for the effort of a mature 'trucelike' median.
Jessie
From my observation those that post about the WECRD on both sides of the fence, are very passionate in what they believe is the right way to go, weather its the right way or the wrong way. Because of this great passion people have, they become frustrated when they feel their point has not been heard and then the claws come out.
There are many people who live in Mountain Home who never come to this site and if they read the paper they read the paper in hand not on screen. So there is a bigger audience to be had out there other then blogging here.
What about spreading the word in the snail mail paper about the petition? ... I am sure there are many people that don't even know the petition exists.
"Because in my opinion... there is no example on the other side. Maybe you can help me there?-- Posted by yoB on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 10:21 PM"
YoB, this is a good question.
Is someone out there going to help or just ignore this request? I am curious too.
Keep posting, please. I have learned alot from you observations and the discussions your posts generate. Thanks again.
"Your writing style is less than impressive and I fail to see your alleged talent in this one."
Mrs. Lauric, this is exactly what Becca was talking about. You're quick to slander someone, and your point is less effective when you do it. As OG said "I blocked out what that person was saying."
Becca has acknowledge your knowledge, and in that way complimented you. She continuously says that you are very educated, but too slanderous, yet you continue to slander her and miss her compliments. Why must you be so mean? You can have passion without rudeness.
"Because in my opinion... there is no example on the other side. Maybe you can help me there?-- Posted by yoB on Thu, Sep 3, 2009, at 10:21 PM"
I WAS trying to just stay clear of this one simply because I believed the answer to be OBVIOUS, but WAYL had to jump in here.
WAYL are you SERIOUSLY placing yourself above OM? YOU make a perfect example of the "other side" being slanderous, spiteful, and outright nasty towards others on this web site. Of course as has been stated in the past you have absolutely NO FACTS to refute anything that is ever stated, so you resort to personal attacks against any that you disagree with, and seem to love to keep rewording the same old tired lines in an attempt to make yourself sound like you know what you are talking about.
A little refresher for ya...
I WANT IT I WANT IT I WANT IT!!!! is NOT a valid argument in the face of FACTS, neither is insulting someone or attempting to discredit them by implying they lack character or sense of community or morals.
Those approaches are all you have EVER had to argue against OM's documented information as far as I have seen, please feel free to attack ME now LOL!!!
Yob,
Just noticed that you EDITED your original blog posting and removed the implied name calling by some UNNAMED "community leaders" calling OM "crazy lauric"...
Definately changes the tone of the blog. Not sure whether to thank you for removing it or question ethics behind it, almost seems like you got caught and called out on your attack, and are now trying to hide it, pretend it didn't happen.
YoB,
You were at the budget meeting so you have examples of how they behave. The difficult thing is that they don't answer questions that are posed to them. That in and of itself is rude/obstinate/or whatever is attributed to OM. The issue to me is this: Which is more rude? To pose and answer questions while calling someone an idiot or to not answer questions at all and treat the public like your personal enemy. The WRECD board gets mad, and you can see that in the videos, whenever they are questioned, period. So mad in fact that they don't answer, which is designed to make people give up and not question them. So they are mad because people question them and it brings to light their incompetence and bias's. OM is mad because she does have the facts, gets no answers, and someone that is too intellectually dishonest to find out the facts and look at them objectively tries to sully her reputation solely based on their belief that we need a rec center. OM is not the only person that has facts and the chain of events. There are many more. OM is the one person that puts up with the mental midgets and their personal attacks. Maybe the anti's should start calling the board members places of employment and complaining about their abuse of power and the way they use tax payer money. They could make signs and leaflets and stand outside where they work and tell people not to use that business. Picket on a daily basis. Maybe then they would resign or start asking questions.
CJW speak for yourself. Did you read the entire posts before you decided to jump on my comment.
in the posts between OG and YoB, as I understood - the example being asked for was from the wecrd actions.... but you go ahead and use me.
I KNOW that I have acted in EXACTLY the same manner as OM. Never denied it: unlike her and apparently you....for you are on exactly the same level too!!! aren't we great examples. Have fun in the pool with the rest of us!
'Definately changes the tone of the blog. Not sure whether to thank you for removing it or question ethics behind it, almost seems like you got caught and called out on your attack, and are now trying to hide it, pretend it didn't happen.
--- Posted by cant justwatch on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 1:37 PM "
let's just see here cjw, ethics in questions? look to yourself!!!!!! She listened to the reasonable remarks made by several on here, then restated her blog to honor/respect those opinions. And you lambast her for it... you are not all there, are you?
YoB, I respect your change: OG's points were valid and your changing the blog to show that is a wonderful example of your maturity, intelligence and respect for reason. Thanks.
"The issue to me is this: Which is more rude? To pose and answer questions while calling someone an idiot or to not answer questions at all and treat the public like your personal enemy."
basic morality issue here AD? lest you not assign to others what you are unsure of ...
Both are WRONG! But let us not forget, neither one started with this behavior... so how did it get to this?
To your statements - one person was able to accomplish this in what? a year and a half? wow
"Maybe the anti's should start calling the board members places of employment and complaining about their abuse of power and the way they use tax payer money. They could make signs and leaflets and stand outside where they work and tell people not to use that business. Picket on a daily basis."
Are you suggesting this with any seriousness? And your facts are...? NO malfeasance proved or accused!... how have they "abused"? Strong accusationS WHERE ARE THE "FACTS" you all so strongly scream for? There aren't any, but you're hoping if you say it loud and long enough... you'll be believed. Hope away.
as to OM she provides the information that has been used to "sully" her reputation. Only her own words and actions (as she writes them) have been used as examples.
WAYL,
So as you stated
"in the posts between OG and YoB, as I understood - the example being asked for was from the wecrd actions.... but you go ahead and use me."
Did you bother to specifically ASK either of them if that was their intent? or did you just assume?
As I understood the subject of this blog "The great tool of debate" and the following discussions the topic was clearly about DEBATING WITHOUT inflamitory remarks or insults, NOT solely the WECRD. Did you read the blog?
"you are not all there, are you?"
-- Posted by Whyarentyoulistening? on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 4:53 PM
See I was able to respond to your attack/insult WITHOUT nastiness or insults, please consider that thought civil debate IS the subject of this blog.
pat yourself on the back cjw! You did it!!!!!! Let's see you keep it up!!!! yippy
"Yob,
Just noticed that you EDITED your original blog posting and removed the implied name calling by some UNNAMED "community leaders" calling OM "crazy lauric"...
Definately changes the tone of the blog. Not sure whether to thank you for removing it or question ethics behind it, almost seems like you got caught and called out on your attack, and are now trying to hide it, pretend it didn't happen.
-- Posted by cant justwatch on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 1:37 PM "
I didn't want to distract from the point of my blog... and that's what it was doing. It was meaningless.
Jessie... I was complimenting her and criticizing her at the same time.. weird... I know. Thanks...
"YoB,
You were at the budget meeting so you have examples of how they behave. The difficult thing is that they don't answer questions that are posed to them. That in and of itself is rude/obstinate/or whatever is attributed to OM. The issue to me is this: Which is more rude? To pose and answer questions while calling someone an idiot or to not answer questions at all and treat the public like your personal enemy. The WRECD board gets mad, and you can see that in the videos, whenever they are questioned, period. So mad in fact that they don't answer, which is designed to make people give up and not question them. So they are mad because people question them and it brings to light their incompetence and bias's. OM is mad because she does have the facts, gets no answers, and someone that is too intellectually dishonest to find out the facts and look at them objectively tries to sully her reputation solely based on their belief that we need a rec center. OM is not the only person that has facts and the chain of events. There are many more. Maybe the anti's should start calling the board members places of employment and complaining about their abuse of power and the way they use tax payer money. They could make signs and leaflets and stand outside where they work and tell people not to use that business. Picket on a daily basis. Maybe then they would resign or start asking questions.
-- Posted by AtomicDog on Fri, Sep 4, 2009, at 2:18 PM "
AD: By 'other side' I didn't mean WECRD or 'naysayers.' I meant I don't have any examples of a person who has been professional and non-slanderous on this issue. All have at some point, been rude or immature or something...
I have to disagree with what you said about 'mental midgets,' and personal attacks... that depends on your definition of 'put up.'
See CJW, I was wrong... YoB's request "meant I don't have any examples of a person who has been professional and non-slanderous on this issue. All have at some point, been rude or immature or something... "
YoB has made a very true statement... can you come up with an example? So, who else will get your lecture on civil debate? curious to see if you will only call me on it.
In my opinion, Old guy is an outstanding example of a participant in this debate with diplomacy. He is always on topic, states his position and backs it up with facts. He keeps his feelings in check and makes valid points without the negative personal attacks on his opponents.
That being said, his comments are often overlooked. His opinion is as valuable as any other but because there is no drama involved they are usually read over. The more dramatic posters get all of the attention; the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Which approach is most effective in this forum?
Thanks for pointing that out jtrotter. Sorry, but I will not say that OM's tatics are more effective. OG has been very respectful and knowlegeable throughout this whole. Maybe he would be more effective if he told us who he is and or (I'm not sure if he already does this) went into the community and campaigned like OM...?
YoB,
I do not see where providing my name would make me more effective. I tend to be a pirvate person and just do not see where putting my name out there would lend credit to a debate. I not gone out and campaigned like OM has. What I have done is encouraged people I know to become educated about what is going on in the community and if they are displeased to let those in charge know. Likewise if they are pleased, I tell them to let those in charge know as well.
Maybe someone can explain to me why putting my name out there would make me more effective than I have been, because I just don't see it.
DEBATE ON !!!
I know he campaigned for a change in the snow removal process, and successfully. He went to the city council and provided an alternative process that made sense. He used knowledge that he gained from personal experience to prove his point. The difference is the city council listened objectively.
Old guy,
Stay Old guy your name or community standing should carry no weight in a debate.
Becca:
I forgot to add that I don't expect you to give up your personal debate values, I just asked the question: Which approach is most effective in this forum?
JT,
Thanks for the input. I could understand if I was seeking a public office or something along those lines but do not see the need for it on the blog. I debate people and make observations as I see them. And I do this without attacking people on a constant basis. I will admit I have fallen into that trap in the past but have tried my best not to do that anymore.
Becca,
At the budget meeting. What was rude about any of the antis behavior? If you are to saying that anyone that criticizes them or asks a question is not, "professional and non-slanderous", then you are leaving no room for any kind of discussion. In my opinion they were very docile. In that meeting there was plenty of cause for civil disobedience. Not the least of which is this,
"31-4332.Board attendance -- Duties. A quorum of the board of the recreation district shall attend such hearing and explain the proposed budget and hear any and all objections thereto.", please notice where is says, "any and all objections". Three minutes a piece and allowing no discussion thereafter hardly qualifies as, "any and all". The boards actions of limiting people speaking about their objections was illegal according to Idaho code. I don't get where you're coming from. Those people shouldn't be angry about they way they were treated there? In what way did the people that were at the meeting act unprofessional and slanderous?
People are not limited to voicing their objections ONLY at the public meeting. Letters (which are much harder to dismiss) are part of the public record as much as oral testimony.
In a court setting a 'dismissed' written objection letter would be much harder to defend as answered.
I do support that objections and questions must be answered prior to passing the budget. Having said that- the objections and questions should only pertain to the budget and not be incorporated into past grievances (ie: didn't give baseball league dollars).
WAYL:
"People are not limited to voicing their objections ONLY at the public meeting. Letters (which are much harder to dismiss) are part of the public record as much as oral testimony."
What would be my guarentee that all three of the directors would read my letter completey? And what is my guarentee that the directors would intrepret my letter the way I intend it?
OG: By this whole thing about your name, I'm meaning that I don't think OM's attacks are what make her effective. I was trying to give reasons as to why she may be more effective.
AD:
"At the budget meeting. What was rude about any of the antis behavior? If you are to saying that anyone that criticizes them or asks a question is not, "professional and non-slanderous", then you are leaving no room for any kind of discussion." --Not at all. I do not, by any means believe that everyone who spoke at the budget hearing was being ridiculous. Most of them were as mature as I could expect angry taxpayers to be. There were a few on both 'sides' that turned the meeting into a zoo. I don't want to point out every example of immaturity I saw at the meeting. But it was there. I saw it from both 'sides.'
Becca,
You are saying that people were rude at the budget hearing and I would like to know what you consider rude? I can only assume that you consider the asking of any questions of the board from the gallery rude, since you wont define your statements based on a public situation. You have defined it as a zoo and I'm just asking for clarification of your statements please.
'What would be my guarentee that all three of the directors would read my letter completey? And what is my guarentee that the directors would intrepret my letter the way I intend it?'
All letters entered into the public record as testimony are supposed to be part of the info given to the directors - as to what guarantee you would get that they will read it completely or understand its intent -- well what guarantee do you have that they are even listening to you or understanding your intent now?
My point is, if the subject of the budget was contested in a court of law... it would be harder for them to 'dismiss' a written letter versus oral testimony as having been answered. Especially a point by point letter.
I'm sure if you were to ask the board, the might say, "we answered the questions as put to us to the best of our ability during the public meeting" did they then meet the letter of the law - some might say Yes Did they satisfy the public - some would probably say No.
I personally am asking for my questions on the budget to be answered in writing and that both be entered into the public record on the budget issue.
"The boards actions of limiting people speaking about their objections was illegal according to Idaho code.-comment by AD"
According to the Idaho Open Meetings Law
"Question No. 13: May qualifications or restrictions be placed on the public's attendance at an open meeting?
Answer: A public agency may adopt reasonable rules and regulations to ensure the orderly conduct of a public meeting and to ensure orderly behavior on the part of those persons attending the meeting. ... ... Use of a timed agenda, "heavy gavel" and/or compliance with Robert's Rules of Order or some other procedural guideline may serve to facilitate the orderly conduct of a public meeting."
{this would allow, under the law, the board the ability to put a time limit on speakers.}
Cited from: http://idahoptv.org/dialogue/openidaho/m...
Yes, I know how the statute reads. . the question is could the board in court defend the use of a time limit, probably -
to that end, did all people who signed up to speak.... speak? if so, even with the time limit, could the board defend in a court of law that they heard all objections/comments from people who signed up to speak
Am I saying this is absolutely right.. NO. I too think they should be patient and detailed in their explanations to any questions/objections.
****missing from previous post***
'even with the time limit, could the board defend in a court of law that they heard all objections/comments from people who signed up to speak' - probably
The part from the Idaho code applies specifically to budget meetings. I love it that you are defending the board and that they don't want public opinion and you don't even know what went on at the meeting. Nice wild speculation idiot. Besides the fact of which the board hasn't adopted Roberts rules or have any consistent rules for their meeting. They did allow one lady to go back up and continue after her time was up, but no one else. Showing that they have no rules. You weren't there and don't know what you're talking about as usual. I thought that you were little miss factual? You weren't there and you are drawing all kinds of conclusions? So you're little court of law theory has a couple of holes clown crusader. Do you even think before you post? You are quite possibly the dumbest, most illogical wishful thinker I have ever seen. You should really know what you're talking about before you open your big mouth. Like maybe actually have gone to the meeting before you start giving your expert legal opinion.
AD, you apparently consider your 'opinions' to be fact. You stated that it is ILLEGAL what they did... press charges then... prove your allegation!
Oh yea, YOU CAN'T actually live in the real world or you wouldn't be the all mighty master of protocol and legalities would you.
Still waiting for those charges of malfeasance to be filed too. another FALSE accusation. Where are your all mighty facts now... oh right, you don't need them -you have ridicule and rancor on your platform... facts aren't needed, right; because YOU SAY IT IS SO, therefore [in your mind] it must be.
Debate no ... not what you really what is it, unless it supports your wild accusations.
PROVE the action was illegal. I'll wait for your next set of false accusations... or just plain lies. go for it.
YoB,
You stated at first "OG has been very respectful and knowlegeable throughout this whole. Maybe he would be more effective if he told us who he is and or (I'm not sure if he already does this) went into the community and campaigned like OM...?"
Then you state "OG: By this whole thing about your name, I'm meaning that I don't think OM's attacks are what make her effective. I was trying to give reasons as to why she may be more effective. "
I am confused. I read your first post to mean I might be more effective if my name was public. I just don't see the correlation. As for OM, she is very knowledgeable and passionate about the WECRD and sometimes that passion can led to overheated emotions. I know I have tried to tell OM that her message is lost when attacks occur as I have told others. If that was in the intent of your orginal blog, then state it simply.
When I read your orginal blog it was evident that beneath the words, you have a dislike for OM and used this blog to single her out. If you dislike her, then say it and try not to resort to what you did. Just as her attacks have detracted from her meaning, your underlying attack distracted from the meaning of your words. That is just my opinion so take it for what it is worth.
OG: I miss phrase things sometimes. It's a bad flaw of mone and I'm aware of it. I'm basically getting at maybe OM has been more effective not because of her tatics but perhaps because we know who she is... or any number of other reasons. I'm sorry I am confusing you. I tend to over think and then things don't come out exaclty how I mean them.
AD:
"You are saying that people were rude at the budget hearing and I would like to know what you consider rude? I can only assume that you consider the asking of any questions of the board from the gallery rude, since you wont define your statements based on a public situation." ---Not at all. I do not believe Ms. Maine, Ms. Alazola(sp), Mr. Schroeder, (Idon't even remember who all spoke.) were rude or immature. But there were people on each side who were rude and immature through out the budget hearing AND the Board Meeting immediately following. If you couldn't see it, we just must have different definitions of immaturity.
Also OG: This blog wasn't just about Ms. Lauric and my dislike for her. This blog was about the kindergarden fight between the directors and some of the 'naysaysers.'
YoB,
At first you could have fooled me about what this blog was about. The headline reads "The great tool of debate but then you tend to single out OM and some of her antics. There have been many on this BB that have done the same things as OM but you fail to mention any of them.
I might suggest that before you submit your blog, that you type it, let it sit, then re-read it for accuracy. That might lessen the confusion and allow you to adjust your words to match your meaning better. I know this works for me before I send an email or make a comment in the heat of the moment.
I know it's something I need to do...I just don't. I'm sorry. OM is simply the best example for what the blog is about. She would never win a debate round the way she does things now. If you feel I'm being unfair in my blog, would you like me to give examples of people who aren't 'naysayser?'... the first example will be myself. I will be the first to admit on the non-'naysayers' side that I get distracted by personal attacks. I have tried my best to steer clear of them. I hope Ms. Lauric doesn't take this blog as a personal attack... I am not trying to be mean and make fun.
WAYL,
Have another drink.
Yob,
What was the rude behavior? People asking questions from the gallery? OM taking down the precious budget meeting notice? The guy that moved his chair closer because they were speaking so quiet that no one could hear them? You even said when you went up to read the mission statement that the mic didn't seem like it was working and that's when Judy told you it was just a recorder. So you obviously couldn't hear that well either. I know that they were asked to speak up a couple times, and one of those times was by Ms. Erwin. I'm not trying to hammer on you here. I really do want to know what you considered to be rude. The only rude behavior that I saw was the board continually ignoring questions. Twittling their thumbs, wagging their pencils, bouncing their feet, putting their heads on their hands, scowling or winking at the gallery, shaking their heads no during some testimony. They could at least have pretended that they were listening. They didn't even answer questions that were posed to them during a persons speaking time. They waited for them to finish and then went off on what THEY wanted to speak to. Or they took up a great deal of the persons time by speaking during their time.
'WAYL,Have another drink.'
This is the best response you could come up with when asked to PROVE your FALSE ALLEGATIONS?
well... it works for you. Throw out blatant lies, with absolutely NO BASIS IN FACT and then run... under the guise of self righteous ego maniacal baloney.... like I said works for you.
Illegal was your word... again I say PROVE IT, we will all eagerly await your next 'smoke and mirrors' response. To Quote OM "where are your facts?"
"Complaint" has been filed. So WAYL, before you state that claims are false...maybe research the facts. This is not the first time a "complaint" has been filed with regard to violations in meetings. The law is pretty clear. So WAYL, where are your facts that it was not done (to be more clear---that no complaint was filed?). I have a written record of one from several months back and the 2 responses if you would like a copy. There was not just 1 complaint filed this time. Speak not for which you do not know.
yoB, your OPINION that I would "never win a debate round the way she does things now" is not really accurate. This is a subject that few knew anything about. Now, many people know and are more aware of what is going on with the WECRD. Seems to me that my debate tactics have worked just fine in this situation. Bet this topic will make the MHN top 10 topics for 2009 at the end of the year (just like it did in 2008). Nothing about the WECRD was ever as public as it is now. So---is your gripe with me and my method of speaking or the fact that the cat is out of the bag on this and it could all go away (by a vote) very soon? The WECRD Board had a choice and could have made it all go away---they could have quit but they did not. Oh well.
A complaint is not a conviction, OM. We live in a country that you are innocent until PROVEN guilty. An accusation/complaint IS NOT PROOF!
2 responses? What were they? And who did you file with, according to the prosecutor's office NO charges have been filed or any action taken against the wecrd board to date.
of course, a complaint is not a charge.
please, I would really like to know what the complaint was from a few months ago and the responses. thank you in advance for that info.
OM, I appreciate the civil discourse; let us both endeavor to continue on this track. Truthfully, facts are facts... let's discuss/debate from this perspective.
When I call the prosecuter's office on Tuesday I will be sure to ask for Complaints versus charges.
I filed with Wasden's office as did the other citizen. I did not file on a local level because I knew they would not do anything. It would have been a "conflict." The WECRD got a letter regarding the second complaint from the "other" person. You may obtain a copy of Wasden's response directly from the WECRD because they got one. If you cannot get it from them...I have it as well.
Complaint v. conviction...
Just because there is no "conviction" does NOT mean that no law was broken. It happens every day. A strong warning, in print, is an indication that not all is well. My "complaint" will be mailed and faxed to the PA on Tuesday. I am of course going to include the proof and that takes some time. The other complaint was filed last Tuesday or Wednesday, from what I was told.
Thanks for the info.
Can you please give us an idea of what the result was from Wasden? Is there a specific reason you aren't giving out the details of the complaint and response here? it's okay, just curious. I will check the resource you've suggested.
""never win a debate round the way she does things now"--- That's not an opinion... Reguardless of how many facts you can spew... You would not win a debate round at any National Foensic League tournaments personally attacking all of your opponents. How about this year, some of you come to our tournament to judge. See what high school debate is about.
Becca,
I would love to come and be a judge. I have experience but it was several years ago. When is the tournament at Mountain Home?
I would also encourage others on here to at least go to an event and just watch, it is amazing to see the work these kids put into debate.
I could give you an example but why not find it out for yourself...that way...I escape being called a liar and being told that I only gave you part of the story. Do some leg work. My letter from his office is dated March 24, 2009 and was signed by Kriss Bivens Cloyd. The other response, to the other citizen would have been within 4 weeks of mine, I believe. The WECRD should have a copy of the other response because I obtained a copy from them. If you cannot get that please let me know and we will post it on a web site for you and all to see.
yoB, once again your unfounded opinion. I have been in debate before. As for attending an event thanks but no thanks. I get my fill right here and each day at work. Thanks for asking but I would rather swim in a sea of great whites (sharks) than attend a HS debate. Perhaps you could attend court at the federal courthouse and see how the big boys do it. Now that is debate at its best.
fair enough, OM. Thanks again for the civil discourse.
jtrotter: Our tournament is in February. When it gets closer I will give to the information to be a judge. We would really appreciate it.
yoB, I don't know what they maybe trying to teach you in school about a debate, but it sure looks like you have a lot to learn. All you have to do is read all your comments since you started to post and you can't even decide who or what you should debate about and I could really care less, someday you will be out in the real world and all those High School debates are going to be history welcome to the real world then come back and tell me what it all about.