Is It Time For A Part Time County Executive
Tennessee Code Annotated 5-6-105 (a) states "The county mayor shall devote full-time to the duties and demands of the office unless the voters of the county, by means of a referendum authorized by Acts 1979, chapter 145, ยง 2, determine that such duties and demands are insufficient to require full-time action".
Is it time to cut the county financial expenses by having a referendum by the people to change the position of County Mayor/Executive from a full time position to a part time position? Allen Barrett
Is it time to cut the county financial expenses by having a referendum by the people to change the position of County Mayor/Executive from a full time position to a part time position? Allen Barrett
posted by Allen Barrett | 10:20 PM
129 Comments:
Well you just may be on to something here.
wab..
Why do you just continually insist on trying to stir up trouble? You know what? One of these days you are going to mess with the wrong one. That's not to be interpreted as a threat in any way.....just some good old hometown advice.
Mr. Barrett,
Let me give you a couple of things to think about. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. In addition to that, an idle mind is the devil's workshop. I really think you need to come out of retirement and get a job.
I thought she already worked part time. She ain't never at work. Always out riding or shopping. Since she works those hours she oughta get paid those hours.
But she's already part-time. She also has too many secretaries.
Ever tried to phone her office after 2 PM ? She's never there .
But you'll see her in Walmart at that time before she heads off out of county again
7:23
For sure Mr. Barrett hit on a sore point with you. He does already have a job - preacher, and he does a volunteer job by bringing this blog to YOU free of charge.
If it takes a petition for a referendum I would be glad to sign it. This woman has abused Giles county for nearly 8 years.
Totally agree 10:05am. We already have a part-time co. exec. We just need to have that reflected in her salary. Is it true that if she is re-elected next year that she will be set for retirement from the county? I just hate the thought of citizens paying for her retirement after she has been so negligent in her duties. She has clearly on several occassions served her own interest without a fleeting thought about the citizens of this county. And, the lying she has done. My, my I don't believe she would know the truth if it sat down beside her. If someone gets on her bad side by standing up to her she spreads rumors in an attempt to discredit and cause problems. She is a sad excuse for a co. exec. Our county and the citizens in it deserve more than that. Which leads to my next question? Has anyone heard of any good candidates willing to run against her next year. Our county can't afford another 4 years of her leadership. Anyone know of anyone good?
To 7:01 and 7:23
When President Truman had a reporter say, "give 'em hell Harry" his response was, "I just tell 'em the truth and they think it's hell".
I'm not trying to stir up trouble I'm just trying to keep other
peoples hands out of my pocket and help some folks that don't have the time or resources to look into some of these matters.
As for messing with the wrong person you may be right, but I've never let the fear of what might happen prevent me from facing the reality of what's happening now.
My address isn't hidden, my phone number isn't secret and I don't wear a mask when I go out in public. I'm not hard to find and am willing to talk with anyone at most anytime. My name is on each of my post and I can defend everything that I have posted here.
Your statement, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste. In addition to that, an idle mind is the devil's workshop. I really think you need to come out of retirement and get a job."
I agree "a mind is a terrible thing to waste" also a "life is a terrible thing to waste" that's why I'm not watching soaps and "opera windfree" but reading, studying, observing and living joyfully in God's Grace trying to be a benefit to society instead of a drain.
As for coming out of retirement and getting a job, well, why would I want to do that when there are so many who are in need of a job more than I do at this present time? Since I started selling papers one at a time for a nickle I've had jobs, at times more than two at a time, and all that time I looked forward to when I would not have to work anymore. Since I retired from the military, that's the only thing I retired from, I have accumulated more work than most people have before retirement. Ask those who have retired if their work load didn't increase. So, I appreciate your concern but don't worry, my mind and hands are both fully occupied. Allen Barrett
Instead of making the County Executive a part time postition, why just not elect a better County Executive?
I agree wholeheartedly 1:54. The right person elected could do wonders for this county.
Oh what a thought a new Executive. Can we add a new city mayor to our wish list.
Who would everyone like to see become City or County Mayor?
start brainstorming...
Has anyone heard any names being tossed around? I have heard of one person that was pondering it but is afraid if more than 2 candidates ran against her the vote would be split and she would get back in. Really we just need one good candidate to run against her that would beat her pants off and at the same time do a good job and listen to the people.
Here are some suggestions I'm sure the majority who post on this blog would like. Wab for city mayor and winkles for county mayor. That's part of the dream team, you know.
There's only one minor problem. Neither of them can get elected.
4:59 why don't you take the sock out of your mouth take a deep breath extract your head and try to get a grip on reality. No one is interested in your snipping at Winkles and WAB.
10:34 Vanzant's retirement is already locked in by being elected for two terms.
At one time I had heard Scott Stewart was considering running but dont know if he is still interested.
For city mayor I would like to see Colby Baddour run next year.
Ya know, I think Mr. Barrett just might be a good candidate for City Mayor. I can't vote for him, but I think he would be a good choice. As for Mr. Winkles for County Mayor, I would be proud to vote for him. However, I do believe he would turn down the offer of running. My philospophies are much more in tune with Brother Winkles than they are with the pedantic blitherings of some of the people who choose to hide "Anonymously" in these blogs. And before you start ranting about freedom of speech, you have every right to speak your mind, as do I. Just please have the sense to say something instead of repeating the same rhetoric with every post you have. WAB FOR MAYOR!!!!!!! Winkles for County Mayor!!!! Cool slogans, huh?
No.
Pedantic blitherings. What a laugh. As for wab and winkles, get over it. Neither one of them could get elected to any office that I know of.
deadman..
Aren't you hiding under "anonym ous" as well? Hypocritical, isn't it?
okay, okay guys! This thread had started out good with people offering their points of view and now we yet again start with the condescending remarks. Come on now, let's keep it grown up everyone!!!
Now why would you expect this thread to be ANY different than the other 999 threads on this blog?
We can do without more negative comments. Let's keep the dialogue going peacefully and refrain please from distracting everyone from the topic at hand.
What has Vanzant done to help this county? She is leading this county into bankruptcy. I believe she has hurt any woman's chance of ever getting the County Executive's office. She has been a bad choice for this county. Maybe she won't run again. I hope not. And the Commissioners, they think of progess as raising taxes and/or implementing more types of taxes, such as Lovell's Wheel tax, to put us into bankruptcy. Putting people into forclosure is not the definition of progress, Mrs. Vanzant. Instead of spend, spend, spend, how about cut, cut, cut.
Would you please explain to this ignoramous Giles Countian how Mrs. Vanzant is spending the county into bankruptcy? Also, I would be interested in your take on how a wheel tax could lend to that situation? You folks keep talking about the commissioners wanting more and more taxes. I think that's an outright lie. Why would they want that in the first place? Do you think they take the money and squander it on themselves?
For one thing the Hunter Smith building is her baby and we have sure lost money on that. She has also cost the county on two or three law suits that could have been avoided if she had done things the way they should have been done.
By not taking greater control of spending each year more money is taken from the reserve fund. Under Mrs Vanzant, employment with the county has greatly increased, especially in her office, while the population decreases.
She, until this year, appointed commissioners to the various committees therefore controlling the budget process. She continues to appoint people to the Financial Management Committee were the budget is maintained.
You simply can not continue to increase spending when the tax base is decreasing.
A wheel tax would not be a burden on the county but it certainly would be a huge burden added to the backs of the people in the county.
While I don't think most commissioners want more taxes, they do very little to prevent the situation that creates more expense and more taxes is the usual and only solution from some
commissioners.
I do not believe that commissioner are taking money and squandering it on themselves but several are using county money on pet projects and voting for increases in the budget that directly or indirectly benefit themselves. Allen Barrett
8:51 you bring up very valid points. But what are we going to do about it going forward? We may not be able to remove Vanzant from office but, we can make her accountable to the citizens while she is in office. I still have not heard any mention of anyone good to run against her. Is no one interested?
wab
It's simple economics. When the population decreases, so does the tax base. And please don't accuse me of favoring higher taxes. I detest that.
Ms. Vansant didn't buy the HunterSmith building. Giles Colier did. So it's ot her baby.
9:02 When the tax base goes down, so should the spending. Instead, Ms Vanzant and the majority of commissioners continue to let the budgets climb.
If we hold all of our public servants accountable for their actions, that would make them more observant about their taxing and spending. I don't know about you but I live paycheck to paycheck, and i couldn't handle any more taxes. If we could cut salaries of people like our Superintendent of Schools, and maybe even our County Mayor, we might see our taxes decrease.
While the salaries of the Superintendent of Schools and County Executive are a problem they are minor compared to such expenses as listed in the various categories of the budgets under "other", which has increases of over $50,000.00 in some instances, and "other contracted services", which have doubled in some instances.
Selectively giving huge salary increases, over $14,000.00 in at least one instance to an employee that was leaving. Allen Barrett
'other' and 'other contracted services' on any budget is just a way to 'steal' money for pet projects or personal use. Hold the county, city, and BOE accountable by requiring 'other' and 'other contracted services' to be itemized BEFORE passing ANY budget.
Why did the secretary at the Vocational School, S.M., get a LARGE salary increase a year or so ago when teachers got NOTHING? I have my suspisions.....also a 'person' who worked at the BOE got a LARGE 'bonus' about the same time, B.S., which turned into a pay increase and teachers got NOTHING! Was that in 'other' and 'other contracted services'????
I was told by one of her part time secretaries that Janet plans to retire after this term & had/has no intention of running again...
Well, I have heard she is going to run. I sure hope you are right that she doesn't. I still haven't heard any suggestions as to who people would like to see run next year. We need to come up with someone soon!
How about some of the potential candidates from the "dream team"?
Tommy Campbell don't need to run. He can't win. He's a Yes man to Speer and Tee Jackson along with Holt, Reedy, Lovell and Reedy, Faulkner, and Rose Brown. I wouldn't vote for any of them for dog catcher. Stoney Jackson is another yes man for Speer. Of course he already knows what the county people think of him.
Tommy Campbell is not a yes man to TJ. That I can promise you. I don't care for Campbell and the way he represents his constituency and I have no problem holding him accountable to his deeds. But, TJ is not his favorite person. As far as Reedy he's not either. He may have voted in favor of the schools in the past but this is the present and things have certainly changed. Reedy is not a yes man to anyone. He merely evaluates a situation and votes according to his information. Again, his eyes have been opened to what is going on with the schools and TJ. Jackson is a slick character and easily deceives people with good intentions. Everyone has been fooled by him. But, again, that has all changed and people have come around and now see things much differently. I can't say anything about Faulkner accept I never hear of him doing anything. He just appears to hold his title and that is about it. I never hear of him questioning anything. You may be right about Faulkner. Stoney Jackson is definitely not a yes man to TJ. Like Reedy, his eyes have been opened wide. I know these things because I have talked personally to these individuals. Have a little faith. Although I know it is hard to do considering the past but then again, a lot has taken place and much revelation as to budget and management that has caused these commissioners to pause. I look forward to see what will take place at the budget meeting. I am hopeful that we will get some serious eyeopening with all the questionable spending in this budget.
Faulkner has taken his instructions from Vanzant since day one. She wanted him to run to split the vote fearing WAB would be elected and she would have h--- to pay if he was a commissioner.
9:24
I hate to bust your bubble but WAB didn't run when Faultner ran. Your are about 4 years late.
WAB ran for election in 2006. This was the same election year that Faulkner ran and was elected. I am afraid you are the one wrong 9:51 and I am not 9:24. Where do you attain your facts?
Thought Faulkner ran in odd year of 2008.
No, the county commissioner's race is every 4 years. There is no odd year. All 21 run for election at the same time.
9:24
That is not true about his taking instructiuons from Mrs. Vanzant.
May I ask you a question? I'm not accusing you of being guilty of this, but please explain something to me. Tell me why people can get on this blog and call Mrs. Vanzant names and accuse her of criminal activity and yet, whenever anyone says anything about barrett, he or she is lamblasted and accused of enabling corruption or being mentally lazy? I thought we all had a right to our opinions? Or, are we free to voice our opinions as long as they are in agreement with those who constantly try to belittle others? Would you be so kind? Thanks.
I will be glad to answer that as well. Anyone is free to post their opinion regardless. Anyone can oppose others opinion. However, many people have just cause through many personal experiences with the county executive to level criticisms. No one likes it when someone talks about someone they like. But then again, just because someone likes someone doesn't mean the person being discussed is lily-white and innocent of accusations. Last I checked Vanzant was being criticized for being a less than truthful person. Seems many people have experienced her many falsehoods including many on the county commission of which she has lost their support. Being a liar isn't a crime unless you are lying to cover up wrongdoing. WAB is not an elected official who is accountable to the taxpayers. You are free to criticize him as you wish. Just like anyone else though, it does not mean those criticisms are valid. Who am I to say your experience is invalid? If I didn't experience it with you I can't say. However, we do have a regular poster on this blog that believes no one should be entitled to voice their opinion relaying their negative experiences with certain county officials because in their mind, that is not fair. In other words, no matter the validity it shouldn't be discussed if revealing someone to be a liar if they are one. Well, politics and life are not fair. As the saying goes, "what is good for the goose is good for the gander". Maybe we could all learn from that phrase.
How quick we are to judge. Sit in their seat for awhile and you will see its not as easy as you may think. Faulkner does not take orders from anyone, believe me I should know. He makes the best decision that he knows for the county. He voted against the budget, that should tell you something. Reedy is a fine man and he has the county of Giles at heart. Just because someone has a different opinion that you do does not make them a bad person. Janet Vansant has done a great job. Some people think because she is a woman she is not capable, but let me clue you in on a little secret, she is out of her office some I will attest to that, but you have n idea how many meetings she has to attend concering her job. I do not think she would be very effective if she sat in her chair all day. Try to walk in another persons shoes and you may just figure out you were wrong about her and vote for her if she runs again and she will certainly get my vote as she has in the past.
No one cares if you criticize Barrett or anyone else all they have asked you to do is give some kind of evidence or reason for that criticism other than you don't like their his personality. When most people have criticized Vanzant they have given reasons based on the fact of their experience with her.
Faulkner parlayed his position on the commission into a job at 1st National Bank and doesn't attend enough committee meetings to even have a clue about what's happening. He was hand picked by Vanzant and gets most of his information from her about issues then votes based on what Campbell and Vanzant support. If you think he has any independence your wrong and if you think he is a well informed commissioner you are really out of touch with reality.
That is your opionon and I respect it but you do not have a clue about what is going on in this county. Have you ever seen Faulkner talking to Vanzant? Or have you seen him in her office? He was already working at FNB so that has nothing to do with it. You know it seems the people that talk the most are the ones that never run for office. If you think your facts are true then why don't you run and try to change the way things are done?
5:57
I suppose I'm the one you said is intolerable of other people's opinions. I must respectfully deny that charge. I love the idea of sharing and growing together, but the things I detest are mean-spiritedness, name-calling, and the "I know best" attitude that permeates this blog. I've lived here all my life, and I have never seen so much bitterness and division. You may see that as people becoming enlightened, but I have a different opinion. You know as well as I do that people can be stirred to anger and even worse by only one person many times. And, while I don't disagree that there are many things wrong here in Giles County, I just honestly think these tactics are wrong and should be abandoned in favor of approaches that would foster brotherhood, compassion, understanding, and a will to seek a common good. Perhaps that's a pipe dream, but why not?
I'm not and never have been the bad guy here. I, along with only a few others, have simply posted here in opposition to those who do the very things I just mentioned above.
With regard to Mr. Faulkner, neither you nor I have the facts about his relationship with Mrs. Vanzant. All we have are our observations. For example, we can't assume that a man and a woman are having an illicit affair simply because we see them talking from time to time. Would it serve any productive purpose to start broadcasting that around town? No!
10:31
I agree with you totally. It's so easy to be an armchair quarterback and criticize. Thanks for a refreshing post.
To howard
Well, I see you made it back, but why didn't you answer the questions I asked you on another thread? And I suppose you have hard evidence that Mr. Faulkner did something wrong? And when I criticize mr barrett or any others who get on here and call people names, the very fact that they do IS my evidence. Anybody can read it. Think.
I suppose Faulkner was working at the bank when he was elected in 2008.
Howard is right Faulkner was cleaning offices when he was elected plain and simple a few months later is when he went to the bank. If you don't think there is a connection between Vanzant and Faulkner just look at his voting record. You can not show one vote where Faulkner voted against Vanzant.
Yep 7:33 your the one everyone so loves to hear ramble continuously. You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. But, why is it if you are a stand up person for those being called names, feel the need to criticize other posters for merely having an opinion minus the name-calling? We can't seem to move past the issues you seem to have regardless of no one calling names. Your point is well taken that you object to name-calling. How many times do we have to hear you say it??? When no name-calling exists you still keep ranting about name-calling. You ask us to clean up our posts of name-calling so as not to upset you and the few you say you represent. However, that doesn't appear to satisfy your need to drag the issue on and on. Again, your point is well-taken by all and no one condemns you for having your opinion. But, your continuous labor of love to rid this blog of name-calling and belittling of others has ran it's course. The same as you are weary of hearing folks chastise those in public office, we also are weary of your constant effort to keep the name-calling a front and center issue. It is also causing those of us who really want to discuss the issues from being able to do so in an effort to be informed bring about a better Giles County. You understand that right? You said you wanted the best for this county so I assume you would not impede these efforts. So, let's try and all cooperate here a little. I do believe you mentioned that you noticed that the name-calling and things you find offensive has decreased. I hope that is to your satisfaction. It is your turn to to offer the readers and posters the opportunity to experience the same generosity from you by indulging everyone in a little less criticism on your issue of name-calling. It would seem to me to be a fair gesture on your behalf. I am hoping in your future posts you will exhibit the characteristics of being a fair person so we can move on to the more important issues at hand. Bare in mind that I did not call you a name. However, everyone's conduct can be questioned on this blog. Even yours. I wonder if you will prove me right in your response.? You need to think too.
Mr. Faulkner's employment history is actually non of my business of yours. Why presume that you know the "truth" about it?
9:23
Yes, I suppose it's true that I am a stand up for those who are being called names. Why? Because it's just not right to do that.
Yes, the decrease in name-calling and accusations is satisfying. I really think everyone could work together and at least listen to one another if it would stop. Don't you?
I'm afraid I cannot promise you that I'll refrain from pointing out mean-spirited behavior. And I'm sorry that the "we" are getting tired of that. Why can't discussions be had without calling people liars, crooks, ignorant, enablers of wrong, and on and on and on?
Suggest how we talk about wrongdoing and the like without mentioning it. Just because we don't talk about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Please engage me in conversation to talk about those issues without describing the behavior or calling a spade a spade. If of course, there is proof to back up such claim. I really want to know this from you.
10:00
I still believe in what I posted. I truly believe everyone concerned could find common threads of compatibility and a will to work together if all this trashy name-calling and acccusing would stop. It's fine to talk about issues, but I think it's wrong to go battering saomeone just because we are not in agreement with what they do.
Why is it acceptable for certain people to call others names and then they are defended when someone like me comes along and "describes their behavior"? Perhaps you need to ask yourself who started all this mess to begin with.
The one who "started it" is not necessarily to one who first reported it which, and I am jumping to conclusions here which may or may not be correct. If I am wrong, I will sincerely apologize. 12:50 your post SEEMS to allude to Mr Barrett as the one who "started all this mess to begin with." He holds no political office that I am aware of, and I don't know if he ever has but too many people here want to "shoot the messenger." As Fox News says, (paraphrased) "He reports it, you decide."
I do apologize if your post was not a thinly veiled accusation of someone "stirring up trouble." I will be the first to admit, I seen that behavior so much that I've almost come to expect it as rational thinking intelligent behavior.
Deanna
Please excuse the grammatical error, should have said, "I've". And emphasis should be placed on my word, "ALMOST rational...."
Deanna
Oh no 12:50! I asked you a question and you did not answer it. You aren't going to turn and answer my question with a question. I asked you a sincere question that you can't seem to provide an answer for. Now, what is troubling to me is that you I didn't ask you if you believed in what you posted. As I am sure you did at the time. That is not my concern. Common threads of compatibility exist already. We have a forum to discuss our issues and everyone seems to be able to type and think on ones own. What other compatibilities do you suggest? I have asked you a question and I have done so without name calling. I expect you to acknowledge that and answer my question. Stop beating this drum you beat constant of name calling. I think we are passed that since my question doesn't include any name calling. As far as battering someone you confuse me. Do you have some sort of gauge or instrument that determines when it becomes battering? I am simply asking you to answer and being as polite as I can be by allowing you to also convey your point of view as to what you suggest. I is sir/madam acceptable for anyone to voice their opinion regardless of who it offends to answer your question. And the public has the option to defend said person if they so choose. Depending on their popularity as to how much support they will receive. You suggest your "supposed" side gets not support. I wonder why if they are the ones everyone is complaining about? So, will you please give me an explanation to my question and end this rant, like you say battering, that the other side isn't treated fair? The same stage is set for the "unfairly treated" to defend their honor that we have to complain of the job they do. In my opinion those that started this "mess" are the ones who have caused mistrust because of the job they are doing. Not the ones that have asked the hard questions and done the research. Sorry, that dog just WILL NOT hunt!
deanna,
If I may be so bold, he IS the one who started all the trouble around here. That is my opinion, and you surely know I'm not the only "one" in Giles County who thinks that. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that is what I honestly believe. And I have (for the thousandth time) tried to explain that my problem with this man is not with his tireless effort to present factual information. That's not it at all. I just see him as an angry little man who appears to hold a grudge or resentment toward some who actually are in authority. And I hope the day would come when I can admit to being wrong and even apologize. But not right now, ok? We all have a right to our opinions.
to 4:36
I'm not sure what the question was, but I'm thinking you asked how we are to talk about wrongdoing without mentioning it. If that's it, I'll be happy to respond. I see it as simply discussing issues as mature adults without having to resort to calling those in question nasty names and accusing them of criminal activity. If there's criminal activity, that should be reported to the authorities and not just worn out on a public blog. Why can't there be dialogue without the smearing and such? Does that answer your question?
Now, I'd like you to answer my question. Here it is. Why is it that some people can call others names on this blog and expect to go unchallenged? And then they are defended when someone like me comes along and points out that behavior? Why? How is that fair?
I think in the past you were offered an opportunity to sit down with WAB and talk about your differences and you refused. You don't know him and you don't want to know him or talk with him so who is really the trouble maker here, sort of flys in the face of your claim of approaching each other in nice ways seeking the best in each other. You are a hypocrite based on this contridiction.
6:39 I'd rather be 'an angry little man' than a slithering worm! Let me see, 'some people call others names on this blog and expect to go unchallenged?" Right, I am sure WABs parents did not give him the Christian name of "angry little man". Hello.......
Give and example of an issue currently being discussed and set the stage for how the dialogue should read. Should be simple for you to do since no one has satisfied you so far. We keep beating a dead horse back and forth.
8:02
No hypocrite here. I stand by what I've said all along. And it's not just about the man you so blindly adore. There are several of you who know-it-all and who call others names when they disagree with you on issues. I don't argue issues on this forum. It would be pointless. So, and in the absence of contradiction, I simply stand opposed to the behaviors I see exhibited here.
to 11:00
Go back and read your post. Tell me it doesn't sound childish.
11:31
Ok, here's an example. Some of "those people" are whining about Mrs. Vanzant's salary and her needing to work part-time. Well, her pay is determined by the state, regardless of the hours she works. So, you really don't know it all do you? Instead of starting a thread on a blog to "crucify" her (figuratively), wouldn't it be better to go to her in perosn and discuss your concerns? And would itnot be wise to know what you are talking about before you go? There's your example, so you may now go back to calling me names or accusing me of trying to enable wrongdoings. Sheeesh!
I can think of plenty of names to call you and they would be warranted 6:22. It is very shallow minded of you to assume you know me. You have addressed me in your post on issues that I personally have not inquired about such as "part-time co. exec and calling names". I suggest you exhibit a bit of restraint in your comments when addressing me. In the future you should be more careful of who made what comments and address it as such. I shouldn't feel the need to defend myself to you against things you assume I have said. Since you have mentioned going to the county executive and sitting with her and asking questions, I find that most interesting. First, because you assume that has not been done already. In my experiences and I meant that as plural, she has been less than truthful to my face. But I don't guess you wish to hear that as it does not fit into your perfect world of honest and upstanding people. Don't think I haven't been disappointed. My efforts in the past have been in vain to maintain open and honest communication and it failed the moment I approached our county executive of whom I supported in the past. You have grand illusions that if citizens approach our elected officials in a polite manner we might receive a cordial answer and open dialogue. If you choose to believe this you are greatly mislead in your thinking. Some people don't like to be questioned. That includes our county executive. No matter how we spin things on this blog you will not be satisfied with how anyone conducts themselves in asking questions and being informed. You only judge and criticize. Someone mentioned on this blog that you stand tall on that mountain and assess the masses making criticisms when persons do not conduct themselves in a manner pleasing to you. Sir/madam, you are most certainly an unwilling party to see others point of view. Yes, we all know you detest name calling, but you also do not like issues discussed that do not favor political figures in this county. That sir/madam has been made very clear and you do not wish to acknowledge it. You continue to go back time and time again about name calling and criticism of which you have done both. Perhaps you should try and not be such a hypocrite in the future. But then again, you don't think of yourself as such, we know that already.
8:57
You just called me a name...hypocrite. I deny that. I have said many times that I do not argue (or debate)issues on this blog. That would be pointless. You know why? If my opinion differs with those who apparently think this blog belongs only to them, then I would be talked down to, called names, and criticized greatly. Is that not true?
To anonymous of the 30 July 6:22 AM post.
You confidently write, "Ok, here's an example. Some of "those people" are whining about Mrs. Vanzant's salary and her needing to work part-time. Well, her pay is determined by the state, regardless of the hours she works. So, you really don't know it all do you?"
Perhaps if you read T.C.A 5-6-105 & 8-24-102(g) and 8-24-114 you would find that the County Executive's salary set by the General Assembly is based on a full time executive and must be at least 5% higher than any other constitutional officer but when the position is determined by referendum to be less than full-time the salary is set without a minimum. Without trying to sound like a know it all or talking down to you the facts based on your statement are just plain wrong and perhaps you should take your own advice. Allen Barrett
In a state of fit
our dear hypocrite
stopped to take a s---
and fell amidst it
Do your ears wiggle when you talk?
You can spin it any way you wish, but the STATE general assembly determines her salary. Why do you want to argue about that?
By the way, did you notice the profanity riddler just posted at 6:53? If not, I would suggest you read it. Then I would like you to explain to me how such filth would be winked at for the sake of free speech. It wouldn't be overlooked if I said something like that. But I won't.
You may not have thought of this, but people like riddler are beginning to make you look bad.
I just read on the website those T.C.A. laws WAB mentioned and they clearly state just as WAB said that
when a county executive is made part time their salary is reduced to what the county decides not what the state says. Looks like you lose another one bozo no wonder you don't want to argue about it. You just messed up why can't you admit it?
7:39
But the simple point you seem to miss is that neither you nor wab can make Mrs. Vanzant a part-timer mayor. Thank God.
I noticed that you just had to call me another name. Tacky!
You've stated many, many, many....,times that you don't wish to discuss issues anonymous poster, so here's a suggestion for you and some food for thought. THIS BLOG WAS STARTED TO DISCUSS ISSUES. By your own words you repeatedly say this is not your objective, so why are you here?? Start your own blog about keeping your words soft and sweet. As for riddler's limerick, why not chastise riddler instead of wab. I just can't follow your reasoning unless, and this is the only thing that makes sense, your sole purpose for posting is to bash Mr Barrett and oh yeah, "I am not gonna let those people get away with the things they say." blah, blah blah. Just how are you gonna stop them? Your only objective is to silence wab which was just proven by someone quoting verbatim TN law, but even that is disregarded by you. And you have the "audacity" to call others mean spirited. You don't even bother to hide what you are trying to do; In other words, "your mind is made up and please don't confuse you with facts."
Carolyn
carolyn
I have also explained many, many, many times why I come here, You try to spoin what I said to mean that I don't care about issues. But we both know that's a falsehood, don't we?
Here's a suggestion for you. If you are troubled by why I am here and by what I have to say, then you have the option of not reading my posts.
I know what the STATE has to say about Mrs. Vanzant's pay. But she is not a part-time employee, so isn't it a bit of a moot point?
I liked your cute little wuote about not confusing me with the facts. I've one for you that goes something like this. You're free to speak your mind my friend....as long as you agree with me. Isn't that pretty much your attitude and not mine?
730 & every other post thereafter -
looks like riddler gotcha - can't resist a copy & post here! here it is!
403
It's fun to address
a wizzardly mess
by words beginning with "S"
& see if mess can guess.
Mess did her best
but flunked the test
was too much quest
& we know the rest
Mess flexed her flab
mouthed some blab
and proceeded to stab
her nemisis WAB
The word was spit
not slow nor slit
not stow nor suit
and nope not "s---"
And so it is, the riddler got the pudiddler & she can't do a thing about it but bang her head on the wall! SHE stepped right in "IT"!
Everytime I see her wabalizations I have to roll over & laugh till I can't get up & move!
Friday, July 31, 2009 9:13:00 PM
To 7:03- No, I am not free to skip your posts, you are one of many anonymous posters; Furthermore, I am not in the habit of judging one's motives, nor am I am mind reader. I take what people write at face value and you plainly stated you did not come to this blog to discuss issues, that you were not going to let "those people" get away with talking badly about local officials. Possibly you did not mean that, but as I said, I don't presume to know what someone means in their heart. That would be the very definition of arrogance. Almost as arrogant as saying you are "not going to let others get away with" speaking their minds regarding their personal opinion of public leadership. My question remains unanswered: How do you propose to stop them? As for your quote, I'm free to speak my mind if I agree with you: that's an accurate statement. However, I am equally free to speak my mind if I don't agree with you, wouldn't you say?
And finally, you are free to skip my posts as well as a few of "those people" who you plan to silence and in this case you certainly have the upper hand. You know who they are.
Can't wait for you to tell me that "I knew what you meant when you posted that you weren't interested in discussing issues", but I am dizzy from going around in circles with you. Talk about the issues, give an opinion on government, schools, PES, anything that shows you can read a newspaper or create your own blog that only allows "nice" posts. I would also like to assist you with your frustration situation. You want a private conversation with Mr Barrett and nobody else jumping in. I believe I read somewhere on here that his # is in the phone book. That's what you CLAIM you want, do you really? Problem solved.
Carolyn
carolyn
I stand by EVERY WORD I said. Sure, you can question officials and speak your mind, but I think that liberty is taken too far when people resort to calling others names, accusing them of adultery, stealing, embezzlement, and on and on and on. If they are guilty of crimes then "those people" must surely have hard evidence, right? Why don't they turn it over to the proper authorities? Or do they just like drama and contention? You know, some people thrive on such things.
Your arrogance once again raised its ugly head when you suggested that I talk about things that would indicate that I can read a newspaper. Then the thing about "nice" posts on a blog of my own?
Who appointed people like you as beacons of intelligence here in Giles County? How did we ever get along without "those people?"
When I used the quote about "free to speak your mind as long as you agree with me, I'm sure you understood that I was referring to the collective attitude of the very vocal minority who are on here continually calling people names and trying to smear them in some way without regard for innocent people who may get hurt (collateral damage?) in the process. That's just mean.
Ok, here's the bomb. You KNEW what I meant when I said that I do not come here to discuss issues. How many times must I explain to people like you that it would be futile to try to discuss issues with know-it-alls? What would be the point when any opposing view I or others might have would only result in being talked down to or being called a name? NO, I simply point out what I see happening here whenever I see mean-spirited attacks. Now, do you understand? I happen to be very well read, and you are not the only one who keeps current on issues. OK?
As for my talking to the one you apparently admire, let me again explain my position on that. I do not hate the man, but I absolutely despise his attitude. And before you accuse me of wishing I could be more like him (laughing) or something similar, let me just say that you would be totally wrong. And my beef with him isn't nearly as bad anymore, because he has stopped a lot of that. Is he still arrogant and egotistical? Oh yes, but he has improved. My problem is with anyone who thinks he/she has all the answers and who wants so badly to impose his will on others believed to be intellectually/culturally inferior. Would you at least agree with me that those things are wrong? Probably not.
One last thought. I gave your highness what I believed to be a plausible way to at least begin "peace proceedings" with those in authority whom "those people" have crucified (no reference to Christ) on this blog. I was belittled and scorned. Well, you more intelligent people need to be creative and find a way to bury the hatchett and show them that you are ready and willing to work together. Oh, but we can't have that, can we? But ask yourself this question? Who actually started all this mess to begin with? Who? It wasn't the victims. Oh, but that's because they were "corrupt" all along and didn't want to risk calling attention to their activities, right? Horsehockey!
7:39, I believe you switched back and forth between two different topics. Again you said, (cut and pasted)
"You KNEW what I meant when I said that I do not come here to discuss issues. " I again must tell you, I only know what you said and would certainly not be so arrogant as to presume what you or anyone meant.
I would like an answer to my question that you very neatly sidestepped on this thread and that is, how do you plan to prevent "those people" from "getting away with the type of talk that you say you object to? I also wonder how you know so definitely that "those people" did not attempt what you suggest before getting on this blog and stating their opinions. I do not have a clue whether or not "those people" requested a "sit down" with whomever they had issues with, but I feel I would be judging unfairly if I assumed that they were not truthful about saying that they had tried to talk with officials. I supposed I am as guilty as the average Joe about judging others but I am trying to become aware of it and refrain from doing so when I catch myself jumping to conclusions. It is my personal experience however that I personally have tried to have a discussion with one such official who is appointed, not elected. I believe someone else on here also mentioned a similar situation. I got no answers to my questions, I was lied to and when reviewing a document that was "cut and dried", I was told that I was interpreting it wrong. Mind you this document was not written "legaleezey" and the meaning was clear. If this thread topic was about that person's job, I would not have any qualms about naming this person.
I do not know why some come to the blog if they don't like to read what is here but if it is to defend officials, they are obviously wasting their breath. Citizens have a right to vent and to be honest your repeated statement that you are "not going to let them get away with it" is quite troubling to me, but that is my problem and I will deal. As for accusing this Mr Barrett of starting the problems, as an outsider looking in, my observation is that they problems have been here for a while, he just stepped up to report on them. Perhaps that is "stirring things up" but it is not creating the problem, just as he is not condoning the bad language, he is only abiding by the blog rules and I find it ironic that while several complained that he was condoning the language, I saw not one single person complain about the person who actually typed the words. Maybe it's just me but I personally am a believer in one being responsible for their own behavior, not someone else's.
I hope you will answer my questions. I truly would like to know your reasoning.
Carolyn
carolyn..You know what? There's no use trying to reason with you. You're right, and I'm obviously wrong as usual. So I suppose the true moot point is in trying to have a dialogue with you. I always heard that you can't argue with someone who is smarter than you are to begin with. I believe that must be true. Having said that, let me leave it with you this way. You think what you want, and I'll think what I want. Ok?
As for being responsible for one's behavior, would you say that a manager is not responsible for the behavior of his employees? Does an editor have the responsibility to censor unacceptable language from print? Of course.
No, I stand by what I said about not letting them get away with calling people nasty names. That's as much my right to "vent" as it is anyone else. Right? Would you agree with me on that?
I suppose you and I just see things a lot differently. I've made my case for what I believe to be a plausible way that the vocal minority and those in authority could "bury the hatchett" and start working together, but you found my answer unacceptable. That's all I've got. So really, you and I have nothing further to discuss. I'm just sorry that you are so unhappy here.
To 7PM..... I wonder how it is that you say you don't know WAB but then you not only define his personality but motives for his behavior as well.
Why would someone of your Christian background, intellect and concern for right behavior not be interested in speaking with, getting to know and resolve your issues with WAB. He seems to have expressed a desire for such a meeting so why is it so hard for you to be the nice guy peacemaker you claim to desire to be?
To 7:00, sure was a lot of words to tell me you were not going to answer my questions. I take it that you are NOT for personal responsibility, that the writer of the bad words is free and clear if someone doesn't stop him. I know so many people that feel that way, always someone else's fault.
Again you make the "threat" you are "not going to let people get away with expressing their freedom of speech" and again I ask you, how do you plan to stop them? As I said, that is a troubling statement. And again I wonder how you can be so sure that the people on here have not tried other methods that would be more pleasing to you? How could you possibly know that? Hmmmmm
What makes you think I am unhappy here? Your defensive outburst was enlightening to me, many words but no answers...it's a problem I encountered with the official I alluded to in my previous post. That person also tried the dodge and deflect method when ask a point blank question.Again, Hmmmmm
All of this is most interesting, a little disturbing and definitely enlightening; particularly the condemnation of wab not censoring free speech yet no condemnation of a person using foul language. The threat of silencing free speech is something that you have repeated on several posts. Frankly, it frightens me, but you stand firm on that threat and I guess we that offend should "watch our backs" very carefully.
Carolyn
7PM
Can you not pick up a biography about the life of a person and define his/her personality, character, etc by reading it? And, while you are attempting to judge me, let me say again that I have never argued with wab about his motives. They may be good for all I know. Let me say that again. They may be good for all I know.
You know perfectly well that my problem with wab is the same as it is with anyone who comes across as egotistical and arrogant and those who talk down to others as if they were half-wits or enablers of wrong, content with being "oppressed", and etc. You see, it's not just the one for whom you are cheerleading.
By the way, my "issues" with wab have greatly diminished. I think that's due to a combination of a couple of things. In all honesty, he has toned down the sharp tongue, and that's commendable. And lastly, it seems I spend all my time now dealing with cheerleaders and apologists for his past behavior. I have NOTHING personally against the man.
carolyn
I told you that I do NOT want to discuss anything with you further. You were given my answer twice or maybe three times, and you wouldn't accept it, so lighten up! You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. And others are not as dumb as you think. So go try to bully someone else. You judge my life and accuse me wrongly and expect me to want to talk with a person like YOU! Horsehockey!
Horsehockey
Is that a nice word to use in church?
All those other words you preach about aren't nice, but who would think of using them in church anyway?
6:41 and various other times: You answered not one question, not one. Quite simple questions, but you "don't want to talk to me anymore." Typical response when one is trapped by their own words. And by the way, we are all so greatly relieved that your issues with wab have diminished....gimme a break, and you have the nerve to call anyone arrogant.
Repeat: How are you "not going to let them get away with the posts you don't approve of?" Guess you're right about my intelligence cause I don't know what you mean unless you say it, but apparently according to your posts "we all know perfectly well what your problem with...."
Hope everybody got that, don't go by this poster's words, go by what "we all know they mean."
Answer the question, how are you gonna put a stop to the posts? It's a threat, pure and simple so quit blowing smoke tough guy and take responsibility for your words.
Carolyn
I don't say horsehockey in church. Actually, I got that expression from watching Colonel Potter on M.A.S.H. I think you almost got me on that one, BUT there's a big difference between that expression and telling someone to shut the **** up or get the ****out!
Here's another minor point; I am not the one responsible for censorship on this blog.
1:13 Are you not the one wanting the blog censored. I was just pointing out your words wasn't perfect.
No, I only suggest that foul language be censored.
Just ignore her. Don't answer anything she says.
Are you the blog spokesperson? What a laugh.
1:13 pm Colonel Potter from M.A.S.H. you say....."We all know" back then, 60's or early 70's, TV programs were not as liberal with language usage as now. So, "we all know" horsehocky out of C. Potter's mouth was slang for s**t. Even you! What is the difference between 'implying' and 'actually' stating words? Thee who knows the virtues of rightousness to a 'higher' level than the 'low life' bloggers.
Will it make 'thee' happy if the 'low life' bloggers elect YOU as 'blog spokesperson'? Ya, you are right.....what a laugh!
To the anonymous of the 2 August 6:41 post. Once again you have allowed your mouth to override your brain. When you make such absurd claims as "let me say again that I have never argued with wab about his motives" are you not aware how easy it is to go back and read some of the many times you identified my motives.
Each time you have ascribed my actions or statements as "being motivated by my arrogance, desire to be seen, need to be heard, etc, etc." what have you done other than claim to know my motives? Do you simply have no integrity or is it just that you can not accept responsibility for your own stupid statements? Allen Barrett
5:40
So are you also saying that a teacher who calls and tells a parent her child has "dookied" in his pants is using profane language? Just wondering is all.
To wab..
You charge that I ascribe or attribute your motivations to arrogance. No, I honestly think you are doing some things that you believe in your heart to be right. BUT, the arrogance factor emerges whenever anyone begs to differ with you on an issue. And yes, I really do believe you are a very egotistical person who loves center stage. But that's ok; there are plenty of people like that. And the only issue I ever disagreed with you on is the one about zoning.
You mentioned something about my integrity, so let me address that. Yes, I am a man of integrity; would you like to borrow some? Sorry, but you walked right into that one.
You know, in spite of all this warfare between you and me, I think that, under different circumstances, we could have been on the same side or even perhaps friendly toward one another. What a thought!
You are not a man and you have no integrity. You are still trying to make everyone believe you are a man. No grown man goes around talking about giving another man a spanking. If this is the case, then I will use your old phrase. What a laugh!
6:07 I find it strange you would use a 'teacher' as your example. Find it hard to believe you are a man....I mean of male gender. YOU are definately NOT a man or lady of intergity! It would be my hope, a teacher would not use the term 'dookied' (as I have not heard it before). And yes, it is slang for ****. Only MY opinion - NO need to get all over WAB. The proper word is deficated....if YOU are trying to use and promote 'proper' language usage.
You seem to be suffering from tunnel vision. You have CREATED the 'warfare' not only with WAB and yourself, but EVERY other person who enters on this blog. Who has agreed with you? Even once!! Please crawl out of your self created mud bog of self-pitty, clean yourself up and try to act like a respectable citizen.
808 You are absolutely wrong - She is suffering from psychotic delusions and is probably dangerous.
If she ever manages to crawl out from under the outhouse, she'll probably stab the first man she sees! Imagine meeting "it" in a dark alley! Great plot for a horror movie!
OMG! If 'it' has just crawled out from under 'her' outhouse covered in 'dookie', with a knife of 'justice' in 'her' hand, we better be careful to use 'proper' language - the type 'it' thinks is 'proper' - or we just might be 'stabbed' with 'its knife of knowledge and rightousness'!
8:08
I AM a respectable citizen, and you will never see me running around town calling people liars, crooks, thieves, idiots, and on and on. I respect myself more than that.
Have you never heard of male teachers? I used the teacher as an example simply because that's what came to mind. You need not read more into that (paranoid delusional) than is there. And the word is actually defecated.....or voided, eliminated, excreted, etc.
I just figured out who "those people" think I am. That's got to be the funniest thing yet. No, I'm not Mrs. Vanzant or a spokesperson or cheerleader for her. And you call me delusional?
I am glad that you respect yourself because there are few on this blog that do. You are a liar because Mr. Barrett proved that on one of the other topics.
1:18
Of course I respect myself. And, by the way, I never asked for "those people" to respect me. I don't need their affirmation to feel good about myself. On the contrary, I have absolutely no respect for anyone who tries to smear and tear down others when there are other avenues available.
1248 I meant the other kind of stab - she's certified nuts & that's "it"!
Is it not just as bad when you say "he still arrogant and egotistical?"
Things like that makes me think everything WAB said is true.
Or why would you get so bent out of shape.
9:40
Have you not heard the old saying that "The proof is in the pudding?" Anyone who knows wab and who will be honest is aware that he is both arrogant and egotistical. I don't say that necessarily as a slam on the man, because there are a lot of people like that in the world. And some people love to have center stage while most would prefer to remain in the background. Again, nothing necessarily wrong with that either.
You mentioned that I get bent out of shape. Admittedly, I do sometimes get angry when people are mistreated on this blog. But generally, it's more frustration than anger.
I thought you claimed you did not know him. Seems you are always lying about something. Before you deny this, go back and read your own post.
To anonymous of the 4 Aug 6:26AM post.
You state, "Anyone who knows wab and who will be honest is aware that he is both arrogant and egotistical".
Are you aware of how arrogant and egotistical that statement is? First of all you assume that everyone who knows me will agree with you in your personal assessment of my personality, then you make matters even worse by claiming that anyone who did not agree with your assessment of me would have to be dishonest.
I know and have known many people who would never claim I was either arrogant or egotistical. As a soldier I had to be confident in order to lead other soldiers but confidence isn't arrogance. You have stated you were in the military would you have preferred a leader who lacked confidence in what they were doing or someone who conveyed that confidence to his men?
Things I get involved with are usually things that I feel passionate about, but that's not egotism. Both confidence and passion make up a huge part of my character but they have never prevented me from listening to others or treating others with respect until they prove unworthy of such respect. Allen Barrett
8:41
What I SAID is that anyone who knows him knows that he is arrogant and egotistical. Did I say I was among them? Did you simply choose to misunderstand that?
wab..
You have mentioned several times how you "led men" when you were in the military. Could you expand upon just what that involved? You seem very proud of that, and inquiring minds might want to know the finer details. Are you talking about leading infantry troops into combat?
I'm not going to split hair over your "words have meaning" mentality with regard to those who truly know you and what they think. I believe if most would agree that you are both arrogant and egotistical. You are always right and you are just so proud of yourself.
Treating others with respect until they prove unworthy of YOUR respect? Are you aware of how arrogant and egotistical that statement is? Your were partyly right when you said confidence isn't arrogance. You should have said it's not necessarily arrogance. But what would you call too much confidence? Uh, I believe Webster would define that as arrogance.
6:26 You are a sorry excuse for a rational adult, I use the word 'adult' lightly, human being. You stated, "I do sometimes get angry when someone is mistreated on this blog." YOU do A LOT of the 'mistreating' of the ppl on this blog YOU disagree with! YOU ALWAYS find words of critism for WAB......NO MATTER WHAT!! WAB does NOT have to justify his mitilary experience with you or anyone else. HE HAS THE RIGHT TO BE PROUD OF HIS SERVICE TO THIS WONDERFUL COUNTRY!
I KNOW WAB and DO NOT believe for A SECOND he is arrogant or egotistical. I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY OF THOSE CHARACTER TRAITS DISPLAYED BY WAB! I too respect ppl and treat them with common courtesy...UNTIL they ACT in a way towards me or others that prove them unworthy of MY respect. NOT arrogance...just GOOD common sense and character analysis. Do you respect and 'hang out' or 'talk to' drug dealers, anti-Americans, child abusers, murders, devil worshipers, spouse abusers, theives, power mongers, liars, adulters, etc.? Are 'they' worthy of YOUR respect OR have 'they' proven themselves 'unworthy' of YOUR respect?
6:26- I am cutting and pasting your statement that confuses me terribly. Please do not respond by say, "you know what I meant". Obviously, I do not and respectfully request an explanation.
"Anyone who knows wab and who will be honest is aware that he is both arrogant and egotistical. I don't say that necessarily as a slam on the man, because there are a lot of people like that in the world."
You don't mean it as a slam, how else could one possible take that statement?
I would agree that the proof is indeed in the "pudding." The proof here is that your ONLY issue SEEMS to be Mr Barrett.
Without meaning any disrespect Mr. Barrett, I am betting you will agree that there are much more pressing issues in our community that the attitude of the one who volunteers his time to moderate this blog. I would have given up a long time ago.
Thank you Mr Barrett.
5:54PM "What I SAID is that anyone who knows him knows that he is arrogant and egotistical. Did I say I was among them? Did you simply choose to misunderstand that?" That is a cut and paste from your post. Now let me clarify this. Either you know Mr. Barrett and are being honest about him being arrogant and egotistical, or you do not know him and you are making an assumption about his being arrogant and egotistical. However, your post states that you are not among those who know him. Therefore how can you "HONESTLY" say that he is arrogant and egotistical. Which by the way is not a crime and is not always a bad thing. But if you do know him, then you are being dishonest by stating "Did I say I was among them?" So either you know him and you are being dishonest by saying you don't, or you don't know him and are only judging him by what you have read. There is an old saying that says before you judge a man, you need to walk a mile in his moccasins. By the way, the dictionary definition of arrogance is "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." It says nothing about "too much confidence". Too much confidence may be foolhardy, but it is not arrogance. I have been both overconfident im my life, and arrogant in my life, I failed when I was overconfident, and sometimes my arrogance got me in trouble. Still I have learned, and then again sometimes not. I am still arrogant and egotistical at times, but those are the flaws that I have to deal with. You however have this attitude that it is your reponsibility to police how everyone talks to each other. You fail to realize that by taking the stance you have, you are acting just as arrogant and egotistical as those of us you claim to be protecting people from. Let it go. Learn a lesson from the people you so blithely dismiss, all of our opinions matter, and sometimes we are all overbearing, but in the end, we all have to answer to God for our own sins, not the sins of others.
Barrett is arragant because he is never wrong even when he has been proven wrong on this blog. He has time and again refused to admit he was wrong. I guess as long as he SAYS he is not wrong that he is right. That is arragance!
By the way, the dictionary definition of arrogance is "offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride." I am so surprised it does not actually state William Allen Barrett as an example.
to deanna and your cohort...deadman
I stand by just exactly what I said. Pure and simple. My opinion matters too.
Let's get back to the topic. I don't understand the topic question itself. ALL we have had since Missus V was elected is a part time county executive. Why expect anything different now.
6:38 You are so foolish, why don't you just show one thing where WAB was wrong and refused to admit it. That would clearly show what he is but obviously you understand that if you are unable to do this it clearly reveals what you are. Facts my friend produce some facts and prove him wrong or just shut up with your inanely stupid accusations.
She can't prove it. She just does that to stop all talk on any topic. She thinks she can fool everyone, but if the truth was known, she is part of the problems in Giles County.
Who is the "she" you keep talking about? You are so misguided. I'm glad to see that 6:38 is not me, but we share a common view.
Time to get the ISP on dung head and bar her from any entry on the blog. Better yet, if possible deny her log on privileges! Free speech needs to be defended! She is denying free speech & comment for everyone else. same old crap & dialogue designed to scuttle all pro or con comments on anything.
Other blogs do it - do it to her!
Deanna, I'm a cohort, woohoo, I'm a cohort. I guess that makes you one also. Let's check the definition of that shall we?
1. a group or company
2. a companion or associate.
3. one of the ten divisions in an ancient Roman legion, numbering from 300 to 600 soldiers.
4. any group of soldiers or warriors.
These are some of the definitions of the word COHORT that I found. Personally I prefer # 4.
I am now going to end my petty bickering with you 06:49 by informing you of some things. Your opinion does matter, probably only to you. You think that others have an incorrect opinion. As one of the most intelligent men I have ever met once told me, (My father), there is no such thing as a wrong opinion. You may disagree with it, but it can't be wrong because it is exactly that, an opinion. Finally, you have no right whatsoever to condemn anyone on this blog simply because you say that they are arrogant, egotistical, "namecalling" or are "acting like they are smarter than everyone else". If you cannot understand what someone is trying to say because you can't grasp the concept or because they use words that you don't understand, that does not mean they are trying to be any of these things, it means they are expressing their opinion with the vocabulary they have on hand. Unfortunately there are others who have the vocabulary of neanderthals and must stoop to the profane to get themselves recognized. Then there is you, the one that has to belittle everything that is brought out by anyone on this blog. If something is said about anyone political in this county, you are automatically against it. You do not let those of us that are trying to find the truth, have a place to peacefully discuss the issues. If you have facts, I have yet to see you interject one into the blog. You constantly try to impugn or malign the character of the contributors to this blog, and yet you show not one iota of class or character yourself. You say your job is to make sure that people like Mr. Barrett do not talk down or about people and call them names. I don't care whether you think it is your job or not, your rhetoric is neither productive nor conducive to the normal conversation that most of us are trying to have. Therefore, in the future if you wish to say something, please follow this simple rule: DON'T. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't care what you have to say. I know you will respond to this, so go ahead and flap your lips like a sail in the breeze, but I am done with this antisocial rant I am on. By the way, could you please put an * asterisk (I didn't want you to confuse that with profanity) by which anonymous you are, that way I know which one to ignore from now on.
Deanna, none of this was directed at you. Sorry if it seemed that way. By the way, if I am your cohort, are you mine also?
Whew deadman, I got worried!!I thought that was all directed to Deanna. I thought, my what has happened since I last blogged with you guys? Thank you for clarifying that and thanks for having the will and taking the time to put what's their face in their place. Everything is true and I second every word you said.
129 good message. Still hope wab got the message & changes thigs to send her garble into cyberspace
Thanks, it never occurred to me to be offended in any way. But it was a classy thing to do to clarify your most.
Deanna
8:30
Time to get the ISP on "dung head" and bar "her" from the blog? Would wab allow me to be barred in the name of free speech? I don't think he would, but.....you know what? You people can have it. It's just not worth it to me to have one of you checking into who I am and then try to harm my family in some way. While I have absolutely nothing to hide and feel justified in standing opposed to the mean-spiritedness I see on this blog, it's not worth that. Besides, I wouldn't stand for it either, so it's best for me to just leave and allow you to call me a coward or whatever other name suits you. You know, give me the proverbial boot to the rear on my way out?
I'll not come back here to check, but I do wonder if wab would, as blogmaster, defend my right to voice opinions with the same fervor that he supported others' use of profanity and vulgarity.
Nevertheless, the floor is yours! I'm finally through, so you people can have at it. The intimidation worked. I'm just thankful most people do not come here to begin with.
Okay we have heard enough from you. All we ever heard anyway was blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Leave if you feel so inclined. But make no mistake about it, you won't be missed!
She said that before, but came right back. She tries to disguise her posts to make you think it is someone different, but if you pay attention you can tell it is her.
Oh yeah, she isn't fooling anyone..
who the heck are ya'll talking about? she who?
It does look like intimidation. I had the wrong idea about free speech.
Anyone who stands strongly in their convictions and those convictions being ethical would succumb to intimidation. The alternative would. Take from that what you will. Good sometimes does overcome evil.
To: August 08, 2009 1:09:00 PM
This blog is about whether we need a part time or full time County Executive, would you like to comment on that?
I think we need a full time County Executive.
I think we need a full-time competent County Exec. Bit of a difference than just full-time. Heard Janet has already begun her campaigning about Giles County at particular county functions. Is this county going to be silly and re-elect this LIAR?? People need to stand up and tell her to her face what she is. I have heard it has begun happening already. Folks are fed up with that lying heifer.
I will repeat once again that no one is prohibited from posting on this blog for any reason other that the use of profanity.
You cannot truly support free speech and all that you concur with unless you're willing to defend it in all that you object to. Allen Barrett
Right, as usual, aren't you?
Post a Comment
<< Home