Information regarding TCSA Fall Conference
This is how the information was given to me. The only addition I made was to include the totals. Some had their rooms paid by the county instead of being reimbursed. Some took their spouses thus did not share a room with another commissioner and some did not take reimbursement for transportation. Because of the way this space is allocated I can't make a simple list of columns and have included the code (T)for transportation; (L) for lodging; (M) for meals and other.
Commissioners: Houston 141.92(L) 56.82(M)- Cary 290.00(T) 116.80(L)- Howell 53.32(L) 43.50(M)- Reece 293.00(T) 53.32(L) 58.50(M) - Garner* 186.00(T) - Faulkner 279.50(T) 432.24(L) 60.00(M) - Jackson 300.00(T) 288.16(L) 29.25(M) - Pollard 106.64(M) - Pope 302.00(T)129.80(L)- Coleman 287.50(T) 58.50(M) - Brown 432.24(L) 70.00(M) - Garner* 93.00(T) 124.25(M) - HIGHWAY DEPT.: Kelley 166.44(T) 115.00(M) - Hyatt 122.49(T) 115.00(M) - Phillips 166.44(T) 115.00(M)
3 payments to vendors Best Western Plaza Inn 161.13 Best Western Plaza Inn 449.79
TOTALS 2486.37(T) - 2258.72(L) - 952.46(M)
* Listed in two different spots
Commissioners: Houston 141.92(L) 56.82(M)- Cary 290.00(T) 116.80(L)- Howell 53.32(L) 43.50(M)- Reece 293.00(T) 53.32(L) 58.50(M) - Garner* 186.00(T) - Faulkner 279.50(T) 432.24(L) 60.00(M) - Jackson 300.00(T) 288.16(L) 29.25(M) - Pollard 106.64(M) - Pope 302.00(T)129.80(L)- Coleman 287.50(T) 58.50(M) - Brown 432.24(L) 70.00(M) - Garner* 93.00(T) 124.25(M) - HIGHWAY DEPT.: Kelley 166.44(T) 115.00(M) - Hyatt 122.49(T) 115.00(M) - Phillips 166.44(T) 115.00(M)
3 payments to vendors Best Western Plaza Inn 161.13 Best Western Plaza Inn 449.79
TOTALS 2486.37(T) - 2258.72(L) - 952.46(M)
* Listed in two different spots
posted by Allen Barrett | 8:36 AM
85 Comments:
Did it ever occur to you Mr.BARRETT THAN THESE SEMINARS ARE PUT ON TO LEARN NEW AND BETTER WAYS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.ANOTHER THING DO YOU COMPLAIN WHEN THEY ARE OUT ALL TIMES OF THE DAYS AND NIGHTS DURING FLO0DS SNOWS AND OTHER DUTIES AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES RISKING THEIR LIVES TO BETTER SERVE YOU AND OTHER GILES COUNTIANS.MAKING LITTLE ABOVE MININUM PAY..JUST A ANOTHER OPINION
Yea and the Giles county commission and VanZant will be coming after the taxpayer for more tax money in a few months. They will be busting the taxpayer with more and more taxes. Haven't got the guts or desire to cut spending. They really don't care about anything but keeping their power. Just wait and see wheel tax and property tax coming. The problem is not taxes it is spending.
Why in the world would the county pay anything for meals. The conference as I understand it feeds them, the $115.00 for meals is really questionable! Loretta Garner's job is to question things such as this.
"Did it ever occur to you Mr.BARRETT THAN THESE SEMINARS ARE PUT ON TO LEARN NEW AND BETTER WAYS TO SERVE THE PUBLIC"
HA HA HA HA HA HA
What a laugh! THese things are put on to justify someones postion, and everyone else show up for a free trip and some meals!
I know, I used to attend these things myself. They are a total waste of time and taxpayers money.
But they are a nice little perk to be sure. I always enjoyed them, while the "poor minimum wage tax payers"( those filty little cretins) had to pay for it! HA HA
Hey power has it's prevledges you know.
And I almost forgot; HI VICKY!
They could've hired LOTS of buses for $2,846 .
WHY didnt they ? Is the County Exec NOT doing her job? (or is that question really an oxymoron ?)
Hem Lock
Hiring a bus for three days would be pretty expensive, and sharing a room is an unreasonable request.
5:10 how many did you attend Chris?
Looks like Loretta needs to find the snitch in her office......HA!\
WAB has a mole working in her office!!!!
I am a county commissioner and I personally saw Barry Hyatt's county vehicle, Steve Kelley and his wife rode in same vehicle!! Mileage for both was not justified! Money should be refunded back to county!
So are you guys back to persecuting Mrs. Garner and Mrs. Vanzant? I figured it would start back up.
By the way, I have heard it said that Mrs. Vanzant has a barrett spy working for her as well. Isn't that just a pity?
Some of you people have never been to a conference or meeting that required expenses. These meetings don't feed the guest anymore. To get there, one would have to travel. Since we are not in Nashville, travel expenses will result. Lodging is not free either. When I read postings like these, I realize how ignorant some are in not knowing what they are talking about here.
I would like to know why everyone's lodging wasn't the same?
I posted the 6:24 post: Was not meant to persecute Mrs. Garner...just meant that someone is feeding/or giving WAB information without him requesting it in writing!!! Don't think that was a negative thing about Mrs. Garner except that she needs to find the source. And information given to WAB or anyone else needs to be documented to make sure it is accurate!!
8:19
Thanks for setting me straight on that. But isn't oit a rotten shame that someone is spying out of her office. And, if true, even more of a shame that barrett would resort to such tactics.
7:30 What difference would it be if we were in Nashville? There would still be travel expense to get to Pigeon Forge.
Simple Solution: Ask Barry Hyatt, Steve Kelley, and Julie Phillips why they charged mileage for convention in Pigeon Forge....or are you afraid that Barry will slam you into the wall like he did Morris Woodard when Morris asked him a question???
My question is if it "was" a educational seminar....why did it take three employees and their spouses from the Highway Department to get the information for one department. Looks like to me it was a fall vacation for three couples at the taxpayer's expense!!! Abuse of appropriations allocated to Highway Department...I'd say definitely!!!
3:00
But the fact of the matter is that you definitely don't know.
If they find one way to save thousands in road work, then I am definitely glad they went.
5:57:
The key word to your post is "they"...since we elected Barry Hyatt to manage our "road work" tax dollars...why did he have to take Julie and Steve to find "one way"!!! Could he not learn the lessons himself!!! Please don't try to justify this kind of behavior. It makes you look pretty dumb!!! Unless you are one of the hwy. county employees who go the free vacation on taxpayers!!!! That is the only justification for you post!
I agree with 6:21.
To 5:57-Please explain how you can justify three people taking a vacation on your tax money? Why did not just one employee go and bring the information back to the department? Looks like Barry is the person elected-I can see him going-but why take 2 more employees and all of the spouses?
Just jealously, plain and simple.
6:27 For the same reason every smart corporate leader encourages corporate retreats and conferences. If you do not know what happens on those that benefit a company, then there is no way I can enlighten you.
I understand that Barry drove a county vehicle but you have to put gas in that vehicle to go. I am sure that the travel expenses for him was for gas. Maybe the reason for the other two employess to go is so that they can go to more sessions to get more materials. I feel that if you have questions why not ask the people involved. There are several other departments that go on conferences and take several members of their staff but those are not being questioned. If you are going to question one then you have to question them all. Just a thought!
To Fri 9-14 PM
Don't you suspect that Mr. Barrett submitted a written request for the information he subsequently published here ? I do .I just sincerely doubt that he was provided with ALL of it. There are many tricks to not keeping accurate records.
Folks tend to forget that in the US it is "We the people " who elect/require OPEN government .
It is EVERY citizen's absolute RIGHT to ask for that kind of PUBLIC information . Your taxes paid for it and there is a PAID Finance Dept. to track and record it.
I C Demoney
Would Mr. Barrett have stayed home if he had gotten Commissioner?
Maybe not...but would have he taken his family and friends with him? At taxoayers expense..
I've always thought the commissioners and employees who attended any seminars, conferences, etc paid for by tax payer monies, should be required to make a verbal public report at the first full commission meeting following the seminar and outline what helpful information they obtained to justify the expense.
12:14:
Ha! Ha! That would definitely give the commissioners a new focus on not doing anything constructive at the county commission meetings!! Already wasting time doing nothing! Would definitely be more naps taken! What a joke!
3:35 Why is that a joke? When my company paid for me to attend a conference or whatever I was expected to return to work and give a report at the next staff meeting.
Expenses for spouses are not paid for. Where did you get the idea that is was? They did not stay at the same hotel nor eat the same food so they would not have the same expenses. The only thing that should be similar is mileage since it is by the mile at a set rate per mile.
Just something else for these group of people to complain about. Seems like the leader is good at getting $ started and sitting back and LHAO. What a joke. What a preacher!
JAT says to 4:16
Acually you are correct when it comes to the real world. However when it comes to Giles County, its government, and the vast majority of its citizens....... NO ONE GIVES A DAMN
Do you really expect Stoney Jackson to stand up in public and explain, in lucid terms, what he learned at a conference???
REALLY
Do you expect our County Executive to question her Commissioners what they did, what they learned, what they now know that will improve Giles County???? REALLY
Do you expect the majority of citizens ask the same questions??? NO THEY WILL NOT!
WHY ??? .... They do not give a damn. Lord knows they do not want to offend a neighbor or ask embarrising questions. DO NOT MAKE TROUBLE is the battle cry of Giles County. So what the Commissioners (Though not all of them)are ripping off the citizens. Look at Stoney Jackson's expenses!!!! Why so much for lodging????
My hat is off to Ms. Howell and Mr. Pollard who kept expenses down.
OK those of you who support status quo......do you really accept our Commissioners to spend YOUR MONEY without explaining why?? Of course you do .... WHY??? because you don't give a damn!!!!
3:35 answers back:
The reason I think it is a joke for the commissioners and elected officials to stand up at meeting and tell what they "learned" is that they can not even stand up and tell what "they are suppose to already know". Half or more of the commissioners just vote and never open or read the information about what they are voting on. They vote without any knowledge. I happen to be someone who does "give a damn" and I have been in the meetings and was sickened by what these commissioner's "don't know"!
To 4:41
Sad to say you are correct that far too many in the county don't care.
And 5:39
Double sadning that you too are right in what you said.
But what's worse, is that someone had to say it at all.
We have some very good commisioners serving. Commisioner Reedy comes to mind. He's plenty smart, and he's honest to boot.
Perhaps if we acknowledged him and others like himself, we could hopefully raise the standards of those who aren't quite up to snuff.
One can only hope.
4:38
You are absolutely right about those people. What a shame it is. Excellent post!
Ok, let's be really honest. Some of the commissioners do well to read the agenda and know what it means. Some are educated, but too many ar not. I blame the election of those uneducated ones on the "Good ole boy" syndrome. Let's elect "Jack Johnson" because he's a good guy and will do what is needed. Never mind he can't read and understand the complicated documents and rulings that need to be understood. Far too long, this is what has happened. Look back and look now at what we have. On the other hand, many of the people who are knowledgeable refuse to run for office because of the negative attitudes that run rampant, e.g., this blog. Think about it.
Henry Thurman
Mr. Thurman,
You are exactly right about one of the main reasons some people don't run for an elected office in Giles County.
I have been asked on numerous occasions to run for commissioner or school board, but I would not even consider it primarily because of this blog. Why just suppose I ran and allen barrett and his faithful few decided they didn't like me and started a trash and smear campaign. I wouldn't tolerate it, so it's just best that I remain on the sidelines.
While the sidelines are always safer they are very unproductive. I have never "started a trash and smear campaign" against anyone simply because I didn't like them. My only criticisms have been when those in public office or positions of authority have acted in a way that was unprofessional, devious, dishonest, manipulative for personal reasons, abusive to citizens etc.
Should those in public office and positions of public authority not be criticized when they do wrong, fail to meet the responsibilities of their position? To me it is a responsibility of the citizenry to actively be involved with the workings of our government. When citizens fail in their responsibilities to their community
we very often end up with a situation like Bell, California.
To the person who raised the question of spies in the county offices don't be so absurd, What I have placed on this blog has been public information. In the case of this thread I submitted a written request to the Director of Financial Management and she, as expected, did her job and provided the public information as requested. She was very graceful, pleasant and professional during the whole process. What I posted is exactly the same information that was provided by the Finance Office.
The problem isn't that I have exposed some abuses but that so many have decided they are unable to do anything about the abuses so they tolerate them. When people have had enough, just like when the country was founded, they will rise up and make the necessary changes. Until then whining from the sidelines will probably continue to be the main activity of most.
I belief and hope with the coming new taxes and fee increases people will say enough is enough and stop tolerating bad expensive behavior from some public officials.
Mr. Thurman
Agree with you about the incompetence of some people we have had in office in years past and even some currently. From what I read the charter commission folks are considering writing something into their document that could improve upon the qualifiers that allows people to run for office, adding to the state requirements. On the other hand, although we know that on whatever level of government negative comments will always run rampant against politicians we don't like for whatever reasons (good example the abuse against President Obama)I do feel that with people in office who have a better attitude towards their job, citizens and their responsibilities, the comments on this blog could be greatly reduced.
5:46 I, too, have been asked to run for various offices but my decision not to certainly was not due to this blog but simply due to lack of time in being able to attend all meetings I would have to promise to attend up front. Point being, you don't have to read or post on this blog.
At least you realize if you run you should show up at all meetings, 9:01
Sometimes there is a good reason you can't make it to one.
Ain't it the same as stealing if you us a county truck to go somewhere and then charge for that same trip as milage. I don't care if they did pay for the gas milage ain't based on just the amount of gas used. Anyway didn't the truck have gas before they left and ain't they got gas cards for buying gas? This stinks in every way
Why didn't Terry and Vicki go?
You can't even get Terry to go to meetings here in town
If he don't go to meetings in town, don't that say something about the people in town voting him in.
I am not defending Hyatt but if he put gas in the county truck he would have to add more before he got home. He should be reimbursed for the amount of gas he put in. He would not get mileage rate on the truck. I don't know if that is what he did or not.
6:41 Why would he get mileage rate on the truck as the county owns the truck? County (we tax payers) pay for insurance, oil, tires, etc).
6:41:
Please keep in mind that mileage is paid for using your private vehicle .... Barry's county vehicle was no doubt full of gas when it left the shop and filled up when it got back! The main question is if going to meeting was to get education...why did all the spouse's go ...why could the employees not all ride in Barry's vehicle....why did Steve Kelley get mileage when he rode with Barry...why did Barry not just get reimbursed for receipt for gasoline....WHAT WAS THE NEED OF THREE COUNTY HIGHWAY EMPLOYEES GOING IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!! Nice Fall Vacation With Friends!!!!!!!!!! Waste of Taxpayer Money!!!
5:53
Excellent questions!
Now who's going to hold these commisioner's to account for these expenses?
Perhaps the enabler will hold them accountable?????????????
Barry Hyatt is not a commissioner...he is a "elected" county official who is up for reelection in 2014. Steve Kelley is his assistant who follows so close to Barry's butt that if Barry stops without warning...Steve will be forever inserted. Julie is the employee who was suppose to go to the finance office when the accounting office was created..but instead Barry added another person so she could stay at highway department trailing closely behind Steve and fighting for the position closest behind him. The hope is that both do not go in at the same time!!
Are we surprise after the farce that Barry did keeping Julie at highway department at taxpayer's expense that they would all go on vacation at citizen's expense...NO!
Vote for anyone except Barry...hopefully a good honest man will run who does not hire all of his friends, family, or people who sued the county and cost taxpayers money.."ie" Greg Stafford!!! Hired him three times in fact. What a joke on Barry, Greg talks about him terrible behind his back!
howard
Perhaps the promoter of strife will see if he can stir up additional trouble and then sit back and laugh while you guys defend him?
Enabler
Perhaps these questions will have healthy bearing in the next commisioners meetings, and these officials will have to account for these expenses on the record.
No need to laugh; see if these men can defend their expenses. OR IS THAT TOO MUCH TO EXPECT FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS?
11:34
For your information, I (one of the people you guys love to call enabler) have NEVER said a word one way or the other about this situation. What about that? This continues to make you look not too bright.
Have another glass of the hate and jealousy kool-aid and relax, ok?
to 6-18 AM
Don't you think that the lack of any kind of lucid comment by the enabler is because they cant understand all those numbers Mr Barrett put at the start of this thread ? Maybe if there is a math puzzle put at the start of every thread it will shut the enabler down ?
Let's start with the question .what is 2x4 ? See if the enabler can handle that level of difficulty
Ma Thema..looking for my tics
7:34,
Greg Stafford is a two faced back stabber. He has always been like that. I cannot believe that Barry Hyatt hired him at all...much less 3 times. Poor Barry....just waiting on the knife to be turned in his back. And it will come! Greg has no morals or loyalty to his employers, friends, or family!
Looks like Giles Free Slander is on a roll today. Don't say you weren't warned:
Google Must Reveal Blogger's Identity in Defamation Suit
By Brian Kumnick on August 21, 2009 12:17 PM | No TrackBacks
Model Liskula Cohen was victorious this week in her efforts to get Google to turn over the IP address and email address of an anonymous blogger who allegedly defamed her. She celebrated, according to the New York Post, by forgiving her attacker (one Rosemary Port, who was apparently retaliating against Cohen for some nasty things Cohen allegedly told Port's boyfriend), and dropping a $3 million lawsuit against her.
"Perhaps Liskula Cohen was feeling generous, but do the rest of us have to worry about the "anonymous" things we post on the internet? Are you on the verge of being outed, and sued, by the next person who doesn't like what you have to say?"
5:32 If it gets me it will get you too.
5:32: What comment do you think merits a slanderous remark!!! The truth might hurt but it is still the truth!
Freedom of Speech.
5:32 needs to look up the law on slander!
He may just wait for your lawyer to do so.
wab
Can you not see the dangerous potentials this blog poses? Is your ego worth it?
A thought just occurred to me. Let's suppose you know for sure that someone is having an affair, and that his wife is not aware of it. The man is well-known in the community and has a thriving sales business. Armed with the "truth" you take it upon yourself to noise it abroad and stir up all the trouble you possibly can. Why couldn't this family sue your pants off for that? They can!
In considering this matter further, if anyone had a right to sue someone, it would be Mrs. Vanzant for the way she was demonized on this blog just prior to the August election.
If someone decides to walk into a liquor store buy a bottle of whiskey get in their car, drive out of the parking lot then drink it until they are drunk and continue driving until they run head on into a tree in some guys yard, who's at fault there.
Is it the person who made the whiskey, the one who delivered it to the store. the one who sold it, the one who built the car, the one who built the road or maybe the one who planted the tree? Oh, there is one other person you might consider as responsible, but only as a last resort, the individual who decided to drink the whiskey and drive, after all that is the only law that was broken.
Why do we want to blame everyone but the one who is actually responsible?
I provide a service, free of charge, where political news that is either not available, is ignored, provided days and weeks after the fact or reported without investigation or challenge to the source, while allowing comment on those articles. There is not one topic that I have posted that did not involve the politics of the day. To put it another way I have not put a single topic on this blog that involved or focused simply on a private citizen or their private activities.
Certainly there have been many posts that were not responsible, in good taste or the results of rumors, most of which I have allowed to remain not because I agreed with them but in order to have free speech and the exchange of ideas even speech that you disagree with must be tolerated. To censor speech merely because I disagree with it would be to kill the very idea of free speech. To me it's much like the issue of Christmas celebrations and decorations, while some may find them offensive and complain should we change everything to "holiday tree", forbid the greeting Merry Christmas and songs that mention Jesus?
Individual behavior must be paramount in all our considerations
for assigning responsibility.
Another time, the enabler was last to post last night and first this morning. Sorry for calling you the enabler, but the only way to tell you from the other anonymous.
Did Clinton sue anyone for telling on him and his affairs? Did John Edwards sue anyone? It seems if you run for public office you are fair game. If your skin isn't tough enough don't run.
Is Mr. Hughes suing Mr. Harwell for what he called him? I thought that would be a perfect case to sue, but what do I know.
Clay McAlister is a private citizen. Greg Stafford is a private citizen. Allen Barrett hosts this blog and is responsible for its content. Allen Barrett said he had a video showing Mr. McAlister vandalizing his sign.
Each of the foregoing will be important points to keep in mind as the future unfolds.
Stay tuned.
To 9:17
Mr McAlister is a public official who receives compensation as a water board member.
Allen Barrett has not written anything about Greg Stafford.
Individuals are responsible for their own behavior. Do you consider the Pulaski Citizen responsible for what's in a letter to the editor?
The video of Mr. McAlister was turned over to the proper authorities.
As the future unfolds I fully expect to be enjoying life either here on earth or in Heaven above, in the meantime I'm not losing any sleep.
8:57
Sounds to me like you too are just trying to stir up some trouble? I just don't understand that.
But your comments were not about Mr. McAlister in regards to his part-time official duties though were they? The issue is not what you did with the video, it is what you said on this blog it showed. (better be able to back up that statement).
Yes a newspaper can be liable fort the content of a letter to the editor. Incidentally, I googles your "I left it up because too many people had already seen it" defense. Not surprisingly, it didn't work.
INTERNET RESEARCHER FOUND THIS INFO ON EXPERT LAW SITE:
(Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea)
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.
The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.
In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.
SO IN OTHER WORDS GET READY TO PAY OUT THE WAZOO AND THE SAYING THE MORE YOU STIR IT THE WORST IT SMELLS FITS WELL!! lol!
A jury will have to answer those questions you pose. Here's how some have ruled:
"In February, a Texas jury awarded Orix Capital Markets, LLC $12.5 million in damages in a defamation case involving statements published on the cleverly named "gripe site" Predatorix.com. (The site is now disabled, but the curious can check it out on Internet Archive.)"
"If you didn’t dig deep into Friday’s print edition or weren’t able to scale our website’s subscriber wall, you might’ve missed pretty big news in the local legal and media world yesterday: a $350,000 defamation verdict against the Baltimore City Paper. A federal court jury found a veteran journalist defamed a Miami restaurateur in a pair of articles two years ago by suggesting the Florida man was a Baltimore hustler who was convicted of trafficking in stolen goods before skipping town in 1999. That’s right, the reporter said some guy was a federal fugitive when he wasn’t one. Yikes. The City Paper ran corrections, of course, but the damage had been done. While the amount of the award was surprisingly high, I don’t think anyone was shocked the jury awarded damages. I’m not a lawyer, but I’m told falsely stating someone is a criminal is defamation per se –- or, to borrow a phrase from the plaintiff Kafouros’ attorney, “that’s all she wrote.”
"The reason Sue Scheff was crying was because she had just been vindicated. She had just won the largest internet defamation verdict in history in the staggering sum of 11.3 million dollars! But even more important than the substantial award, she had been able to present her story to 6 objective individuals who came to understand her and her terrible situation."
Here at Giles Free Slander some of you posters may need to update your homeowner's insurance coverage.
8:40:
Believe these cases of accusation of criminal activity are a little different than any post on this site....though very distasteful I don't believe anyone is going to jail for them.
"Here at Giles Free Slander some of you posters may need to update your homeowner's insurance coverage." Don't think that lawyers fees or damage awards is covered in most policies!
Better re-read your copies, if you saved them, of what Barrett wrote about McAlister and the video.
Yada, Yada, Yada cried the enabler to the chair
as he rambled on and on to no one there
He cried and cried that it just ain't fair
That Barrett's brain is so bountiful while mine is so bare.
5:28
Tell me you are not that naive.
For months, I have said a lawsuit is coming. The person in charge of this blog will be responsible. Just watch.
9:49
I think you just may be right. It's really sad.
The guy who does this blog doesn't force people to post responses. Granted, he can allow the responses to stay posted or remove them. By the way, defamation that is SPOKEN is SLANDER; defamation that is WRITTEN is LIBEL.
If you are suggesting a lawsuit is in order simply because this blog exists, then I daresay every newspaper currently in publication would have to be sued for bringing public issues to light.
3:18
I believe what the writer was trying to say is that the owner of this blog can be held liable for allowing things of an inflammatory nature to remain on this blog after it comes to his knowledge that such is here. Why wouldn't he be held liable for that? After all, he IS the one who can delete posts.
I must of missed something. What inflammatory statement was made?
6:21
just another example of you trying to fill in blanks where there are none and spinning what is said into something that you like. You are such a foolish enabler.
9:06
Wrong! I was simply trying to clarify the situation. And you seem to be attempting to read more into it than what was actually being done. Do you have anything else?
What 3:18 said didn't need any clarification from you. They said it rather clearly.
It was you that read more into the thing than was there. You just can't understand that you know so little but your arrogance just won't let you accept that others are smarter and more able to state what they say than you are.
9:55
Ok, I'll play your game of splitting hair.
Yes, I'm afraid clarification was necessary because 9:06 (perhaps you) accused me of filling in blanks and spinning. I couldn't let that go unchallenged.
By the way, I posted at 6:21. Does that post need clarification?
Instead of calling people names and talking bad about them, why can't we start this year off with a better understanding that we are all God's children? Let's focus of things that draw us closer rather than those that cause hatred and division.
Post a Comment
<< Home