"REVIVE GILES COUNTY"
This is posted at the request of a reader. It is certainly a great event and opportunity for all to show just where they stand in this world of turmoil. It is posted as it was sent.
Would you consider posting something about "Revive Giles County" which will be held this Saturday, October 1 at 6:30 p.m. on the courthouse square. I'm sure many folks have heard about this from the radio, local television station(s), the newspaper, and other sources. I thought that it would be nice to also have a discussion of this event (or a notice of some sort) on your blog, because I know it is widely read. I have a copy of a brochure concerning this event. Here is what is on the brochure:
"We are calling on the citizens of this county to join us in a day of "Prayer and Fasting" for America and Giles County. In these perilous times families are under attack. It is our prayer that you will join us as we call on God to revive this great Nation as we turn back to him.
Saturday, October 1st will be a day of prayer and fasting. We will assemble that night on the Pulaski Square, singing praise, offering prayers and hearing encouragement from God's word."
"If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14
This effort is initiated by a Group of Giles County Christians who long for God to return to his people. For more information call 931-363-2245.
posted by Allen Barrett | 8:32 AM
106 Comments:
This would be an excellent opportunity for those who have been causing trouble to repent and re-dedicate their lives to Christ. None of us are innocent.
3:46 Good post, none of us are innocent. Hope everyone that post on this blog goes and repents, rededicate our lives to Christ.
But wouldn't true repentence do away with the troublemaking, name-calling, etc? WSouldn't this hate-momngering cease and the blog close? It should.
I hope everyone that post on this blog will meet me at the Revive Giles County meeting.
We need to stop this hate.
Let the blog used for good not hate.
The author of this hate especially needs to repent. Then the blog will close.
7:47 You also need to repent.
No one has said Barrett don't need to.
The self righteous always believe repentance is needed by everyone else, that the preacher is always talking to others and that only they
have been forgiven if there ever was cause for them the need forgiveness.
9:52
Add to that equation the arrogant know-it-all who thinks he is always right and that God will excuse his mistreatment of others deemed somehow inferior in honesty, competence, and intelligence.
Come on folks, we all know that every person needs to repent because we all sin. I think that this subject is serious and should be taken as such. I won't be in town but this sounds like a good thing
Can us Muslims attend ?
Everyone will be welcome.
So are the 8 people that widely read this blog going to attend? Sounds like Barrett threw that in there.
No, Mr. Barrett did not throw that in about the blog being "widely read"; those were my words. I used them when I sent Mr. Barrett an email asking him to post something about this event. I hope everyone feels welcome to attend and that a lot of people will be there tonight at 6:30 on the courthouse square. May God bless each of you and may God bless this event!
-Tommy Bassham
Tommy,
I hope the event will be attended good.
Sorry the one that hates Barrett so is trying to mess the event up.
Nobody hates barrett..it's his behavior (misbehavior) that is despicable.
5:04 That's the pot calling the kettle black.
The event is now a part of history. I believe God truly blessed it and gave us good weather, a safe place for worship, and good fellowship. For those who attended, thanks and I hope you received a blessing from it. May God continue to bless each of you and help all of us to become who we are called to be.
5:23
I think you would be better served by considering the post at 8:54 rather than trying to stir up needless trouble.
Do you have anything you would like to discuss?
10:36 does not want to discuss anything. They just want to ruin any intelligent discussion taking place.
5:34
So you don't think the post at 8:54is intelligent conversation? It seems to me that all this blog does is allow people to call others names and to accuse them of everything from dishonesty to stupidity. I would think 8:54's comments are much more intelligent that the hate speech I see on here. That would include your enabling remarks.
I was not referring to the 8;54 post. It was a very nice post.I was referring to 10;36 last sentence, which is one of many you have asked if anyone wants to discuss something.
6:52
Well, do you?
The enabler is at it again. Read the other post. I don't want to mess up that thread so will post on this one that's already messed up by the enabler. Oh I forgot she's not an enabler so laughable.
8:58
I am the gentleman that barrett told that lie on, and I just don't think he should get away with it. When the true enablers, you apparently being one of them, stop perpetuating that lie then I will never mention it again. Fair enough?
By his own definition, wasn't he gossiping about you? Such hypocrisy.
Could we give 9:07 a new name?
They seems to have a problem and get very upset.
11:48
I don't see why "we" have to give anybody a name.
So you can be told apart when you stand near the mules.
3:39
It's very simple to distinguish me from the mules. Just look for the tall gentleman standing nearby. That will be me. There's no need to call me a name.
Do you have anything to discuss, or shall we go on with this?
A tall gentleman with a lot of hair?
Hope the mule don't decide to stand up on his hind legs.
4:32
You just can't help yourself, can you?
Well, let me give you something to chew on (no pun intended toward your mules). The word is that allen barrett lost his appeal and that HE has to pay the court costs. Wow!
It is a little ironic that he changed his tune on the latest post. Maybe he is giving up on the whining and crying and actually starting to talk about things that are important. Is it true that he lost the appeal? An answer from him would be nice.
It is an absolute fact.
I suppose Clay McAlister is next?
Now he can't argue about costing the county money. Kinda looks like a fool.
Ok, Barrett cost the county money, will it be more than the 70 thousand Vanzant cost the county?
How did he cost the county money if he had to pay court cost?
Because we had to pay lawyers fees. The 70k is getting old. Come up with something better to justify the man you stand behind. How much did we have to pay lawyers to defend the county for the lawsuit?
Is it not true that Mr. Barrett was the one who encouraged that woman to sue and thereby get $70,000 from the taxpayers? That's what I heard and am not making an accusation. Does anyone know?
11:11 Does the county not pay a lawyer all time to work for the county or just when needed?
You say the 70K is getting old but you keep telling how much Barrett cost the county. I don't see any difference.
You are very laughable.
7:47 I don't know if Barrett encouraged the woman to sue the county or not, why do you think a black person wouldn't have enough sense to stand up for themself?
8:11
Nobody said the black lady wasn't able to stand up for herself. Those are your words. All I am saying is that, from what I've heard, Mr. Barrett was instrumental in getting that lawsuit under way. I'm not accusing him of that, but it does seem to be something I would think he would do.
What does the things the one called enabler has put on here have to do with this wonderful event this part was about.
Is there anything he can stay on the subject about? It seems like everything no matter how good he turns into something different. He complains about there not being any positive things on this blog which ain't true but he does more to make things negative than anybody. I just don't understand it.
9:03
The only enablers I see on here are those like you (maybe one or two at best) who keep calling names and perpetuating a lie.
You don't understand it? Are you stupid?
9:17 No. I many not be as smart as you think you are but I've never thought I was stupid. I didn't call you a name I was just asking why the one called enabler would complain about things on here being so negative when they are the one mostly putting negative things on here. People was trying to talk about the event that happened this week end.
To make things worse at the same time they complain about calling names they talk about me being stupid. What can be more a hypocrit than that.
He complains about the blog being negative then only writes negative stuff. He complains about name calling then calls people names. The Bible says don't try to get the cinder out of somebody elses eye until after you get the log out of your own.
9:30 Well are you stupid? I didn't CALL you stupid; I simply asked if you are.
I think from what I hear is that we have a lunatic on our hands, and he could be very dangerous at this point.
8:32 Sounds like you are accusing him of it.
It doesn't matter if WAB was or not, Janet Vanzant still cost the county 70K.
Mr. Barrett,
Do you know how much money you are going to have to pay for losing the appeal? I hear it's quite a bit. Lesson learned?
2:16
Loretta Garner was certified and the one who got the 70,000 dollars was not. Furthermore, why couldn't Mrs. Vanzant hire who she wanted?
No, I think the one who is principally responsible for the settlement and loss to taxpayers was certainly not her. But you would argue that point.
5:45 Why did other applicants that had less qualifications than Lisa get called back to interview when Lisa was denied the opportunity to interview for the position? we all know why. They looked at her and did not want to give her the opportunity and that is why the county settled and why Janet cost this county's taxpayers $70,000. It was not because she was not hired it was because she was not given the same opportunity as those less qualified.
Get your facts straight.
Great post 7:06 you are exactly right.
7:06
You may be right. I don't know who was qualified and who wasn't. Why don't you go ask Mrs. Vanzant rather than speculate? Furthermore, there are often extinuating circumstances surrounding any hiring that may not be readily apparent. In other words, the one more qualified may not get the job or even considered for it because of those circumstances. Put another way, what might appear to be a highly desirable candidate may not look so attractive when other factors are brought into play.
What if you had two applicants for a position, and one individual had an advanced degree but a horrible personality. Would you hire that person or the one who had less education but knew how to communicate with and treat his fellow man? That is just an example and is meant in no way to reflect on the one who got $70,000 from Giles County.
Why did the county pay out the money if they didn't know they would be found in the wrong if it went to court?
How did they know the one receiving the money had anything wrong with her if they didn't call her back. They should of called her back and talked with her, then not hire her.
Vanzant was wrong and the tax payers paid for it.
That's kind of like cross all t's and dot all I's and be safe.
10:07
The fact remains that Loretta Garner was certified and the other lady in question not. More importantly, why should Mrs. Vanzant be forced to hire a specific person anyhow? Would you like that?
I have a good friend who is an insurance adjuster. He told me that it is oftentimes easier to pay someone off rather than go fight it out in court at evern more expense. And you and I both know the plaintiff would win this one and NOT because of "corruption" on Mrs. Vanzant's part. And you and I both know the rest of that story as well.
Why did the black woman apply if she wasn't certified?
My thoughts was if more than Loretta Gsrner was called back for an interview, why not call her back. That didn't mean they had to hire her.
You are right the black woman would of won the lawsuit. If they had called her back any spent 15 or 30 minutes with her would of solved everything. I'm saying THEY, because I thought more than JV was interviewing the ones applied.
9:04
You are right; there were others who were involved in the screening process, so I just don't understand why someone is trying to stir up this trouble.
My daughter has a college degree, and she didn't make the final cut in those applicants who were applying for a clerk's job. That's just how it goes, but a troublemaker would encourage her to sue the company. I just don't think it's right. The employer has a right to hire whomever it pleases. After all, isn't it the employer who writes the check? If I sued and collected 'damages" for every job I didn't get, I would be a millionaire.
The defenders of wrong have about succeeded in altering the facts of this matter.
First of all there was no requirement to be a Certified Public Accountant. There were applicants who were interviewed who did not even have a degree in accounting.
The problem was never that Mrs White wasn't qualified, wasn't called back, or wasn't hired. The problem was that an independent agency ranked her higher than some who were interviewed but of all the people who applied she was the only person of color and the only one of the top five who was not even given an interview.
Mrs. Vanzant the leader of the group could fire whoever she wanted and while I might not agree with her choice that was her privilege.
The problem is and was and the reason the county lost the suit was because Mrs. White one of the highest rated was not even given the first interview. All she had asked for was an opportunity which was denied. Yes, I encouraged her, provided her the information needed to file and win. Even when her family and many in the community wanted her to drop the matter. I was there encouraging her and I have not regretted it.
How she was treated was wrong and I am happy to have had a part in making it a bit more tolerable for her.
wab
Well then YOU are the one who actually cost the county 70,000 dollars, not counting the other 30Unbelievable!
Barrett may have encouraged Mrs. White to sue, but Janet was the one refused to give her an interview, so it's Janet Vanzant's fault!
11:02
Again, why can't the county hire whomever they feel the best fit for the job? That's what they did, and Ms. White is not the only one who didn't get hired. But she was encouraged to sue by allen barrett. Why is that? Was it because she is black?
I know this event is over, but I can't help but wondering, how did something that started so peaceful and righteous turn into something so hate filled and devisive? What part of forgiveness do you not understand? All this thread said was to come to the revival, and it was immediately turned into an anti-Barrett thread. There are 8 comments on here that are truly related to the thread. The rest are accusatory, inflammatory, or down right ridiculous. And before anyone says that Mr. Barrett is the one who caused it. He only has one post on thiis thread other than the origination post. which by the way was well written, polite and to the point. I am so thankful we have such loving kind hearted "Christian" people living in Giles County. Please have a blessed day.
11:39
You are right that this thread started out in a polite manner. However, the troublemakers started making the inflammatory statements and name-calling after someone simply suggested that now would be a good time for the troublemakers here in the county to repent. What's wrong with that?
11:28 I think everyone knows more people applied for the job and didn't get it. Were they called in for an interview? I thought that was why Mrs White sued, not because she didn't get the job, but because she wasn't even considered.
It over, Vanzant cost the county money, Barrett has cost the county money. Except it.
It's still the county's prerogative to hire whoever they wish. Accept that!
Who has said anything about the county not being able to hire who they want? Haven't they always done that?
When are you going to accept the county lead by Vanzant cost the county 70K?
4:31
Previously, you guys were blaming it all on Mrs.Vanzant. Did you have a sudden ray of enlightenment? And who was it who kept pushing the plaintiff in that lawsuit the county knew they probably couldn't win? Did it not develop as a case of discrimination when the one hired was certified and the plaintiff not? Huh? All it took was an agitator who, in my opinion, had a vendetta against county government because he can't be a part of it.
It's just a shame.
Any way you look at it Vanzant also cost the county money. Sorry you just can't see that.
7:28
I respectfully disagree. I believe the 5:18 post pretty much explains what happened.
So Barrett has a vendetta against Mrs. Vanzant and 9:12 has one against Mr. Barrett.
What else is new?
5:18 I am not aware of any influence of Barret in Mrs. White decision to sue. He may have been an influence, I do not know as you probably do not either. But why would you blame some one for supporting a person for standing up for her rights.
Obviously Mrs. White was well within her rights or the County would have not have paid her to make the issue go away.
If you feel so strongly that a person should roll over and play dead when they feel they have been wronged then you need to have a talk with Clay. Give him a little lecture about forgiveness and how it is wrong to stand up for what he may feel is right. After all he might be wrong in a courts eyes and if he is wrong he will have cost the citizens of Pulaski money.
But I forget there are those on here that think only the select few have the right to stand up for what they believe.
9:35
Wrong. I hold no grudge against barrett. I totally disrespect him and dislike what he is doing, but I would never wish him any misfortune. All I try to do is challenge his misbehavior and ask that he stop making trouble and hurting others.
It is my honest opinion that barrett has a personal vendetta against Mrs. Vanzant and certain commissioners, particularly those in his district. I believe it to be born of jealousy and resentment, because he wants to blame others for his own election defeats. Well, if he wants to place blame, he should go look in the mirror.
11:33
Of course Ms. White was within her rights to bring suit; we all are. In fact, all of the unsuccessful candidates could have sued the county. Right? And you and I could be hauled into court in a lawsuit at any point in time. But I think (just my opinion) this turned into a discrimination lawsuit because Ms. White is black. And the county figured they have to pay her something to make it go away. Again, that's just my opinion based on discussions with an insurance adjuster friend of mine as well as with an attorney. It's very difficult to prevail in such cases.
I do blame allen barrett for this, because he was right behind Ms. White, encouraging her to bring suit. He has even admitted this.
The difference in the McAlister case is that he (Clay) was accused of and falsely arrested for something he did not do.
7:06 Was Mrs. White the only one not called back for an interview of those that applied for the job?
8:31
No.
Fighting a discrimination lawsuit would have cost the county more than $70,000. Making the situation go away was not an admission of guilt on the part of the BOARD who actually hired Loretta Garner. So thank you allen barrett for encouraging the lawsuit.
9:32 you are wrong. I don't understand why some are having a problem understanding unless they just don't want to. Barrett explained it perfectly This was not about who was hired or who was called back for a second interview. Lisa White is the only person who was rated in the top seven people who was NOT GIVEN ANY INTERVIEW AT ALL. If they would have interviewed her and hired someone else no problem but they REFUSED TO EVEN GIVE HER AN INTERVIEW.
That is what the EEOC considered and used to force the county to settle.
8:38 That's the wsa I understood it.
But some just will not accept it.
Thanks for posting that.
4:04
Good post. These people refuse to accept the fact that there were mitigating factors in this situation and that those who do the hiring SHOULD BE free to hire whomever they please.
Funny, so many times people have posted it's not about being hired it's about not being interview.
Government jobs are not like other jobs where you can just hire and not interview anyone applying.
I applied for several civil service jobs and didnt get called for first interview. Should I have sued the state? No!
Not being able to understand the issue here 4:09 does not surprise me that you didn't get an interview. Some times it is better to let others wonder if you are ignorant, rather than open your mouth and remove all doubt.
6:11
Your smart-aleck remark is noted and typical. The point you failed to understand is that just because an induividual fills out an application does not entitle that person to an interview. How foolish of you. Uh, I think you might do well to keep your mouth closed a little more often.
There you again, removing all doubt. One of the highest ranking individuals to apply was never called for an interview. No doubt again why you didn't get an interview. You don't seem to understand plain English. No one ever said anything about who "had" to be hired as some along with myself are griping about but, when one of the highest ranked, (and we did obtain a company and pay a fee to have these individual applicants ranked and filed), never was given an interview, one has to pause and recollect their thoughts and wonder what is going on?? Apparently, you share the same level of ignorance, if not the same brain as those on the finance committee who made such a decision. Try all you want, but there is no getting around the facts, and the fact remains that we hired a company to rank the applicants(obvious waste of taxpayer dollars as usual). Clearly this committee or other higher power within this committee, thought otherwise of the decision of ranking these individuals and saw fit to make their own biased decision, not derived from the applicants knowledge or experience, and conduct their own rank and file system for these applicants. This action is what initiated a lawsuit that obviously our County Atty. advised should be settled rather than fight the "big fight" because as usual we break the very rules we apply. With an organization looking into the rights and wrongs of this case and eying the possibility of someone's rights being violated, I can imagine it was a bit scary to our illustrious County Executive. So, pay up she did.
I sure hope you can understand this after my lengthy response, because it gets old having to explain simple crap to idiots like yourself. Don't worry if you still find yourself unable to comprehend, I won't be back to waste more of my time with attempts to try and educate ignorance. Best of luck to you, I think you really are in need of it.
5:51
The only thing I understand about your lengthy response is that you should probably do a lot less talking.
And you should not do any talking 8:51.
1:57
That would make two of us then. Right?
How many people showed up to Revive Giles County? Was it well attended?
The number of people in attendance at the Revive Giles County event was approximately 560-600. This is the figure that I heard from some of those who were counting.
Ms White scored the highest from the company that did the ranking. She is a black lady. Not even called for interview. There is your answer.
6:28
Well, here you are again trying to stir up trouble. Don't you have anything else to do with your time. It doesn't matter what color the lady is; the ones doing the hiring have every right to hire whoever they feel would be the best fit for the job. The fact that some people made it a purely racial issue when it wasn't is why the county paid her off to make it go away. Discrimination lawsuits are hard to win in court unless you are the one claiming discrimination. And guess who was right behind that lawsuit in question, "agging" it on?
And 7:03 is not an enabler.
8:04
Nope. The true enablers are those who keep trying to stir up trouble and who insist on promoting that lie allen barrett started.
7:03 I really hope you are not that stupid but every thing you put on here just reinforces the idea that you are. There was never any question about them hiring who they wanted the problem was they did not give her an interview when she was the most qualified. Barrett and anyone else was right to help her but you sure didn't see Vickie Harwell and all the democrats she controls giving her any support.
8:55
It's just a shame that there are people out there who think like you do. It is my opinion that none other than allen barrett is principally responsible for the $70,000 settlement.
Question: You have two applicants for a sales position, and one has a PhD and the other a BA. The one with the PhD is a total introvert with no people skills while the latter of the two has a dynamic personality and a proven track record in sales. The PhD applicant is obviously the most qualified. Which one would you hire as the best fit for the job? Could you answer that question for me? Thank you.
I'd hire Barrett.
People skills, experience, and education are all overrated anyway.
What I'd like to know if they didn't talk to her how did they know she didn't have people skills.
10:10 Are you saying she was so dumb she didn't know she could sue the county and Barrett had to tell her?
Discrimination lawsuits are hard to win in court unless you are the one claiming discrimination.
That's why for the last few years, people have to be very careful not to get sued.
11:55
Nobody I know of said or even implied that she was dumb. I share an opinion held by many that allen barrett was the prinicpal agitator in this lawsuit.
As for the implication of someone being dumb and brainwashed, just go back and read the topic for this thread. Who coined those words? Where did that thought originate?
11:49
Nobody I know of said she didn't have people skills. Was the example of the PhD and BA applicants over your head? Either it was or you just want to make trouble.
The simple point you miss or chose to ignore is the fact that sometimes the best qualified is not the right person for that particular job.
The simply fact is you don't like WAB. It's so easy for you to blame him with everything.
8:02
You are right in the fact that I dislike him. I'm not alone in that. But I didn't just wake up one morning and decide to dislike what he is doing and the trouble he has caused this county.
7:37 Please reread the topic of this thread. It is REVIVE GILES COUNTY.
10:10 I have over twenty years in personnel management and I agree with you that you can't tell everything about a person based on what's on paper. I have seen some very impressive resumes only to have the person come for an interview, sit across the room and stare at their feet the whole time and not answer a single question intelligently.
The interview is always a vital part of the process. What people seem to be upset about and the lawsuit was based on is the fact that the lady wasn't given an equal chance to compete for a job covered my the EEOC (equal employment opportunity commission). Every government office is required to have a statement posted declaring it is a equal opportunity employer and every application provided by a government office is required to have that statement on the application. I might add that the EEOC isn't just about racial discrimination but also age, religion, sexual and disabilities.
If this lady was indeed qualified and especially highly qualified as has been reported, and if she was black and she was the only one not given an interview, that was a red cape waved in the face of the EEOC bull. I can tell you with out any doubt whoever was responsible for that was lucky they settled out of court because they would have been eaten alive by an EEOC attorney. The whole action was just dumb, plain dumb and there simply is no defense for such behavior in this day and age.
If Barrett is responsible for this lady being compensated for the discrimination every African American
in the county owes him a debt of gratitude.
7:34 looks like you answered your own
criticism. At least you remain consistent in identifying yourself so clearly.
Mr. Wiley seems to have hit the nail on the head with his comments that clarify the problem, the cause and the solution.
9:41
It doesn’t matter what the topic of any thread is.
Haven’t you noticed how quickly a certain person changes it to about WAB and them.
Notice how quickly they reply when a post is made they don’t like.
Must have a boring life.
Mr. Bassham, I am very glad you had such a turnout for your revival. I was not able to attend, but I am glad the event was held. Please accept my apologies for the various detractors that keep posting on this thread, steering the conversation away from the Glory of God. I am thankful that we did have a revival in Giles County.
Post a Comment
<< Home