Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73

Thread: Sos

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default Redirecting attention from the forest to the trees...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    Your statement was that the Discussion Board was SOS friendly. I don't see *any* support for that. If you are changing your statement to say something like, "The WEN editorial staff is 'SOS friendly' in their personal opinions but doesn't allow those personal opinions to affect either WaylendeNews or the Discussion Forum," then we're in agreement.
    Jeff, don't play dumb.
    We know you're not, and it's very unbecoming when you do.

    WEN is SOS Friendly on every level - not only is the mangement here SOS Friendly and accommodating to them and to you, as I have indicated above and provided examples, but most of the posters usually are, as well.
    Alan's point aside about an alien showing up today, and seeing all this anti-SOS talk, the truth is that a quick glance through past threads will provide numerous examples of SOS Friendly posters who, for whatever reason are silent today, but usually come scambling ouf of the wookwork when they're needed.

    But, you knew that already, didn't you?

    Back to the topic at hand, Jeff, when are you going to answer Jeff Baron's 3 simple questions?
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    WEN is SOS Friendly on every level - not only is the mangement here SOS Friendly
    How is that relevant?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    and accommodating to them and to you, as I have indicated above and provided examples,
    With respect to Discussion Forum management, I'm not aware of policy being inconsistently applied. Feel free to bring me up to speed on what I'm missing.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    but most of the posters usually are, as well. Alan's point aside about an alien showing up today, and seeing all this anti-SOS talk, the truth is that a quick glance through past threads will provide numerous examples of SOS Friendly posters who, for whatever reason are silent today, but usually come scambling ouf of the wookwork when they're needed.
    Are you adjusting for frequency of posts? 3 of the top 5 posters wouldn't be described as SOS friendly. The same is true for 6 of the top 10. And 9 of the top 15. Beyond that, we're into the territory of people posting fewer than 20 times. In short, I don't agree that you can describe DF posters as whole as being SOS friendly ... and that's setting aside the imprecision of what SOS friendly even means.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Baron View Post

    My questions are this

    1. How do people feel about having their e-mails sold/given away to organizations in town without their permission?
    2. Why did SOS feel the need to hide behind YES4WHS to advocate for the high school?
    3. What is the future of this group in the eyes of Wayland citizens?
    My answers are:

    (1) I think it was a mistake. I think Yes4WHS should not have used the email list of SOS. I do think it is reasonable to assume that most people who would choose to be on SOS' list would have been interested in Yes4WHS' emails. I am on their list, and I was happy to get their emails. I suspect the vast majority of recipients were not bothered by it. Some may well have been bothered (though I do wonder if those people perhaps don't really want to be on SOS' list either - their complaints, I think, would tend to be either disingenuous, or focused on what seems to me to be a minor point). I can hear the gasp: "A minor point, she says?!" Well, yes -- think about it, you are arguing out of one side of your mouth that the organizations are really the same, and out of the other that they are different. But, whether a technicality or not, it was a separate organization, and they should not have used the emails.

    In summary: I think it was a mistake, Yes4WHS should not have used SOS' email addresses.

    (2) I don't think they were "hiding". Their names were featured prominently, and if they wanted to hide, the SOS co-chairs could have done all the same Yes4WHS work they did, but not included their names. So I ask you to consider: Why did they include their names at all on Yes4WHS' material? Since they didn't need to, but they did, I can only conclude that the individuals involved were not hiding.

    But no can deny that they did use a different name. So the question is, "Why"? Possibly they were attempting to create a separate persona from SOS after so much controversy in recent time. Or possibly they wanted a more focused effort -- SOS is about "services", Yes4WHS is about the High School only, so this latter group had more focus, and the name reflects that. I know of no one who was confused about who Yes4WHS was.

    (3) I think there will continue to be issues on which citizens advocate, and citizens who get together to do this advocating (and opposing). There will likely be overrides in the future, and people who advocate for them and who argue against them. Whether folks who have led the charge on SOS continue to have the energy to do so remains to be seen. If they don't do it, in all likelihood, someone else will step up and do it instead.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    My answers are:
    (1) I think it was a mistake.
    I think it was planned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    IYes4WHS should not have used SOS' email addresses.
    We agree here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    (2) I don't think they were "hiding".
    They weren't hiding. The email transfer was hiding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    So the question is, "Why"? Possibly they were attempting to create a separate persona from SOS after so much controversy in recent time.
    Yea thats what Michael Short theorized too.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    "A minor point, she says?!" Well, yes -- think about it, you are arguing out of one side of your mouth that the organizations are really the same, and out of the other that they are different. But, whether a technicality or not, it was a separate organization, and they should not have used the emails.
    The OCPF doesn't think that a grassroots organization is the same organization as a BQC. They don't think its minor. So why not report the email transfer with the original filing? Why wait for the OCPF to make them do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    "the SOS co-chairs could have done all the same Yes4WHS work they did, but not included their names.
    Done all the same?
    Absolutely not. If we believe the magnitude of the email transfer was 3,000 and they did mail 6 times then that would be 18,000 pieces of email.
    How much to use 'snail mail' without email? About $1 / piece... thats $18,000 worth of 'snail mail'.
    Same job? Think again.

    This was a monopolistic transfer of power from a grassroots organization to a registered and legally functioning BQC who did not have the possession or right to use that list until it was granted from the monopoly giver. The monopoly giver had a written policy and choose to ignore it. Thats called trust.

    So this creates a new precedence going forward... here is how it works.

    1. SOS decides it wants to back a new candidate or ballot question.
    2. SOS decides that it does not want to use its moniker for any one of a number of possible reasons.
    3. SOS sets up a new entity and registers it with the OCPF.
    4. SOS transfers permission to use its crown jewels to the new entity as a contribution in kind.
    Does SOS now send out an email to its list letting people know and getting their written permission which is their policy going foward?
    Wait and see on this one.

    In the business world this is called anti-trust.
    In the political world its called lack of trust.

    I don't see it as minor and many people don't. They are just not posting here and letting you know.

    But thank you Kim for answering Jeff Baron's questions.
    I'd still prefer that one of the ladies to speak for themselves. I think they owe it to the SOS-3000.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Baron View Post
    1. I nominate Alan Reiss for your Editorial Board. I'm serious. Put him on there.

    2. Editorial, posting on Yes4WHS -- it's all the same. It's taking a public position which, IMO, impugns the credibility of the Board.

    3. When you're willing to answer my questions about SOS, I'm willing to answer yours about the HS project.
    1. Alan might make an excellent contributor, but he would need to commit to not running for office. Ultimately, that choice would rest with the Editorial Board. Our Board is currently full.

    2. I believe you never answered Jeff D.'s question to you regarding the editorials of other publications such as the WSJ, NYTimes, or, I'll add, the Town Crier.

    3. Done, and so your answer is?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    1. Alan might make an excellent contributor, but he would need to commit to not running for office. Ultimately, that choice would rest with the Editorial Board. Our Board is currently full.
    When you say the editorial board is currently full, what does that mean?
    Arern't there 3 members on it?
    Coiuldn't those 3 memebers vote to allow expansion of the board if they saw a really good reason to, such as making their board more representative of the town, as a whole?

    Don't you think that would be to everyone's benefit?
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default "Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain"

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    Are you adjusting for frequency of posts? 3 of the top 5 posters wouldn't be described as SOS friendly. The same is true for 6 of the top 10. And 9 of the top 15.

    Ladies and gentelmen, forget about that forest.
    Just look at these trees!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    When you say the editorial board is currently full, what does that mean?
    Arern't there 3 members on it?
    Coiuldn't those 3 memebers vote to allow expansion of the board if they saw a really good reason to, such as making their board more representative of the town, as a whole?

    Don't you think that would be to everyone's benefit?
    The Board could vote to expand. The current board is a good size because
    (1) it is an odd number, which avoids ties, and enables some decisions to be made by only two members (when they agree) when the third is not immediately available,
    (2) it is not so big as to be unweidly when looking to assemble. I'm not saying a larger board isn't possible, merely that I, at least, have been happy with the board in its current composition. I have always been impressed with the lawyerly intelligence that the members have brought to the discussion, not always agreeing, but always making useful points, and generally ultimately coming to a consensus, swayed by one or another excellent argument.

    Useful qualities, beyond just diversity, are: legal expertise (it has been fabulous to have advice here from Ian and Steve), outstanding common sense (I give high grades here particularly to Larry), and displaying the highest calibre of ethics such that the board members can trust each other implicitly. No member can run for or hold town office. And we like members to join and stay for a while, as it is time consuming to get people up to speed where they are useful and contributing. Experience in journalism or technical expertise might be examples of useful characteritistics for a next member.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Ladies and gentelmen, forget about that forest.
    Just look at these trees!
    Ah, I'm starting to see how it works in Flahertyworld. A Flahertyworld inhabitant gets to make (or in this case, parrot) an assertion without evidence (e.g., the DF is "SOS friendly").

    But if an inhabitant of, oh, I don't know, let's call it Realworld just for kicks, actually looks at who those people are, and makes an assessment of their pro SOS-ness (or in this case, majority lack thereof) in an honest effort to refute the Flahertyworld contention, the response from Flahertyworld is nothing more than a sound-bite that on its thin veneer of a surface sounds clever enough, but upon even the slightest inspection doesn't actually say anything at all.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    1. Alan might make an excellent contributor, but he would need to commit to not running for office. Ultimately, that choice would rest with the Editorial Board. Our Board is currently full.

    2. I believe you never answered Jeff D.'s question to you regarding the editorials of other publications such as the WSJ, NYTimes, or, I'll add, the Town Crier.

    3. Done, and so your answer is?
    1. Expand the board. IMO, you need an Alan to gain credibility within non-SOS groups of people in town.

    2. Same deal. If he answers my three questions, I'll answer his. Jeff has gone WAY out of his way not to answer them, to this point.

    3. I was sort of HS ambivalent, to be honest. I saw the benefits of having it, and I saw the arguments against it (most importantly by those who simply couldn't afford it). It the end (drumroll), I abstained on that question while voting on the rest of the ballot. This after voting yes to fund the study back in April. I determined I did not have such an ardent position that I wanted to vote pro/con. A cop out, some will say. However, I was not disappointed with the outcome of the vote.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    But if an inhabitant of, oh, I don't know, let's call it Realworld just for kicks, actually looks at who those people are, and makes an assessment of their pro SOS-ness (or in this case, majority lack thereof) in an honest effort to refute the Flahertyworld contention, the response from Flahertyworld is nothing more than a sound-bite that on its thin veneer of a surface sounds clever enough, but upon even the slightest inspection doesn't actually say anything at all.
    I have a more appropriate name -- let's call yours "hidebehindnonsenseworld", Jeff. There are three questions posed in this forum. I would venture to say your patent avoidance of them while continuing to post in this thread are being laughable. In case you aren't clear on them, here they are yet again:

    1. How do people feel about having their e-mails sold/given away to organizations in town without their permission?
    2. Why did SOS feel the need to hide behind YES4WHS to advocate for the high school?
    3. What is the future of this group in the eyes of Wayland citizens?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Baron View Post
    I was sort of HS ambivalent, to be honest. I saw the benefits of having it, and I saw the arguments against it (most importantly by those who simply couldn't afford it). It the end (drumroll), I abstained on that question while voting on the rest of the ballot. This after voting yes to fund the study back in April. I determined I did not have such an ardent position that I wanted to vote pro/con. A cop out, some will say. However, I was not disappointed with the outcome of the vote.
    You were really that ambivalent about the HS that you took a ballot, thought about it long and hard, and deliberately left that question blank? I'm just a little surprised, since it would seem like it was one of the most important questions ever to come before the town. And as someone who had run for School Committee, one would expect you'd have had pretty strong feelings about it one way or another, and that you wouldn't want to leave a vote like that up to everyone else to decide for you. You surprise me. You really decided to abstain on that one?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    You were really that ambivalent about the HS that you took a ballot, thought about it long and hard, and deliberately left that question blank? I'm just a little surprised, since it would seem like it was one of the most important questions ever to come before the town. And as someone who had run for School Committee, one would expect you'd have had pretty strong feelings about it one way or another, and that you wouldn't want to leave a vote like that up to everyone else to decide for you. You surprise me. You really decided to abstain on that one?
    Happy to discuss further, but on a new thread if you're interested. This one is for my original three questions about SOS. Not avoiding, but rather trying to direct the banter in this thread to the topic (that is for those willing to even discuss the issue).

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    As you wish.

    That new thread is available here.
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 02-01-2010 at 05:13 PM. Reason: to add link to new thread

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    The Board could vote to expand. The current board is a good size because
    (1) it is an odd number, which avoids ties, and enables some decisions to be made by only two members (when they agree) when the third is not immediately available,
    (2) it is not so big as to be unweidly when looking to assemble. I'm not saying a larger board isn't possible, merely that I, at least, have been happy with the board in its current composition. I have always been impressed with the lawyerly intelligence that the members have brought to the discussion, not always agreeing, but always making useful points, and generally ultimately coming to a consensus, swayed by one or another excellent argument.

    The next odd number after 3 is 5, so you should be able to still have a relatively small and manageable odd-numbered board without substantially altering its make up, by simply adding two seats.

    You could retain the 3 members who are perceived as "SOS-friendly", thereby still maintaining a majority, but would no longer be perceived as 100% skewed in that regard and therefore not as susceptible to accusations of bias.

    Of course, you'd win no points whatsoever, if you didn't appoint 2 new members such as Alan Reiss and Jeff Baron, who would clearly represent a different political viewpoint than those currently serving.

    What do you think?

    Will you take this up with your board?

    .
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •