Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: Being slandered by innuendo on the Crier by truth4wayland

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Perlman View Post
    In other words, Alan, you're saying that it's ok for you to impugn Kim's motives because an anonymous poster on the Town Crier website impugned yours (which you justifiably resent)? Do you just not get what's wrong with this or do you not want to acknowledge it?
    Steve, this is a case of diminishment by dilution.... do you get that?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Alan, what I think you are missing is that I dislike all the unfair posting. You seem to be objecting only to those posts that are unfair to you.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Steve, this is a case of diminishment by dilution.... do you get that?
    No Alan. That seems like unresponsive gibberish to me.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Perlman View Post
    No Alan. That seems like unresponsive gibberish to me.
    Ya know I read legalize from my attorney's at $350 / hr I get the same feeling.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Alan, what I think you are missing is that I dislike all the unfair posting. You seem to be objecting only to those posts that are unfair to you.
    Your first tendency is to dilute the subject with other instances that you think are equivalent or relevant and this has a diminishing effect.

    Now Steve might understand what I was saying.

    You brought up JohnF and some alleged conversation about CVS or something like that. I read what JohnF said and he said he never recalled saying anything about CVS. So without an actual contemporaneous document showing what you are alleging that he said, which by the say is impugning the reputation of the cyber person JohnF (if thats even possible) you dilute the main thread with here-say which is also against your own rules.

    Next you bring up Javamom and again, no contemporaneous document, more here-say and more impugning and more diluting.

    Then you bring up WaylandWatcher who speculates about yet another super secret SOS / BoS / FinCom / PB / SC / Dog Officer type meeting which is already established to have actually occurred once as some prima-facia evidence to use as yet another diluter.

    Now this begs the question to you Kim, do you think that the "Were you invited" event (labeled this for brevity) was.
    1. Moral
    2. Appropriate
    3. Legal
    4. A public service
    5. All of the above
    6. None of the above

    The answer to this question by you will enable me to answer the WaylandWatcher question posed by you.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    You brought up JohnF and some alleged conversation about CVS or something like that. I read what JohnF said and he said he never recalled saying anything about CVS. So without an actual contemporaneous document showing what you are alleging that he said, which by the say is impugning the reputation of the cyber person JohnF (if thats even possible) you dilute the main thread with here-say which is also against your own rules.
    Alan, JohnF was not part of any point I was ever trying to make. Truth4Wayland accused him of making accusations ("I have heard JohnF make similar comments about development of the CVS and others about the TownCenter."), and JohnF denied it ("I believe that you are mistaking me for someone else. I'm quite sure I've never commented on either CVS or the Town Center.") I never took any issue with JohnF's denial. Those comments are impossible to search so I'd have no way to check, but I have no reason to doubt him.

    There is no rule against "dilut[ing] the main thread". I used an example of a current post that we can easily access that did something similar to what was done to you. You may not think, and you may well be right, that the "accusation" was less egregious than the one against you. That really wasn't my point.

    I was merely saying that all such posts should stop. People shouldn't make stuff up, or imply things that they do not know to be true for the purpose of demonizing someone else. [And note that it is certainly not the case that financial conflicts are the only type of demonization possible.] This point is exactly on the initial topic.

    If someone suspects something might be true, they might investigate a bit. They might actually ask the people they are concerned about. Otherwise, posts along the lines of, "I heard a rumor that Tom stopped beating his wife" are what we will see more and more of.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Next you bring up Javamom and again, no contemporaneous document, more here-say and more impugning and more diluting.
    Alan, I have the exact quote of what Javamom said, and the email exchange I had with Mike Wyner about it. I am not making anything up, it is not hearsay and it is verifiable. I won't repost it because that would merely propagate a shameful rumor.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Then you bring up WaylandWatcher who speculates about yet another super secret SOS / BoS / FinCom / PB / SC / Dog Officer type meeting which is already established to have actually occurred once as some prima-facia evidence to use as yet another diluter.
    That a meeting happened once doesn't give WW the right to imply that it happened again. The point of that sentence in WW's post was to try to demonize SOS (which implies specific individuals), and I think it was wrong to do with no evidence that such a meeting took place.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Now this begs the question to you Kim, do you think that the "Were you invited" event (labeled this for brevity) was.
    1. Moral
    2. Appropriate
    3. Legal
    4. A public service
    5. All of the above
    6. None of the above

    The answer to this question by you will enable me to answer the WaylandWatcher question posed by you.
    Having the meeting was clearly not illegal. Whether you see it as moral and appropriate, or as a public service, I think depends on your viewpoint. If you are inclined to dislike SOS then you probably see it as all bad, and if you were there at the meeting, you probably think it was all fine. I do think it was set up with the best of intentions, but the buzz around it spiraled out of control, and in retrospect, those running it may well wish (I don't know this, just guessing) they hadn't done it.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Now this begs the question to you Kim, do you think that the "Were you invited" event (labeled this for brevity) was.
    1. Moral
    2. Appropriate
    3. Legal
    4. A public service
    5. All of the above
    6. None of the above
    Can't resist. 5.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Alan,

    There is no rule against "dilut[ing] the main thread". I used an example of a current post that we can easily access that did something similar to what was done to you. You may not think, and you may well be right, that the "accusation" was less egregious than the one against you. That really wasn't my point.

    I was merely saying that all such posts should stop. People shouldn't make stuff up, or imply things that they do not know to be true for the purpose of demonizing someone else. [And note that it is certainly not the case that financial conflicts are the only type of demonization possible.] This point is exactly on the initial topic.
    This is very well-said.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Perlman View Post
    Can't resist. 5.
    We'll Steve then it seems that WaylandWatcher gave SOS a big compliment by questioning whether this public service occurred again.
    So I think we should give WaylandWatcher a big medal.

    I on the other hand will say that, if another "Were you invited" event takes place in the same way and leaves out the citizens of Wayland when they should have been included then I will be making another movie called.... "Son of Were you Invited" would be a good title I think.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Having the meeting was clearly not illegal. Whether you see it as moral and appropriate, or as a public service, I think depends on your viewpoint. If you are inclined to dislike SOS then you probably see it as all bad, and if you were there at the meeting, you probably think it was all fine. I do think it was set up with the best of intentions, but the buzz around it spiraled out of control, and in retrospect, those running it may well wish (I don't know this, just guessing) they hadn't done it.
    1. Moral? Well for the chair of the BoS to have done it without notifying his board according to the MMA then no.
    2. Appropriate? Well with that type of firepower it would have certainly more appropriate to have held that meeting at the town hall for the rest of us... as former selectmen Doug Leard pointed out.
    3. Yes and isn't that just amazing !
    4. Certainly if you are a member of SOS and got to attend then yes.
    5. I have to disagree with Steve.
    6. And this is therefore, ruled out.

    Thank you for all the sympathy of being called out by truth4wayland as being dishonest, immoral, perhaps illegal, probably dispicable, with bad intentions, willing to disrespect all of his neighbors for the past 21 years, willing to throw out the hard volunteer work that I have already done and no matter how much I sound like a broken record about FAST, ACCURATE and PRIVATE... its always got to be about the money. Can't be something else.

    And as for WaylandWatcher... see my answer to Steve.

    I just don't want to hear some rumor circulating that Alan Reiss is on the take on this.... because I'm going to get very upset about it and I'm going to do something about it.

    Now some people have told me Kim that they don't like to contribute to your discussion forum but they like to read it because its entertaining.

    Well, I hope those people were entertained.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Exclamation Apparently there is a God.

    Late breaking news.... on the Crier...

    truth4wayland
    Been away for the long weekend and apparently I stirred the pot. I now know that alan gets no financial benefit from the electronic voting. Sorry for the confusion alan. I have heard others ask the same question so I am glad you have been able to set the record straight.

    Apparently there is a God.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Thank you for all the sympathy of being called out by truth4wayland as being dishonest, immoral, perhaps illegal, probably dispicable, with bad intentions, willing to disrespect all of his neighbors for the past 21 years, willing to throw out the hard volunteer work that I have already done and no matter how much I sound like a broken record about FAST, ACCURATE and PRIVATE... its always got to be about the money. Can't be something else. *** I just don't want to hear some rumor circulating that Alan Reiss is on the take on this.... because I'm going to get very upset about it and I'm going to do something about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Late breaking news.... on the Crier...

    truth4wayland
    Been away for the long weekend and apparently I stirred the pot. I now know that alan gets no financial benefit from the electronic voting. Sorry for the confusion alan. I have heard others ask the same question so I am glad you have been able to set the record straight.

    Apparently there is a God.
    Or, as Gilda Radner's Emily Litella would have said, "Never mind."

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    I just looked that the exchange between WaylandWatcher and wayland voter and its still up.

    So now your mission Kim to prove your point is to convince the Crier to take down that blog.
    Go for it.
    Mission complete.

    So with truth4wayland's apology post and this post removal by the Crier, we have both helped improve the level of discourse. Let's keep it up! Improving the level of discourse in the long-term, however, will only work if people on both sides of the aisle are willing to challenge even the people they agree with on an issue when their behavior is less than admirable. Join me?

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    165

    Default

    How sad that this debate appears to have ended. Talk about entertainment! You can't BUY this much fun at a 3 ring circus!!

    Can't wait for the next nerve to get pinched... (that would be a "generic" nerve, not one belonging to any particular individual).

    Carl

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Roseanne Rosanadana

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Perlman View Post
    Or, as Gilda Radner's Emily Litella would have said, "Never mind."
    And in all seriousness, Gilda Radner was one very funny lady... a one of a kind and no less a significant talent then the impact and talent that John Belushi had on the 1975+ years of SNL.

    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...moking/278736/

    So a very appropriate quote Steve.

    RIP Gilda.

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
  •