Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: Special Town Meeting: Budget Article

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    If I understand Kim's original point correctly, however, she wasn't talking about VOTER transparency, she was talking about the broader issue of CITIZEN transparency.
    That is correct. I was referring to the way we work together as citizens to try to build the best town possible. I was not referring to the way we vote.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    The more we squirrel ourselves away and form secret groups and call out for transparency in others while we hide our posts from everyone else, the more we should question our own methods and motives.
    What does this mean?
    John Flaherty

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

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    The more we communicate in a civil, open and honest way, the more we respect each other's opinions, the more we can work together to build a common consensus.
    Perhaps in some parallel universe this would be true, but as I've pointed out above, there are many people in town who have paid a stiff price for simply expressing a different opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    The anecdote you describe happened in the opposite direction as well. .
    I don't believe this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    I respect your right to vote privately at Town Meeting, and I hope you will respect my wish not to vote privately at Town Meeting. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
    I'm glad you respect my right, however, I am suspicious of the intentions behind your wish. As we've discussed before, the only reason for you or anyone to wish to share your vote with the rest of the world, is to influence people. While you're entitled to do all the influencing you want up until Town Meeting, it is forbidden in the room during the meeting itself.
    John Flaherty

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

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt
    The anecdote [about people being shunned for the positions they've taken] happened in the opposite direction as well.
    I don't believe this.
    John, you're really accusing Kim of making something like this up? Have you ever seen ANY evidence to suggest that making something up is at all in her character?

    As for people being "shunned" based only on positions they took with respect to Wayland politics, I can attest firsthand to it having occurred. Are you going to call me a liar too?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    I'm glad you respect my right, however, I am suspicious of the intentions behind your wish. As we've discussed before, the only reason for you or anyone to wish to share your vote with the rest of the world, is to influence people. While you're entitled to do all the influencing you want up until Town Meeting, it is forbidden in the room during the meeting itself.
    Am I correct in guessing that you've misspoken here? Influencing is in large part the POINT of Town Meeting. What you're opposed to, I think, is influencing happening only at the time of the vote, right?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    What does this mean?
    I was simply reiterating my earlier call for transparency across the board.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Perhaps in some parallel universe this would be true, but as I've pointed out above, there are many people in town who have paid a stiff price for simply expressing a different opinion.
    I believe it's true even in this universe that when we communicate openly and civilly we come up with better solutions. Working to eliminate divisiveness is a worthy goal. One need only look at our Congress to see the peril of letting divisiveness grow unchecked.

    People can remain friends and remain civil in the context of disagreement. But it's a lot easier to do this when there are not forces on both sides encouraging the divisiveness.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    I don't believe this.
    You can choose to believe that only those with whom you disagree behave badly, while believing those you agree with to behave well. I am telling you I know of people who supported SOS who were shunned by friends, and you can think me a liar if you choose. You would, however, be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    I'm glad you respect my right, however, I am suspicious of the intentions behind your wish. As we've discussed before, the only reason for you or anyone to wish to share your vote with the rest of the world, is to influence people. While you're entitled to do all the influencing you want up until Town Meeting, it is forbidden in the room during the meeting itself.
    Influencing people is the purpose of virtually every single person who rises to speak at Town Meeting. There are many who are uncomfortable speaking in front of a large audience who might still wish to make their opinions known. There are many who enjoy that part of the process where they literally stand up and be counted. Privacy is a nice feature to offer, but not everybody wants it, and not everybody should have it foisted upon them. You may be suspicious of my motives for wanting to be public; I, on the other hand, question anything that seeks to stifle civil opinion-expressing at a public debate such as Town Meeting.

    You would certainly not argue with my right to get up to the microphone and say, "I support this article." Why would you argue with the moderator providing an opportunity for many people to say this at once without the unnecessary show of coming up to the microphone individually to say it? I really would like to understand why you would wish to squelch a very short, simple opportunity for residents to state their position.
    Last edited by Kim Reichelt; 11-22-2011 at 12:49 PM. Reason: to fix typo

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    John, you're really accusing Kim of making something like this up?.....Are you going to call me a liar too?
    How disingenuous!
    Jeff, you know that what I said above does not accuse Kim of any such thing, and yet you deliberately imply that it does.

    Yours is exactly the type of post that is a conversation killer on these boards. Twisting what I've said into something it's not does not inspire me or anyone else to want to post on these boards.
    John Flaherty

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

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    John, Kim wrote something and you replied directly, "I don't believe this." How else might we interpret what any reasonable person would read as a very clear challenge to Kim's veracity?

    Spin tu, Brute.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Dieffenbach View Post
    John, Kim wrote something and you replied directly, "I don't believe this." How else might we interpret what any reasonable person would read as a very clear challenge to Kim's veracity?

    Spin tu, Brute.

    Umm.......
    Maybe that I think she's wrong.....
    John Flaherty

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

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wayland MA
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Kim said that she had knowledge of something that happened (she later elaborated to add that the "something" was the shunning of someone as a result of their association with SOS). John, you said that you didn't believe her, and elaborated to say that you thought that she was wrong.

    I don't understand what you mean by "wrong" in this context. Since you allege that you aren't saying that she made up that knowledge, are you saying that she misinterpreted facts to arrive at that conclusion? Given the specifics that she supplied, that doesn't make any sense.

    It's possible that Kim didn't see the shunning first hand, but rather, was told about it after the fact by a friend or acquaintance. As such, she doesn't know whether the friend/acquaintance was telling the truth. But if we're going to play that game, we essentially have to question almost everything that's stated in the Discussion Forum that hasn't been observed first-hand.

    My suggestion going forward: if you're going to question the believability of something that someone posts here, please be clear about why you don't believe it. Without that elaboration, you come across as if you're questioning the veracity of the poster, not the underlying facts.

    Earlier in this thread, you wrote about the Board of Selectmen that "one would have to have be incredibly naive to think that they don't STILL break this law, but just in more opaque ways - in the parking lot, on the phone, through email, etc." Without evidence, by the new standard that you appear to want to establish, you're a LOT less believable that Kim in your challenge of the truth of what she posted. And perhaps bordering on libel.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    Umm.......
    Maybe that I think she's wrong.....
    I'd just like to understand this... Maybe I am just misunderstanding you. Here's how I understand this: You believe someone you know who relayed how they were shunned by friends because they weren't supportive of SOS, but you don't believe that anyone who supported SOS might have been shunned by friends who didn't?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    I'd just like to understand this... Maybe I am just misunderstanding you. Here's how I understand this: You believe someone you know who relayed how they were shunned by friends because they weren't supportive of SOS, but you don't believe that anyone who supported SOS might have been shunned by friends who didn't?
    No.
    I guess I was taking "shunned" to the next level and was thinking more about the people who were screwed over by some of the SOSers.
    Like the candidate who an SOS supporter tried to get fired from his job.
    And the SOS fanatic who was seen screaming at a Selectmen in the HH lobby for having the nerve to have the wrong sign on his lawn.
    And the robocall.
    And more recently, an individual who had the audacity to send out a letter of support for the "wrong" candidate to an SOS supporter who turned around and cc'd this person's boss to get him in trouble with his employer.
    These are the types of things that I don't believe happened in the other direction.

    BTW, I wasn't saying (or even implying) that you lied.

    This thread has veered way off course from the Budget Article that it started with. Kim, you said something back on page one of this thread, to which I began my next post with this:
    "Since this was about our elected and appointed officials doing the right thing, we're off on a bit of a tangent here, but I did want to comment on this." Well, somehow, you've taken us back to the Loker days, and I've got nothing more to say about that right now.
    John Flaherty

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

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    "Since this was about our elected and appointed officials doing the right thing, we're off on a bit of a tangent here, but I did want to comment on this." Well, somehow, you've taken us back to the Loker days, and I've got nothing more to say about that right now.
    John, inadvertent on my part in mentioning Loker. You mentioned "not Loker", and I misread it as "Loker". My later citing of "Loker" was merely an example, and did not even indicate a "side" in either direction that I might personally have taken.

    I think most of the examples you cite are one-sided renderings of them, and for most, I have also heard the other side. For the sake of not being divisive or beating dead horses (or any other cliches), I have no interest in going into details. But even if taken at face-value, yes, there are counter-examples.

    I am really sorry that you have had a different experience than I have as regards friendship and disagreement. I think the way such differences play out has a lot to do with the strategies used to debate and discuss. I hope and expect that, with this past experience as a teacher, people can come at such topics in the future with cooler heads, more open ears, and kinder hearts.

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
  •