The Truth Has No Agenda

[Cincinatus]

======================

So, how is this site toxic?

Is a free exchange of opinions toxic?

If you open a line of communication, you should accept the consequence.

If they open the door, presumably understanding next steps, why are you, and Melissa and Nargis so appalled by some of the response?

The responses are not without basis or history, so your pushback is unfounded.

The information on some of the topics is incontrovertible

The candidates, if they have defensible positions should step forward with that information.

Otherwise, as stated by this poster previously, they pulled the pin and deserted the site.

That is not transparency and honesty

How is Ohio State?

Wonderful questions geof let me take some time to answer them point by point.


geof says: “So, how is this site toxic?”


In contradiction to your attempt at literalism, the point I made was not that the website itself is toxic. Quite the contrary. I think citizen interest in local governance and robust debate is very healthy. Rather my point was that certain personalities engaged in the discussion on this thread seem quite toxic. Example of said toxicity include but are not limited too making baseless assumptions / engaging in conjecture about why a candidate is running for office. Such reckless behavior undermines the ability to have rational and or robust discussion.


geof says: “If you open a line of communication, you should accept the consequence. If they open the door, presumably understanding next steps, why are you, and Melissa and Nargis so appalled by some of the response?”


While it is true that one accepts a certain amount of responsibility when they engage in open discussion such reality doesn’t translate into the warped idea that it is ok to abuse someone that chooses to enter said discussion. As you may or may not know there exists generally accepted etiquette regarding rationally discourse. Such generally accepted etiquette serves to assist those that engage in said rational discourse. For example take some of your statements on this thread. In those statements you make wild assumptions regarding why either Mellissa or Nargis decided to put out a FAQ. Instead of directly engaging either of those individuals with an honest question (read not one that is posed in a blatantly antagonistic tone) you immediately made allegations as to the motive regarding why you think those comments where made. Have you ever met with either candidate? Do you know them well enough to make such assumptions? Given the telling general nature of your statement I am betting you have not. Hence you statement stem from a known position of ignorance and subsequently are arrogant.


Moreover given the curt, rude and in many ways bizarre tonal nature that defines many of the comments on this thread I find your attempt at rationalization beyond intellectually dishonest. Indeed your attempt at rationalization in many ways reads somewhat exemplary of what psychologist refer to as D.A.R.V.O. or deny attack reverse victim offender role. Such behavior is quite common for those who at some level know that their behavior is unacceptable. Essentially you and gorja seemed to be attempting to rationalize your toxic behavior by saying “well they knew what they were getting into so they had it coming to them”.


Put more simply just because one enters into a discussion doesn’t mean that said individual deserves to be accosted or antagonized. Moreover in contradiction to the manner of how the current school board mistreats constituents at school board meetings while I openly defend that you and others have every right to say what you want to say (America is the land of the free) that does not mean that you are insulated from the responsibility of your actions. Put another way while you and others have every right to be rude and nasty I have every right to call you out on it.


geof says: “The information on some of the topics is incontrovertible”


The above comment is both presumptuous and odd. The oddity stems from the fact that in direct contradiction to the absolutist nature of the claim you have yet to outline any specific “information”, illustrated how that “information” relates to the discussion at hand and or provided any empirical evidence to substantiate the inferences you allegedly drew from it.


geof says: “Otherwise, as stated by this poster previously, they pulled the pin and deserted the site. That is not transparency and honesty”


Again the above comment comes off as odd coming from someone who made inflammatory comments on a thread whose focus is designed to discuss two candidates bid for the Lancaster school board. What I observe from my preliminary assessment is that the two candidates Mellissa and Nargis are far more qualified than any other candidate running. Said candidates understandably thought it prudent to make a FAQ. Such a thought is not the least bit out of the ordinary. What was out of the ordinary is the response to said FAQ. Said response was generally defined by antagonistic comments made by what increasingly comes off tragic individuals whose toxic behavior smacks atypical of an angry shut-in.


I could go on to further deconstruct the petty nature of your statements and or toxic behavior that said I think you have enough to chew on for the moment. Suffice to say I would contend that instead of making baseless comments it would be more useful and healthy to actually meet the candidates >>>all of them<<< and see what they are about.

[Lee Chowaniec]

‘Payback is a bitch’, ‘the kettle calling the pot black’!

Studley and Nargis are supported by and in return represent the same group that in the past two years have created an adversarial school board; acted uncivilly and disrupted at many board meetings: threatened board members personally; made the most outrageous claims to support the opt out movement; and made the most outrageous and unfounded allegations against past and current administrators – especially LCSD Superintendent Dr. Michael Valley.

These aren’t petty opinions, these are facts. And it all began with the Redskin name change which the anti administration group still can’t get over. They have made this into political warfare and can’t stand the thought of someone playing the same game against them.

Meeting with Studley and Nargis at a Tim Hortons over coffee serves no purpose to anyone familiar with this crowd. There will be a scheduled Roundtable event to meet and ask all the candidates questions you wish to ask. There will also be a Meet the Candidates Night where voters can again question the candidates and get a good sense of what candidate will best serve the district and its children.

BTW - Have any in your group appeared at budget work session and asked about the $18 million in rainy day funds (Sojka) and why they are not being spent down? Now that would interest me. Unlike other school districts who listened to the Comptroller’s ‘spend down the reserves’ and are now on the fiscal stress list and have cut jobs and programs, LCSD hadn’t the need to do that when their state aid was reduced by $25 million over five years and they were shortchanged $97 million in Foundation Aid.

Still waiting to hear from Sojka on the question I asked as to why the estimated Legislative state aid differed from the state aid number listed in LCSD’s final draft budget.

[gorja]

So you admit to making a completely baseless claim without any evidence or information ?

These are not claims.

It's very hard to believe that questions like these were asked by any sane Lancaster taxpayer.

This may have been asked by a plant of their own to stimulate some liberal taxpayer interest.

They are opinions. Everyone here is free to express their opinion.

[Cincinatus]

These are not claims.




They are opinions. Everyone here is free to express their opinion.

In contradiction to the weasel wording you are painfully attempting to hide behind and or anchor on the logic of your statements translate into making a claim. In this case you make the unfounded claim that alleges incredulity surrounding Melisa and or Nargis statements. You allege said incredulity without providing any empirical evidence whatsoever. Indeed from the perspective of critical thinking your statements are indicative of the “begging the question” logical fallacy and are indicative of sloppy thinking.

To your point regarding the right to voice an opinion we are in violent agreement. As I have already stated above unlike the current members of the school board mistreatment of the constituents they are supposed to represent I whole heartedly support someone first amendment. That said what the first does not insulate you from having to own up to the responsibility of your statements. Again put more simply while you have the right to voice your opinion no matter how nasty they may be I have the right to call you out on it.

Finally I will close with what I have said all along. Instead of making baseless claims and or engaging in conjecture why not meet the candidate themselves. I am pretty sure there is an event tonight to do just that. I am quite confident that either Melisa and or Nargis are quite approachable. Moreover if you voice your question in an honest and sincere manner (read not in the antagonistic tone that tragically seems to define your comments on this thread) they would be all too happy to have a discussion with you. Who knows you might find out that you like them. Have a good Thursday gorja.



End Notes Cited Sources


1. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...g_the_Question

[mark blazejewski]

In contradiction to the weasel wording you are painfully attempting to hide behind and or anchor on the logic of your statements translate into making a claim. In this case you make the unfounded claim that alleges incredulity surrounding Melisa and or Nargis statements. You allege said incredulity without providing any empirical evidence whatsoever. Indeed from the perspective of critical thinking your statements are indicative of the “begging the question” logical fallacy and are indicative of sloppy thinking.

To your point regarding the right to voice an opinion we are in violent agreement. As I have already stated above unlike the current members of the school board mistreatment of the constituents they are supposed to represent I whole heartedly support someone first amendment. That said what the first does not insulate you from having to own up to the responsibility of your statements. Again put more simply while you have the right to voice your opinion no matter how nasty they may be I have the right to call you out on it.

Finally I will close with what I have said all along. Instead of making baseless claims and or engaging in conjecture why not meet the candidate themselves.. Who knows you might find out that you like them. Have a good Thursday gorja.
I am pretty sure there is an event tonight to do just that. I am quite confident that either Melisa and or Nargis are quite approachable. Moreover if you voice your question in an honest and sincere manner (read not in the antagonistic tone that tragically seems to define your comments on this thread) they would be all too happy to have a discussion with you


End Notes Cited Sources


1. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/...g_the_Question

" I am pretty sure there is an event tonight to do just that. I am quite confident that either Melisa and or Nargis are quite approachable. Moreover if you voice your question in an honest and sincere manner (read not in the antagonistic tone that tragically seems to define your comments on this thread) they would be all too happy to have a discussion with you"




Good morning Cincinatus,

Let me be clear. I have friends on both sides of this campaign, and the apparent divisive bitterness saddens me. And that is sincere.

But if I may, the above- illustrated quote is very troubling in that it seemingly suggests that a subjective assessment of tone and demeanor is a necessary pre-condition for political discourse with these two candidates.

That comment alone appears to suggest the candidates' desire for a scripted, or at least controlled, dialogue. Your words, taken at face value, may raise in the voter's mind, the POSSIBILITY that the two candidates in question may not be temperamentally suited for the office they seek. Bear in mind, not every constituent at a Board meeting is going to be polite; some will be agenda-driven and self-serving; some will be there to unduly embarrass the member(s) , and some will be in attendance just to raise hell.

Once in office, a Board member can not cherry pick the issues to be addressed, nor does the Board member enjoy the latitude to serve or interact with a selective constituency, based upon perceptions of worthiness, sincerity, politeness, or political compatibility.


I sincerely hope that your candidates themselves do not subscribe to the standards that your words suggest.

I understand your passion, but you may want to reassess your approach, in that your words, perhaps casual applied, may have cast your candidates in a less than favorable light.

Just my thoughts and humble opinion. I hope they are helpful.

[abc123]

lol at this thread.

matt walter set the standard here for the right way for candidates to interact on this forum. he was initially met with a lot of skepticism, a lot of hard questions and he took them all head on. in the end, he won some converts and proved himself to be a stand up guy and someone worthy of voting for. on the other hand, you have this thread, which starts with bizarre statements out of left field, followed by disappearance, and then here come brand new user names in to pick fights and argue about nothing of substance.

as lee points out, studley in particular has been associated with the redskins group since it started. their involvement in the schools has been about nothing but retribution and personal attacks since that whole fiasco went down. the veterans parking thing last year - conveniently timed right before the election - was obviously contrived to paint their enemies as unpatriotic. it was disgusting and ms studley was happy to participate. meanwhile you have 3 candidates with an active interest in our schools, a history of service and volunteerism for this community. its an even more obvious decision than last year, imo.

[Cincinatus]

" I am pretty sure there is an event tonight to do just that. I am quite confident that either Melisa and or Nargis are quite approachable. Moreover if you voice your question in an honest and sincere manner (read not in the antagonistic tone that tragically seems to define your comments on this thread) they would be all too happy to have a discussion with you"




Good morning Cincinatus,

Let me be clear. I have friends on both sides of this campaign, and the apparent divisive bitterness saddens me. And that is sincere.

But if I may, the above- illustrated quote is very troubling in that it seemingly suggests that a subjective assessment of tone and demeanor is a necessary pre-condition for political discourse with these two candidates.

That comment alone appears to suggest the candidates' desire for a scripted, or at least controlled, dialogue. Your words, taken at face value, may raise in the voter's mind, the POSSIBILITY that the two candidates in question may not be temperamentally suited for the office they seek. Bear in mind, not every constituent at a Board meeting is going to be polite; some will be agenda-driven and self-serving; some will be there to unduly embarrass the member(s) , and some will be in attendance just to raise hell.

Once in office, a Board member can not cherry pick the issues to be addressed, nor does the Board member enjoy the latitude to serve or interact with a selective constituency, based upon perceptions of worthiness, sincerity, politeness, or political compatibility.


I sincerely hope that your candidates themselves do not subscribe to the standards that your words suggest.

I understand your passion, but you may want to reassess your approach, in that your words, perhaps casual applied, may have cast your candidates in a less than favorable light.

Just my thoughts and humble opinion. I hope they are helpful.

Good morning mark,


Your comments are both general, undefined and subsequently hard to penetrate. Particularly troublesome is the fact that you fail to cite specifically what you are referencing. That observation in mind unlike you I was quite clear in both content and context of my statements. Never did I say that one cannot passionately support a particular position. Rather what I did say is that there exists generally accepted etiquette regarding how rational discourse is pursued. Some of those being things like the notion that 100 % of the burden of proof lies on the claimant. Such burden of proof was not meet by what increasing comes off as the “pro administration crowd” on this thread. Rather what the pro administration crowd did was make baseless claims regarding presumes motivations of two candidates. Similarly said “pro administration” individuals regularly engage in critical thinking errors. Indeed I cited a particular logical fallacy and how it pertains to the comments of the “pro administration” individuals on this thread.

Such sloppy thinking seems to be reflected in the behavior of the current members of the school board when they interact with the constituents they represent. From my admittedly preliminary assessment numerous members of the school board seem to think that it is ok to shut down constituents for voicing a concern and or professing a particular world view. Those observations in mind your comment of:

“Once in office, a Board member can not cherry pick the issues to be addressed, nor does the Board member enjoy the latitude to serve or interact with a selective constituency, based upon perceptions of worthiness, sincerity, politeness, or political compatibility.”

reads as contradictory and odd. As to the standards any candidate subscribes there is one way to find out go out and meet them in person and see what they are about. That is something that many of what increasing comes off as the pro administration crowd on this thread have yet to do. Rather those few individuals seem content to sit at home and post baseless statements that center on assumption and conjecture. Thanks for the reply.

[mark blazejewski]

The quote prompting my comment, and your dissertation, which reads like one long sentence was prominently illustrated. As such, a concern arising from those words was expressed.

You are an advocate for one side, that is clear. It seems as if your side is intent on clinging to a generalized campaign theme that the voter is not offering specifics about their concerns raised by of your own words. Your candidate is up for election, not the voter.

If that is your idea of an informative campaign, you need to preach to a audience limited to the converted.

[Cincinatus]

The quote prompting my comment, and your dissertation, which reads like one long sentence was prominently illustrated. As such, a concern arising from those words was expressed.

You are an advocate for one side, that is clear. It seems as if your side is intent on clinging to a generalized campaign theme that the voter is not offering specifics about their concerns raised by of your own words. Your candidate is up for election, not the voter.

If that is your idea of an informative campaign, you need to preach to a audience limited to the converted.

In contradiction to the mischaracterization of your own post, you merely cited one sentence of mine then proceeded to make all kind of warped inferences from it. You have yet to illustrate in any real detail how said citation substitutes your statement. I on the other hand cited specific examples of the pro administration crowd on this thread, how their comments are nothing but assumptions and conjecture and how those statement are in direct violation to general etiquette regarding rational discourse. I find it quite telling that you fail to discern the difference between the two. Those observations in mind considering you admittedly have “friend on both sides of the issue” coupled with how poor said pro administration groupies have so far preformed on this thread I suppose I can forgive you for making such a mistake. All and all nice try at taking the focus off your self-admitted “friends” on one side of the topic… well not really.

Finally on a more personal note as to your comment regarding the length of my sentence let me thank you for preforming the unpaid functions of a secretary. While I can appreciate such a service I require those that want to preform said functions to leave a resume at the front desk. : )

[mark blazejewski]

In contradiction to the mischaracterization of your own post, you merely cited one sentence of mine then proceeded to make all kind of warped inferences from it. You have yet to illustrate in any real detail how said citation substitutes your statement. I on the other hand cited specific examples of the pro administration crowd on this thread, how their comments are nothing but assumptions and conjecture and how those statement are in direct violation to general etiquette regarding rational discourse. I find it quite telling that you fail to discern the difference between the two. Those observations in mind considering you admittedly have “friend on both sides of the issue” coupled with how poor said pro administration groupies have so far preformed on this thread I suppose I can forgive you for making such a mistake. All and all nice try at taking the focus off your self-admitted “friends” on one side of the topic… well not really.

Finally on a more personal note as to your comment regarding the length of my sentence let me thank you for preforming the unpaid functions of a secretary. While I can appreciate such a service I require those that want to preform said functions to leave a resume at the front desk. : )

Thank you for your forgiveness, but I already have a Savior.

[Cincinatus]

Thank you for your forgiveness, but I already have a Savior.

As do we both, mark as do we both. Happy Easter buddy.

[mark blazejewski]

Thank you for your forgiveness, but I already have a Savior.

Furthermore, one can mis-characterize an assertion, but I EXPRESSED a concern. A concern is not something that is "warped," but rather is a question in need of an answer.

For all of your gratuitous labeling regarding my CONCERN, that concern, seemingly the need for a controlled environment as pre-condition for political discourse with your candidates, remains unanswered.

Regarding your rather pathetic attempt at wit in connection with my purported secretarial skills, let me say that my late mother spent many years as a secretary. It was a hard and demanding job, and I hold such work in high esteem. That sarcastic cuteness not only offends me, but it does beg a further question: Do you, or your candidates, value the skills and dedication of the District's clerical staff, or do you view those hardworking public servants and taxpayers through the prism of a contrived occupational caste system?

But, I digress. In fact, your imitation of a prosecutor, as demonstrated by your "legalese""writing style is a rather poor one, and suggests that you do not need a secretary, you need a style book and an editor.

Gee I have enjoyed this exchange.

[Melissa Studley]

Many people review this Forum to gain insight on many topics throughout Western New York. Nargis and I chose to create this thread in an effort to provide factual information to constituents who are not on Facebook. We have repeatedly been asked these questions while out campaigning and the purpose of the FAQs was to answer these questions which will allow people to have information on the most asked questions, so when we meet in person, they can focus on other questions (or inquire further). We understand that we will not be able to meet with everyone during the hours we are available at our Tim Horton’s meet ups but we are willing to meet with any resident in the Lancaster Central School District, at a place of their choosing to discuss our platform. We have already accommodated many requests.

That being stated, I will answer one question I saw posed regarding if Nargis is married. Yes, she is married 20 years (I believe) to a disabled army veteran.

Entering the political arena, we were aware that people were going to judge us and make assumptions. We also know that not everyone will agree and some people will voice their opinions louder than others. We have not entered this Forum to argue or respond to antagonistic comments. We entered this forum to provide first hand factual information, from the source, on the most asked questions we have received thus far. If you choose to think we are not being truthful, unfortunately, there will be nothing we can do to change your mind. For the people who we have talked to and have expressed their support for us, we sincerely thank you.

While I understand the passion behind many posts on this thread, please be respectful and do not attack each other because you disagree. I enjoy healthy conversations and debates, but I do not support some of the dialogue on here from both "sides."

If you have further inquiries, you can reach us by:

Visiting our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/lancasterkidsfirst

Coming out to meet us at our Tim Horton’s meetings -there is one tonight from 5:30-6:30 at the William and Aurora location. Next week we will be at the Rehm and Transit location, date and time TBD.

Emailing us: lancasterkidsfirst@gmail.com

Visiting our website: www.lancasterkidsfirst.com (will be live by 4/16)

We both work full-time and have other obligations to attend to, on top of campaigning and appreciate you reaching out to us through the aforementioned methods as they are being checked on a consistent basis. Thank you for understanding the challenges of monitoring multiple contact points and understanding that we are not frequently checking this forum. An added difficultly is that the formatting of this website is not displaying correctly on our phones and we are unable to see past the first page of each thread.

[mark blazejewski]

Many people review this Forum to gain insight on many topics throughout Western New York. Nargis and I chose to create this thread in an effort to provide factual information to constituents who are not on Facebook. We have repeatedly been asked these questions while out campaigning and the purpose of the FAQs was to answer these questions which will allow people to have information on the most asked questions, so when we meet in person, they can focus on other questions (or inquire further). We understand that we will not be able to meet with everyone during the hours we are available at our Tim Horton’s meet ups but we are willing to meet with any resident in the Lancaster Central School District, at a place of their choosing to discuss our platform. We have already accommodated many requests.

That being stated, I will answer one question I saw posed regarding if Nargis is married. Yes, she is married 20 years (I believe) to a disabled army veteran.

Entering the political arena, we were aware that people were going to judge us and make assumptions. We also know that not everyone will agree and some people will voice their opinions louder than others. We have not entered this Forum to argue or respond to antagonistic comments. We entered this forum to provide first hand factual information, from the source, on the most asked questions we have received thus far. If you choose to think we are not being truthful, unfortunately, there will be nothing we can do to change your mind. For the people who we have talked to and have expressed their support for us, we sincerely thank you.

While I understand the passion behind many posts on this thread, please be respectful and do not attack each other because you disagree. I enjoy healthy conversations and debates, but I do not support some of the dialogue on here from both "sides."

If you have further inquiries, you can reach us by:

Visiting our Facebook page: www.facebook.com/lancasterkidsfirst

Coming out to meet us at our Tim Horton’s meetings -there is one tonight from 5:30-6:30 at the William and Aurora location. Next week we will be at the Rehm and Transit location, date and time TBD.

Emailing us: lancasterkidsfirst@gmail.com

Visiting our website: www.lancasterkidsfirst.com (will be live by 4/16)

We both work full-time and have other obligations to attend to, on top of campaigning and appreciate you reaching out to us through the aforementioned methods as they are being checked on a consistent basis. Thank you for understanding the challenges of monitoring multiple contact points and understanding that we are not frequently checking this forum. An added difficultly is that the formatting of this website is not displaying correctly on our phones and we are unable to see past the first page of each thread.

Some of us REALLY DO have friends on both sides of this campaign. As I initially indicated, I am one such commentator, only searching for clarity.

My initial post WAS NOT an invitation to have my intellect questioned and ridiculed, and to have my capabilities relegated to an occupational area which, although I hold it in high esteem, another commentator seemingly demeaned.

Therefore, your observation is well taken and greatly appreciated.

I thank you Ms. Studley.

[Cincinatus]

Furthermore, one can mis-characterize an assertion, but I EXPRESSED a concern. A concern is not something that is "warped," but rather is a question in need of an answer.

For all of your gratuitous labeling regarding my CONCERN, that concern, seemingly the need for a controlled environment as pre-condition for political discourse with your candidates, remains unanswered.

Regarding your rather pathetic attempt at wit in connection with my purported secretarial skills, let me say that my late mother spent many years as a secretary. It was a hard and demanding job, and I hold such work in high esteem. That sarcastic cuteness not only offends me, but it does beg a further question: Do you, or your candidates, value the skills and dedication of the District's clerical staff, or do you view those hardworking public servants and taxpayers through the prism of a contrived occupational caste system?

But, I digress. In fact, your imitation of a prosecutor, as demonstrated by your "legalese""writing style is a rather poor one, and suggests that you do not need a secretary, you need a style book and an editor.

Gee I have enjoyed this exchange.

Oh dear how sad. You seem to be suffering an issue with reading comprehension as well a crisis of conscience. Both of these borne out by your continued attempt at mischaracterization of your and or my statements. Similarly laughable is your attempt to manufacture a sense of victimization in what increasingly comes off your hope of “flipping the table” on someone who is calling out your pro administration “friends” for their toxic behavior. You attempted a dig by pointing to the length of a sentence. I subsequently called you out for such sophomoric and childish behavior. In my experience when someone engages in such silliness it means that the position they hold and or support is untenable. My derision is not applied toward those in secretarial field rather your clumsy application of such skills in an online discussion because you cannot support your position rationally. In short you in your co-option of secretarial skills have been demean those in those fields not I.

I was quite clear what my points are. Your “friends” on the “pro administration” side come off as tragic individuals whose toxic behavior undermines the ability of rational discourse. Moreover your pro administration “friends” statements have overt racist and sexist overtones rationalized by said tragic individual’s delusions of two candidates’ motives. So much that I dare say none of your paltry attempts and verbal jujistsu can pull them out of the mess they created. But hey I will be nice and give you a “E” for effort.