The Truth Has No Agenda

[mark blazejewski]

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.

You did not address my concerns; you are making incoherent speeches. But let me try to dissect and respond your rant, which is rapidly becoming a mini-series. Taking each of your distorted points in turn:

(1) I have an issue with reading comprehension as well as a crisis of conscience.

Really? YOU ARE THE ONE that is intent characterizing my initial post as a myopic defense for what you term my "pro-administration" friends, without reference to the actual content of the post. Talk about a reading comprehension issue. Oye!

But since you are fixated on the term "pro-administration" I guess that does speak to at least your views regarding the Superintendent's professional fate. Nevertheless, here may be a refreshing thought: instead of pro and anti-administration, how about a "pro-student" approach?


(2) "A manufactured sense of victimization?"

You raised the secretarial skills issues I did not. Excuse me for being offended; just empathizing with those hardworking people such as my mother. I'd be less of a son had I remained silent.

(3) Sophomoric and childish behavior?

Do you have a degree in Child Psychology? If you do, you have learned as well as you communicate. To wit, you are the one mocking someone's intellect and capabilities. What sensitivity for one so absorbed in educational issues! Or perhaps you are just a political hack.

(4) I can not support my position rationally.

Based on my initial post, what position is that? The words and terms "appears,' "may raise," "seemingly suggests" hardly suggest an asserted position(s). And I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem. Sure.

I did state some concerns based on your finger-wagging admonishments regarding how your candidates must be approached. You apparently do not want a "Meet-and-Greet," you seem to desire something akin to a royal audience. Therefore, I conclude that unless a commentator abandons his due diligence, and does not ask a critical question of your candidate, the commentator is seen as hostile.

(5) I co-opted an issue of secretarial skills.

Seriously? I am not responsible for everything you say. I am just responding to YOUR crass comment. Pull your own foot out of your own mouth.

(6) My friends are racist and sexist?

Talk about the victimization card. I have seen no overt evidence of that. Is Cincinatus a handle for Elizabeth Warren? Please. You are the living embodiment of Identity politics, at it worse.

I'll be sure to wait for another convoluted response. It won't be long, because your words are most likely appearing on your computer screen before you can type the post.

As Paul Harvey used to say, "Good day," or hopefully Gooooooooooobye!

[mark blazejewski]

You did not address my concerns; you are making incoherent speeches. But let me try to dissect and respond your rant, which is rapidly becoming a mini-series. Taking each of your distorted points in turn:

(1) I have an issue with reading comprehension as well as a crisis of conscience.

Really? YOU ARE THE ONE that is intent characterizing my initial post as a myopic defense for what you term my "pro-administration" friends, without reference to the actual content of the post. Talk about a reading comprehension issue. Oye!

But since you are fixated on the term "pro-administration" I guess that does speak to at least your views regarding the Superintendent's professional fate. Nevertheless, here may be a refreshing thought: instead of pro and anti-administration, how about a "pro-student" approach?


(2) "A manufactured sense of victimization?"

You raised the secretarial skills issues I did not. Excuse me for being offended; just empathizing with those hardworking people such as my mother. I'd be less of a son had I remained silent.

(3) Sophomoric and childish behavior?

Do you have a degree in Child Psychology? If you do, you have learned as well as you communicate. To wit, you are the one mocking someone's intellect and capabilities. What sensitivity for one so absorbed in educational issues! Or perhaps you are just a political hack.

(4) I can not support my position rationally.

Based on my initial post, what position is that? The words and terms "appears,' "may raise," "seemingly suggests" hardly suggest an asserted position(s). And I'm the one with a reading comprehension problem. Sure.

I did state some concerns based on your finger-wagging admonishments regarding how your candidates must be approached. You apparently do not want a "Meet-and-Greet," you seem to desire something akin to a royal audience. Therefore, I conclude that unless a commentator abandons his due diligence, and does not ask a critical question of your candidate, the commentator is seen as hostile.

(5) I co-opted an issue of secretarial skills.

Seriously? I am not responsible for everything you say. I am just responding to YOUR crass comment. Pull your own foot out of your own mouth.

(6) My friends are racist and sexist?

Talk about the victimization card. I have seen no overt evidence of that. Is Cincinatus a handle for Elizabeth Warren? Please. You are the living embodiment of Identity politics, at it worse.

I'll be sure to wait for another convoluted response. It won't be long, because your words are most likely appearing on your computer screen before you can type the post.

As Paul Harvey used to say, "Good day," or hopefully Gooooooooooobye!

Better yet, on Speak Up, it takes only one vote to invoke cloture. That vote is mine, Rant away sans response!

[Cincinatus]

Better yet, on Speak Up, it takes only one vote to invoke cloture. That vote is mine, Rant away sans response!

LMAO somebody's butt hurt.

[mark blazejewski]

LMAO somebody's butt hurt.

Why the profane remark?

As an APPARENT surrogate for Ms. Studley and Ms. Hossain, you may want to reconsider the type of language you use in your public posts. Bear in mind, my criticisms, qualified as they were, have been, and remain, directed at YOUR style and approach. (My posts offered no direct criticisms of the candidates, nor were any endorsements made.)

You have an apparent obsession with criticizing all my comments. Your criticisms, all of them, appear to be rooted in your own internal logic. For me, exchanging comments with you is like nailing Jello to the wall.

YOUR obsessive behavior is now in its FIFTH DAY. Your candidates have had ample time to review this thread. Given that length of time, am I to understand and conclude that your tactics, characterizations, and off-colored language are acceptable to Studley and Hossain, and meet with their approval?

Is that the type of language, conduct, and attitude the undecided voter may expect to receive from your candidates at their so-called "Meet-and-Greets?"

Is that how these candidates will conduct themselves on the Board of Education and serve their constituents?

Not a very good public presentation. I'll say it one last time. THINK ABOUT CHANGING YOUR STYLE

[Truthseeker]

They are clearly the company that they keep...

[lord Geof]

LMAO somebody's butt hurt.

Sorry you hurt yourself getting down from your soapbox.

Watch your step next time!

[mark blazejewski]

Sorry you hurt yourself getting down from your soapbox.

Watch your step next time!

Where's that "Like" icon?

[Breezy]

LMAO somebody's butt hurt.

He always turns into a big crybaby when pressed. It's really pathetic.

For someone who claims to have no political agenda, that's all he's about - - - a political agenda.

Just another whiner, that's all.

[mark blazejewski]

Hey Stupid, did you clean all the "stuff" off your shoes from your February walk through the cow pasture?

Is your bunch planning any more "well orchestrated coups?" But, that is off topic.

I am sure that Cincinatus is grateful for your support. With you weighing in on her behalf, I just my have to choose a side. If I do, it will be unmistakable.

[walking tall]

Have we become conditioned to have such rancor before an election that it mimics what we saw in the Presidential election. There are no television cameras on. Why not bring this passion of inquiry and commentary to the roundtable forum and Meet the Candidate nights and then write about what was discussed in the proper context. Snippets of this and that and things taken out of context creates a cauldron of confusion. Give all candidatesthe opportunity to provide proper vetting of their views. The problem with this community is that everybody has an opinion without fully attending these opportunities to hear candidates out. i'd almost guarantee a sparse turnout at both. For my part, I am always there to hear all sides and then make an informed decision based on the opinion I form, hearing them out!! This almost "yellow journalism" this community has ascribed to is shameful!

As has often been said... the cream will rise to the top. Your job as an informed judge of character and the platform they choose is to elect that highly respected candidate!! Casting your vote before proper vetting or giving social platforms the enormous weight they influence is truly disingenuous to the election process.

[WNYresident]

Here is something to think about. When you see personalities on this message board do you want those types of personalities making decision that effect children?

[mark blazejewski]

Have we become conditioned to have such rancor before an election that it mimics what we saw in the Presidential election. There are no television cameras on. Why not bring this passion of inquiry and commentary to the roundtable forum and Meet the Candidate nights and then write about what was discussed in the proper context. Snippets of this and that and things taken out of context creates a cauldron of confusion. Give all candidatesthe opportunity to provide proper vetting of their views. The problem with this community is that everybody has an opinion without fully attending these opportunities to hear candidates out. i'd almost guarantee a sparse turnout at both. For my part, I am always there to hear all sides and then make an informed decision based on the opinion I form, hearing them out!! This almost "yellow journalism" this community has ascribed to is shameful!

As has often been said... the cream will rise to the top. Your job as an informed judge of character and the platform they choose is to elect that highly respected candidate!! Casting your vote before proper vetting or giving social platforms the enormous weight they influence is truly disingenuous to the election process.

Very, very well said.

[mark blazejewski]

He always turns into a big crybaby when pressed. It's really pathetic.

For someone who claims to have no political agenda, that's all he's about - - - a political agenda.

Just another whiner, that's all.

Breezy apparently is supporting Cincinatus.

Cincinatus apparently is supporting Studley and Hossain. Very Interesting.

That raises the obvious question: What position(s) have Studley and Hossain taken that have apparently won the support of the ultra-liberal Breezy?

It seems to me that somebody is getting deceived.

[Cincinatus]

Hey Stupid, did you clean all the "stuff" off your shoes from your February walk through the cow pasture?

Is your bunch planning any more "well orchestrated coups?" But, that is off topic.

I am sure that Cincinatus is grateful for your support. With you weighing in on her behalf, I just my have to choose a side. If I do, it will be unmistakable.

Now look who used profane remarks and ad homonym attacks

[Cincinatus]

Have we become conditioned to have such rancor before an election that it mimics what we saw in the Presidential election. There are no television cameras on. Why not bring this passion of inquiry and commentary to the roundtable forum and Meet the Candidate nights and then write about what was discussed in the proper context. Snippets of this and that and things taken out of context creates a cauldron of confusion. Give all candidatesthe opportunity to provide proper vetting of their views. The problem with this community is that everybody has an opinion without fully attending these opportunities to hear candidates out. i'd almost guarantee a sparse turnout at both. For my part, I am always there to hear all sides and then make an informed decision based on the opinion I form, hearing them out!! This almost "yellow journalism" this community has ascribed to is shameful!

As has often been said... the cream will rise to the top. Your job as an informed judge of character and the platform they choose is to elect that highly respected candidate!! Casting your vote before proper vetting or giving social platforms the enormous weight they influence is truly disingenuous to the election process.

This is exactly my point, well said.