The Truth Has No Agenda

[Cincinatus]

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.

There you go again mark making assumptions. I have never said who I do or do not support. You on the other hand have outlined your having friends "on both side of the issue". Maybe Breezy can explain your own comments to you ?

[mark blazejewski]

There you go again mark making assumptions. I have never said who I do or do not support. You on the other hand have outlined your having friends "on both side of the issue". Maybe Breezy can explain your own comments to you ?

Obviously you don't know what "APPARENTLY" means. My best to your friend Breezy.




This post is intended to end, once and for all, your obsessive replies.


Unlike you, I am writing under my own name. With the handle "Cincinatus" walks cowardly anonymity. With a personal identity walks risk and reputation. Thus, on social media, such competing give-and-take exchanges do not carry equal consequential weight. Any responsible candidate for public office should communicate that to his or her surrogates. Failure to do so suggests a de facto endorsement of bullying and intimidation.


Cincinatus, in your twisted, distorted, and chronically incongruent comments, you referenced my specific person as:


(1) "Warped,' and performing the role of an "unpaid secretary."


(2) You further alleged that I suffer from a "reading comprehension" disorder, and that I lack a stable "conscience."


(3) Moreover, to my specific person, you applied the terms "sophomoric," "childish," "clumsy," and "irrational."


(4) More troublesome, you seem to unjustly link me to "racist" and "sexist" viewpoints.


Absent your concern for the personally identified, opposing commentator's safety, your candidates, as seekers of the public trust, should necessarily understand the possible consequences of your reckless comments for your opposing commentator.


The apparent reasons for those reckless comments seem to have arisen from your apparent objection to my observations reflecting certain concerns that I have about YOUR presentation of your candidates. I did NOT attack your candidates.


Your reply of Monday morning was crude and seemingly profane. To that post, I observed that your candidates seem to be ineffective in setting an applied standard for civil discourse. I also suggested that their continued silence may be viewed as acquiescence.


I would observe that the voters of Lancaster spoke clearly and exactly to the issue of tone and civility in Lancaster politics in 2015.


In that connection, I further note that Ms. Studley is the Treasurer of a Lancaster political committee. Based upon her Linked-In profile, I do not know if the reference is to the Republican or Democrat Committee.


In either case, as an officer of a political Committee, she runs for the Board of Education while concurrently representing that party in a high profile position. One might not only expect that she would be unconditionally concerned about the reckless comments of her current surrogates, but would campaign with sensitivity and a foreseeable eye for her own political party in the upcoming fall elections.


I trust this post ends your taunting.

[mark blazejewski]

There you go again mark making assumptions. I have never said who I do or do not support. You on the other hand have outlined your having friends "on both side of the issue". Maybe Breezy can explain your own comments to you ?

I have previously addressed your comments speaking to my so-called "assumptions" that Breezy was supporting you. I pointed out that the word "apparently" qualified that statement.

With respect to your comment " I have never said who I do or do not support," your attention is directed to YOUR comments which can be found on page three of this thread:




"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."




In those comments, you related pre-conditions for discourse, and did so with an authoritative assertion on behalf of Ms. Studley and Ms. Hossain. The relevant words being "if you..." and "they would be..."




It was those UNQUALIFIED comments, taken at face value, which prompted my INITIAL post, which properly addressed you as their surrogate.

If you were truthful in those comments, you clearly and unambiguously functioned as their surrogate. If you were not truthful, you have misled the reader of the post.

YOUR WORDS, SPECIFIED ABOVE, ARE CLEAR AND EXACT, AND SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT HAVE THE ISSUES BOTH WAYS.

[Cincinatus]

I have previously addressed your comments speaking to my so-called "assumptions" that Breezy was supporting you. I pointed out that the word "apparently" qualified that statement.

With respect to your comment " I have never said who I do or do not support," your attention is directed to YOUR comments which can be found on page three of this thread:




"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."




In those comments, you related pre-conditions for discourse, and did so with an authoritative assertion on behalf of Ms. Studley and Ms. Hossain. The relevant words being "if you..." and "they would be..."




It was those UNQUALIFIED comments, taken at face value, which prompted my INITIAL post, which properly addressed you as their surrogate.

If you were truthful in those comments, you clearly and unambiguously functioned as their surrogate. If you were not truthful, you have misled the reader of the post.

YOUR WORDS, SPECIFIED ABOVE, ARE CLEAR AND EXACT, AND SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT HAVE THE ISSUES BOTH WAYS.

Oh dear mark you seem to be having more trouble. No matter let me again help you. In contradiction to your silliness I have already outlined my positions and observations in detail. You on the other hand who admits to having friends on both sides of this issue where almost assuredly called in here to "white knight" for what you defined as the "pro administration faction" on this thread. You attempted to do that by taking the spot light off your buddies on this thread with conjecture, assumption and blatantly manufactured outrage. Tragically for you rational discourse is not defined by such sloppy thinking. Similarly rational discourse defined by the consistent logical fallacies which include but are not limited to "restating the argument" / "argumentum ad nausea" and or typing in larger font. Just admit your attmept sto "white knight" for gorja and lord geof fails, take you lumps and stop trying to dig upward.

[lord Geof]

This response is somewhat comical, as you "assume" that Mark is attempting to be a white knight.

I do not know either Mark nor Gorga, and they would have no reason to try and bail me out. Don't assume his motivation.

As to you other rants and raves, can you provide your list of issues with my behavior on this site, so I can logically respond?

I take offense to your insinuation that my responses are 'sexist' or 'racist', but will look forward to your thoughts.

I will await your response, which hopefully follows professional etiquette for the exchange of ideas, and does not sink to name calling

I will not assume anything if I receive no response

[abc123]

Purely hypothetically....

I know if *I* recently moved into a commmunity, and *MY* spouse was running for school board despite not not having any history here or kids in the district, I would certainly head right to the local political forum to engage in pedantic catfights. Surely that would be the best way to introduce ourselves and what we are about...

Good job getting the word out to those 12 twitter followers! Purely hypothetically, of course.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Hey Cincinatus:

When are you going to come to the conclusion that you have become irrelevant to many of us and not worth debating with? The reasons are myriad and substantive. The following have been some of your posts:

• Defining opposing opinions as “sloppy thinking”

• “All and all nice try at taking the focus off your self-admitted “friends” on one side of the topic… well not really.”

• “You seem to be suffering an issue with reading comprehension as well a crisis of conscience.”

• “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.”

• “I have never said who I do or do not support.”

• “In contradiction to your silliness I have already outlined my positions and observations in detail.”

You have indeed made it clear who you support but have never outlined any positions on issues.

Your attempt to write in effusive style for self aggrandization and to diminish the opposing opinion parallels that of a loquacious political hack speaking condescendingly to an individual he believes beneath him.

You are indeed anti-administration and if you would post under your real name that would become quite evident.

Your attempt to bring race and identity politics into the thread is appalling.

Truthseeker posted this early on and it is relevant to anyone who has followed BOE activity over the years – especially to those attending regular and budget work session meetings: “What Nargis & Missy are selling, I'm not buying. They are the company they keep...and it's quite a cast of characters.”

As published in today’s Lancaster Bee:

The first of two opportunities to meet candidates for Lancaster will be from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 26, in the Lancaster High School cafeteria. The gathering will offer one-on-one conversations between candidates and voters.

The second, more formal opportunity will be the Candidates’ Forum sponsored by the high school student union, which will start at 6 p.m. in the high school auditorium on Monday, May 8. A public hearing on the budget will start at 7 p.m. the same evening, followed by a regular board meeting.

That is the place to meet and question the candidates on any matter and on a level playing field - not a Tim Hortons.

Again, you have become irrelevant and should be ignored.

[Lancastermom]

First of all, one of the candidates posted the vague marital question to begin with. Was just asking for clarification.
Marital status is usually part of a candidate's bio. Married, single, transsexual, it doesn't really matter, it's honesty that matters

Georgia, they're platforms and bios are on facebook and both have clearly stated they are married

[Lancastermom]

So if they are so genuine and transparent, why have they gone silent.

Melissa and Nargis opened the line of communication, and apparently have run out of "canned responses".

If their positions were ingrained in their philosophy, responses to some of our inquiries would have been more spontaneous and forthright.

If you want to utilize Speak Up as a medium to communicate your platform honestly, don't just pull the pin and run.

There are no canned responses. Melissa came on here to explain answers to rumors spreading in public. To come back and bicker back and forth is fruitless. Come to the roundtable next week. These two women never have had canned responses. More made up bull about two people you don't have two wits knowledge about.

[Lancastermom]

[QUOTE=Cincinatus;1712600]Maybe they just do not want to get dragged into a toxic enviroment ? From the personalities I have seen on this thread the same six people post consistently. I mean the nature of the post by six people seem to be full of assumption and conjecture. If you want to see what these candidates are about why not go introduce yourself and ask them ? I am pretty sure they are approachable.[/QUOTE

THANK YOU. I AGREE. I stopped posting for a long time because of that reason and so have many others.

[Lancastermom]

‘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.

Again, Lee there is no anti-administration group. When I'm done reading the horsecrap on here I'll take the time to copy and paste platforms. One that is more helpful to taxpayers than VOYE FOR THREE

[Iheartsyracuseu]

Purely hypothetically....

I know if *I* recently moved into a commmunity, and *MY* spouse was running for school board despite not not having any history here or kids in the district, I would certainly head right to the local political forum to engage in pedantic catfights. Surely that would be the best way to introduce ourselves and what we are about...

Good job getting the word out to those 12 twitter followers! Purely hypothetically, of course.

Hypothetically, I would find that type of behavior quite disturbing and disappointing, but not surprising.

[lord Geof]

I am not at all sure that Syracuse University would approve of your avatar.

Go CUSE!!!!!! But not with this picture, nor the attitude that will likely follow.

[Iheartsyracuseu]

I am not at all sure that Syracuse University would approve of your avatar.

Go CUSE!!!!!! But not with this picture, nor the attitude that will likely follow.

Dear Lord Geof,

I removed it. I absolutely love that show, but I will choose something else. I certainly would not want that avatar to be more important than my opinion. Thank you for saying "Go Cuse"!! It is truly wonderful university.

[gorja]

Lancastermom,

So, this school board candidate, Melissa Studley is a pro-administrative candidate? R-E-A-L-L-Y?



Presented in a truly civil social worker demeanor, don't you think???