Reply With QuoteIf spitzer has a position on any of the above shouldnt he state them?
Issue: Wicks Law (requires multiple contracts for most public construction projects).
Spitzer: Reform needed, but no specifics.
Suozzi: Exempt all projects under $1.5 million, up from the present $50,000.
Faso: Abolish it.
Issue: Workers’ compensation system (pays for care and part of lost wages for injuries on job).
Spitzer: Changes necessary, but no specifics.
Suozzi: Cap permanent-partial-disability benefits at 12 years. Raise maximum benefit to $600 per week.
Faso: Pataki bill to cap permanent-partial benefits at 500 weeks and raise maximum benefit to $500 a week.
Issue: Scaffold Law (holds employers liable to any injury related to a fall).
Spitzer: Needs to be changed. No specifics.
Suozzi: Limit employers’ liability in cases where workers who fail to use required safety equipment or are injured due to impairment from drug or alcohol use.
Faso: Abolish strict liability and let employers use a defense that a worker’s negligence contributed to the injury.
Issue: Taylor Law (governs public-employee unions).
Spitzer: Will work for changes.
Suozzi: Go to a “last-best offer” system in binding arbitration, strengthen penalties for striking, make government’s ability to pay without raising taxes a prime factor in contract awards.
Faso: Agrees with Suozzi. Also would end step raises for teachers and others after contracts have expired and allow governments to make changes related to technological improvements when there’s no contract, like running subway cars with one worker instead of two.
It's funny cuz the top Suozzi's campainging issues are the Wicks Law, the Workers’ compensation system, the Scaffold Law and the Taylor Law. All 4 of which you have listed Spitzer as "no comment". Go figure.
I wanted to let you know that while (as a candidate for Governor) he hasn't a comment on these issues but has, however, been prosecuting fraud of the same as our Attorney General.
here is a perfect example:
FOURTEEN CHARGED IN UPSTATE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION SWEEP
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...feb07b_06.html
It is to my understanding that Spitzer also agrees with Suozzi's ideas of reforming both the Taylor & Wicks laws.
Worried about "medicaid fraud"? Spitzer has it covered.
Results 1 - 10 of about 401. Search took 0.01 seconds.
Pharmacy Owner Receives Jail In Medicaid Fraud
... For More Information: 212-416-8060, For Immediate Release December
5, 2005. PHARMACY OWNER RECEIVES JAIL IN MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...dec05e_05.html - 8k
NYSOAG News: Binghamton Dentist Charged with Medicaid Fraud
... For More Information: (212) 417-5256, For Immediate Release October
6, 2000. BINGHAMTON DENTIST CHARGED WITH MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...oct06b_00.html - 7k
NYSOAG News: Binghamton Dental Practice Admits to Medicaid ...
... For More Information: (212) 417-5256, For Immediate Release December 20,
2000. BINGHAMTON DENTAL PRACTICE ADMITS TO MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...dec20a_00.html - 7k
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Recovers $100,000 In Settlement ...
... 212) 417-5256, For Immediate Release June 6, 2002. MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT
RECOVERS $100,000 IN SETTLEMENT WITH WESTCHESTER MENTAL HEALTH CENTER. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...jun06c_02.html - 7k
"MARTIN ACT" PROPOSED TO CRACK DOWN ON MEDICAID FRAUD
... For More Information: (518) 473-5525, For Immediate Release January 19,
2006. "MARTIN ACT" PROPOSED TO CRACK DOWN ON MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...jan19b_06.html - 8k
[PDF] Medicaid Fraud Control Unit Report 04
... United States Department of Health and Human Services New York State Medicaid Fraud
Control Unit ANNUAL REPORT 2004 ELIOT SPITZER WILLIAM J. COMISKEY New York ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/rep...EPORT_2004.pdf
NYSOAG News: Medicaid Fraud Unit Created in Wake of 1970's ...
... 5256, For Immediate Release April 11, 2000. MEDICAID FRAUD UNIT CREATED IN WAKE OF
1970's NURSING HOME SCANDAL COMMEMORATES 25TH ANNIVERSARY AT BROOKLYN MARRIOTT. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...apr11a_00.html - 12k
TWO ROCHESTER AREA SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS CHARGED WITH ...
... For More Information: 518-473-5525. For Immediate Release June 9, 2006. TWO
ROCHESTER AREA SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS CHARGED WITH MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/jun/jun9b_06.html - 9k
BROOKLYN DENTIST PLEADS GUILTY TO MEDICAID FRAUD & LYING ...
... For More Information: 212 417-5256, For Immediate Release Feb. 4, 2000. BROOKLYN
DENTIST PLEADS GUILTY TO MEDICAID FRAUD & LYING BEFORE GRAND JURY. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...feb04b_00.html - 8k
[PDF] NR Medicaid Fraud - Russian
Page 1. News from Department of Law Department of
Law 120 Broadway The State Capitol New York ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...031706_RUS.pdf
Operator Of Counseling Program Charged With Medicaid Fraud
... For More Information: (917) 747-3861, For Immediate Release October 4, 2001.
OPERATOR OF COUNSELING PROGRAM CHARGED WITH MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...oct04a_01.html - 8k
Manhattan Psychiatrist and Medicaid Recipient Admit to ...
... For More Information: (212) 417-5256, For Immediate Release September 25, 2002.
MANHATTAN PSYCHIATRIST AND MEDICAID RECIPIENT ADMIT TO MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...sep25b_02.html - 7k
MEDICAID FRAUD UNIT REPORTS RECORD FINANCIAL RECOVERIES
... For More Information: 212-417-5256, For Immediate Release April 12, 2005.
MEDICAID FRAUD UNIT REPORTS RECORD FINANCIAL RECOVERIES. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...apr12a_05.html - 10k
Managed Care Provider Pleads Guilty to $275,000 Medicaid ...
... For More Information: (518) 473-5525, For Immediate Release February 14, 2001.
MANAGED CARE PROVIDER PLEADS GUILTY TO $275,000 MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...feb14c_01.html - 11k
Port Chester Pharmacy Owner Sentenced For Medicaid Fraud
... For More Information: 212-416-8060, For Immediate Release December 9, 2005.
PORT CHESTER PHARMACY OWNER SENTENCED FOR MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...dec09a_05.html - 8k
[ More results from www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/dec/ ]
MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT RECOVERS $171 MILLION
... For More Information: 212-417-5256, For Immediate Release October 17,
2005. MEDICAID FRAUD CONTROL UNIT RECOVERS $171 MILLION. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...oct17a_05.html - 10k
[PDF] NR Bronx Medicaid Fraud - Korean
Page 1. Department of Law Department of Law 120 Broadway
State Capitol New York, NY 10271 Albany ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...aud_Korean.pdf
NYSOAG News: Long Island CEO Convicted of $500,000 Medicaid ...
... For More Information: (212) 417-5256, For Immediate Release December 7,
2000. LONG ISLAND CEO CONVICTED OF $500,000 MEDICAID FRAUD. ...
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/200...dec07a_00.html - 8k
[ More results from www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2000/dec/ ]
I'm sorry to say Cindy, it sounds like you want ppl to support what a candidate has accomplished (mainly Suozzi), yet you are leading ignorance, because even though Spitzer has "no comment" on the issues Suozzi is pushing doesn't mean the Attorney General isn't doing his job."MARTIN ACT" PROPOSED TO CRACK DOWN ON MEDICAID FRAUD
New Legislation Would Improve Prosecutors’ Ability to Fight Fraud
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer proposed new Medicaid fraud legislation modeled after the statute he used to bring far-reaching reform to the financial industry.
Spitzer’s proposal, dubbed the "Martin Act for Health Care," removes limitations that hamper prosecution of health care fraud.
"New York State has been a national leader in the recovery of fraudulently obtained Medicaid funds," Spitzer said. "We could do even better if we strengthened the ability of prosecutors to prosecute obvious crimes."
In today’s health care delivery system, approaches to cheating the system by committing fraud have surpassed the dated definitions of larceny. This proposal overcomes the hypertechnical obstacles imposed by current law, and would allow prosecutors to bring cases against Medicaid providers who steal money through half-truths, omissions and deceptions.
The proposal would also help speed investigations and recoveries by providing new investigative tools for law enforcement authorities. For example, one key provision would allow the Attorney General to conduct examinations of Medicaid providers under oath and use the providers’ answers in civil recovery actions.
The Martin Act was used by the Attorney General with great success in prosecutions of fraud by investment banks, mutual funds and insurance companies. Those efforts led to the recovery of more than $6 billion for investors, businesses and the government.
Without Martin Act powers, New York still led the nation in Medicaid fraud recoveries, with $219 million recovered last year. With such powers, the Attorney General believes recoveries would increase significantly.
Spitzer previously introduced several bills aimed at improving Medicaid fraud recoveries and deterring fraud. One would provide financial incentives to those who report incidents of fraud and protects whistle blowers. Another would stiffen penalties for health care-related fraud.
The Attorney General maintains a toll-free tip-line for aid in his fight against Medicaid fraud. To report incidents of fraud or nursing home abuse contact: 866-NYS-FIGHT or (866-697-3444).
A good peice of advice (woodstock-style*) Don't become the wolf in sheep's clothing. You are too smart to be "one of them". All I ask is that (when blogging on the internet) be fair no matter which candidate you (personally) would like to support. I have seen too much to know exactly when a political figure is jumping "in bed" with the higher-up politicals.
IE: *woodstock-style.... would you expect anything less?
If spitzer has a position on any of the above shouldnt he state them?
there is NO law saying he'd have to state that publically. There is also NO LAW saying he has to debate Suozzi. Whether he does or not, it's too bad that sooo many ppl are following Suozzi's agenda against Spitzer vs. what's "being fair" on the internet. It's truly sad that Cindy is "showing strips" like the rest of them. I thought she was smarter than that.Originally Posted by yokes
there is NO law saying he'd have to state that publically. There is also NO LAW saying he has to debate Suozzi. Whether he does or not, it's too bad that sooo many ppl are following Suozzi's agenda against Spitzer vs. what's "being fair" on the internet. It's truly sad that Cindy is "showing strips" like the rest of them. I thought she was smarter than that.
Your correct there is no law.
If you are running for office representing people you owe it to them to say why you are a better candidate for the position in PERSON.
There is no law that says anyone has to debate anybody. Thats not the point. If you have enough confidence in your ability to be governor you will face any challenger front and center. If you are not debating in fear the debate will show you are not as good as the challenger then you shouldn't be governor in the first place.
No one is following anyones agenda and don't twist into something it's not. I suppose your all comfy just accepting who ever the democratic party tells you to pull the lever for.
We would like a debate woodstock. The next governor will handle our future for the next 4 years. Why is it so bad to have a debate?
Buffalo Web Hosting and Graphic Design
www.onlinemedia.net - www.vinyl-graphics.com
Web hosting / Web Design - Signs, Banners, Vehicle Graphics
Oh... thank you soo much Rez for answering for Legislator Cindy Locklear.It's appreciated soo much
You are wrong. A person in a politcal office is all about representing that office "for the ppl". Like the Constitution says.... "we the people..." We don't need pols dictating to us what we should have as a candidate. Let alone YOU telling us what WE should have. and I would like to discuss this topic with Cindy Locklear.... if YOU don't mind - hence the title "CINDY" created by "woodstock"If you are running for office representing people you owe it to them to say why you are a better candidate for the position in PERSON.
I like how you presume.... to think you know sooo much about me. Look at you... on a site called "speakup" dictating what ppl can and can't think.No one is following anyones agenda and don't twist into something it's not. I suppose your all comfy just accepting who ever the democratic party tells you to pull the lever for.
There's no LAW saying there has to be a debate. And our next president will govern for the next 4 years, Our County Executive will govern for the next 4 years. Who gives a crap? My reasons behind this thread is to/for Cindy Locklear (NOT YOU) to stand adjecent to HER ppl vs. HER agenda.We would like a debate woodstock.
Ass, I vote my conscience.I suppose your all comfy just accepting who ever the democratic party tells you to pull the lever for.
This thread is title "Cindy", and I know for sure you're not one of the two on this site ....
no law correct, but if the people who he is asking for votes from ask him about it shouldnt he present his position?there is NO law saying he'd have to state that publically. There is also NO LAW saying he has to debate Suozzi. Whether he does or not, it's too bad that sooo many ppl are following Suozzi's agenda against Spitzer vs. what's "being fair" on the internet. It's truly sad that Cindy is "showing strips" like the rest of them. I thought she was smarter than that.
disclamer - I cannot vote in the spitzer-suozzi primary, nore do I want to I have no agenda either way on what the state democrats should do.
Did I miss something? Has anyone discussed THE debate? It may give some insight into the reason there is not another one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/26/ny...c8e6c2&ei=5070
or:
G. Paul Burnett/The New York Times
Article Tools Sponsored By
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: July 26, 2006
Slashing into each other with pointed and personal attacks during their sole televised debate, the two Democratic candidates for governor sparred last night over tax cuts, gay marriage, the death penalty, marijuana, the Queens blackout, and even their own future presidential ambitions.
The leading candidate, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, faced attack after attack for the full hour from his rival, Nassau County Executive Thomas R. Suozzi, whose own goal of raising his profile may have been helped by a series of memorable disclosures, like his desire to become president and the fact that he does not own an iPod.
Mr. Spitzer, whose political strength has stirred talk of a presidential candidacy in 2012, said that he did not want to be president, but that he did have an iPod.
Following a debate format that was meant to tease out differences, Mr. Spitzer said he believed that private schools were better than public schools and that he could enact universal health coverage as governor. He also pledged to introduce bills to legalize gay marriage and to put convicted terrorists and “cop killers” to death, and said he opposed legalizing marijuana for medical use. Mr. Suozzi disagreed on all of those points.
The debate, which was carried by NY1 and other cable stations statewide, was seen by political analysts as a make-or-break moment for Mr. Suozzi, who has been lagging far behind Mr. Spitzer in public opinion polls and fund-raising. Mr. Spitzer agreed to just this one debate, and it was held seven weeks before the Sept. 12 Democratic primary, at a time when many voters have yet to focus on the race.
Reflecting their tensions, the two men apparently even squared off before the debate. Mr. Suozzi, defying the debate rules, planned to bring a policy briefing book on stage with him. When Mr. Spitzer saw that, he became “very hostile,” Mr. Suozzi told reporters after the debate, “and just started getting angrier and angrier and angrier.”
Mr. Suozzi said that Mr. Spitzer threatened to back out of the debate and accused him of “playing games.”
A spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, Christine Anderson, said Mr. Spitzer was “forceful, not angry,” and said he would participate only if Mr. Suozzi followed the rules.
During the debate, the two Democrats did concur on a few matters: They opposed a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, confirmed that each had smoked marijuana before, and had no problem with allowing children to have cellphones in schools.
As for leadership styles, Mr. Spitzer came across at times like the polysyllabic prosecutor he is and like the charismatic leader he wants to become. There were moments when he spoke in legalisms, like describing the “role of recusal” in some lawsuits, and moments when he wore his heart on his sleeve, using words like “pain and agony” and “tragedy” to describe the suffering of people who had lost electricity in Queens.
Mr. Suozzi, who shares Mr. Spitzer’s alpha male personality and sometimes relies heavily on charm, tweaked Mr. Spitzer for speaking in “a lot of legalese and technicalities.”
Yet Mr. Suozzi did some parsing of his own. He said his opposition to gay marriage had “a lot to do with semantics,” explaining that he supported giving the same rights to gay couples that married couples have — yet, as a Catholic, he saw marriage as a sacrament for a man and a woman.
Mr. Spitzer said that answer was not acceptable. “Semantics is not what this is about — this is about equality,” he said.
While Mr. Suozzi did not run up the score against Mr. Spitzer or deliver any knockouts, he did make some progress toward a goal that has proved elusive: highlighting his differences with Mr. Spitzer and appearing as a credible choice in the Democratic primary.
“New York State government is dysfunctional — both parties are rotten to the core,” Mr. Suozzi said in his opening remarks. He said Mr. Spitzer, as attorney general since 1999, had focused on high-profile lawsuits against Wall Street firms instead of attacking corruption in government.
“He’s never really focused on government reform,” Mr. Suozzi said. “It’s government that’s hurting us.”
Mr. Spitzer, who mostly smiled his way through Mr. Suozzi’s salvos, charged that some of the attacks were “flat-out wrong,” and accused Mr. Suozzi of breaking his pledge to run a clean campaign.
“Every day there’s been another press release which has personal vitriol — 80 percent of them have nothing but venom directed toward me, toward my family,” Mr. Spitzer said. “You called me King George. You said standing up to me was like fighting tyranny. Last time I checked, Tom, we hadn’t taxed any of your tea.”
Skip to next paragraph
The Empire Zone
Empire Zone
Our bloggers deconstruct the debate.
Go to Blog »
Related
Transcript : The Spitzer-Suozzi Debate (July 26, 2006)
Mr. Spitzer’s strongest substantive attack on Mr. Suozzi came over taxes. He noted that as county executive, Mr. Suozzi had once raised property taxes sharply, and accused him of having multiple plans for higher levies.
The two men also clashed over Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s supportive words for the chairman of Consolidated Edison, Kevin M. Burke, who has been assailed by Queens residents for not being upfront about the scope of the power losses in the borough. Mr. Spitzer said that when he heard Mr. Bloomberg’s supportive comments, “I was stunned that he said it.”
Mr. Suozzi, meanwhile, said he was “in no position to second-guess Mayor Bloomberg,” and he used an Italian expression to cast doubt on Mr. Spitzer’s view that officials should look into the blackouts and act on recommendations for improvement.
“Watch the hands; don’t listen to the mouth,” Mr. Suozzi said.
Mr. Spitzer also found himself on the defensive over an ongoing lawsuit to increase state funds for New York City public schools.
First, Mr. Suozzi assailed Mr. Spitzer for litigating the case; Mr. Spitzer said he could not pick and choose cases based on his personal preferences. Later, in response to a question, Mr. Spitzer said he had identified $11 billion in government savings to put toward ending the lawsuit and cutting property taxes. At the same time, Mr. Spitzer said that no one — including himself — could provide a “specific” dollar amount that would go toward public schools.
That answer drew a skeptical retort from Mr. Suozzi and the debate panelist who asked the question, Brian Lehrer of WNYC radio. Mr. Spitzer, for the first time, said that he would spend $4 billion to $6 billion on schools, while Mr. Suozzi said he would spend $2.5 billion.
Aside from the political cut-and-thrust, last night also gave New Yorkers a taste of some of the political questions that will confront voters this fall: Would Mr. Spitzer be so beholden to party bosses and health care unions that he would balance their interests with his promises to overhaul Medicaid and expand charter schools?
Would New York’s political culture, after 12 years of Gov. George E. Pataki, benefit from a shake-up that a bomb-thrower like Mr. Suozzi might provide?
For now, Mr. Spitzer has plenty of reason to feel confident: A Siena College poll on Monday gave Mr. Spitzer a 69-point lead over Mr. Suozzi, and he has $16.3 million on hand compared to Mr. Suozzi’s $2.8 million. Mr. Faso has $1.4 million in the bank.
* 1
* 2
Thanks for the article, Speaker. It's much more informative than Cindy's paraphrasing Spitzer "No specifics."
I have to agree with woodstock here. That's shady.
OMG OMG HA HAThis thread is title "Cindy", and I know for sure you're not one of the two on this site ....
You presume there are assume there are only 2 Ciny's on this site? OMG HA
Do you know that for sure?
Can you please provide a link?
My thought exactly. To her benefit, Cindy is a very smart person, detailed and educated, I'd just hate to see her make a mistake over the internet. (but, you know I still gotta be "woodstock" about it though
Oh, Speaker, I saw highlites of that debate on some news channel. That was where both Suozzi & Spitzer said "yes" to having smoked weed before.
I dont know if you bothered to read the post or you are just chiming in for "fun" but I was not the one who Paraphrased Mr. Spitzer's alarming lack of comment. My Blogpost links directly to an article on Poughkeepsi Journal.com which ran that text as a "sidebar". Yes, I personally found it to be informative and telling, but I just set it up as a post without any editorializing. The fact that some of you find it 'shady' is interesting tho.
It's funny cuz the top Suozzi's campainging issues are the Wicks Law, the Workers’ compensation system, the Scaffold Law and the Taylor Law. All 4 of which you have listed Spitzer as "no comment". Go figure.
..............
I wanted to let you know that while (as a candidate for Governor) he hasn't a comment on these issues but has, however, been prosecuting fraud of the same as our Attorney General.
,..................
I'm sorry to say Cindy, it sounds like you want ppl to support what a candidate has accomplished (mainly Suozzi), yet you are leading ignorance, because even though Spitzer has "no comment" on the issues Suozzi is pushing doesn't mean the Attorney General isn't doing his job.
A good peice of advice (woodstock-style*) Don't become the wolf in sheep's clothing. You are too smart to be "one of them". All I ask is that (when blogging on the internet) be fair no matter which candidate you (personally) would like to support. I have seen too much to know exactly when a political figure is jumping "in bed" with the higher-up politicals.
IE: *woodstock-style.... would you expect anything less? [/QUOTE
IF you will go here You will see that the Monday Post from my Blog which is quoted in your initial post is the text of a "sidebar" to an article i found on line. The link to the Article Leads my post.
It was not I who assembled the list of Issues nor the respective responses of the Candidates. A journalist/reporter for the Poughkeepsie Journal did the legwork. I merely found it informative and worthy of sharing. I did not edit or editorialize the text. I did format it for easier reading but I did not take the perjorative step you did and highlight the anemic Spitzer responses (although I did consider it) So given the fact that I merely posted an article with a link attributing its original source, without further comment, how do you possible cast me as a "wolf in sheep's clothing".
IF Candidate Spitzer looks as if he is non specific on the arrayed issues, that's his own fault.
I do have to say tho that I personally believe that those 4 specific issues have a lot to do with WNY's moribound state. So personally, I like Suozzi for having declared details on the RECORD on those issues.
Both Spitzer and Souzzi are strong vs Medicaid Fraud and abuse. That's good. But Spitzer's record as a prosecutor against Medicaid Fraud (ie, doing his job as a Prosecutor) does not give him a Leg Up over Suozzi on the Issue. Suozzi, to HIS Credit lobbied and pioneered and got the medicaid cap... Now that's a real step to reforming the issue.
oops!You will see that the Monday Post from my Blog which is quoted in your initial post is the text of a "sidebar" to an article i found on line. The link to the Article Leads my post.
It was not I who assembled the list of Issues nor the respective responses of the Candidates. A journalist/reporter for the Poughkeepsie Journal did the legwork. I merely found it informative and worthy of sharing. I did not edit or editorialize the text. I did format it for easier reading but I did not take the perjorative step you did and highlight the anemic Spitzer responses (although I did consider itBut an easy mistake to make.
On http://www.insideout.wnymedia.net/ under the heading "Side By Side Comparison on Upstate Issues"
Monday, August 7, 2006
The Poughkeepsie Journal was hidden under a link titled "On the issues:", had it of said "from this link" or "from the Poughkeepsie Journal" I wouldn't have said ½ of what I did here. I truly am sorry, but just by looking at the blog.... it really does look like your work because the link wasn't specific enough, nor was it in quotes. Is it too late to take back the "wolf in sheep's clothes"? So even if updating the link to something a little more specific might prevent others from reading it as your words. HA, better to hear it from me than a would-be voter in your district.
Woodstock; I see what you mean. Will update it to be more clear. Sort of a Rookie Blogger error on my part.oops!
On http://www.insideout.wnymedia.net/ under the heading "Side By Side Comparison on Upstate Issues"
Monday, August 7, 2006
The Poughkeepsie Journal was hidden under a link titled "On the issues:", had it of said "from this link" or "from the Poughkeepsie Journal" I wouldn't have said ½ of what I did here. I truly am sorry, but just by looking at the blog.... it really does look like your work because the link wasn't specific enough, nor was it in quotes. Is it too late to take back the "wolf in sheep's clothes"? So even if updating the link to something a little more specific might prevent others from reading it as your words. HA, better to hear it from me than a would-be voter in your district.
Here It Is:
Ok, not only did i correct the link and make it clearer per Woodstock's suggestion; but I also posted an article... Rez; maybe some new readers will sign up!
http://www.insideout.wnymedia.net/archives/28
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions