| Author |
Message |
    
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15095
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 7:17 pm: | 
|
Hmmmm. Oh look! A personal letter from Frederico. Let me open it. Hmmmm he says that I should vote for Ken and Kathy. That's sure surprising.
(Ken and Kathy are) "highly intelligent creative visionaries" ...."Maplewood needs Ken and Kathy...Let's keep a good thing going!"
Visionaries? Sure they wear glasses but they're not visionaries. The only candidate in the whole election who is a visionary is Jamie.
Oh look a letter from Dave the Rave. I wonder what this one says. Hmmmm.
"given the 19.3% municipal tax increase since Pettis and Leventhal took office - increases they voted for! - We need to change."
Hmmmm. But that would also mean that we need to vote the rest out including DTR next year using the same logic.
I always love how the TC members who author these endorsement letters don't seem to grasp that they become fair game for the exact same criticisms that they level at others.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2736
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Glad you have so much fun reading your mail. All I get are bills!  |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15096
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 7:31 pm: |
|
That's because I keep sending mine over to you. |
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 284
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 2, 2006 - 7:37 pm: |
|
sben,
wait until you start getting the phone calls! i received the strangest call from someone running for district leader. the call went on much too long and was extremely over the top. it made me realize there are some really strange goings-on here in mapleberry. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5471
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, June 3, 2006 - 9:40 am: |
|
Mr. Sbenois -
You didn't mention one of the better parts of Mr. Profeta's letta -
"Together with Vic De Luca, Ken and Kathy are tireless public servants ..."
Somehow, Mr. De Luca's name gets dropped into an endorsement for Mr. Pettis and Ms. Leventhal.
I could have sworn that they both ran against him three years ago in the primary, in order to toss him out of office - wait, I just checked, and yes, they did.
I also could have sworn that Mr. De Luca's name is on an advertisement for Mr. Lewis-Powder and Ms. Adams, in this week's News-Record - wait, I just checked, and yes, it is.
I also was wondering if that sentence was somehow a backhanded insult directed to the fifth member of the Township Committee. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15098
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 3, 2006 - 9:53 am: |
|
Yes I did see that and was equally amused by it.
Of course, given the fact that one week Vic and Fred are on the same side and the next they're not and then they are and then they aren't, perhaps this was an on week?
I've lost track.
BTW: I think the backhanded insult was this one:
Ken and Kathy know how to speak their minds minds forcefully, how to debate respectfully, and, at the same time, how to strive for consensus.
|
pcs81632
Citizen
Username: Pcs81632
Post Number: 39
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, June 3, 2006 - 10:56 am: |
|
My letter arrived with a dent in it. Any chance it got between the 5th member of the TC and the gate on Hickory? |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 3, 2006 - 11:58 pm: |
|
Sbenois,
You appear to be one of the more astute, and better informed, participants in this wonderful on-line community (and you did bring up the ugly tax thing) so:
Mr. Lewis-Powder and Ms. Adams' literature claims that municipal property taxes have increased more than 19% during the tenure of Mr. Pettis and Ms. Levanthal.
On the other hand, Mr. Pettis and Ms. Levanthal's literature claims that such taxes have increased by less than 16%.
Which of the two sets of candidates are closer to reality?
TomR |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7560
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
TomR:
Percentage of tax increase is difficult to compute. First you have to define "municipal property taxes" (do we include sewer taxes, green space taxes, property owner rebates?), next you have to define "the base year" on which you are performing your initial calculations (calendar year vs fiscal year, first quarter vs third quarter), and finally you have to determine whether these calculations are based on compounding.
Whether the increase has been approximately 16% or approximately 19%, the end result is that we have seen a marked increase in taxes over this period. To properly evaluate this increase we need to look at what caused it (mandated expenditures, increase in cost of providing existing services, increase in new services, need to make extensive repairs or replace too-old machinery which was put off in prior years to keep taxes more level but could no longer be ignored, long term cost savings resulting from short term increases, etc.) and what impact it had on the lives of Maplewood home owners, and the rate of turnover in Maplewood homes that could be attributed in significant part to this tax increase. It would also be helpful to see how our rate of real property tax increase compares with that of surrounding suburban municipalities. Without doing this analysis, they are just numbers. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7561
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:36 am: |
|
Here are a few questions you did not ask which I find more central to the issue:
1. What votes did Ken and/or Kathy cast during their two and a half years on the TC which contributed to these tax increases? Remember TC decisions require only three votes to pass -- Ken and/or Kathy could have cast a nay vote and the measure(s) leading to tax increases could still have passed.
2. What was the alternative? Would tax rates have gone even higher if different decisions which impacted on the Town's budget were made or if certain decisions were/weren't avoided/postponed? What role did Ken and/or Kathy play in keeping municipal costs down and avoiding even higher increases? |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 536
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:46 am: |
|
Joan,
The incumbents themselves have invited voters to measure -- with numbers -- how well they kept they promises they made to voters three years ago.
TomR's question wasn't directed to me so I'll not answer it. I'll only add that to my recollection Ken and Kathy promised the first time they ran that they would would cap municipal taxes so that they didn't rise faster than the Consumer Price Index. They didn't.
And since this thread is about the new police station, Ken and Kathy's campaign literature uses langauge that makes it appear that Ken and Kathy kept a promise to improve police facilities by establishing Springfield Avenue as the location for new police station. Ken opposed locating the new police station on Springfield Avenue.
Also, while Ken and Kathy didn't promise to install surveillance cameras in as-yet-undisclosed places in Maplewood, I would have found their re-election literature more stand-up had they not omitted it and let Democratic primary voters decide if this was how they wanted their tax dollars spent. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11712
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 9:49 am: |
|
An interesting point is that the firts interation of the budget to come before the TC maybe a month ago would have been around twice the tax increase as in the recent past. Only one TC member voted in favor. Who? The wanna be Mayor, David Huemer who has spent heavily in support of Nancy and Lester's campaign. He donated (according to a post here by a very reliable poster) $5,000 to their campaign fund. If elected, I wonder how Nancy and Lester will vote? |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 538
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
Show of hands: Who believes the wanna-be-mayor-forever Fred Profeta isn't spending heavily in support of the Ken and Kathy campaign fund plus the district leader races?
Should residents of West Oraange start guessing how Ken and Kathy would vote if elected, especially if David Huemer runs for re-election next year?
????
Maybe a good question to ask is: Who is most responsibly concernced about maintaining a sufficient surplus to offset the impact of another reval in Maplewood?
|
Fruitcake
Citizen
Username: Fruitcake
Post Number: 299
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 12:05 pm: |
|
How would a surplus offset the impact of a reval? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11715
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 12:58 pm: |
|
First of Kathleen Fred isn't a wannabe. He is the Mayor. 
I think Kathy and, especially, Ken have shown themselves to be independent during their term on the TC inspite of where their campaign funding has come from.
You are correct that I don't have a vote and, for the most part, other than to provide some perspective I have kept out of the discussions here and to remind people of various facts, so often omitted here on MOL.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2746
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Do you folks believe you are going to get any answers two days before the Primary that you have not gotten before? |
algebra2
Supporter
Username: Algebra2
Post Number: 4095
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Regarding our taxes rising, don't forget that Ken and Kathy snuck the open spaces/green acres "trust fund" referendum onto November's ballot, which passed. That's a sneaky tax increase that K & K don't have to take responsibility for, but nevertheless each homeowners share is determined by the value of their property, which indeed makes it a further increase in our municipal taxes. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 539
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 2:07 pm: |
|
So why insinuate, Bob, that Nancy and Lester won't? Were you able to watch the debate from your home in West Orange? Both Nancy and Lester gave very good answers about their histories of working with Vic, David and Fred -- some are long histories and some are short histories -- and Lester in particular was quite witty in declaring his political independence.
You don't have a scrap of information that indicates they won't be, just baseless insinuations.
(And I didn't say Fred was the wanna-be Mayor. I said he was the wanna-be-FOREVER Mayor. When are you getting those new glasses?)
Fruitcake,
Even Vic DeLuca has gone on the record as saying that the lack of a surplus in the last reval meant that it was impossible to cushion the blow for homeowners whose taxes burden went up dramatically.
Anon,
My questions were rhetorical. Are yours too?
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2749
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Yup, I guess so. |
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 287
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Today's Pettis & Lenenthal flyer has arrived. Of note:
"Our opposition and their supporters on the Township Commttee want to remove Fred Profeta as Mayor in 2007."
"REMEMBER: Unaffiliated voters can vote in the primary."
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15104
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 5:07 pm: |
|
You received a flyer on a Sunday? |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2751
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 5:08 pm: |
|
I saw that. Technically the term of Mayor is only one year so remove is incorrect. In fact the flyer then goes on to say:
"We think that he deserves equal consideration with other TC members for Mayor in 2007". Of course he does, but that contradicts the language about removal.
And do K&K believe Mr. Huemer "deserves equal consideration with other TC members for Mayor in 2007"?
(There is already a boomlet for Jamie Ross for Mayor) |
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 288
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 5:57 pm: |
|
s-
indeed. it was left on the front porch. |
Aquaman
Supporter
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 934
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, June 4, 2006 - 11:38 pm: |
|
Shestheone,
The flyer makes it real clear that Ken and Kathy are just pawns in the game of who will be Mayor in 2007.
I read it thrice.
Besides the slug on top it says nothing about K & K, it's all about Profeta,
Refreshing really.
Ken and Kathy are beholden to Fred Profeta,
Phew! At least that's out of the way.
A vote for Ken and Kathy means nothing about lower taxes, open spaces, or shared services.
The truth is in the last minute campaigning.
A vote for K & K is a vote for Fred Profeta to be Mayor next year.
Do the voters of Maplewood really want to elect candidates who have their minds made up before they cast their votes?
|
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1622
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 12:31 am: |
|
Had to laugh when I saw Huemer's letter and his comment about the tax increase. Kind of hypocritical on his part, he hasn't seen a tax increase he didn't like and basically has acted as a rubber stamp for Super H when he was on the BOSE. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14594
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:00 pm: |
|
I agree that Fred's implication that Vic endorses Ken and Kathy is deceitful.
|
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 6255
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Aquaman,
Kan and Kathy are NOT beholden to Fred, they support him. What is with you and all this bitter sounding twistedness? Did you get snubbed or something? |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 7566
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Aquaman:
Your last post makes me wonder which candidates you are actually supporting in tomorrow's election. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 5:41 pm: |
|
Hey did anyone receive the "crime is down police morale is up" flyer from K&K? A bunch of high schoolers (?) were handing them out in the Hilton Section yesterday (Sunday) bragging how they are responsible for the lower crime rates in Maplewood.
I also read it thrice and had a hunch. Since I was mowing the lawn I stopped th next distributor and asked them this question.
"Are they handing this flyer out in ALL of Maplewood or just the Hilton Section?"
The response was polite and courteous, almost rehearsed sounding:
"K&K asked us to start handing these out in the Hilton Section and then move our way over SA..."
I will refrain from my usual sarcasm, but I will aks again. Did anyone NOT living Hilton get one of these flyers?
-SLK
|
Fruitcake
Citizen
Username: Fruitcake
Post Number: 302
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Oh heavens, targeted messages from politicians. Say it isn't so! |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9731
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Using kids?
well, as long as they're paid I guess it's ok. |
algebra2
Supporter
Username: Algebra2
Post Number: 4096
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Up here in the tax zone I got the Keep Fred as Mayor Forever flyer.
How is the opposition going to "remove" Profeta anyhow? Impeach him? Move his chair over?
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 7:42 pm: |
|
Noglider,
How do you arrive at the conclusion that Fred implies that Vic endorses Ken and Kathy?
Curious here in Maplewood.
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1128
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 7:46 pm: |
|
SLK,
Yes, I received the flyer in question on Sunday, and I do not live in the Hilton section.
TomR |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 15112
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:00 pm: |
|
By mentioning Vic in the letter, it gives the impression that there is some level of tacit approval for K&K.
Regarding your previous question on taxes, I do believe that the difference is attributable to compounding.
But the increases could not be helped and there is no member of the TC who is more fiscally responsible than Ken Pettis. Indeed, I fully plan on voting for Ken tomorrow based upon his strong track record of serving this community for not only the past three years but also for the ten years prior to them.
Ken is easily the most pragmatic, thought provoking member of the TC and it's hard to see how any candidate for the TC in the past five years is more deserving of being re-elected.
Two years ago on the BOSE discussions, it was Ken who brought all of the silliness between DTR and Frederico to an end. Ken came up with target numbers that he believed struck a balance between the needs of the district and the ability of taxpayers to cover it.
And no member of the TC is more independent minded and willing to challenge both sides of the current split than Mr. Pettis. Three years ago the notion was that Ken was Fred's guy. Three years later, that notion is long forgotten because of Ken's words and actions which at some points were so contrary to Frederico's thoughts that I often wondered what their deep rift was about.
But the rift appeared to be limited to Ken's determination to view issues on their own merit - something which he deserves great praise for.
Indeed, Mr. Pettis is probably the only one of the five TC members who is both capable of being the Mayor and serving in that role without having to plot every last vote and move to the nth degree.
While Ken is not perfect (he is a Cub fan after all) he's so far above the other three candidates in skill, knowledge and logical thought that voting for him is easy.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1130
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Sbenois,
Thanks for the thought on compounding the tax increases, but I had already considered and dismissed that possibility. When I ran the numbers published by Mr. Pettis and Ms. Leventhal I came up with 15.8%. So that isn't it.
As for Noglider's inference as to what he claims Fred has implied, I'll wait for Noglider to respond.
Thanks again for the thought on compounding, and for keeping the discourse intelligent.
TomR |
shestheone
Citizen
Username: Shestheone
Post Number: 289
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 9:52 pm: |
|
sbenois,
well said! |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 543
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Even if were prepared to agree that Ken is the best fiscal head on the TC (which I'm certainly not), he's not running against other members of the TC. He's running against challengers with a lot more day-in-day-out professional experience with the financial and investment realities of redevelopment and youth program issues than he has or can acquire in the next 3 years -- and both those challengers are light years beyond Kathy Levanthal.
I applaud Ken's history of Maplewood service, but I'm not sentimental: Our tax dollars could be spent, in my view, in much smarter ways than things like surveillance cameras and big police stations, with greater immediate returns to the community in terms of BOTH education and policing. Political considerations of getting re-elected should not dictate sound fiscal practice. Maplewood needs to maintain a healthy surplus; we need to invest in youth programs; we need some restaint on police spending that isn't directly tied to crime prevention.
If you tilt your head to the right, Ken might very well appear to be most fiscally responsible member of the TC. But we are now paying far more in debt service costs -- for which we get zero, zilch, zip -- in services than we might otherwise with better fiscal management. What has happened in Maplewood is the usual Republican scam: scream that liberals are not "fiscally responsible" but once in office, run up a huge public debt in order to give the wealthy tax relief. The only budget item that gets sufficient funding is "security" -- supersized police stations and surveillance.
Ken may appear fiscally responsible if you find statwide property tax reform threatening. But his failure to expend any political energy to move the ball forward in that arena to me is the definition of fiscally irresponsible for Maplewood's property-tax-stressed families.
And Ken's taking a "nick" out of children's education, not only for Maplewood but South Orange, to please Maplewood's Taxpayers on the Hill was hardly the shining moment of his political career. Ken continually cites his "independence" from Fred, but that was a Fred managed moment, and Ken always returns to Fred's fold and has been set in his mind about depriving David Huemer of the rotation to the mayor's chair for quite some time. (If he wants the mayor's chair for himself, he should level with the voters. And he should think harder about how to act politically with respect to getting genuine property tax reform if he wants to be our spokesperson.)
Ken's and Kathy's challengers are offering Maplewood's taxpayers very real expertise and commitment to delivering rational progress on the issues most on our minds: taxes and crime.
|
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 6267
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:16 pm: |
|
"Ken's and Kathy's challengers are offering Maplewood's taxpayers very real expertise and commitment to delivering rational progress on the issues most on our minds: taxes and crime."
I could tell by that very helpful and insightful parking flyer. It said it all.
Ugh. Swamptalk.
|
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4745
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Yo. Good one mem.
Maybe you could help me, I'm having a hard time finding that kathleen post with all the sh*t imagery. It's on one of these threads around here. It was a classic! |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2560
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:23 pm: |
|
mem, ffof, don't shoot the messenger. Vote for who you want but please vote for who YOU want not who the powers that be want. Thanks.
Wendy |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4746
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:38 pm: |
|
wendy- shooting the messenger can be great sport! Fortunately, I don't think anyone would claim kathleen to be their messenger no matter what or who she's ragging on. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 6268
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Wendy,
I would never vote for the powers that be unless they deserved it. If you are referring to kathleen as being the messenger, all we are gathering from these messages is a lot of vague speak about sh*t, manure, and serious personal dislike and bias.
That flyer was bad news. It was childish, embarrasssing, very telling and even a mudslinger like kathleen denounced it.
We are exhausted of bad mouthing, schoolyard posturing and desperateness, it does not display the integrity, intelligence, hard work and honesty that I have seen with Fred and Ken and Kathy.
These are the kind of people who should run Maplewood. This town is not the bad joke that their opposition is making it to be.
|
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2561
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Mem,
I also denounce the flyer and all other negative campaigning on both sides. I also disdain "bad mouthing, schoolyard posturing and desperateness." Where we disagree is that I don't think the "opposition" is painting a picture of or in any way indicating that Maplewood is a "bad joke." I applaud all four candidates for being willing to serve our community. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 6271
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:42 pm: |
|
Wendy my friend,
Personally, all I know from this "opposition" is that I met Nancy once and thought she was very nice and capable, but then that awful "parking flyer"?, which was so disrespectful to all of us that live in Maplewood, not to mention a waste of money for the "opposition". I can't think she was the one who approved it. Wherever it came from did not even take into consideration what an amazingly dedicated, hard working guy Ken is.
We also applaud any candidates that are willing to serve the community, god knows it's a thankless job.
Cheers.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14609
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 5, 2006 - 11:59 pm: |
|
To TomR, Fred Profeta and the rest of Maplewood, I apologize for my hasty conclusion. Fred assures me he didn't mean to deceive anyone, and I take his word on face value. Mine was an unfortunate misunderstanding of his words.
|
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1624
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:19 am: |
|
Dear Fred, Vic, Dave, Ken, Kathy, Nancy, & Lester:
Please grow up.
Thank you. |
Hank Zona
Supporter
Username: Hankzona
Post Number: 5645
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 12:27 am: |
|
you forgot to list the operatives. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 1626
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 8:50 am: |
|
Gotta start with the folks giving the orders.... |
fmertz
Citizen
Username: Fmertz
Post Number: 121
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:37 am: |
|
Why would someone vote for two people that are either too naive to know not to send out such a negative and sleazy add or just following the orders of Vic and David? Either answer is not good. |
kathleen
Citizen
Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 546
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 9:45 am: |
|
Tom Reingold,
I have a Hilton Village in Maplewood where I'd like to sell you some property. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14611
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 5:41 pm: |
|
kathleen, I know it's sometimes naive to take words from anyone -- Fred, David Huemer, you, me, anyone else -- on face value. I don't care to join a camp yet, so I will treat everyone with equal (dis)respect currently.
|
John Davenport
Citizen
Username: Jjd
Post Number: 615
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Kathleen, I'm very surprised by the way you have spoken on this thread. I don't know Bob K personally, but I recognize the abbrev as one of the most level-headed long-time posters on Maplewood Online. I don't care if he lives in West Orange. I really have to say that you went over the top on this thread. You owe people apologies. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page