| Author | Message | ||
     jayjay Citizen Username: Jayjayp Post Number: 157 Registered: 6-2005 |
Dave- Are you sure you don't want to re-think your statement that "there is a big financial incentive here?" A financial incentive to whom, may I ask? | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2679 Registered: 5-2001  |
Jim, Unfortunately, I did not receive your PL. In fact, for some reason I have stopped receiving all emails from MOL recently, including notifications of new posts. You can email me at vze25ckb@verizon.net | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2680 Registered: 5-2001 |
No - the intention is to stop a $250,000 increase in our tax bill
If Tony Smith's widow was so interested in South Orange, how about: - buying the naming rights for SOPAC and have it called the Tony Smith Arts Center - making a monetary contribution to the school district for Arts classes - creating a scholarship fund for a South Orange student who wants to pursue a degree in Art The "gift" she is giving doesn't cost her a dime & simply is a tax write-off for her. If the Village is so interested in "honoring a local son", how about: -Renaming a Street in his honor -Renaming a Park in his honor -Putting up a sign at the Train Station: "South Orange - home of Seton Hall and former home of Tony Smith" -Rename the Baird Center to the "Tony Smith Center" etc etc All of these ideas won't cost the taxpayers $250,000 and it will accomplish the same end result of honoring the "towering icon" named Tony Smith. | ||
| SO1969 Citizen Username: Bklyn1969 Post Number: 77 Registered: 7-2004 |
What an astounding coincidence. I've just picked up this thread tonight - just back from vacation - and just last night walking from the train station with my wife I commented on how great I thought the gazebo was. It is a terrific complement to the streetscape and surrounding architecture. Now folks want to displace it with a piece of art that I don't necessarily find unattractive on its own, but definitely do not want to see at that location. The lack of public input, sense of responsibility about taxpayer dollars, thinking about future cost of maintenance,etc. is what I'm coming to accept as par for the SO course - that is something so striking about the gazebo and sloan street generally - it is an area that the Village seemed to be getting things right. What a shame. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 165 Registered: 5-2004  |
Dave, I'm not certain, but it seemed as if your last post was directed to me. It is unclear because it was addressed to "You". For the purposes of this post, I'll assume that it was meant for me since my post preceded yours. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth or trying to restate my "intentions". I know precisely what I mean to say and have been consistent in all posts on this thread. I do not simply mean to "turn away a $250K grant." However, as I have clearly stated, IMO using a grant intended to assist local governments with improving low income housing, and increasing local jobs, etc. to erect a piece of public art is questionable. And if our township is using CDBG funds, I would expect they would follow the laws of disclosure and solicit active involement of the affected community. I am not a lawyer, and simply have drawn my own conclusions based on what I've read from sources I've sited. I also asked for MRosner's input and received it. If YOU are paying attention you already know all this. Not paying attention is not an excuse to reverse a process that has not only been open and has involved many people, but continues to be open in terms of placing the sculpture. You know the moment I became aware of this situation, because you - very kindly - posted a link to this thread for me - which I thanked you for. I won't go into my personal reasons for not attending BOT meetings/lack of Cable, etc. It's old boring news. But I got up to speed very quickly, as have many others who are learning about this project for the first time. And rather than simply gripe about it on MOL, I'm getting "active" sending letters, sharing information & encouraging others to do the same. There is a reason this is the most popular current thread - have you ever had one with more posts in the same amount of time? People are very motivated by the prospect that this is almost a "done deal" and want to be heard before we lose the opportunity. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a firm believer in democracy. I encourage people to be informed & vote in elections - sometimes helping them be informed whether they want to be or not. And I readily accept the outcome and move on. I am perfectly prepared to have this sculpture in our town - as stated several times previously - AS LONG AS THE TAXPAYERS ARE FULLY INFORMED IN ADVANCE, AND ARE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE OUTCOME. You say this process has been open and has involved many people. I completely dispute that. To date, nothing has been published to make the average citizen aware of the situation. In contrast to the situation with the proposed large lighted orange atop a big pole that was considered several years ago, the town has not solicited public input by publishing the details in the Gas Light. Do you remember that, Dave? Didn't you appreciate having the opportunity to stop that one in its tracks? You've previously posted that S. Orange has nothing to do with the citrus fruit (and I agree). Some considered that public art too. MRosner told me there was a lot of support for it. So, should any and all forms of proposed public art be funded and installed, to hell with the boring financial details? Some will always like, some will always dislike and in a democracy, we are supposed to get the opportunity to vote, with the majority making the determination. I get THAT. I hope I have made myself clear. Please PL me if you want to continue as I truly am tired of publically repeating myself. }} | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7136 Registered: 4-1997  |
This is a lie. Besides, if I really wanted to prevent people from organizing against great artistic achievements by native sons I would simply delete this entire topic. | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 380 Registered: 4-2005  |
Sheena's Thoughts... Okay I'm going to attempt to be a voice of reason on this board which can sometimes be challenging... MHD and Pdg - I'm not very inclined to take out the portion of a "partnership" in the resolution because I don't think this is a zero sum game. ***The statue (regardless of costs and location) is beneficial to town. It doesn't even have to do with the aesthetics because I personally don't get it. But guess what? The artist community does. People like Dave do. Obviously there are members of our community who want this and we have to respect that.*** The purpose of the petition I drafted was to: - Raise awareness and engage people in discussion - At the end of the day, I and whoever else wants to, will present it to the BOT and ask them to consider our research and opinions on the matter. Old & Gray - A referendum is a very difficult process which costs money and it takes away attention from very important matters. I suppose you can put an issue like this on a ballot during an election year... but I don't see it happening anytime soon (IMHO - this issue is not one that deserves a referendum). MHD - Don't post the petition just yet. I have a couple meetings tomorrow to get all the facts straight and I'll have some new budgeting information available to all of you hopefully by tomorrow. I don't want people to sign something that may not yet be entirely accurate (that's why it's a draft). My basic point is this - there are people in town who could care less about SOPAC and yet there's some of us who are dying for it. There are people in town who would cut all taxes and have each of us individually provide our own services and others would prefer to have government provide services. Heck, I'm sure there are libertarians in our community who feel that government should only protect "property" and all this is complete non-sense in their eyes. We have a very diverse community with different opinions and you have to weigh all of them equally. That's why I'm glad Dave has his skewed little petition in circulation as well (You're the best Dave  ). Not to sound like a fortune cookie but I think all of us can generally agree with the basics of what we'd like South Orange to be. It's a matter of a means in which we get there which is up for debate. We have to have our priorities and right now we have "higher priority projects" that need this funding - which is why I suggest a partnership, etc. That's Diplomacy at it's Best... Oh and MHD - the "language" on the site is not something I would endorse. I would rather we take a direction of being proactive in change rather than reactive with negativity (Yes - everyone can go ahead and blame it on my young age or whatever...) When I get more "facts" I will post them here. And Trustee Rosner, with all due respect I don't appreciate your agreement with Steel's statement that the people who care about this issue have "other reasons" for caring about the issue. I guarantee you that I don't fall into a pit of people who have nothing to do but bash the BOT.. I'm just happen to be an opinionated person... But I won't hold this one against you, lol. That's all for now  | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7137 Registered: 4-1997 |
Log of private messages sent through MOL. Sheena, did you receive your messages?  | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 381 Registered: 4-2005 |
You're a slick one... yes I did, lol (however my spam picks them up from time to time and I don't get them until I check my spam box). But I don't think MHD was implying that you did some behind the scenes work - he may just be having computer problems or something... I dunno. | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 382 Registered: 4-2005 |
Pizzaz - I'm poster 250... who's more special now  (neener neener neener) | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7138 Registered: 4-1997 |
Whitelist the southorangevillage.com address that sends them. I think MHD is taking this thing too personally. Lighten up, dude. MHD even deleted my entry from his guestbook. Heck, at least I permit dissenting opinions. Debate on in a nice way, all.... | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1421 Registered: 5-2004  |
Dave, unless MHD edited his post, I didn't see that as an accusation against MOL. He uses Verizon, and they have been among the least competent at managing their spam filters (an the SBLs that they use),,, | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2681 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, Whoa....I NEVER accused YOU of blocking Privatelines. Seriously....I have not received any PLs or notifications of new messsages on MOL for several weeks. I had a similar problem several months ago & you (or Jamie) worked with Verizon (my ISP) to troubleshoot and fix the issue. It seems to have reoccurred. I will re-post the issue on the "Tech Support" section of MOL for Jamie to look at again. So, PDG & Jim Murphy, please re-send whatever you sent me to vze25ckb@verizon.net, until the technical issue is resolved. However...as for "dissenting opinions", Dave, your "petition" only allows people who want the statue. Likewise, my "petition" is just for people who want the excessive spending to stop. | ||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 2266 Registered: 11-2001  |
Sheena: This discussion might go on for another 250 posts. So let's talk politics. Do you know why it should cost $250K to build. Sounds awfully excessive to me. Unless of course the CBDG fund is tapped for other reasons. Does CBDG grants allow for the purchase and installation of artwork? I don't know, but perhaps we'll find out. BTW: Should other funding priorities be given more consideration by our elected BoT over this one for the amount in excess of grant allowances? Monies for worthy considerations such as the funding for a DRMC, or rehabilitation of Village Hall, or the Duck Pond or the Public Works garage, or infrastructure repairs, or ???? The issue is setting priorities and engaging the public's approval. That's all for post 254. I feel so so special.  | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 166 Registered: 5-2004 |
MHD, will resend. Dave, I sort of thought private messages, and their titles, were actually private - as in the recipient would be the only one to see them. Now everyone knows I "privately" nagged Sheena to quit smoking... Me thinks you might just be the one taking this personally and getting a little too worked up... | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 167 Registered: 5-2004 |
Pizzaz - You raise some good points! However, I think you've got some misinformation - MRosner correct me if I'm wrong, please. The total projected cost for "everything" to do with getting the sculpture in place, excluding the unknown future required maintenance, and costs related to the original installation of the fountain/gazebo, and obviously the "gift" of the design, IS $440,000. Of that, I understand a CDBG grant has been received by the township for $250,000 to be put 100% toward the sculpture. And local artists have been able to fundraise $30,000. Leaving $160,000, to be footed by S.O. property taxes. (I'm not sure if that amount includes money that will be due to some consultants on the project) Of course, this is all just hearsay, because our government has not yet published the actual facts in the newpaper, the GasLight, or even on its official website, which I urge them to do as soon as possible. | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 383 Registered: 4-2005 |
Pdg - you hit it on the head with the $$bling bling $$... (nag), lol. Pizzaz - I'm assuming that CDBG funds would allow artwork (see the resolution) since the artwork falls within the "redevelopment zone" - no sense in saying I agree with that. When I read that HUD was involved... I'm thinking to myself "why is South Orange applying for this grant?" I agree with your assesment of "priorities" and I wrote similarly the same thing in my last post. We agree again?! Ah life is good & you are special. Peace in the Middle East | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7140 Registered: 4-1997 |
 | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 386 Registered: 4-2005 |
 | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 168 Registered: 5-2004 |
 | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 747 Registered: 2-2002 |
Well, good morning all! I've been thinking about this and... I refuse to believe that $30.* could be so dear to people when far greater sums are so often spent on far more fleeting things, (like a tank of gas in my little car), and so I can only conclude one or both of two things: 1. People don't like to have things imposed on them. 2. There is no way that some people would ever like this piece. I do know that in the future when I go by the train station that I will be thinking one of two things: 1. Nothing at all other than the errands I'm on. 2. Considering how much one person from a small town can create. And so go, -discuss, discuss, discuss, argue, discuss but do consider while going forward that anyone rightly interested in truly creating simple awareness of this proposal need include in their advocacy a report of who Tony Smith was. If you forget that, or deliberately ignore it you may as well save the time and energy and not bother to participate at all because you would not be fully or fairly serving your neighbors or the people of South Orange. * As Dave has stated in an earlier post, -a balance of $150k, (a present figure for the sake of discussion) equates to approximately $30 each. One more note that I can't resist: In discussing the "gift" it would be fair to consider that anything that has been valued at several hundred thousand dollars could obviously be sold elsewhere for that amount and thus kept in the widows pocket. It is defamatory, incorrect and unnecessarily disrespectful for anyone to portray her generosity as the empty gesture of a "tax write-off". Good luck with your decision. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 169 Registered: 5-2004 |
Steel - Could it be that we agree? It seems you are for 1. the public being fully informed - including the history of Tony Smith and 2. the public being permitted to make a "decision", or choice. When I first learned of the sculpture I had no clue about Tony Smith or any of his artwork. I have learned a lot about both during this thread, and in doing my own research, as I'm sure have others. Our local government would do the rest of the South Orange community a great service to publish ALL the information surrounding this topic. Don't you agree?  That way, if we do end up choosing the sculpture, the residents won't say "What in the world is that, and why is it here?!" Instead they will know all about it and the artist. And if they had the opportunity to be included in the process, all the better. And, btw, you're quite right that $30 isn't really a huge amount of money all by itself. However the average S.O. tax bill has been stated previously as $15,000 and rising each year. Let's say that half of that is school taxes (although I suspect it is more). That's only 250 municipal projects/services at $30 each. Every increase counts because our taxes will surely not go down the year after the sculpture is installed. PS. Curious whether you were around at the time the big lighted orange on a tall pole was considered for the middle of SO Avenue? Did you appreciate the township publishing the details in the GasLight and asking for our input? Did you respond? Did you vote yes for that proposed public art? (I've asked Dave, but he doesn't seem to want to answer.) | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 170 Registered: 5-2004 |
Hi, Dave! Cute cartoon, it amazes me what talented people can do with computers these days! I'm glad you are feeling playful this morning! And thanks for the smile -  But... Do you really think a $3 million parking deck would tower above the 25 ft high sculpture quite so ominously?  I believe the latest published cost per parking space in S.O. - and this was not in a covered deck as I recall - was $15,000. $3 million facility would have only 200 spots, and likely many less in a covered deck. (A quick google search of "parking deck spaces" brought me to a study that claimed a cost of ~$25,000 per spot for a single-level covered deck, or 120 spots at $3Million. Which you know we need...) Jeff Dubowy - are you lurking??? Comment? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7141 Registered: 4-1997 |
Pdg, you're missing the point. As for a referendum, well those are called elections. If you are so opposed, organize and fight those who voted to fund public art. Good luck with that. Sheena, no one has been banned, but if lies are going to be the tactic of choice, maybe I'll reconsider. Steel, another great post. I, too, was taken aback by the jab at Tony's widow. I'm done debating with people who want to stoop that low. Good luck, all. See you by the sculpture, where I hope you perhaps encounter an emotion that pulls you away from staring at your bank statement all day. over and out | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2174 Registered: 4-2002 |
Pdg: The $15,000 cost for the village assumed no land acquisition (I think) so the 200 spots for $3,000,000 for a covered garage is about right (well one floor will be covered). I just want to correct something that I misstated earlier about the CBDG funds. Technically, the village had earmarked $250,000 for another project. The other project was eligible for the CBDG funds. The village did a swap where we are using the $250,000 for the statue and the other project gets the grant money since it was definitely eligible for CBDG funds. The county was happy to accomodate because CBDG funds are on a use it or lose it basis and they preferred to see the money stay in Essex County. So when I said we were using grant money, technically that is not true. It also means that the statue can go anywhere in S. Orange, not just in the redevelopment zone (although the Tony Smith Estate has to agree to the location). I know that we could also debate whether the now freed up $250,000 should have (or could have ) been used for something else. The other project that the grant funds were used towards was SOPAC. Sorry for the confusion, but the basics of the debate remain the same - Should the village use public funds for art and if yes, where is the best location for this statue. PDG: Your total cost estimate of $440,000 is correct plus we have been told that about $30,000 has been raised privately. It would probably be safe to assume that the final cost will be higher than the estimate that we have been given. I do suggest that others follow PDG's lead and sent a letter to village hall with your thoughts. A petition can be effective if used correctly (real names and addresses must be used for one). Sheena: Nice cartoon. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2684 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, As I recall, funding the statue was not an issue during that campaign that ANY candidate mentioned. "stoop that low"....c'mon, if she was so concerned about South Orange honoring her husband: - buy the naming rights for SOPAC and have it called the Tony Smith Arts Center - make a monetary contribution to the school district for Arts classes - create a scholarship fund for a South Orange student who wants to pursue a degree in Art South Orange needs money, not the "rights" to recreate a statue. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2685 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mark, Sounds like you are changing your mind & are now opposing the spending of excessive tax dollars on public art? Bravo. I would still like to see Eric & Allen Rosen share their views here. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2176 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: Actually, I stated originally, that when I was told the cost would be less than $50,000 I was ok with the expenditure. At the number has grown, I have become uncomfortable, and now feel like we are committed to the statue (although I know that nothing is done till it happens). I like to think and hope that they will be able to raise a significant cost of the project, but that is an unknown. I think there is room for compromise on art projects and we need to seek those options (more grants, more fund raising, etc.). I think there are some are projects that need to be funded by government or they would never happen (PBS, Museums, Performing arts centers, etc). | ||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 2268 Registered: 11-2001 |
What are the cost line items to reach an estimate of $440K? The public has a right to know! How much is the estimated cost just to build the piece, and who will build it (anyone locally)? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 2177 Registered: 4-2002 |
Pizzaz: Anyone can make an OPRA request and get the line item information on the cost. I know that it is available. I am not sure who is going to build the statue or if that has been decided. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 2686 Registered: 5-2001 |
I've already got a circular saw. All I need is some plywood & black paint. I can then build it for a discount of only $100,000. | ||
| Pizzaz Supporter Username: Pizzaz Post Number: 2270 Registered: 11-2001 |
HL: Please, if you have time. Thanks. | ||
| Spitz Supporter Username: Doublea Post Number: 1249 Registered: 3-2003 |
Would the applicable laws allow block grant monies to be used for a DMRC? | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 171 Registered: 5-2004 |
Dave, I guess you're still pretty angry after all. I'll try not to add to that, but still you are missing my point. So, with all due respect - "Pdg, you're missing the point." Will you please enlighten me - I'm very open to learning more. "As for a referendum, well those are called elections." I have not once called for a referendum. However, I don't think it is too much to expect that our township be consistent regarding proposed ependitures for public art with tax dollars. For instance, what they did with the proposed large lighted/glowing orange atop a tall pole several years ago was not a referendum. They published details of the project and invited feedback from the taxpayers which they then took under consideration. Simple, honest & straight-forward. Strangely, you seem to prefer that the sculpture just appear in town, replacing an area already recently improved with tax dollars, without any prior disclosure, discussion or taxpayer input. Is it that you believe you know what is best for the entire town in this instance and we should just sit back and quietly appreciate the expensive lesson in art appreciation? Surely anyone who disagrees with you must simply be an ignorant, greedy, culture-less Scrooge. Or perhaps it makes you feel superior and righteous to presume so. "If you are so opposed, organize and fight those who voted to fund public art. Good luck with that." Dave, calm down. I'm not "fighting". (Here I go again...) I, as in me personally, am ONLY calling for our Village government to inform the taxpayers, who would be paying for most of this, of all the details (history, location choices, amount of generous donations, amount of cost to taxpayer, and anything else we may not know...) of the project and to request feedback. Golly, the publicity might generate significant interest from untapped potential financial donors who would eagerly work toward acquiring the sculpture. Win-win. The local artists and private donors have been well-heard. However they are not my elected representatives. This is my home and I have a vested interest in the downtown and how it is decorated. I want to help make sure it is carefully and thoughfully decorated, and only as we can responsibly afford it. As I do for my house. I shouldn't have to attend each and every BOT meeting to find out about projects like this one - thankfully we have SOV/MOL (credit where credit is due, Dave. Thank you.) Every taxpayer has a right to know how their tax dollars are planned to be spent and whether they are being squandered (as would be the case with the fountain/gazebo, if they are removed. Any word on the original cost involved in that project MRosner?) It seems the sky is the limit for this, your "baby", but a minimum of $440K, less $30K from private contributions, is the proposed cost to the residents of South Orange, per Trustee Rosner. A responsible government would not just slip an expenditure of this magnitude by the taxpayers under the guise of receiving a gift. Please try not to smugly insult those of us who have a different vision of South Orange than you do. | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 208 Registered: 5-2001 |
Per Mark's 10:17 am response above, the block grant money has already been used for another project, and the 250k that had been set aside for that project is now earmarked for the sculpture. Seems like the village can earmark it for something else - no? Frankly, given the seemingly casual use of funds, I now don't blame the landlords and merchants for insisting on a DMRC, rather than a SID. How about taking the $440k, spead it over 2 or 3 years, and partially fund the DRMC. Get the landlords and merchants to pick up the balance. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7143 Registered: 4-1997 |
Pdg, you're the one who isn't calm. $30 out of my pocket for a Tony Smith sculpture doesn't produce public outcry and a petition drive to halt it. As for a vision for South Orange, it's not that you have a different vision. You have no vision.  | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 209 Registered: 5-2001 |
Pizzaz, Sheena's draft petition indicates an $80,000 cost to build the sculpture, $200,000 for ongoing maintenance, plus additional, unspecified costs for consultants, removal of the gazebo and fountain, installation of the sculpture, etc. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 112 Registered: 2-2003 |
Marc-- Thanks for the clarification that the sculpture can go anywhere in town. This wan't clear to me before, and it makes the best course of action clearer to me. When the artists were consulted about where to locate the sculpture, were we then operating under the presumption that the sculpture had to go in the Redevelopment Zone or go nowhere? Might the conclusion of that exercise be different now? I lean toward the middle ground here. If the sculpture can be installed and maintained at a reasonable cost, it can be a civic asset. $30 a household is a reasonable acquisition cost. $300 a household is not a reasonable acquisition cost. And we really need to know which it's going to be. Before we push forward on this, I would want to see an easy-to-understand summary of where the money is coming from and going to. I would also want to see, to the extent fundraising is reducing the net obligation of the Village and its taxpayers, where those fundraising efforts stand. I would want to see the fundraising pledges largely (entirely if possible) in place before we move forward. As for location, for the reasons I mention above, I would like to see all options on the table. A prominent green space near the center of town would be my tentative preference. I don't believe that Dave's and Sheena's positions are mutually incompatible. As long as the net cost is reasonable, let's do it. But let's do it right. Let's do it making sure that the money trail makes sense. Let's do it making sure that all aesthetic considerations have been properly heard, so that we can get consensus on the 'where' issue. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 7144 Registered: 4-1997 |
Sounds good, Stuart. | ||
| Pdg Citizen Username: Pdg Post Number: 172 Registered: 5-2004 |
Poor Dave - I've lost hope for actually communicating with you. Did you comprehend a single word of my last post? Not once did I mention this $30 per taxpayer surcharge that you have invented. And how am I less than calm? Have I incorrectly accused a poster of attacking me? Have I called anyone a lier or any other names? Have I created mis-leading political cartoons or put words in another poster's "mouth" Mirror, mirror, on the wall... |
