New Petition part 2

[SyZyGy]

saj and others. I don't particularly respond to school yard taunts and tactics and do feel a little bit threatened by the tone of some of the attacks posted, but to let you know, I will be getting some information to you this week after my meetings have been finalized. syzygy, your taunts and harrassment, notwithstanding, have the guts to come out of hiding. May be tougher to play your game.

Lou, Baby. Good to hear from you - sort of.

I notice that you are still avoiding the important questions which I posted LAST WEEK, with some really really bogus reason (finalizing meetings? Yeah, right).

For the time it took you to post this little message to your groupies and troops, you could have laid your version of the facts, interpretations and impressions before the eager public here.

We are all still waiting, Lou. May be after your finalized meeting. When will that be, some time after 5/24?

There is no harrassment. I am just playing by your buddy Danny's "rules."

[LouS]

HAVE SOME GUTS AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

[MikeC]

To be perfectly honest, I find Syzygy’s remarks childish and very much bordering harassment. Syzygy, you have to get a life!

[nvone]

Syzygy,

I will say what everyone else is thinking.

Attention everyone:


SYZYGY IS AN A**HOLE!!!!! ;D

[morganika]

Well it's the same old, same old, whoever doesn't agree with the lightheads is an a**hole.

What a scary place Wethersfield is. The council is corrupt as far as I'm concerned and the residents are badgering people to IDENTIFY YOURSELVES on a lame message board! Identify yourself why? So you can throw flaming dog poo on his porch?

[saj]

Although I am not looking for debating on this forum as a second job, whether I only view, post once or a thousand times no one should be able to tell me what or when to post. Unfortunately, the diatribe on this forum does not seem to involve lights, facts or viewpoints anymore, but rather personal attacks-from both sides. I will continue to observe (not lurk) and form opinions of posts and posters on this forum. Enjoy yourselves!

[standish]

Lighten up!

If Lou claims to be in compliance, let's assume it's so, unless proven otherwise. I have found him to be an honorable individual. There have been verifiable instances of non-compliance, such as those of the Ritchie League and town Little League. Those groups cannot, under their charters, operate so as to influence the outcome of a referendum or election. However, they, and others, are not under Lou's "charge", nor is he responsible for their, or others', actions. I would also suspect that the boards of these groups are not familiar with election law and acted in good faith.

We all stand to lose if this dialog degenerates any further. However, I expect every effort toward honesty in representations from all sides. Some of the pro-lights materials fail that test.

[JackAss]

Syzygy, It sounds like you should be under a Doctors care. Maybe you should think about a nice quiet place with waves and mello music.

[nvone]

Morganika,

That is funny. Disagreeing is one thing, but this has been an outright attack on Lou S. You people are hypocrites.

[Ironrod]

For those of you who attended or watched the TC meeting last night we witnessed another example of those in power changing the rules to suit their own special interest. I tried to yield my public comment time to George Ruhe to complete his presentation after he was cut off by our Mayor. After announcing my intention the Mayor blurted out "we're not going to do this tonight...I'm not going to let this happen". This was not the first time a citizen requested to yield public comment to another, in fact the precendent was set by this Mayor himself. The Mayor allow time yielded to me in Dec., 2003 to presesnt an alternative to resurfacing Cottone Field and last February the Dobruk family tagged team to provide Mary Dobruk 20 minutes to explain her position on the sewage problems that have long plauged Wethersfield. So why was the yielding of time denied last night...it's simply another example of corruption of the privledged few in power. Silence the people when we don't like what they're saying. We can change the rules to meet our ends because we can...sounds alot like what is at stake with question #2. The soul of Wethersfield is in the balance and a Yes vote on question 2 will be like selling out to the devil...and we'll be left to watch our little Bedford Falls turn into Pottersville....It's a Wonderful Life-Wethersfield style.

[JohnW]

Julie forgot the script: did you hear her councillor's remarks last night? She's upset because members of the public said that 'the council is the driving force on the lights'. She doesn't remember that the mantra of the Let There Be Lights crowd is that the 7 leading votegetters in 2003 all said they were pro-lights and that that was the defining issue of the campaign. (And, she did finish in the top 7).

[standish]

For good information on this topic, do a Google search on: "referendum #2 Wethersfield"[/size]

[JohnW]

When using the Google search terms that Standish described in the prior post, do not use quotes around those words.

[tomterific]

At the May 16th Council meeting, one of the speakers during Public Comment made the claim that lighted flagpoles would be taken down if Question 1 passed. It sounded strange to me, but then I'm not a lawyer. Can someone give me a rational explanation of what this was about? I don't remember who the speaker was

[LouS]

For those of you to which this matters, and I thank standish for his comments, I have just come from my "meeting" and offer the following, though I do not owe it to anyone.

The WYO is a registered PAC and one of the officers may want to comment, of which I mispoke and am not one. Although I had initially been approached, I forgot that based upon information I originally received from SEEC, I decided not to convolute matters. To my understanding, through the SEEC, the WYO is in full compliance.

I am not a PAC. However, as an individual, I have certain responsibilities and need to comply in certain matters. It was confirmed to me, via SEEC, that I am in full compliance, based upon all activities, since my initial meeting with them.

Standish's comments were confirmed, as well, relative to private organizations. They probably do things that will make them need to register with the Town Clerk, but are unaware of this. To which, I will make my best effort to convey.

This may be a good place to reiterate my e-mail to Dr. Ken, that was sent today in response to stolen signs:
Dr. Ken,

I want you to know that I totally agree with you. We may not always agree, however I firmly believe that this issue should not be tolerated.

Please know, that I will communicate this message. I do not personally know anyone that would stoop to this level.

This was ccd to council, police, BOE, and others on his e-mail.

Stealing is very childish and should not come in to play as an adult. If youths are the culprits, do not judge them by their parent's efforts, as there is less of a substantiated correlation than you might expect.

It should not be tolerated, period.

I do want to add that the last few days have been enjoyable to read.