NSFOC meeting 3-25 VFW 908 Jackson 7p

[doctorwho]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

brad204 said:

I assume you are talking about both n-groups.

I just don't know that much about the other n-fraud group to make a judgement on them yet. But sure, they could all have different agendas too.

Edit: Why would someone who voted no to the ref want to be in the n-fraud group?

Because they voted NO, based on boundaries-period. Try and find anyone in Brookdale who admits to voting no now - yet 80% did. That was their right to do so - but then let's not pretend they have suddenly seen the light re: the 3rd HS. The location is driving the behavior now- just like they accuse others of doing.

But if Watts or Cowlishaw or Owen of anyone else has a concern over the boundaries now- they are selfish. Amazing turnaround. Maybe Chad could have explained that turnaround last night.

[Arch]

Kingdom building is what got us into this mess. More kingdom building will not get us out of it.

[rural]

Doc,

You do realize you are doing exactly what you just complained about others doing to you?

I guess you've given up and truly don't care.

[Arch]

rural said:

Doc,

You do realize you are doing exactly what you just complained about others doing to you?

I guess you've given up and truly don't care.

I believe the difference is citing vote stats.

TG and WE did turn out to vote a majority YES, as did Watts area etc. Voting stats say BD turned out 80% 'NO' and prior to that I believe it was stated in the past on here that the PTA President was drumming up the NO vote for the area.

If that is wrong, please correct.

Claiming that TG/WE wants only NV doesn't hold water because they turned out a majority YES vote when they were assigned to MV@BB, right?

[doctorwho]

rural said:

Doc,

You do realize you are doing exactly what you just complained about others doing to you?

I guess you've given up and truly don't care.

would need you to explain so that I could respond. What exactly am I doing ?

Do you deny that was the actual vote count ? Do you see anyone from that group still trumpeting No ? Why would that be ? Did everyone there vote no because of the boundaries - no - there was a certain % of No vote across each area - those against any tax increase and those who didn't believe we needed a 3rd HS). However unlike most areas who voted 60% Yes- they did not. Why ?
Also their 'leadership' encouraged the NO vote. I was at that community meeting - I listed to what was said- Hell I even spoke at that meeting before the orange shirt debacle. I agree they had a right to do so - but to now have a totally different opinion because the school is now close - pleae explain that to me. If you have a different explanation I want to hear it. I see who is on the emails floating around - how did they change overnight ?


So Have I given up ? That answer is Yes. Our SB will do anything to move forward with the project at AME-MWGEN, I absoluely believe that. I have seen members completely change their opinions in less than 12 months on safety. If you would not put kids near a switching station at MACOM , why would we put them at MWGEN ? I do not believe that all the things said in the past where just misinterpretations, these people are too smart for that. Its just the game has changed, and the anti-MACOM rhetoric is now biting them back.
I agree equal standards should apply to all sites - and MACOM has issues. To argue the severity of them in relation to AME-MWGEN would be disingenuous and be exactly some of what they are doing today. As long as they had BB they could do and say those things - now however it's an issue isn't it?


As a parent I have given up and moved on - absolutely. As a resident and voter however I will not do so.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

archwinsome said:

rural said:

Doc,

You do realize you are doing exactly what you just complained about others doing to you?

I guess you've given up and truly don't care.

I believe the difference is citing vote stats.

TG and WE did turn out to vote a majority YES, as did Watts area etc. Voting stats say BD turned out 80% 'NO' and prior to that I believe it was stated in the past on here that the PTA President was drumming up the NO vote for the area.

If that is wrong, please correct.

Claiming that TG/WE wants only NV doesn't hold water because they turned out a majority YES vote when they were assigned to MV@BB, right?

Arch, i know of some people now that voted yes to the ref when they were at BB but suddenly now don't think we need a third HS. They would rather be at NV crowded than go to WV. Granted, it is one person, but I bet there are others.

[WeBe204]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

archwinsome said:

I believe the difference is citing vote stats.

TG and WE did turn out to vote a majority YES, as did Watts area etc. Voting stats say BD turned out 80% 'NO' and prior to that I believe it was stated in the past on here that the PTA President was drumming up the NO vote for the area.

If that is wrong, please correct.

Claiming that TG/WE wants only NV doesn't hold water because they turned out a majority YES vote when they were assigned to MV@BB, right?

Arch, i know of some people now that voted yes to the ref when they were at BB but suddenly now don't think we need a third HS. They would rather be at NV crowded than go to WV. Granted, it is one person, but I bet there are others.

And what you you say of the people in NSFOCFraud who voted no for the new high school? I am just curious.

[sleeplessinnpvl]

brad204 said:

sleeplessinnpvl said:

Arch, i know of some people now that voted yes to the ref when they were at BB but suddenly now don't think we need a third HS. They would rather be at NV crowded than go to WV. Granted, it is one person, but I bet there are others.

And what you you say of the people in NSFOCFraud who voted no for the new high school? I am just curious.

I would say they were selfish, if it was only about boundaries, just like I will say anyone today is selfish if it is only about boundaries.

[cb]

"TG and WE did turn out to vote a majority YES, as did Watts area etc. Voting stats say BD turned out 80% 'NO' and prior to that I believe it was stated in the past on here that the PTA President was drumming up the NO vote for the area."

In addition, after BD "lost" the boundary war for BB, some BD members came back to the Hill PTA and tried to overturn the PTA vote to support the referendum that had been taken prior to the boundary decision. 3 of the 4 Hill feeder schools supported the referendum but they wanted to change the vote to no. That's how unselfish and mild mannered they were. I hope they remember that proud moment as they are attacking others who now upset with the school boards' decisions.

[Arch]

sleeplessinnpvl said:

archwinsome said:

I believe the difference is citing vote stats.

TG and WE did turn out to vote a majority YES, as did Watts area etc. Voting stats say BD turned out 80% 'NO' and prior to that I believe it was stated in the past on here that the PTA President was drumming up the NO vote for the area.

If that is wrong, please correct.

Claiming that TG/WE wants only NV doesn't hold water because they turned out a majority YES vote when they were assigned to MV@BB, right?

Arch, i know of some people now that voted yes to the ref when they were at BB but suddenly now don't think we need a third HS. They would rather be at NV crowded than go to WV. Granted, it is one person, but I bet there are others.

I don't doubt there are also people out there that firmly believe plopping 2 trailers at the current 2 HSs will solve the problems too. There are many different opinions out there but no single person's opinion in any area is reflective of an area's motivations. The only thing we can use as any form of a litmus is voter stats but even then they are reflective of the time and vote and people can and do change their minds one way or another.

[d204mom]

archwinsome said:

rural said:

Doc,

You do realize you are doing exactly what you just complained about others doing to you?

I guess you've given up and truly don't care.

I believe the difference is citing vote stats.

TG and WE did turn out to vote a majority YES, as did Watts area etc. Voting stats say BD turned out 80% 'NO' and prior to that I believe it was stated in the past on here that the PTA President was drumming up the NO vote for the area.

If that is wrong, please correct.

Claiming that TG/WE wants only NV doesn't hold water because they turned out a majority YES vote when they were assigned to MV@BB, right?

Brookdale PTA was the only PTA that voted to endorse a NO vote. If I recall, the PTA vote wasn't even close. Like 38 against and 2 for. They only invited CFO to speak and then voted.

[Arch]

d204mom said:

archwinsome said:

I believe the difference is citing vote stats.

TG and WE did turn out to vote a majority YES, as did Watts area etc. Voting stats say BD turned out 80% 'NO' and prior to that I believe it was stated in the past on here that the PTA President was drumming up the NO vote for the area.

If that is wrong, please correct.

Claiming that TG/WE wants only NV doesn't hold water because they turned out a majority YES vote when they were assigned to MV@BB, right?

Brookdale PTA was the only PTA that voted to endorse a NO vote. If I recall, the PTA vote wasn't even close. Like 38 against and 2 for. They only invited CFO to speak and then voted.

REALLY?!?!?!?!

Isn't that the group that said we don't need a 3rd HS at all?

[sushi]

I guess we're all ignoranuses. The entire district, for one reason or another. Now what?

[casey]

sushi said:

I guess we're all ignoranuses.

I think that it's ignoramuses (unless you were trying to use a pun and if you were, then that's quite funny ).

[d204mom]

casey said:

sushi said:

I guess we're all ignoranuses.

I think that it's ignoramuses (unless you were trying to use a pun and if you were, then that's quite funny ).

I just got me a new favorite word!