|
|
Post by admin on Mar 14, 2006 7:28:23 GMT -6
I deleted three posts, one of my own that had nothing to do with this thread. This is not a Peterson thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 14, 2006 7:31:05 GMT -6
He is the luny we talked about on the other board. I do suspect he is a major force. Question is, what is his TRUE motivation? Is he an ex-branch-davidian? Did he have a "fist" fight with Howie over something? There is definately more to this than meets the eye. Ex-Branch-Davidian? You guys are out of control. Just because someone has a different point of view doesn't mean they have the mark of the beast on their hairline. It's a well known fact that when one side starts attacking the other, they don't feel positive about their own position. I haven't noticed CFO or other no's doing this. But it has really boiled down to this tactic for the yes side. What happened to that "Just one rule" thing? Oh, I see, if the insult is to someone on the "no" side, that's O.K. Holy cow - I'm sure you've seen the venom spewed by CFO/NO on other discussion boards - how can you say this with a straight face? Any way, who are you & what are your motives? |
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2006 7:33:48 GMT -6
Hey, it's very clear that there are at least a couple of CFO plants on this board. They will claim that they're not with/for CFO and try to make vote YES people look like that bad guys. Call them out. If it's clear, then who are they? |
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 14, 2006 7:36:41 GMT -6
I could venture a guess, but what good will it do? But, I do know, from other boards, that CFO watches this board & posts on this board, along with various other boards & blogs.
And it might only be a handful of people doing all of this. I suspect, too, that they are pretending to be multiple postsers, in order to look like there are a larger number of NO people out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2006 7:38:38 GMT -6
Ok, so a 'guess' isn't quite 'very clear'.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 14, 2006 7:40:44 GMT -6
Ok, so a 'guess' isn't quite 'very clear'. What's clear to me is the tone, the verbiage & the approach. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Mar 14, 2006 7:42:14 GMT -6
CFO would be stupid not to watch this board. They still use arguments that I made when I was a NO. I really don't care if they do.
IMO, the NO people here (the one's that are left) are mostly from TG.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2006 7:47:18 GMT -6
I agree w/ your Topher, this is a very valuable information pot.
I was specifically hitting on the calling out. One does not usually use language about being very clear without specifics in mind (unless you are hoping a fishing expedition yields WMDs).
It's standard board practice that when one implies facts that they are asked to spill them forth.
|
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Mar 14, 2006 7:47:31 GMT -6
I think the point of this thread is to get out in the public who CFO is, who their backers are, and shed any light on their motivations. I know I have learned a great deal more about Ari Rosenthal, who apparently is against all school referenda regardless of purpose or need, and Chuck Kern, who used to think we needed a 3rd school, but has apparently radically reversed course.
Marge, you seem to be getting uncomfortable with this exploration. Is there any reson we should not learn more about CFO and alternate motives they may have?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2006 7:51:13 GMT -6
Not trying to answer for Marge, but as someone who was firmly NO by default until further explanation, it always seemed pathetic when people would take this assumption (and it happened TIME and TIME again).
Ah, you're NO, that means you're with CFO.
- No, that's not what it means.
Well, you know, they say this and that and well, that's just crazy.. so since you're with them, you're crazy too.
- Uh, Hello, did you actually use that real estate between the ears? Did you hear me ealier say I'm not with them?
Wow, look how bad CFO is being, since they represent NO and you are a NO, shouldn't you now be a YES because if you're a NO you're crazy like them.
- Nevermind.
|
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Mar 14, 2006 7:53:11 GMT -6
I never assumed that every NO person on this board was CFO, not did I mean to imply that.
|
|
|
|
Post by marge on Mar 14, 2006 7:53:16 GMT -6
I think the point of this thread is to get out in the public who CFO is, who their backers are, and shed any light on their motivations. I know I have learned a great deal more about Ari Rosenthal, who apparently is against all school referenda regardless of purpose or need, and Chuck Kern, who used to think we needed a 3rd school, but has apparently radically reversed course. Marge, you seem to be getting uncomfortable with this exploration. Is there any reson we should not learn more about CFO and alternate motives they may have? I think you should learn all you can, as should everyone. But I really don't believe that you didn't know their names before, so it looks more like you're trying to convince others of your point of view. As to "CFO plants", I guess their could be some, but I know I'm not. If anyone is uncomfortable, it looks like some of you, because you aren't talking about the merits of a passed referendum, you're talking about the opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by marge on Mar 14, 2006 7:54:45 GMT -6
Not trying to answer for Marge, but as someone who was firmly NO by default until further explanation, it always seemed pathetic when people would take this assumption (and it happened TIME and TIME again). Ah, you're NO, that means you're with CFO. - No, that's not what it means. Well, you know, they say this and that and well, that's just crazy.. so since you're with them, you're crazy too. - Uh, Hello, did you actually use that real estate between the ears? Did you hear me ealier say I'm not with them? Wow, look how bad CFO is being, since they represent NO and you are a NO, shouldn't you now be a YES because if you're a NO you're crazy like them. - Nevermind. And this is exactly how this whole thread reads. |
|
|
|
Post by EagleDad on Mar 14, 2006 7:55:01 GMT -6
Arch, I agree, the no voters and CFO supporters can be two totally different sets (with some intersection). The same can be said for yes voters and 204theKids as well. I did not mean to imply anything about those who vote no, I'm just looking to learn more about the "PO Box" called CFO that has no money, yet is doing so much. It all just seems a little odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Mar 14, 2006 8:00:30 GMT -6
Arch, I agree, the no voters and CFO supporters can be two totally different sets (with some intersection). The same can be said for yes voters and 204theKids as well. I did not mean to imply anything about those who vote no, I'm just looking to learn more about the "PO Box" called CFO that has no money, yet is doing so much. It all just seems a little odd. I agree, and that's perfectly fair game. What didn't seem fair to me was to start to turn focus by implying certian people here with a phrase like 'very clear'. Granted, in the past I too have mischosen my words and been called out on it. No harm no foul. We keep each other in check here, and that's what it appears that was. So, let's bring the focus back to what the motivations are. I think the Who part has been covered, at least from a key player standpoint. |
|
