Naperville Sun On-Line Poll for Metea Site

[d204taxpayer]

bob said:

So now you are directly pointing out that CV wasn't a part of that decision. Are you a CV supporter?

What was the CV quote where she said she never really been in WVHS?

Are you? And aren't you one of the persons who said you should never use words like never and always? If that was indeed a quote, I think it would be misinformation. I would swear I read she went on the WVHS tour with the rest of the board during the renovation period occurring there at the very least and it would be most highly probable that she's been in the building with her kids for one event, program or another after all her years here.

[Arch]

bob said:

So now you are directly pointing out that CV wasn't a part of that decision. Are you a CV supporter?

What was the CV quote where she said she never really been in WVHS?

"Are you a CV Supporter?!"



...sorry, I just have a twisted sense of humor.

[d204taxpayer]

bob said:

Well they got permission to do soil test on all 80. I am guessing they are saving costs by having it all done at once instead of bringing them out twice.

I take your direct answer to this question is "no" then? If that's true, then how can you allege Sara Hooker's article contained mis information (that the the 25 acres is mainly wetlands and unbuildable) if the district has waited until they could test all 80 acres in order to save money? It sounds to me like we still need confirmation as to wetlands and state of the soil for building purposes. Bob, just exactly who are your district contacts from which you receive information that allows you to so often confidently state your "facts?" No offense but I have to admit I'm curious. Am I the only one curious?

[bob]

Bob, just exactly who are your district contacts from which you receive information that allows you to so often confidently state your "facts?" No offense but I have to admit I'm curious. Am I the only one curious?

You might want to reread the post. I state

I am guessing

so you might want to go to Webster.com to get a better understanding of what guessing means.

[d204taxpayer]

bob said:

Bob, just exactly who are your district contacts from which you receive information that allows you to so often confidently state your "facts?" No offense but I have to admit I'm curious. Am I the only one curious?

You might want to reread the post I state

I am guessing

so you might want to go to Webster.com to get a better understanding of what guessing means.

I don't know why you have to get so annoyed and demeaning by responding with a personal attack and I'm very aware of the terminology you chose and the fact you use the word "guess" quite frequently in your posts. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, and aware or unaware, there generally seems to be an unspoken connotation in your posts. Although you may chose to preempt the posts with "guess, guessing", whether you are aware or not, the underlying tone that comes with that IMHO is that you know and the words of which you write are fact.

[d204taxpayer]

d204taxpayer said:

bob said:

Well they got permission to do soil test on all 80. I am guessing they are saving costs by having it all done at once instead of bringing them out twice.

I take your direct answer to this question is "no" then? If that's true, then how can you allege Sara Hooker's article contained mis information (that the the 25 acres is mainly wetlands and unbuildable) if the district has waited until they could test all 80 acres in order to save money? It sounds to me like we still need confirmation as to wetlands and state of the soil for building purposes. Bob, just exactly who are your district contacts from which you receive information that allows you to so often confidently state your "facts?" No offense but I have to admit I'm curious. Am I the only one curious?

On second thought, it's perplexing to me that possibly no one ordered soil tests on the 25 acres prior to the filing of the 2001 condemnation case. I also do not understand and find astounding that the taxpayers bought this land almost 2 years ago and since that possession no one has ordered soil tests on this acreage?

[proschool]

d204taxpayer said:

d204taxpayer said:

I take your direct answer to this question is "no" then? If that's true, then how can you allege Sara Hooker's article contained mis information (that the the 25 acres is mainly wetlands and unbuildable) if the district has waited until they could test all 80 acres in order to save money? It sounds to me like we still need confirmation as to wetlands and state of the soil for building purposes. Bob, just exactly who are your district contacts from which you receive information that allows you to so often confidently state your "facts?" No offense but I have to admit I'm curious. Am I the only one curious?

On second thought, it's perplexing to me that possibly no one ordered soil tests on the 25 acres prior to the filing of the 2001 condemnation case. I also do not understand and find astounding that the taxpayers bought this land almost 2 years ago and since that possession no one has ordered soil tests on this acreage?

Good Point. if the soil tests were done we could start building on the 25 ares as "Plan B."

[lacy]

d204taxpayer said:

bob said:

Well they got permission to do soil test on all 80. I am guessing they are saving costs by having it all done at once instead of bringing them out twice.

I take your direct answer to this question is "no" then? If that's true, then how can you allege Sara Hooker's article contained mis information (that the the 25 acres is mainly wetlands and unbuildable) if the district has waited until they could test all 80 acres in order to save money? It sounds to me like we still need confirmation as to wetlands and state of the soil for building purposes. Bob, just exactly who are your district contacts from which you receive information that allows you to so often confidently state your "facts?" No offense but I have to admit I'm curious. Am I the only one curious?

You are not.

[lacy]

proschool said:

d204taxpayer said:

On second thought, it's perplexing to me that possibly no one ordered soil tests on the 25 acres prior to the filing of the 2001 condemnation case. I also do not understand and find astounding that the taxpayers bought this land almost 2 years ago and since that possession no one has ordered soil tests on this acreage?

Good Point. if the soil tests were done we could start building on the 25 ares as "Plan B."

We could build a middle school and another Frontier Center and be done with it.