3/13 SUN LTE - No official position

[WeBe204]

sushi said:

NSFOC sprung from the loins of TG.

Would you like me to stick this post to the top so it just stays there? That will save you the time from continuing to post about TG. I am really only half joking.

I think its pretty clear where you stand on this issue. I am not going to get confused. I promise.

[fryfox]

scarbroughknight said:

Fryfox- Did I refer to the entire subdivision? I said one group who I am told the core of which are the people you refer to as stomping out of the school board meeting and are now calling themselves NSFOC. I am aware many people in that organization are very sincere in their concerns but mentioned core could care less about safety hazards and are only concerned about staying at NV. I know people in TG have told me they are embarrassed and chagrined by these people. However both TG and WE have been painted as the black sheep of the district because of their actions. I just don't like being called rasist and elitist and I know you don't either.

Just so you know, I know who is at the core of this group and it is NOT the group who stomped out of the meeting or I would not be defending them.

People calling those involved with the NSFOC racist &/or elitist are misinformed. I don't like being called that either but am confident that it is their ignorance, not the reality, that is at the root of that namecalling.

[doctorwho]

brad204 said:

sushi said:

NSFOC sprung from the loins of TG.

Would you like me to stick this post to the top so it just stays there? That will save you the time from continuing to post about TG. I am really only half joking.

I think its pretty clear where you stand on this issue. I am not going to get confused. I promise.

Sushi - you can claim what you want from where this spring - but I can also tell you as someone who was at the meeting - there were an awful lot of people there who worked for different groups ( such as 204tk- wind204 etc.)- and many people who had worked for the re-election of our incumbent SB members last election --
explain how the group can dontinue to be painted as the TG faction who left the NV meeting in a huff ?

you can try and paint the group with a broad brush - however you need new paint

[rural]

Maybe it needs to be put in a different light. How's this:

Just as the majority of support for MV at AME and the antipathy towards NSFOC and their lawsuit increases the farther north you move, the inverse is true as you move south over the district.

Is that fair?

[JB]

rural said:

Maybe it needs to be put in a different light. How's this:

Just as the majority of support for MV at AME and the antipathy towards NSFOC and their lawsuit increases the farther north you move, the inverse is true as you move south over the district.

Is that fair?

Concern for Safety knows no boundaries

[rural]

I'm going to get pounced on for this, but I'm putting it out there anyways. Not because I believe it, but it's something I've wondered about. I've even touched on it with Dr. Who once.

Watts area was overlooked in the boundary decision. That's without a doubt, IMO. I think now, a lot of the NSFOC attention is being directed at TG an WE and once again Watts area is being overlooked. Are there a lot of NSFOC supporters in the Watts area? What does Watts have to lose in this scenario? Yes, we may lose the third high school, but you'll have a shorter bus ride to WV. If they win, there's BB.

[Arch]

rural said:

I'm going to get pounced on for this, but I'm putting it out there anyways. Not because I believe it, but it's something I've wondered about. I've even touched on it with Dr. Who once.

Watts area was overlooked in the boundary decision. That's without a doubt, IMO. I think now, a lot of the NSFOC attention is being directed at TG an WE and once again Watts area is being overlooked. Are there a lot of NSFOC supporters in the Watts area? What does Watts have to lose in this scenario? Yes, we may lose the third high school, but you'll have a shorter bus ride to WV. If they win, there's BB.

Even if there's BB and they send our area to WV.. good. No High Schooler in the district will have to go to a site with those kinds of safety hazards under and adjacent to the property.

Put the thing in a safe location in Sugar Grove and send my kids there. Go ahead. The bus stop is right at the corner.

I'll qualify that and say: I don't pretend to speak for the area. I speak only for myself and I am not a member of the group. I know some in the area with only elementary school and/or middle school kids that are thankful "We won't have to go to WV" under the boundary decision. Fair enough, anyone can have whatever opinion they want to.

Maybe it really isn't about the boundaries that WE and TG are honked off about like many keep trying to 'paint' it as in their witch-hunt/stereotyping communications. Maybe, just maybe, it really is about safety to many around the district.

[WeBe204]

rural said:

I'm going to get pounced on for this, but I'm putting it out there anyways. Not because I believe it, but it's something I've wondered about. I've even touched on it with Dr. Who once.

Watts area was overlooked in the boundary decision. That's without a doubt, IMO. I think now, a lot of the NSFOC attention is being directed at TG an WE and once again Watts area is being overlooked. Are there a lot of NSFOC supporters in the Watts area? What does Watts have to lose in this scenario? Yes, we may lose the third high school, but you'll have a shorter bus ride to WV. If they win, there's BB.

Hmmm.. Someone is putting chum in the water.

[JB]

rural said:

I'm going to get pounced on for this, but I'm putting it out there anyways. Not because I believe it, but it's something I've wondered about. I've even touched on it with Dr. Who once.

Watts area was overlooked in the boundary decision. That's without a doubt, IMO. I think now, a lot of the NSFOC attention is being directed at TG an WE and once again Watts area is being overlooked. Are there a lot of NSFOC supporters in the Watts area? What does Watts have to lose in this scenario? Yes, we may lose the third high school, but you'll have a shorter bus ride to WV. If they win, there's BB.

Spin all you want rural, we know what you are all about. FUD - reminds me of another group.

[rural]

jb said:

rural said:

I'm going to get pounced on for this, but I'm putting it out there anyways. Not because I believe it, but it's something I've wondered about. I've even touched on it with Dr. Who once.

Watts area was overlooked in the boundary decision. That's without a doubt, IMO. I think now, a lot of the NSFOC attention is being directed at TG an WE and once again Watts area is being overlooked. Are there a lot of NSFOC supporters in the Watts area? What does Watts have to lose in this scenario? Yes, we may lose the third high school, but you'll have a shorter bus ride to WV. If they win, there's BB.

Spin all you want rural, we know what you are all about. FUD - reminds me of another group.

So is this an agreement or a disagreement? Avoidance is not an answer.

[Arch]

rural said:

jb said:

Spin all you want rural, we know what you are all about. FUD - reminds me of another group.

So is this an agreement or a disagreement? Avoidance is not an answer.

Apparently, the SB has the monopoly on avoidance. Everyone else has to answer on target.

[rural]

archwinsome said:

Apparently, the SB has the monopoly on avoidance. Everyone else has to answer on target.

Very good, Arch! ;D

[steckmom]

I'll never be convinced otherwise that the people initially behind filing the lawsuit had boundaries as the major concern.

However, as irritated as I am by the lawsuit, I also have an issue with the environment of the site and think it's time to let it go.

I don't stand to gain anything by that. In fact, it has been suggested to me by some in my neighborhood that BB or another site is worse for Steck (don't ask me to explain why, because I don't really get it). I don't speak for anyone else, but there are others around here who have the same environmental concerns that I do.

[Arch]

rural said:

archwinsome said:

Apparently, the SB has the monopoly on avoidance. Everyone else has to answer on target.

Very good, Arch! ;D

I will be the first to admit that was a cheap shot... Some other representatives of certain companies do have a piece of that pie too.

[doctorwho]

steckmom said:

I'll never be convinced otherwise that the people initially behind filing the lawsuit had boundaries as the major concern.

However, as irritated as I am by the lawsuit, I also have an issue with the environment of the site and think it's time to let it go.

I don't stand to gain anything by that. In fact, it has been suggested to me by some in my neighborhood that BB or another site is worse for Steck (don't ask me to explain why, because I don't really get it). I don't speak for anyone else, but there are others around here who have the same environmental concerns that I do.

thank you SMOM for what I believe is a different overall perspective than most ( maybe all ) here -- I am glad to hear about the last line as some refuse to believe that there is anyone not conerned with boundaries who thinks the site is far less than a sure thing safety wise and just not a good choice for a school.