The Macom Deal

[bob]

casey said:

bob said:

Constitutional right and all above table.

Yes, it is but it is borderline unethical. That's what gets someone in trouble IMO.

Constittutional right is now unethical?

[casey]

bob said:

Kind of like sources about the Macom deal.

And just because I won't spell them out here doesn't mean that they can't be true. Do what you want with the information but I believe it!

[bob]

casey said:

bob said:

Kind of like sources about the Macom deal.

And just because I won't spell them out here doesn't mean that they can't be true. Do what you want with the information but I believe it!

Daisy's info is exactly what you heard.

Well ,Daisy's story has a few problems like the AT quote about HC not doing due diligence.

[bbc]

here we go with new posters again--they aren't as reliable as those who post continually on this site. what would be daisy's motivation to completely make up the story. it can easily be refuted by macom or the sb. if it isn't true, what is the harm. if it is true, your faith in the sb is shattered (or at least should be).

[bob]

bbc said:

here we go with new posters again--they aren't as reliable as those who post continually on this site. what would be daisy's motivation to completely make up the story. it can easily be refuted by macom or the sb. if it isn't true, what is the harm. if it is true, your faith in the sb is shattered (or at least should be).

The harm in being a lie? How about getting people worked up over a site for no reason.

The SB can't win in any scenario. If it is a north site, the south will say it was fixed. If it Macom or Bolingbrook then the north will claim it was a fixed.

[casey]

bob said:

Daisy's info is exactly what you heard.

Well ,Daisy's story has a few problems like the AT quote about HC not doing due diligence.

For the record, I have no idea who Daisy is. So the information that I got didn't come from "Daisy". I have my own sources and I trust the information to be accurate.

Call up Macom or ask the SB to refute the information. Call the Senator's office - I think you'll find the info accurate. I think you are just upset because a supposed confidential deal isn't so confidential anymore . Hey maybe PL will run a full-page ad in tomorrow's Sun outlining the deal. Wouldn't that be a good idea to get the info out in the public? What's wrong with the public knowing unless of course, it doesn't fit one's agenda?

[bob]

casey said:

bob said:

Daisy's info is exactly what you heard.

Well ,Daisy's story has a few problems like the AT quote about HC not doing due diligence.

For the record, I have no idea who Daisy is. So the information that I got didn't come from "Daisy". I have my own sources and I trust the information to be accurate.

Call up Macom or ask the SB to refute the information. Call the Senator's office - I think you'll find the info accurate. I think you are just upset because a supposed confidential deal isn't so confidential anymore . Hey maybe PL will run a full-page ad in tomorrow's Sun outlining the deal. Wouldn't that be a good idea to get the info out in the public? What's wrong with the public knowing unless of course, it doesn't fit one's agenda?

Why would I be upset about a rumor that a deal is done for the north site?

Paul is member here, nothing is stopping him from posting this info. I like to see the deal he is offering. It would be good to see.

[doctorwho]

casey said:

bob said:

Daisy's info is exactly what you heard.

Well ,Daisy's story has a few problems like the AT quote about HC not doing due diligence.

For the record, I have no idea who Daisy is. So the information that I got didn't come from "Daisy". I have my own sources and I trust the information to be accurate.

Call up Macom or ask the SB to refute the information. Call the Senator's office - I think you'll find the info accurate. I think you are just upset because a supposed confidential deal isn't so confidential anymore . Hey maybe PL will run a full-page ad in tomorrow's Sun outlining the deal. Wouldn't that be a good idea to get the info out in the public? What's wrong with the public knowing unless of course, it doesn't fit one's agenda?

As I stated earlier if he feels he isn't getting a response anyway - then he should do that. When the deal was in writing in the paper from PL - I would feel better about the accuracy of it and the ability of the SB to refute any part of it that was wrong.

Again, I am not casting dispersion on anyone, just that when a story gets repeated from person to person, the facts usally end up altered in some way, even unintentionally.

Of course Paul himself could always post here...

and I have no agenda as I am pretty clear here that I do not favor a northern site unless someone can show me boundaries that will work and not cause some areas much pain in the commute to fill it. But I hate to make any decision based on what may not be entirely accurate. Kind of unfair to either side.

I'll be watching the paper tomorrow.

[lacy]

Bob, What is M2 saying about all this?

[casey]

bob said:

casey said:

For the record, I have no idea who Daisy is. So the information that I got didn't come from "Daisy". I have my own sources and I trust the information to be accurate.

Call up Macom or ask the SB to refute the information. Call the Senator's office - I think you'll find the info accurate. I think you are just upset because a supposed confidential deal isn't so confidential anymore . Hey maybe PL will run a full-page ad in tomorrow's Sun outlining the deal. Wouldn't that be a good idea to get the info out in the public? What's wrong with the public knowing unless of course, it doesn't fit one's agenda?

Why would I be upset about a rumor that a deal is done for the north site?

Paul is member here, nothing is stopping him from posting this info. I like to see the deal he is offering. It would be good to see.

Because your deal for the north site might have just gotten derailed now that the terms for Macom are more favorable. IMO this whole mess is again attributed to the SB for not coming public with information about the sites. Yes much of it should be confidential to protect the deal but what's wrong with the public knowing what sites that they're looking at?

[bob]

lacy said:

Bob, What is M2 saying about all this?

The last response I received from any SB member was that four sites were being consider and waiting for some info. If they had site picked they would announce it.

[bob]

casey said:

bob said:

Why would I be upset about a rumor that a deal is done for the north site?

Paul is member here, nothing is stopping him from posting this info. I like to see the deal he is offering. It would be good to see.

Because your deal for the north site might have just gotten derailed now that the terms for Macom are more favorable. IMO this whole mess is again attributed to the SB for not coming public with information about the sites. Yes much of it should be confidential to protect the deal but what's wrong with the public knowing what sites that they're looking at?

Casey, you're freaking out.
It isn't my deal. I prefer Macom over all the sites left unless BB comes back at a better price (which probably won't happen)

The sites are known except for the 4th site. Maybe the SB is under a NDA for not disclosing the 4th site.

[bob]

So Casey, you are saying that the SB/admin has never been serious about Macom?

[casey]

No. That's not what I'm saying. I hope that the SB has been serious about exploring it but I'm not sure if they have ever had any true interest in it. They were counting on BB and given the fact that that's probably not an option right now they've moved on to the northern site. I don't think that the SB wants to work with PL or Macom - but then again, not many do .

[blankcheck]

Your splitting hairs Bob. I have worked on referendum commitees before, and the SB has always been directly involved. They money did not GO to the SB , however, it went to the committee which had a direct connection with the SB & administration.

I remember working on the referendum committee for the freshman centers, and HC ect. worked directly with the people who were in charge of running that committee.