Conny Culver got elected in 2004, running against Dick Johnson & Bart Rochman, two incumbents that gave the developers all they wanted, and more.
The voters saw the "real" Culver, and in 2006, seeking reelection, along with PAULA ABBOTT & KC Carter, Culver came in "dead last" out of six candidates. Fortunately, Paula & KC were reelected.
Culver proves once again, she is the "female equivalent" of Don Cox----A LOSER!
Here's her "sour grapes" Explorer letter emulating the same words Cox used the week before lambasting Paula..
These two have as much credibility as _____. (fill in the blank)
**********************************************************************************************************
If Abbott runs, OV voters ought to send message
Who does Ms. Abbott represent? Not me or anyone I know who has made repeated fruitless attempts to contact her.
I was shocked when Ms. Abbott was quoted, "If you squelch my voice, you squelch the citizen’s voice" regarding the agenda item to limit debate.
Unfortunately, the council did not follow through and limit unnecessary lengthy debates generally caused by Ms. Abbott.
Council meetings are to conduct the business of the town. It is the duty of all council members to be informed and prepared to make decisions. Productive debate serves the interest of Oro Valley. Being unprepared does not.
I speak from personal experience. I served a term on the Oro Valley Town Council with Ms. Abbott.
Ms. Abbott rarely gave us the courtesy of phone calls to say she would be late or absent. As a result, meetings were thoughtlessly delayed, wasting the time of citizens, town staff and fellow council members. No apologies ever came from Ms. Abbott.
Ms. Abbott was, and continues to be, consistently unprepared. Ms. Abbott was, and is still consistently late or absent. Ms. Abbott continues to ask questions unrelated to the business at hand.
From the dais, Ms. Abbott promotes herself as a representative of the schools. It is the Amphi School Board and the Arizona Legislature that sets the policies and budgets for our schools. The Oro Valley Town Council has no authority over the school board.
Ms. Abbott routinely was a 'no-show' for events where tax dollars were spent, at her request, to attend.
One would think, as she approaches seven years on the town council, she would understand the scope of her responsibilities.
Should Ms. Abbott decide to run for re-election I hope the voters send the message she needs to stay home and attend to all the business she claims prevents her for attending meetings, study sessions, returning phone calls or responding to e-mails from the citizens she has consistently failed to represent.
Conny Culver, Oro Valley
32 comments:
Art, Why do you slam the author? Is it because she's right about Abbott?
Conny Culver presented the facts, they are true and accurate.
Abbott is the loser. She needs to go! At least Culver showed up for meetings!
What is YOUR problem?
Deacon,
"At least Culver showed up for meetings." Showing up is one thing, voting in the best interest of the citizens whom she was elected to represent is another. Culver wasn't elected to "show up." She was elected to act. She did not do this and thus she was voted out.
As for Don Cox's original letter of last week, he made numerous statements that I'm surprised that no one has challenged. He said...
"Ms. Abbott does not return e-mails from most citizens."
How does he KNOW this? Is he her personal assistant? Is he in charge of her e-mails? His comment implies that he has seen every e-mail she has received and he knows precisely which citizens she has responded to and which ones she has not. Perhaps he has "bugged" her computer?
"Ms. Abbott does not return phone calls from most citizens."
Again, how does he KNOW this? Has he also "bugged" her phone?
"Ms. Abbott does not make herself available to citizens as other town council members do."
Same question. How does he KNOW that all the other council members are available to the citizens and how does he know that Paula is not? Do citizens have to go through HIM first? Is he booking these meetings between council members and citizens and therefore he knows which ones take place and which ones don't?
"Ms. Abbott has seldom been seen in her town office."
Is this hearsay, second hand information from others, in which case he can't state that it's a FACT. Does he have a video camera recording everything in her office? And these days, people work from home. She has a phone and a computer at home, yes?
"Ms. Abbott does not respond to the press."
Is Mr. Cox the press? Then how does he KNOW that she does not respond to them? Besides, responding to the press is optional, isn't it?
Mr. Cox is always all about FACTS yet his letter appeared to be based on hearsay and his opinion. That's fine, he's entitled to express both, but he's offered nothing concrete in the way of facts.
Paula is a very nice lady however, I'm concerned about her stand on the park. The last meeting I was at and the future of the park was discussed, she made it clear she wanted no changes and would like to try to pass the bond again.
What is it about Politicians, if they don't like the way the vote goes they assume the voters didn't understand it, or know what is good for us? Frustrating. The cost to the Town was not insignificant by any means, nor will it be the next time...will she believe us then?
Don,
Your comment under another posting is getting lost so I thought I'd respond here.
Don said:
Lastly, I want to address a comment made by my good friend Victorian Cowgirl. I think the term "nasty disposition" is far more fitting the current senior (age) member of the Town Council than I. As I read the first two definitions in my Webster for "nasty" (1. Filthy 2. Morally offensive) while I may disagree with some of your positions and so state with candor, I don't think you can call my response to any comment on this blog to be filthy or morally offensive.
When I said "nasty disposition" I meant that you can be "mean" at times, resorting to name-calling when the person you're being mean to hadn't initiated the "meanness."
I don't think you are filthy or morally offensive.
In fact, even though we disagree probably 80% of the time, I still enjoy our debates because you usually have knowledge of the topic we're discussing and you actually have a brain!
Unlike the Generation X punk that I've been trying to reason with over the past few weeks. Geez, she makes you look like Mother Theresa!
Deacon--- You ask; What's my problem?"
Let me tell you. I've been around long enough to know the damage that can be done by an OV Council.
Culver served one 2 year term. Cox tried, but never got there. I for one do NOT want these type of people (Culver & Cox types) making decisions that could impact us (the citizens of OV) for years to come.
What has that to do with Paula Abbott? I'll tell you what.
In 2010 Paula's term expires. There are those that would do anything to see her off the council.
In 2006 she defeated both Culver & Cox. If you don't think that's a factor in their letters "damning her," think again!
That, "Deacon," is my problem.
I find it rather interesting that shortly after having been defeated by the electorate, former Councilmember Helen Dankwerth got up before the sitting Council and lectured them on their 'responsibilities'; shortly after having been DEFEATED by the electorate, former Council member Terry Parish, too, got up before the sitting Council and lectured them about their responsibilities. And now, Don Cox a twice DEFEATED candidate and Connnie Culver another DEFEATED candidate have the audacity to lecture and attack in smear mode, a member of the sitting Council who did, in fact, become sucessfuly ELECTED. This is not election time folks and two UNELECTED opportunists took advantage of a procedural situation within Council in order to slam Councilmember Abbott.
Yes, Councilmember Abbott may have some issues, as perhaps do each and virtually every one of our sitting Council. And how about the Mayor? It was stated during an agenda item relative to travel expenses, that [now that the Mayor is retired he will have more time to travel to some important meetings the likes of which he was unable to attend when employed]; does that mean that the Mayor shirked the demands of his office by having to account to his responsibilities as an employee of his company and thus failed to attend certain meetings deemed to have been potentially beneficial to our community? I think not! As a matter of fact, Bad Person Abbott, sympathetic to the shortfall of the Mayor's travel expense account and a Councilmember who encouraged that said account be expanded in order that his potential for further attendances could be expanded, offered up one-half of her own travel allowance in order for him to do so.
Folks, election time is not here yet; candidates or potential candidates, be careful as your assaults can be met with counter-assaults. I would bet that none of you has empty closets, so be careful.
Yes, you have the right to say what you want and if the 'irregular' antics of the Explorer
News wishes to print it, well, I suppose that this can be referred to as 'freedom of speech'. However, freedom of speech has responsibility attached to it and while you can condemn Ms Abbott as being [irresponsible], I suggest that you look within your own selves as to what responsibility is, in fact.
Yes, I know that I have myself, taken pot shots at others in this blog sight and you might consider that to be hypocritical;
however, unless otherwise stated, I have taken great pains to portray my comments as opinion - those taken at Ms. Abbott appear to be nothing more than a deliberate tactless smear campaign.
My last comment here was a response to "Deacon," and as such I didn't address a new blogger ---Oro's comment.
Here it is.
If I were to judge Paula by her position on the Naranja Park ONLY----I wouldn't be happy either.But let's be a little realistic. During here seven years of service to our community, Paula has voted on literally hundreds of issues.
I'd venture to say, if you use the criteria of one vote for any elected official, anywhere, you'd find fault with every one of them.
Check Paula's voting record. Compare it with any of her predecessors and you'll find she consistently votes in the best interests of her constituents.
She is a lady with strong convictions.That is enough reason for me to like Paula and respect Paula.
As for Zev's comment----once again, he seems to be "right on."
I follow the OV Council closely on the internet and sometimes I attended meeting.
The facts about Paula are true. I listened to the groaning in the audience when she rambles on! It seems you choose to ignore that. Instead you attack Culver and Cox.
As for Culver's record. I disagree.
As I recall, Culver voted against the Utility Tax? Is that a problem for you?
Without Culver we would not have the OV Historic Commission-she fought for that. (I served on it!) The Mayor and other Council members tried to stop that too.
After the General Plan failed, Culver led the charge to have citizens in control of the General Plan Revision Committee. FYI, The Mayor and some Council Members fought her on that too-they thought they were smarter than the voters and they should decide the changes.
Somehow I fail to see why you think Culver didn't represent us.
Culver answered my emails, my phone calls and requests to meet. Paula has never responded to any of my calls or emails.
Get off Culver & Cox's back and address the the FACTS!
Deacon--- Keep commenting, as your credibility lessens each time.
Don't even think about talking to me about facts.
Your "wonderful" Ms. Culver was dumped off the OV council after a two year unproductive, trouble making term by an electorate that wised up to her shenanigans.
Inasmuch as she was gone by June 2006, and the Utility Tax was approved in Dec. 2006, your "facts" don't seem to jive.
If Culver was as great as you suggest, was it a conspirousy that as an incumbent, she managed to get only 14% of the vote to finish dead last out of six candidates?
Why don't you spend more time with Culver & Cox. The three of you appear to have a hell of a lot in common!!!
Check YOUR facts Art!
The first time the Council voted on the Utility Tax it failed-Culver was still there and voted no!
If memory serves me correctly Abbott made it into office with around 15-16% of the vote. Election night they thought Cox had won-she slid in on only a handful of votes later.
Kindly identify EXACTLY what you think is the problem when you attack those who give their time to serve. Vague innuendos lack credibility in my book. Loosely worded accusations without any specifics generally prove to be misleading & lacking any factual basis.
Clearly the nasty remarks you make show the readers you prefer not to be confused with the facts.
As one who pays close attention to the Council, attends meetings frequently, checks details on the OV Web Site, I am happy that Paula Abbott is there. She asks intelligent questions, wants details explained, and seems to CARE about her constituents.
She'll have my vote!
Deacon...
I appreciate your accurate observations.
Art only knows how to attack the messenger because he has no message. He is void of substance and contributes nothing positive to the local scene. As you have discovered, Art will never be confused by fact and often spews false information. Take him for what he is worth.
Your election information is pretty close. She won that election by 4 votes and was trailing until they "found some lost ballots" that resulted in a recount. Interestingly enough she was the Plaintiff in an action AGAINST the Town of Oro Valley in that election. Interesting loyalty!!
VC.....
There are times when I can be blunt and on occasion I am human and react stronger (more caustic) than I need to. However there is not a single person on this blog or in this community that can accurately state that during five years of serving on the P&Z that I was anything but a complete gentleman and rendered fair, fact based votes on the items before the Commission. I will readily admit to taking much more liberty with my interactions on this blog. I will also admit that there are times when I would LOVE to say much more.
As for my knowledge of Paula's habits. I have talked to many,many citizens who have written letters and e-mails to Paula Abbott. I can count on one hand (with fingers to spare) those who state that they have received a reply. I have probably sent her 50 e-mails. The only one to which she responded to was a Christmas greeting I sent several years ago. The other comments I made are based on direct comments from those who are privy to such information. Ask any sitting or past Council person. I track, Ms. Abbotts attendance at meetings as do others. All you have to do is ask.
Zev...
Your comments recently have beet totally off target and 'segal like'. You state that I "have the audacity to lecture and attack in smear mode".
You obviously do not like the accurate reflection of the record of a sitting Councilperson to be exposed. That's what I presented. If you have any evidence that my statements are false or even misleading please present that information and leave the 'segal like' comments to the masta.
Anyone know the difference between Don Cox & a rattlesnake?
One slithers about and spews venom.
The other is a reptile.
Art...
Thank you for validating and underlining my point.
LOVE!!
Zev, VC, Ms Coyote, Ferlin, OV Mom, Salette, Barry, Bill, etc.....
Aren't you proud of him???
Don
Puzzled that Art calls this the LOVE blog when he is so filled with hate.
Cox a rattlesnake? Typical Art Segal. Be honest, who injects venom into every issue?
The ugliness Art puts forth never seems to offer solutions or better ideas. The personal attacks don't address the issue or why he disagrees.
Put this blog to good use! Offer solutions! Brainstorm on how to make OV the place we all want it to be!
About Abbott-argue the FACTS. Had she been in the majority for many of her votes the town would be penniless due to the lawsuits she would have caused.
Has Art ever admitted he was wrong?
Actually if the past bone head council members had not voted for the 23.2 million dollar give away to the OV Marketplace, we would not have had so much divisiveness .
Talk about lawsuits, this controversy is still brewing with a lawsuit waiting to be settled.
So if you think that council members should make their decisions based on the threat of a lawsuit then why the heck even have a council
Anybody can threaten a lawsuit.-
Recall that Paula Abbott received high marks as a "friend of the taxpayer" by a tax group watchdog.
In my opinion some of the council members past and present might qualify as "friend of the developer"
Cox & Deacon---- I am more than willing to have our readers determine their opinion of me.
The likes of you two, and a few others that find it necessary to denigrate me and Paula Abbott, a lady I hold in high esteem, have as much value as a $3 dollar bill.
Paula is too much of a lady to respond to your nastiness. I, on the other hand, will speak as I see fit.
Try to remember: "Niceness begets niceness!"
Deacon,
I prefer Abbott over Culver, but I do appreciate something else that you said:
"Vague innuendos lack credibility in my book. Loosely worded accusations without any specifics generally prove to be misleading & lacking any factual basis."
Truer words were never spoken.
However, with some people who post on this site, if your argument is vague, they will attack you for not giving specifics and call you a liar. Then, when you elaborate and give all the specifics, they accuse you of whining and being paranoid.
Thinker,
After I just commented that although you and I usually disagree, I still enjoy debating you because "at least you have a brain" you post this:
"Art only knows how to attack the messenger because he has no message. He is void of substance and contributes nothing positive to the local scene. As you have discovered, Art will never be confused by fact and often spews false information."
Must I do my Fonzie imitation again?
I was wwwrrr...
I was so wwwrrrooo...
Seriously, Thinker, there are a few people on this site who are "void of substance" but Art isn't one of them. And neither are you. The two of you just disagree.
Oh great, now I have a 70's song going through my head!
Well now, this string has turned into an interesting discussion regarding the personalities, voting records and veracity of Conny Culver, Art Segal, Paula Abbott and just about everyone else.
But, as has been pointed out, it still doesn't deal substantially with the facts.
It's easy to take a stand on an issue that you know will be approved 6-1 with you being the "1." This supposedly gives you the moral high ground to say that you stood up for the "little guy."
In fact, though, it means that you were not able or willing to reach consensus with 6 other people who were also duly elected to represent the people and who may or may not be as smart or not as smart as you.
My belief is that to take such a stand is intellectually lazy. To really get in and dig into an issue and to explore reasonable approaches or alternatives takes hard work in the political arena. Unfortunately for the citizens of Oro Valley, Ms. Abbott is either unwilling or unable to undertake such work.
It's not a badge of honor to be the person who doesn't return phone calls or e-mails. It's no great triumph to propose actions that would take away people's property rights (and, yes, those people include the dreaded "developers" who built the houses where we all live).
As VC rightly points out, just showing up for meetings doesn't annoint anyone as king or queen either. But, at least, it signifies that the person takes his or her responsibility seriously, whether we agree with his or her stands on issues.
It's too bad that Mr. Cox seems to want to re-visit the last election so frequently, but he does make some good points occasionally. This need to continue to campaign has produced some good posts here, particularly from Terry Parish. But we simply can't go on rehashing election results. I will say this for Mr. Cox--he had every reason to challenge the election results whereby he lost by a couple of votes. Why Ms. Abbott chose to challenge the count when she was the winner is just one more example of her muddied thinking.
Again, I probably won't cement my friendship with Art, Zev or some others here. But, that's OK. Thank you for taking the time to read this post.
VC.....
You are right, we do disagree on most issues. But I at least try to do it in a reasonable way. His recent post about the snake thing is the second time he has posted the same ignorant comment about me.
If I had posted the exact same words about Art there would be 40 comments about my "nasty disposition" and the 'bobsie twins' would stand before the council and say what a jerk I am.
Art is only critical. He never offers solutions. He posts incorrect information time and time again. He reacts with his temper. He's simply an angry man that is no longer able to control his emotions.
Please identify the substance Art brings to the table. List his accomplishments.
And yet you and others continue to defend him. It's beyond me.
"BB"---- On the contrary. Speaking only for myself, which I am quite capable of doing, I don't take issue with your most recent comment.
Reasonable people can disagree on issues but still get along.
A case in point. My friend Dick, "The Zee Man" and I do not agree on what I would refer to, as "National Politics."
That aside, we work quite closely, and quite well, I might add, in doing this blog. So, yes---it can be done.
My prior comment on this thread ended by me saying: "Niceness begets niceness."
This blog is a forum for diverse opinions. Whether others may agree, my postings & comments are usually, not an action, but a reaction.
I will try to heed the credo: "Niceness begets niceness." Hopefully, others will do the same.
I think your most recent comment, although I don't agree with it all, may have been a good start.
We'll see!
BB....Just one tiny observation. If you go back and check the postings to this blog, there is only one person who continually wishes to refer to past elections. It isn't me.
Your comments about taking the easy way out are very much on target.
MsCoyote,
I agree the 'bonehead' council should never have agreed to 23+M. The Council that did that was BEFORE Dankwerth, Parish and Culver were elected. Those boneheads were Council Members Johnson, Wolf and Rochman. It was a 5 member council then.
Loomis & Abbott voted against it.
When the new 7 member council came in 2004 they tried to change the contract. I remember Dankwerth and Culver calling in special outside legal council to attempt to get out of the contract the previous bozo's agreed to. Culver & maybe Dankwerth, also brought in the CEO of Costco in an effort to keep Wally-Mart out. Vestar killed it.
When the voters got the chance to kill the contract it failed.
Many people blame the Council for the delay caused by improper handling of the petitions for a public vote. It wasn't the Council handling the paperwork.
A little known fact: Members of the council AND citizen volunteer members of boards and commissions can be held PERSONALLY LIABLE if they vote to ignore legal advice provided to them. A newly elected Council Member takes an oath to obey the law. I think Abbott only votes against legal advice when she knows there aren't enough votes to risk her losing her home, her savings and her children's college education. Would you risk your life savings?
I think the current lawsuit is against all of the agreements council's all over the state have given to developers.
Art-
Unlike you, I think Cox and Culver are over the election. Abbott should be held accountable for her dereliction of duty.
I find myself in agreement with several posters with whom I don't normally agree.
I think that by far the most responsive council member is Latas, followed by the BeeGees--Garner and Gillaspie--followed by Kunisch, followed by Carter, then Loomis, then Abbott at dead last.
Abbott has never returned an e-mail or phone call that I've made to her.
Let's go back to why this whole topic relative to Paula Abbott came about. First there was a letter to the editor (Explorer News) by Don Cox, taking advantage of an out-of-context comment made by Ms. Abbott at a Council meeting and then spinning this 'out of context' comment to further his own agenda of 'dissecting' her performance.Then comes Connie Culver, a former Councilperson, quite handily defeated in her last attempt at office, riding on the back of Mr. Cox in order to further denigrate Ms. Abbott.
Now, I wrote a post in which I tried to EMPHASIZE that [here were a couple of DEFEATED former candidates who were dissing a SITTING Member and that, aside from the out-of-context induced commentary, that this was not the 'time' to go into attack mode].
To those who are so anti-Abbott, for whatever reasons, you have some proper options you can use to 'kill' her now:
1)If there is an avenue for official reprimand, go for it.
2)Petition for a recall election.
3)If she decides to run again and a campaign takes hold, then, whatever you think, let it all hang out then.
In the meantime all I am seeing are
streams of invective, based on an out-of-context short statement that was iterated by Mr. Cox at what I believe to be an inappropriate time.
There is hardly a Councilperson, a blogger, or any other party within the TOV, or citizen commentator who hasn't made some kind of statement that to others might make little or no sense and that can be parsed for whatever utility another might want to project.
Want to take swings at a Councilperson, sitting or a wannabe, why not wait 'till the fight starts instead of standing in the corner of the ring and practice swinging at thin air. Yes, take issue with an issue if that is what you want to do, one that is important and perhaps subject to change, reinforcement, or valuable dialogue; the singling out and venomous spitting at a particular sitting member of Council, whether or not you may like that person or dislike that person, like the demeanor of that person or dislike the demeanor of that person, I find repugnant - criticism of a position, yes; demeaning the person, no!
Want to prematurely start mixing it up? Let's see now - in addition to Paula Abbott, there is the Mayor potentially running for re-election. There is Al Kunisch potentially running for Councilmember. There is Kenneth K.C. Carter potentially running for Councilmember. AND, there are some of YOU (and others) who are potentially running for office (for the record I am NOT!) As the old saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Everybody want a go at it?
Zev...While I appreciate your input, I am not sure you sit in a position to dictate when or where others should act or react. What you are trying to do is tell others when they should discuss a topic. That seems awfully presumptuous on your part.
Be that as it may let me tell you why I took this opportunity to make my statements. I did it only because it was CURRENT. The Explorer reported the comment and I responded. She (Abbott) dictated the timing. I have no clue whether the statement attributed was taken out of context. Frankly I don't care. The statement speaks for itself and is absurdly self-serving and frankly a misrepresentation.
And while you may dictate/believe that this is too early to begin to crank up the election rhetoric, I would submit to you that one candidate has already made his announcement and that others have made their decision and are in the process of selecting helpers. NO, that does not include me but I do know some who have.
One of the issues I have with some of the folks who repeatedly post on this blog is that if someone is critical of the people or positions this blog supports, the response is typically not facts or history or a hypothesis to support the 'other' side, but put in terms such as "denegrate", attack", or "'kill'". Art's recent post is a very good example.
Speaking of Art, here is a classic that is so very, very true."Don't even think about talking to me about facts." Art has never made a more accurate statement.
Zev, if you wish to defend Ms. Abbott or present some information that contradicts something I have said. Have at it. That would be welcome and refreshing. Attempting to dictate when people should post or write letters to the Explorer is probably not a winning position.
Thinker, I am not dictating, I am expressing an opinion and that should be obvious to 'factual' you! As to my post, I simply (or perhaps in a more picturesque manner) stated that you [took a statement out of context and used it to dissect Paula Abbott's performance and that Ms. Culver, out of the blue,jumped on your back to take the opportunity to further a disdain for Ms. Abbott]. All this in addition to a few comments that boobie-baby has made that I found to be singularly applied to Ms. Abbott and none other. And, Thinker, as I tried to explain, I did not post to defend Ms. Abbott or ANYONE ELSE. I stated an opinion about the timing of these 'revelations' (yes, I did post an observation in an earlier stream describing an instance when I felt that Ms. Abbott did take a position that was community, not selfishly, oriented).
And Thinker, I have enough 'contact' in this community to know myself about the promise of who might be running for the available offices.
And too, Thinker, I have the right to post what I think, and if someone is going to open 'can of worms', then I will bait the hook and use the worms as I care or am able to; catch the fish or catch the fisherman.
And one last thing, OT, (for the time being), if you take issue with someone who might use terms like "denigrate", "attack" or "kill", let me remind you that you, yourself, in some of your past posts, have utilized adjectives which were much less than kind; let's not be hypocritical just because the 'mood' suits you.
Zev...
Good Morning.
That was an interesting fishing story. It wasn't wasted. :-)
This is a minor point but I did not take Ms. Abbotts comment out of context. It was the only comment published, therefore if taken out of context then our local newspaper did so. But as I stated, the comment speaks for itself and its intent is clear.
Lastly, I readily admit that from time to time I have taken liberty with my adjectives. I don't know if they could be classified as "much less than kind". I guess it is in the eyes of the beholder. But I will say that I usually use them in conjunction with some content. Others simply "attack the messenger" while providing no 'meat'. That's my 'beef'.
And in that final vein, have we chewed this 'cud' enough? I so opine. 30 posts is usually sufficient. I am confident our 'master' will provide us with more fields on which to graze.
Good morning OT, yes the 'cud' has been chewed enough; the tone of your response was well taken and I guess we will have more 'fields on which to graze' - that's life. Have a good day.
OV Objective Thinker and Zev,
I agree. Discussion is long enough.
PS Art: Please explain the votes or actions that have led you to attack Terry Parish, Helen Dankwerth and Conny Culver in this blog.
I disagreed with all of them from time to time. In retrospect, who is going to agree all the time?
In my opinion, all of them did a better job than Paul Loomis, Al Kunisch, Paula Abbott and KC Carter.
I think a section on this blog to discuss this would be good.
Post a Comment