At last night's Council Meeting, Art spoke during the "Call To The Audience" segment of the meeting, reminding Council members that it is their job to represent the interest of the people of Oro Valley. Sounds "sort of obvious", doesn't it? But some members of Council seem to "dance to a different drummer".
Watch Art's remarks:
Art also discussed the Town's Budget for 2009-2010. He noted a "problem" with one of the town's previous decisions and noted how improper it is to raid the town's contingency fund to pay for routine operating costs.
Watch Art's remarks:
91 comments:
Thanks Zee Man. If I knew you would put this on the blog, I would have worn a dress shirt & tie----if I owned a dress shirt & tie!
However,I believe the "substance" was more important than the "dress code."
Well, at leas you combed your hair!
Forget the hair & dress code. What about the message???
There was no substance. There was no message. And as is usually the case, Art failed to respect the 3 minute rule and had to be asked by the Mayor to conclude his remarks. It's unfortunate that we couldn't hear KC derogotory comments.
It's just another example of Art's lack of respect.
KC's
If there was no message, then why did I get the message? The message to the council was that they were elected to represent the people. They were not elected to represent certain entities that always have their hands out looking for money. A poll showed that the citizens did not want money given to certain groups that had requested it, but certain members of the council voted to give the money to them anyway, against the will of the people.
Now how come I got that and you didn't, Thinker?
Should I or anyone else be surprised by the Cox comment? (It's a rhetorical question. Most readers know the answer.)
I will tell our readers after I addressed the council concerning the "library issue," Vice Mayor Carter leaned over to his new pal, Mayor Loomis, and said "that's why I don't read his blog."
I didn't take that as being "derogatory", but others might. What may have been "derogatory" was the public comments from Mr. Carter questioning the motives of some on the council that had many unanswered questions on Mr. McKee's report on behalf of the library committee.
Fortunately, it's all on the streaming video to be heard by those that wish to do so.
VC....You "got it" because that's the message you wanted to hear and what ever comes out of Art's mouth you take as the truth, the whole truth, ect.
You use the term, "a poll". Are you speaking of the Latas or the blog poll? Both of which are not scientific, blatantly biased and do not represent the mayority of the residents of Oro Valley. There is an old expression in Illinois, where I lived and worked for years. It goes, "Just outside of Chicago, there is a place called Illinois."
Well just outside of this very narrowly focused blog and just outside of the Latas Liberal Poll is a place called Oro Valley. There is more to Oro Valley than just what is in Art Segal's mind. And for that we should all be grateful. The core of the Latas poll are the e-mail addresses, provided by the Pima County Democratic Committee I have heard, of those who live in Oro Valley. What ever comes from both 'polls' should be taken with very lightly. I would also add that "the citizens", for the most part, don't have a clue about what some of these organizations do and therefore their opinion is not based on any foundation of knowledge. Fortunately the Council was wise enough to understand that we receive great benefit from some of these organizations.
So--- Cox believes the present poll asking for opinions of our readers is "blatantly biased."
How many others share that intellectually misguided viewpoint?
We probably should do a poll asking if you had Don Cox running for council against a jackass, who would you vote for---based on their respective intelligence?
Cox,
Go drag your knuckles back to your Right Wing Nut cave. You and your likes give Republicans a bad name.
Now, show me your source that Pima Democratic Party is the list Councilwomen Latas uses on her polls.
And for those who get Latas's polling questions, how many of you are Republicans or Independents.
I know, FOR A FACT that she reaches out to many on her polls, regardless of their personal position or liking of Latas herself. And yes, even you the Neanderthal Cox, can get on her list. In her Explorer editorial a month or so ago, she posted the email address to contact to be added.
What an ass.
Let's start at the last paragraph of OVOT's commentary. 'Thinker' states that [the citizens, for the most part don't have a clue about what some of these organizations do and therefor their opinions are not based on any foundation of knowledge]. Whoa, 'fountain of knowledge', let's take just one
instance as an example as to how [Council was wiser as to how we receive great benefits from some of these organizations].
C-path - I think I know quite a bit about this organization; one of my brothers-in-law has been with the FDA and NIH (presently with the FDA) for over 40 years. He is on one of the boards connected with C-path, was invited to give a research presentation here in Oro Valley which was hosted by C-path a few months ago, AND, though he takes no position on 'municipal' funding as he is not connected with the financial end of it, he does affirm that C-path is, in essence, a joint venture which was formed in cooperation with the FDA. Now, C-path appears to be, in theory, an excellent opportunity for coordinating and expediting the research and development between the universities, drug companies, the FDA, and other medical entities. However, it's headquarters are in Tucson, it's
functions and/or 'appropriations' are not limited towards any particular community, it's funding which reaches into the millions and millions and millions of dollars, mostly comes from the federal and state governments as well as millions from 'medical research companies'. Is it a good concept; in my opinion, yes. Should it be 'bumming' funds from small and needy communities like ours in these difficult times; considering it's other vast resources, in my opinion - no!
Now, OVOT, contrast the way a citizen (me) came to the conclusions that he (me) did vs. that of one of our Councilpersons who was quoted in a newspaper article that [he didn't know what they (C-path) did but he was going to vote for the funding anyway].
WHO'S BASIS IN FACT IS THE SUPERIOR ONE?
There is another situation where Mayor Loomis stated that he didn't know the facts in a particular matter and so voted against it, a matter which has been in the news
for over a year, a matter which is before the courts and has affected a particular issue in Oro Valley, a matter which some time ago was relative to an action taken by Legal and Council in Oro Valley, a matter which was drafted by our Town Attorney, A MATTER ABOUT WHICH ANY MAYOR OF ANY COMMUNITY IN ARIZONA REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN! And, of course, the Councilperson who didn't know anything about C-path, followed the Mayor's vote on this item
also. I know about this issue, Art Segal knows about this issue, other Councilmembers know about this issue, and I know of many other civilians who know about this issue. But, the Mayor and the above Councilmember didn't know enough about it even though they knew it was coming up for a vote.
OVOT, you accuse VC of getting it because [that's what she wants to hear]. That, sir, is a crock! You bring in that there are 'liberal' influences which bring bias to certain actions; gee whiz, OVOT, haven't you figured out that I am a conservative and one who at least can define the term and that which it stands for; I frankly doubt that you can define either the usage of the term 'liberal' and/or 'conservative' as it is intended to be understood as you don't seem to 'get' the principles of either.
As to Art's addressing the Council and your contention that there [was no substance within it] - who said there had to be a step by step progression of premises and conclusions in order for one to make a point. Surely, with
your whiny complaint that he ran overtime, you can't expect a point by point illustration within the 3 minutes allotted. I think that most people concerned, in fact, 'got it'. Why don't you get up before Council and say something sometime? It appears you would rather stay under the radar, address only a portion of the community in this blog, and save your butt (a nice word for you know what) from being 'flashed' in public.
OVOT is obviously just stirring up the pot to get a rise out of some people. No one I repeat no one can be that stupid to make such asinine comments.
I'm a registered Republican, pro business, and buying properties around the Tucson vicinity. I attended a couple of local Republican meetings but found them lacking in several areas. I did enjoy meeting some of the more enlightened Republican candidates and voted for them.
I backed Latas and Gardner not because of their party affiliation, but because they are both very smart and that is exactly what OV needs at this time. This town is at a turning point and if we can't get smart talented people like Latas and Gardner to serve our interests (instead of other council members that serve special interests) then we are doomed!
Amen, Turtle!
Thinkerbell,
(Sorry, but I've been wanting to use that for a long time...)
You "think" I got it because it's what I "wanted to hear." You're right. I just rewatched the video and Art was clearly talking about flying monkeys and gumdrops and a Beatles reunion.
If you "think" there was no message and no substance, then it was you who heard what you wanted to hear.
You didn't hear Art mention the council giving money to outside agencies? You didn't hear him state that the doctrine to which the council was elected was to serve the people and not special interests?
You said Salette's polls do not represent the majority of the residents of Oro Valley. The majority of people elected her so the majority must feel that she represents their interests, yes?
You call it, the "Latas Liberal Poll" but her polls/surveys are sent to ANYONE who wants to participate and I happen to know that there are some Republicans and Independents on that list.
As for the council giving our money away, you said, "Fortunately the Council was wise enough to understand that we receive great benefit from some of these organizations." We also receive great benefit from a lot of social programs but conservatives are always the first ones to try to cut those programs or eliminate them completely.
You seem to be saying that if a conservative gives tax dollars to a particular entity, it's because the conservative is "wise." But if a liberal gives tax dollars to a particular entity, well, he's just a tax and spend liberal.
I am a independent/conservative. Gun owner, cigar smoking beer drinking conservative.
To claim that SL's poll is a left wing set up is, as stated above, a crock.
Oro Valley issues are rather simple; out of touch town leadership v. thoughtful folks who want the best for this town. The sad people like the mayor and his running dogs could be republicans or democats, makes no difference they are, in many cases, not giving us the government we deserve.
So Art sounds the trumpet and the followers come out of the CAVE...pun intended. I love it.
It is common knowledge that Ms. Latas is a VERY liberal Democrat. If you disagree with that then don't bother to respond because you are not objective. If you believe that Ms. Latas did not obtain a list from the Pima County Democratic Party("which is the core") then do not bother to respond because you do not know the truth. I didn't say it was only those people, I said it was "the core". If you believe that most citizens of Oro Valley can describe with any accuracy what TREO and MTCVB do then don't respond. You don't have a clue either.
If you can't respond with decency, and be willing to discuss an issue without personal attacks don't respond. You are simply antagonistic.
I'll await you replies.
Two comments on this posting speak volumes.
One comment: (Addressing another blogger)
"Are you speaking of the Latas or the blog poll? Both of which are not scientific, blatantly biased and do not represent the mayority (sic) of the residents of Oro Valley."
One comment: "Oro Valley issues are rather simple; out of touch town leadership v. thoughtful folks who want the best for this town."
One comment from an intellectually
challenged individual.
One comment from an intellect.
#1---Cox, aka OV Objective Thinker
#2--- Nombe Watanabe
That about sums it up, wouldn't you say?
Thinker,
At 12:50 PM on Friday you said, "The core of the Latas poll are the e-mail addresses, provided by the Pima County Democratic Committee I have heard, of those who live in Oro Valley.
Key words here are, "I have heard."
At 7:58 PM on Friday you said, "If you believe that Ms. Latas did not obtain a list from the Pima County Democratic Party("which is the core") then do not bother to respond because you do not know the truth.
Key words here are, "the truth."
OK. Which is it? This is something you've heard or it is the truth?
Cowgirl--- More important than responding to your query, is verification that when God was handing out brains, Cox was standing on his head!
VC.... Allow me to clear up the confusion.
Ms. Latas DID receive a mailing list from the Democratic Party of Pima County. From that she developed e-mail lists which are the "core" of her 'survey' mailing list.
Those folks are not the only people on her e-mail survey list but they are the BULK. That heavily weights her responses. Additionally she has stated that only the first 400 responses are recorded. Who do you think make up the first 400? I know you are a level headed thoughtful person and you can readily come up with the answer. I would suggest that before any other survey results are presented by Ms. Latas, that she divulge the mailing list. That's transparency.
I am on her e-mail list so I know that there is at least one registered Republican on the list.
LOVE,
Thinkerbell...:-)
VC...And I heard that e-mail addresses were also included. This is the "I heard" portion.
Can there be any doubt he was standing on his head?
English & grammar aside, one is hard pressed to find ordinary logic in most of his comments.
You "gotta" love it!
Cowgirl--- you can respond as you see fit, but you'd have more success explaining it to one the the dogs Salette is trying to save.
Mr. Cox,
Speaking with authority, the Pima Democratic Party does not give out any email list to anyone. This would violate any fairness in contested races and, quite frankly, is unethical.
1. Democrat or Republican balancing a budget with contingency funds is not sound financial planning.
2. As a Conservative Republican myself I am on the Latas email list.
3. I think KC is a angry hateful and slightly demented old man. It would be unfair to the animals to elect him as dogcatcher.
4. If pigs could fly Pima County might cough up more money for the library.
5. I think OVOT has a brain, sometimes misguided but it is passionate about OV.
Lastly, if Art had hair it would be standing up!
Jeff...It is a well known fact that the Democratic Party....and the Republican party issue voting lists. They also know who has developed substantial e-mail lists from the those lists.
It is also unethical for the Democratic (or Republican) Party to be directly involved in non-partisian elections. But that is another discussion.
Lamb Chop...Thank you for the compliment and you are correct. I am passionate. PC was never my forte and it probably won't be in the future. But I refuse to allow the crap that is posted in this blog to become 'fact' because is goes unanswered.
You are exactly correct about KC. However Art is not far behind. His inability to accept any point of view other than his own (not just in the OV arena) alienates most people.
Aren't we all "misguided" from time to time? That's why there are so many cars parked in church/synagogue parking lots on various days of the week.
That there might be many vehicles parked in a church or synagogue parking lot during the week is a premise for a conclusion that [we are all misguided from time to time]; wow, is that a stretch! OVOT, factualize that statement if you can. I posted a blog (along with others' commentaries) and gave examples of citizen awareness vs. that of 'some' of Councils', a topic which YOU introduced in this stream; you simply ignored my 'enlightenment' because I surmise that it doesn't fit in with your dogmatic irrationality - typical of your dodgy tactics.
Yes, OVOT, as LambChop indicates, perhaps you are passionate about Oro Valley but one doesn't have to tender something by denigrating other peoples' ways and means of showing same and then complain about it. I love saguaros but I don't 'hug' them!
Frankly,'thinker(?)', as you show by your contemptuous blather, you are simply a hypocrite who fails to see yourself in proper perspective.
My two cents from the coyote cave.
First even though I disagree with how some on council voted on this issue I am not going to judge their fitness for office based on that alone, I will rate them on the entire voting record.
About Latas and the dems & repub's and the poll.
Ok, so the repub's have the reputation for being conservative, note I said reputation and the dem's have the reputation of being liberal .
Latas if she was going to be a "typical" liberal would have just thrown out this poll because the poll showed support for fiscal constraints.
Salette Latas has my email address and I am not a registered Democrat and she sends me the polls, why? Probably because she knows I will respond and that care.
Also think that if the rep. party wants to gain some support they need to get with it and use all the technology out there.
We need more council members who really listen to what we say, ask more questions and work smarter.
Instead of the blame game we need people who are willing to play the fix it game.
Following from mscoyote's statements, prior to the last Council election, I had lengthy discussions with candidates Latas, Garner, and Gillaspie; I was also able to observe over a period of time, the 'actions' of then Councilmembers Parrish and Dankwerth. In my conversations with both Latas and Garner, I discovered a trait that I found attractive to both - they METICULOUSLY studied the issues and METICULOUSLY gathered factual support for their points of view. Relative to Councilmember Gillaspie, though I had disagreed with many of his voting tendencies of past, I found him to be extremely well versed in those things relative to government functions and felt that with input from new 'sources' he might be more supportive to other points of view as he does have the intellectual capacity to be able to be amenable to change. As to the other two incumbents, I found one to be dogmatically incapable of logistics and lacking in ability for presentations as well his accepting the questionable funding he received for his 'efforts' and I found the other to be quite intelligent but a bit too visibly haughty for public office. None of these candidates did I consider because of what I might have suspected their political definitions might be.
This 'political party' stuff, injected into some of these posts, is a bunch of nonsense; it has NO PLACE in TOWN politics!
Good points, Ms. Coyote, Lamb Chop, Zev, Cowgirl, Nombe, Turtle, Jeff, eth, and Art.
Don Cox is the only one on this blog who tries to make things partisan. He tried to do so during the 2006 election, with his participation in the infamous Oro Valley Republican Club endorsement and the red postcards announcing who was a Republican in the race. It didn't work so well for him.
He tried again during the 2008 election by pointing out that Salette Latas was a "liberal Democrat." That didn't work so well either.
He's still throwing tantrums about it.
The fact is, when the council was dominated by Republicans, they believed in tax and spend, borrow and spend, give away tax dollars to developers, make bad deals with the county that cost us money, and spend and spend some more.
The three Republicans currently on the council voted to use our savings account to keep people on they payroll whether or not they had work to do. That is so liberal it is pretty much communism.
The poll that councilperson Latas took, on the other hand, basically came back saying, cut spending and don't raise our taxes. What exactly is so liberal about that?
And then she went ahead and voted in a fiscally responsible manner. That makes her a good, responible leader who transcends the political bigotry of people like Don Cox.
I have never received an e-mail list from a political party.
My e-mail list contains 42%Republicans, 35% Democrats, and 23%Others.
Of the people who have answered my surveys, 41% were Republicans, 33% were Democrats, and 26% were Others.
I don't know what the percentages were for the survey for which the Town paid $17,500. Apparently, some of the respondents to that survey weren't registered to vote, and at least one wasn't even a resident of Oro Valley.
Any Oro Valley registered voters who would like to be added to my list for future surveys can e-mail their name and address to slatas@orovalleyaz.gov.
Salette--- I really don't believe anyone with half a brain would have any trouble accepting your, and Jeff's honest representation.
The key phrase is "half a brain."
SLs post just goes to show you that Republicans and Democrats, Reds, Blues, Gay, Straight, Hindo or Jew, whatever.. have no monopoly on good government.
The members who voted to raid our "rainy day fund" are not conservative or liberal they are wrong.
Can't wait for 2010.
Mr. Cox,
Unfortunately I was travelling this morning and could not reply to your response. Fortunately for you, others were able to correct you on your less-than-factual assumptions.
Before I correct you further and point out your bogusness in your now back-tracking argument, I just want to tell you that I don’t think it fair to have a battle of ethics and integrity with an unarmed man. So, before I rub your nose in the poo you constantly leave at this blog site, I will ask you if you wish to continue this fantasy of yours that Councilwoman Latas has been biased her decisions with liberal leanings before you get another lesson in real, factual truth-telling.
Also, to remind you again, you never received my permission to call me by my first name and you are not my friend, therefore please refer to me as Col. Latas or Capt. Latas, your choice.
"My e-mail list contains 42%Republicans, 35% Democrats, and 23%Others."
That is an interesting comment. One could certainly draw some conclusions from that statement. Here is one possible conclusion. If you know exactly what political party (using "other" as a "party")every person on an e-mail list belongs to, then you can send a survey to only Republicans or to only Democrats or to only Others. Another conclusion is that someone along the way matched e-mail addresses with surnames with political parties. Hmmmmmmmmmmm....
Zev... I have not answered some of your recent posts because I consider them to be far too distended.
I communicate with the Town Council via personal meetings or e-mail. I find both to be effective. The meetings are sufficiently long already and are needlessly extended by the comments of some. I choose not to join the parade.
OV Mom..."Political bigotry" is certainly not a label that can be accurately used to describe me or my actions. And if you read the postings here, I am not making an attempt to turn this or any other conversation into Republicans vs. Democrats. I simply made an observation about the bias of "a poll". You on the other hand seem to know the political party of every member of this Town Council and previous ones also. I only KNOW the political party of three members of the Council. And I only know that because one person told me their affliliation and two others received contributions from a political party. I am making an assumption on the latter two.
You made a statement that I am the "only one on this blog who tries to make things partisan. This blog is blatantly partisan. My Webster's defines the term as: "a strong supporter of a faction". Are you trying to tell me that You, Art, Zev, Zee Man are not partisan and this blog is not partisan? Give me a break.
LOVE!!!
Jeff...
Please refer to my previous comments regarding my addressing you as Jeff.
I typically refer to folks by their "blog" name. You, and your inflated ego, are no different.
Lastly, any member of this or any other Town Council WILL be influenced by their political leanings. It's only natural and we should all expect that. It certainly doesn't mean that we have to like or agree with it.
It may surprise you that I strongly supported Salette's recent vote to reduce the Oro Valley workforce rather than use contigency funds. So there is a streak of conservatism in her which offers a glimmer of hope.
LOVE!!!
To all those who commented here, plus all others that read these comments:
If it was not obvious before, it is so obvious now. Cox is either too stupid, too arrogant, or more likely both, to stop making such a damn fool of himself.
Anyone that has a brain that they don't sit on, would, by now, only say sorry if I made a mistake, and sorry if I offended anyone.
But, as I said, you cant be sitting on your brain and think coherently at the same time.
Perhaps now, most,if not all of our readers will realize what I've known for years; i.e. Cox lives by the montra, "Don't confuse me with the facts;I already made up my mind."
Perhaps, he will have the good sense, although it's doubtful he has any----to just shut up and go away!
Art
Art...As usual you are incorrect on all counts.
Addendum to my previous comment.
Let's see how long it takes Cox to comment here and say something to the effect----
"Art. I know you'd love me to stop commenting. Well, that's exactly what I won't do. I will continue to comment and point out the lies you, Zee Man, Salette, Zev, V. Cowgirl, OVMom, Turtle, ETH, Nombe W, Lamb Chop,Jeff (MY friend) etc. etc are perpetrating on the community."
Even, me superseding him with this won't stop him.
Arrogance & stupidity would preclude that!
Art
Well Mr. Cox, seems like the majority of Oro Valley voters were influenced by Councilwomen Latas’ political leanings, but you seem to confuse this with liberalness. Do you wish to continue to discuss the email list or do you want to continue to change the subject. I can talk all day about political ideology if this is the new direction you wish to go.
It’s funny that when the light shines on you, you scurry of to a new dark corner just like a roach. You may think I have a big ego, but you'll find I carry a big flash light too.
"you can send a survey to only Republicans or to only Democrats or to only Others."
Sure I could. But obviously, I don't. You admit that you got my surveys, as did several other self-described Republicans and conservative Independents. In fact, every Oro Valley voter for whom I have an e-mail address got my survey.
"Another conclusion is that someone along the way matched e-mail addresses with surnames with political parties"
Yeah, that would be me. I check everyone who contacts me against the voter file. Quirky little habit of mine. I like to know what voters think.
Cox 'slip slides' the issues when cornered; he snaps, he growls, he wimps, he cries, he accuses, he snipes, he evades, he sneers, he skates, AND, what a coward he is - afraid even to respond to the answers he gets in response to the questions he himself poses. The 'man' is like a pretzel - twisted and salty! He represents himself to be a fact man when in reality he invents his facts, runs at the mouth in his irrelevant deliverances, and has the audacity to represent himself as an objective thinker.
Cox, you can't hold a candle to Councilmember Salette Latas OR to her husband, Jeff Latas (or to most of the other posters who 'attend' this site' as well as the blogmaster, too). So, give up your ill conceived lectures 'cause it is obvious that this class is more intelligently proficient than the whacked out, self-anointed 'teacher'.
Jeff...I think I just posted a comment on the e-mail list. The fact that we now know that the list IS identified by political parties is sufficient evidence for me to be wary.
Salette...Independent surveys will solve any questions folks might have. I recently received a survey from the Republican Party. I sent it back blank except for the comment that the questions were so slanted that the results could ONLY turn out one way. I appreciate the fact that you believe that the surveys give you information and to a limited degree they do. But your friends and supporters are far more apt to respond. Therefore the results could be skewed.
If there is anyone out there that wishes to endorse the ignorance constantly being propagated by Cox, please do so.
Ignorance because he was given every opportunity to stop making the ridiculous statements on "biased" polls, but not unexpectedly, he continues to display the worst attributes: pigheadedness, stubbornness, arrogance, ignorance and just plain stupidity.
As I said in a previous comment---a jackass displays more intelligence than Cox!
I am happy that a councilperson is asking my opinion!!! I am sure that Ms. Latas can fine tune those surveys to make them more "scientfic" but seriously is that going to change the outcome, hmm, well probably not.
Would be nice if more councilmembers took note by whatever means to keep track of our opinions. Do they? I don't know but my gut tells me a few don't know and don't care.
I am looking forward to those taxpayer friend lists that come out to see if Salette Latas and Bill Garner get high marks.They should. Maybe Barry Gillasie will also.
In math, there is a 1, there is a 2, there is a 3, there is a 4, there is a 5, there is a 6, there is a 7, there is and 8, there is a 9 - THAT IS FACT. These numbers add up to 45, not 44 and not 46, that is a fact, too. In the last post, Cox, your wariness cannot be disputed because that polls can be skewed is fact. However, as is the usual, you make a wrongful assumption, vaguely coined, that "independent surveys will solve any questions that folks might have". Once again you have presented a relatively valid premise and come up with a faulty conclusion. Try again.
My last post should have been addressed to Cox of whom I have had enough; no more for me in this stream.
It's interesting that Don Cox thinks that I have more Republicans amongst my "friends and supporters" than Democrats or others.
Which comment did you refer me to so we can dissect and deliberate your statements? Here are your email list comments:
“The core of the Latas poll are the e-mail addresses, provided by the Pima County Democratic Committee…..”PROVEN NOT TRUE, YOU’RE A LIAR IF YOU STICK WITH THIS.
If you believe that Ms. Latas did not obtain a list from the Pima County Democratic Party ("which is the core") then do not bother to respond because you do not know the truth…..REALLY? I’M RESPONDING BECAUSE THIS IS A FALSE STATEMENT. YOU’RE A LIAR IF YOU STICK WITH THIS.
Ms. Latas DID receive a mailing list from the Democratic Party of Pima County…FALSE AGAIN. YOU’RE A LIAR IF YOU STICK WITH THIS.
“Those folks are not the only people on her e-mail survey list but they are the BULK”…. 35% DEMS IS NOT THE BULK, BUT 42% (REP) is. YOU’RE A LIAR IF YOU STICK WITH THIS.
I am on her e-mail list so I know that there is at least one registered Republican on the list…..DING-DING-DING, YOU ARE AMONG THE MAJORITY PARTY ON THE LIST, THE BULK, IF YOU WILL.
It is a well known fact that the Democratic Party....and the Republican party issue voting lists. They also know who has developed substantial e-mail lists from the those lists…..MOST DON’T SHARE AND SALETTE DEVELOPED HER OWN LIST, NONE FROM THE PARTY. REGRESSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
Now which statement are you referring in your last post? Because you go from a party provided list to inferring Salette got her list from someone else, then make remarks that she may have only contacted one party or another. So, do you still believe that “Ms. Latas DID receive a mailing list from the Democratic Party of Pima County” or will you concede your error in argument?
You also stated “It is also unethical for the Democratic (or Republican) Party to be directly involved in non-partisian elections. But that is another discussion.” This is your opinion and not necessarily all. Anytime you wish, I’m a willing participant in this debate. What bothers me is you seem to understand the meaning of “unethical” but you ignore this virtue in your grandstanding.
“Just outside of the Latas Liberal Poll is a place called Oro Valley” and just outside the bounds of common sense and truth is a man named Don Cox.
Jeff, et al---- The reason Cox has such a BIG mouth is to accept the foot he consistently puts in his mouth!
Salette...I don't believe I made any statement about Republicans being the majority of your friends and supporters.
Jeff....Your insults and irresponsible don't gain you any credibility. If you think there is anyone in the political arena who believes that you and Salette do not get a list of Democratic voters which is available from the Democratic Party and was utilized in the last election then I need not go further.
I would remind you that personal insults are not allowed on this blog and if the blogmaster upheld the same rules for all your comments would be gone. But that won't happen.
My ONLY issue with my friend Jeff Latas (who I hold in high esteem for many reasons, not the least of which was his outstanding service to our country) is the fact that he thinks he can have a dialog with you. His two dogs have better comprehension skills than you continue to display.
Your problem this time Cox, was not only coming after me, as is your MO, but your feeble attempt to denigrate Salette who is held in such high esteem by so many of the constituents that she so ably serves.
I'd offer you a shovel, but you're digging your hole deeper with each comment without my assistance.
As an aside, Salette managed to get more votes in her election than you received cumulatively in your last two feeble attempts to get on the town council.
Salette is a lady. Jeff is a gentleman. I wouldn't dignify you by mentioning your name in the same sentence with these two outstanding citizens!
Thinkerbell,
You seem to be grasping for anything you can use to discredit Salette's methods and/or character.
You call them the Latas Liberal Polls and assert that the core of the e-mail addresses were obtained from the Democratic Party. But when it was pointed out to you that the majority of people on the e-mail list are actually Republicans, you had lost your argument. Rather than admit you were wrong, you then tried to change the scope of the argument to.....well, if she knows which party each person is affiliated with then she can pick and choose who will receive her surveys.
Whenever you're losing an argument you simply change the argument or you don't respond at all.
Working with your NEW argument, why does she choose to send them to Republicans? Wouldn't that be because she understands that she was elected to represent everyone and not just those who voted for her?
You once said that if you were elected to the council, you would do just that. So why are you trying to find fault with Salette for trying to represent everyone and not just her own political base?
As for the Republican survey you sent back because it was slanted to get the results they wanted, apparently you CAN be objective at times. Why not ALL the time?
Last year I received surveys from both the Republican Party and from Hillary Clinton. BOTH surveys asked leading questions that were designed to get the answers they wanted. I threw them both away. They insulted my intelligence. So I know exactly what you're referring to.
Contrast this with the surveys I receive from Salette. The questions are direct, not leading. The only problem I find with ALL surveys, which is why I would say that no survey is completely scientific, is that they can only offer so many multiple choice answers to choose from, and many times, none of the answers really describes how I feel so I have to choose the one that is the closest, but it isn't really accurate.
But no survey can list every conceivable answer. This is why I appreciate it if at least the QUESTIONS are direct and not biased, slanted, or leading. Salette's surveys are not leading and that is very refreshing. She wants to know what WE think. She is not telling us what TO think.
One of the things I have learned in the last few years through this blog is that national party affiliations--Republican or Democrat-- are irrelevant to what people want when it comes to local government.
Most people want an Oro Valley government that is efficiently run, economically sound, low cost, and responsive to the needs of the people who live Oro Valley.
"All politics is local"
I said, "Of the people who have answered my surveys, 41% were Republicans, 33% were Democrats, and 26% were Others."
Don Cox said, "But your friends and supporters are far more apt to respond."
I said, "It's interesting that Don Cox thinks that I have more Republicans amongst my 'friends and supporters' than Democrats or others."
Don Cox said, "I don't believe I made any statement about Republicans being the majority of your friends and supporters."
Not the majority, but the plurality by your logic.
If my friends and supporters are more likely to respond to my surveys, and there are more Republicans than Democrats or others responding to my survey, then by your logic, I have more Republicans amongst my friends and supporters than Democrats or others.
And that's fine with me.
One of our past defeated Council candidates made the statement that [a poll conducted by professionals (at a $17,000 cost to the community) would be scientific(huh?) and that therefor the 'poll' conducted by a non 'professional' pollster, at no cost to the community, Councilmember Latas, was thus irrelevant]. Councilmember Latas uses her questionnaires in order to get a feel for the 'PULSE' of the community; IS THAT SUCH A DAMN SHAME? It most certainly provides her with more of a basis to work with in her research and subsequent decisions than to listen to the scurrilous rants of a broken down egoist.
We finally have two reasoned responses.
VC...I am not interested in discrediting anyone's character. Let's be very clear on that. I will question (how it was obtained, from where and the validity of) the information that folks present as being representative of the voting populus of Oro Valley. For instance, what appears on this blog is NOT representative of the voting population of Oro Valley. It is representative only of the people who choose to participate in this Blog. I think you will agree with that. By the same token the results of Salette's survey is representative of only those people who choose to RESPOND. It may not necessarily be representative of everyone on her e-mail lists.
Salette Latas is a good, intelligent, well-intended person for whom I have a great deal of respect. There are only a handfull of people in this community who have opted to donate much of their personal life to seek office in Oro Valley. It's not an easy task. And whether or not their direction parallels mine they have my respect.
Salette has an agenda. That's not a bad thing it's just a fact. I don't know exactly what it is but I think I know. And it doesn't match my agenda. Therefore we will agree on a few things and differ on most.
Getting back to the survey/e-mail list(s), there are some interesting (to me anyway)tidbits.If one wants to gather e-mail addresses of Oro Valley voters with the purpose of soliciting opinion, that's fine. It is one way of utilizing the technology that's available to us. But if your sole purpose is as stated above, then why do you need to search out their political affiliation? Why can't the responses stand on their own merit. When you place the party affiliation next to the response, it raises a red flag. Idle curiosity could one reason. I don't think Salette is the kind of person who frequents the "idle curiosity" realm very often. There is a reason and I believe it has to do with the aforementioned agenda. THERE MUST BE A REASON.
Zeeman brought a great point with which I agree completely. He said..."national party affiliations--Republican or Democrat-- are irrelevant to what people want when it comes to local government." To Salette party affiliation is important.
You asked me why she sends the survey to Republicans. My response is so she can say she did. That may not be the only reason but it is one of the reasons. There is a purpose for everything she does. Again that's not a bad thing but let us not be naive and think it is 'just because'.
Let us also not be so naive and think that as political as she and her idealog husband are, they are not privy to the "lists" provided by the Democratic Party that identify every registered Democrat in Pima County. That's one of the things that political party organization do. And let me be very clear, the same is true for the Republican Party. And I am not naive enough to believe there is but ONE list. Now we can play semantics games and say, "I did not get this list from xyz Party." But they got the list from so and so who got them from so and so who got them from the xyz Party. And the higher the office you seek, the more refined the list become.
I am, and will remain wary, of survey results that come from Salette, OR any individual, group or organization unless there is a high degree of 'blindness' in their selection process. Let's use a great Oro Valley buzz word. There needs to be greater transparency. If it was sufficiently transparent from the beginning, these questions would not be raised.
And THANKS VC for a great response. As usual you rise above the norm on this blog.
As far as I'm concerned, Cox is making a feeble attempt to crawl out of the massive hole he dug for himself.
Others may wish to "buy" this drivel. I don't.
Art
Art...
Nor would I expect you to listen and/or understand reasoned thinking. It's beyond your grasp.
LOVE!!!
Cox--- Your "reasoned thinking" is about as appropriate as your chosen pseudonym---"Objective Thinker."
I stand by my statement that you opened your mouth one too many times, and are getting just retribution.
Now, you're trying trying your damnest to undo what can't be undone.
Most people know what a phony you are!!
Thinker,
You said, "By the same token the results of Salette's survey is representative of only those people who choose to RESPOND."
Yes, but isn't it likely that those who respond are those who pay attention to local politics, those who are involved, those who care, those who are informed, etc? Do you really want decisions to be based on the responses of the uninformed?
And isn't EVERY survey only representative of those who respond? Does that mean that all surveys are useless?
You made a comment about people not wanting to give money to C-Path, etc. when they didn't even know what the company did, so apparently, you agree that the opinions of uninformed people are not worthy of much consideration anyway.
You appear to want to have it both ways. If someone listens to the wants of the uninformed, you complain that these people don't even know what they're talking about. If someone listens to those who are knowledgeable about an issue, you complain that the views aren't representative of everyone.
Apparently the only survey results you would accept are results from all 40,000 Oro Valley residents, and all 40,000 of them must be fully informed on the issue being addressed. Now, how do you propose we make that happen?
You always say that we complain about things but we never offer solutions. OK. What is YOUR solution to THIS problem? How do we get 40,000 people to all be knowledgeable of local politics and to all participate in the surveys?
You asked why does she "need to search out their political affiliation? Why can't the responses stand on their own merit. When you place the party affiliation next to the response, it raises a red flag."
But if she didn't do this and she simply told you that the majority of respondents voted for this or against that, you would say that the majority of her respondents are liberal. In fact, you DID say that. You called it the Latas Liberal Poll. So by having the party affiliation handy, she can then inform you or anyone else who questions the liberal bias, exactly how many of the respondents were Republicans, Democrats, or Other.
What's wrong with that? You asked for transparency. Well, there you have it.
VC, it's useless! Cox is as slippery as an eel. On the one hand when he makes a statement that [people didn't want to give money to an organization like c-path, etc. when they didn't even know what the company did], I did challenge him with a KNOWLEDGE BASED analysis relative to c-path representing myself as one of the 'people'; he dismissed answering this challenge by dismissing it as being too "distended"; so much for his interest in acknowledging truth!
The fact is, you cannot reason with a self-absorbent fool(and I don't use that term simply to be mean spirited). Don Cox is a simpleton with an overblown ego, devoid of self-awareness, and, in some realities as dumb as a stump; and that makes it virtually impossible to carry on any lucid discourse with him on a continuum basis.
"By the same token the results of Salette's survey is representative of only those people who choose to RESPOND."
Of course, Cowgirl's response indicates that this is true for every survey. You choose whether or not to return a survey in the mail. You choose whether or not to answer the phone.
"Salette has an agenda...I don't know exactly what it is but I think I know. And it doesn't match my agenda."
What Don Cox is saying here is that *he* has an agenda that couldn't possibly match mine, even though he doesn't know what mine is. What the public might not know is that Don Cox was on the interview committe for the Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce, the Metropolitan Tucson Chamber of Commerce, and the Tucson Association of Realtors. I hope that these organizations realize that when they put someone with this many assumptions and biases on their selection committee, it casts doubt on their endorsement process.
"why do you need to search out their political affiliation?"
I don't. You provided it when you registered to vote.
"Why can't the responses stand on their own merit."
They do.
"When you place the party affiliation next to the response, it raises a red flag."
I don't place the party affilition next to the response. They're completely separate. It would take a lot of time for me to enter the party affiliation for each response, so I haven't done that. I only know collectively who has answered the surveys, and collectively, the percentages represented by each party, age group, geographic area, etc.
"THERE MUST BE A REASON."
Yup. It is, as Cowgirl guessed, to answer erroneous assumptions that my results may somehow be unrepresentative of the electorate. You charged that my survey was "liberal," and you are wrong.
"To Salette party affiliation is important."
Party affiliation is only as important to me as age or precinct. It's just one way of determining that I am reaching a broad demographic. Don Cox is the only one who brought up political bias in regards to my poll, calling it "liberal." He is wrong.
I can tell you that in general, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between party registration and opinions on local issues. They truly are nonpartisan.
"And THANKS VC for a great response. As usual you rise above the norm on this blog."
I agree.
I also want to thank Mr. Cox for publicizing my surveys again. Since this thread began, I have received several requests that voters be added to my list. The latest one wrote:
"PS. In case Mr. Cox is interested; I am a registered independent."
:-)
Salette--- It's interesting that you note Cox was appointed to NPCCC, TMCVB & Tucson Assoc of Realtors.
Could it be that these PRO active business entities don't know what the voters of Oro Valley know? The voters that turned him down each time he tried to get elected to council.
I can't wait for him to run again.
Quoting "Dirty Harry"--- "Make my day!"---run again Cox!!!
VC…
First question. No. There is no evidence that those who responded are informed. Some people who post on this blog have responded and they are not informed. Art could no more tell you how much money MTCVB generates for Oro Valley and I will bet a dollar to a donut that he responded. As I said there are few people in Oro Valley who can intelligently discuss TREO or MTCVB and C-Path and what their relationship is with the Town.
Next one. Yes, every survey is representative of those who respond. But you have to do the front work to insure blindness. That’s why independent survey groups use things like telephone books. That eliminates any possible cherry picking.
Next…I have never made a statement about people not wanting to give money to C-Path which negates your “You appear to want it both ways.” paragraph.
I accepted the survey conducted by the Town twice in the past several years that asked for general input on what the people wanted in the way of services and in general how the Town was being managed. Two blind surveys were conducted that were statistically accurate and both provided us with good information.
The problem you presented is, as you know, impossible to solve. We can’t get 40,000 people involved and informed. I would love for that to happen and that would negate folks like KC Carter ever being elected. He was and is an embarrassment to this community.
If Ms. Latas would make public her e-mail lists (and I think if challenged she would have to do so as a matter of public record) how many people responded, geographic information about the respondents, etc., then everything would be transparent. How easy is that?
LOVE!!!
Salette...I will respond to your comments completely tomorrow.
I have never served on any Metropolitan Tucson Chamber of Commerce Committee. I am not a member of that Chamber. Therefore that bit of information you published is in fact incorrect.
The Tucson Association of Realtors candidate interview committees are chosen based on membership and political preference. There are an even number of Republicans and Democrats making the recommendations.
The Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce chooses individuals based on membership and participation in the Public Policy Committee (PPC) meetings. Only voting members of the PPC are eligible for the candidate interview committees. There are relatively strict criteria established to become and remain a voting member of the PPC. I do not know the political affiliation of most of the selection committee members on the several panels on which I have served.
Have a great week.
Zev, You comments have degraded recently as I previoussly observed. You have joined the segal flock. (Ask are about that reference.) Again you are posting inaccurate information ("people didn't want to give money to an organization like c-path, etc. when they didn't even know what the company did").
You went on to say, "so much for his interest in acknowledging truth!" Just because you say it does not make it "truth" as is evidenced by your incorrect C-Path comment.
Your last paragraph is nothing more than distended dribble. Your true colors are beginning to show and thay are alarmingly dark.
It is impossible for intelligent people to talk sense into anyone with a closed mind that continues to come up with new and different invalid arguments every time he is boxed in.
Cox is like a rat that is cornered and is now trying a different approach to get out of a closed maze.
This all started, we should remember ---with Cox, not surprisingly, finding nothing else to complain about as it concerns me addressing the council, then saying I went over the 3 minute time.
As I noted previously, those who didn't know Cox before, know him know.
My advice: Since he won't "go away," let him continue his diatribe against the rest of us.Only a fool will believe the crap Cox spews out!
OVOT - Hogwash!
1)One of the Councilmembers (re: C-path) was directly quoted in one of the newspapers as saying that [I don't know what they do but I am going to vote for giving them the money anyway].
2)I CAN back up my postings relative to C-path based on public information, the FACT that my brother-in-law sits on one of the
relative boards, is a noted scientist researcher with the FDA, a C-path 'sponsor' and therefor one whom I consider to be an authority way over and above what you night think yourself to be.Let me clarify that neither he nor myself has said anything other than good things about this organization; I did oppose local funding for a variety of reasons.
If you think you know more, BRING IT ON!
3)You state that "your true colors are beginning to show"; my colors on this blog have been always been the same. Yours get so factually out of whack and are so consistently demeaning to others that I cannot help but call you to the carpet at times. Yup, and I do get angry, too! After you took a rather long hiatus from posting on this blog site , upon returning, you immediately tore into me in a most despicable manner and really for no reason whatsoever; so, don't hold yourself up as being so holy or for being a judge of MY character and/or knowledge - you can opine all you wish; I know what I am!
4)I have joined the Segal flock? Is this the same group that a certain illiterate, ex-Chicago Police Captain, in an address to Council, vilely and pointedly referred to Art and others and this site as a "cabal"? Is this one of your idols? For your information I have rarely spoken with Art, or exchanged e-mails with him; I see him at certain meetings only.
But, I don't really have to defend myself as it is you who are seemingly taking the heat AND for good reason. There was a time when
you and I had agreed that we should get together and have a personal chat; no more, Don Cox; for me, by your out-of-control mouth you've blown the opportunity!
Do you think Cox realizes how he really looks right now?
Donny, you're looking pretty foolish and best to keep your trap shut for a while.
Endthehandouts--- Well put. The problem is, Cox doesn't listen to good advice. He thinks he knows more than the rest of us.
Let's see how long it takes for him to be more argumentative.
Don't be surprised if "OV Objective Thinker" disappears and a new pseudonym shows up.
Last time OVOT took a leave of absence, "Deacon" started blogging. Soon thereafter, Deacon "disappeared," and lo and behold, OVOT returned.
'nough said.
Thinker,
Since you said, "If Ms. Latas would make public her e-mail lists... how many people responded, geographic information about the respondents, etc., then everything would be transparent. How easy is that?"
I wonder. Did you request the same information from Dankwerth's $17,500 survey or did you just assume it was legitimate and scientific because your friends Dankwerth and Parish were instrumental in putting it together?
Thinker,
First you said, "By the same token the results of Salette's survey is representative of only those people who choose to RESPOND."
Then you said, "There is no evidence that those who responded are informed."
But you then said, "I accepted the survey conducted by the Town twice in the past several years that asked for general input on what the people wanted in the way of services and in general how the Town was being managed."
But couldn't the same things be said about the two surveys you "accepted?"
THEY WERE REPRESENTATIVE OF ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO CHOSE TO RESPOND.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THOSE WHO RESPONDED ARE INFORMED.
So why do you challenge Salette's surveys based on these two issues but you accepted the other surveys despite them also having these two issues?
You said those surveys were "statistically accurate" yet they contained at least one response from a resident of Saddlebrook.
You said independent survey groups use things like telephone books to eliminate possible cherry-picking.
But alas, there is also no evidence that people chosen from the telephone book are informed.
And they could also cherry-pick from the telephone book by calling more people from the wealthiest part of town than from the poorest part of town or vice versa. This, too, can give you the results you're looking for.
You also said, "Additionally she has stated that only the first 400 responses are recorded. Who do you think make up the first 400?"
You imply that the first 400 or the majority of the first 400 are liberals, but Salette has already informed you that the highest percentage of those who responded were Republicans.
Now Thinker, there ARE times when you make some good arguments on this site. This is just not one of those times!
VC, your last post is an excellent
example of a logistical 'stream'! As to your last statement that [there are times when 'thinker' makes some good arguments] - even a drunk can hit a dart board once in a while. The major problem with Cox is that he is his own worst enemy - he's a mentality bully and bullies are just what they are.
'Endthehandouts' has put it very succinctly. For me, there truly is no need to carry Cox commentary to any further degree.
Art...
Once aging you believe anything that is stated by your idols. Like many of your flok, you blindly believe. But once again you have supported incorrect information.
Whether or not I run in the upcoming election will have nothing to do with you. According to you you were personally responsible for my defeat last time. But remember, the margin of victory was 4 votes and I can clearly identify where I erred in that election.
And I do believe that Clint Eastwood would be insulted that you would be quoting him. You wouldn't make a good wart on any of his anatomy.
Cox--What a damn a hypercrite!
On an earlier comment you accused everyone of following me.
Quoting your prior asinine comment:
"So Art sounds the trumpet and the followers come out of the CAVE."
Now you write: "Once aging you believe anything that is stated by your idols."
You obviously don't know if you're coming or going that may be a result of you "standing on your head" when brains were being handed out.
Regardless of what impact I had in all your previous losses, try running again because --- borrowing from Bachman Turner Overdrive---
"You ain't seen nothing yet!"
Zev, et al...
This is going to be my last post on this stream because it would appear that none of you can objectively accept any possible counter point.
That's really a sad testimonial for you.
Back to the Zev idiocy..
He said, "Just because you say it does not make it "truth" as is evidenced by your incorrect C-Path comment."
What incorrect C-Path comment did I make? And please for once be specific.
Stop blabbering and make some sense. The fact is that you don't know the facts.
I have no clue what your are referenceing when you say, "Is this the same group that a certain illiterate, ex-Chicago Police Captain, in an address to Council, vilely and pointedly referred to Art and others and this site as a "cabal"? Is this one of your idols?" And frankly I don't care because your credibility with my has evaporated.
ENDTHE HANDOUTS...
"Go drag your knuckles back to your Right Wing Nut cave. You and your likes give Republicans a bad name."
"What an ass."
And I am supposed to worry about your criticism? Get a life.
Art.....
I need not highlight your ignorant comments. They are far to plentiful to address at this time.
And if you think I have been a bit too harsh with folks up to this point, Get over it. I am going to start playing by YOUR rules. Personal insults will be answered in kind.
And by the way, I don't need to hide. Another of your stupid, ignorant and unfounded statements is incorrect. I have no clue who "Deacon" might be. I will be here as OVOT for as long as I am able to hit the keys.
You may also want to review the difference in the meaning of the word "know" and "now". Just a hint to make you look somewhat intelligent. No charge.
VC...The only post made with any respect and I will reply in kind.
As for your first post, I frankly don't remember what the "Dankwerth" survey was about. If it had to do with her 'Economic Committee'I didn't agree with that then and what ever came out of it was immaterial to me.
Your second post...
There were two surveys conducted by the Town to which I was referring to. I think I still have copies of both, but if not they are available from the Town. There were scientific surveys (based on the accepted definition of the same) accomplished by an independant survey company. You may know the cost but I don't. They asked questions such as what services do you want the Town to provide and whether the Town was being managed properly and was growth being managed properly, etc. Questions like these do not require such in-depth knowledge as, do you want the Town to donate money to MTCVB or TREO. In order to answer the latter question you really should know what the two acronyms stand for and what they do. I repeat my previous comments, that most folks in Oro Valley don't have sufficient knowledge about the two organization to make a sound decisions.
And I would like to make a new point about the Latas surveys. The following is the quoted subject on the emails in which she solicited information concerning the contributions to outside organizations. Please let me know if you think this subject is somewhat biased?
"The special interest groups don't want me to listen to you"
That sure doesn't inspire me to believe that there is no hidden agenda here.
You went on to ask, "Who do you think made up the first 400?". I don't know but maybe she should tell us...transparency. It's a nice word until it applies.
I didn't imply the first 400 were liberals. Those are your words not mine.
Thinker,
Near the beginning of this thread you responded to one of my posts by saying.....
"Those folks [the Democratic Party] are not the only people on her e-mail survey list but they are the BULK. That heavily weights her responses. Additionally she has stated that only the first 400 responses are recorded. Who do you think make up the first 400? I know you are a level headed thoughtful person and you can readily come up with the answer.'
Because you said the bulk were Democrats and then you asked who do you think made up the first 400 responses, you seemed to be implying that the majority of the first 400 were Democrats/liberals.
If that's not what you were implying, please enlighten me.
Art...You are just simply too stupid to follow the conversation. Go back and read the posts.
Salette said something and you parroted her incorrect posting. She is your idol.
I said that I don't know who the first 400 were. Do you? No. Does anybody? No. Tranparency would dictate that she tell us. Why is this so difficult?????
She keeps playing with the numbers. X percentage is this. Y percentage is that. Why won't she just simply level the playing field and tell us? End the game!!!
VC...Why don't you address some of my comments grasping at more threads.
I'm done!!!
VC....the "instead of" portion was deleted for some reason??????
Cox wrote on in a diatribe on comment #78
"This is going to be my last post on this stream ..."
But alas! He wasn't quite done.
Comment #81, Cox wrote "I'm done!!!"
But, no, he still didn't go away.
He still had more to say.
It's obvious, Cox even lies to himself!
And just think, if he didn't have such a big mouth this posting might have had only a hand full of comments.
I believe if we did a poll question as to who made the biggest fool of himself, and everybody voted "Cox," he'd say, the poll is biased because only the people who think Cox is the fool responded.
Cox, I am honored that you opened a post with "Zev, et al".
As to the meat of your diatribe, you have twisted what I have said, you have misquoted me, you have mangled the inclusions within this stream, and you have attempted to vilify just about everyone here, and, to top it off, an inane quote(?) which you attributed to me was actually one of the slushy ones you yourself made - wow, what a guy.
And, Cox, if you read this, it was you who started this whole 'mess' with your inability to refrain from posting without the venom you initiated!
Incidentally, I don't care what you think of me; I know what I am!
The real sadness here is that you
you cant get what YOU are.
Just one additional comment (hopefully my last}:
In a comment a few posts preceding, OVOT states:
"Back to Zev's idiocy.."
And he goes on to supposedly quote me by the following (a quote(?) within a quote):
"He said (meaning me, I guess), "Just because you say it does not make it "truth" as as is evidenced by your incorrect C-Path comment"
THIS IS A FABRICATION IN THAT I NEVER WROTE IT NOR IS IT EVEN A PARAPHRASE!
OVOT goes on asking:
"What incorrect C-Path comment did I make? Please for once be specific".
The IMPLICATION of the above,is that I wrote something and specified within that he was "incorrect" about something relative to C-path; nothing specific relative to C-path
was, to my recollection, ever written by him or referred to by me and so where is the comment he is referring to?
NOTHING FURTHER NEEDS TO BE SAID!
Thinker,
You asked me, "Why don't you address some of my comments instead of grasping at more threads?"
I DID address your comments. But I can't get you to clarify the comments you made.
(1) For example, you called it the "Latas Liberal Poll" and said that the CORE of the e-mails were from the Democratic Party.
Then you asked, "Who do you think make up the first 400? I know you are a level headed thoughtful person and you can readily come up with the answer."
So we have your statements of...Latas Liberal Poll...core of the e-mails are from the Democratic Party...who do you think make up the first 400?
Those statements imply that you think the first 400 were liberals/Democrats.
Then you claimed that you never implied that the first 400 were liberals. So I asked, what WERE you implying?
Now you say, "I said that I don't know who the first 400 were. Do you? No."
You NEVER SAID that you didn't know who the first 400 were. You said, any level-headed person could readily come up with the answer.
OK. You call yourself an objective person (ie. level-headed) which means you should be able to come up with the answer. So what is it?
(2) You said independent survey groups use things like telephone books to eliminate possible cherry-picking.
To which I replied, "And they could also cherry-pick from the telephone book by calling more people from the wealthiest part of town than from the poorest part of town or vice versa. This, too, can give you the results you're looking for."
I responded to your statements but you did not respond to mine. Couldn't an "independent" survey taker cherry-pick from the phone book as well?
I'll bet if Salette used the telephone book to obtain answers from a random group of people, you would then accuse her of cherry-picking certain neighborhoods. Just a hunch.
VC, basically you are additionally confirming that OVOT manages to skew and screw(up) and that's about it.
I appreciate both Victorian Cowgirl & Zev's contribution to the blog, and respect your opinions, but my advice to the two of you is this:
Give it up. You may think you're dealing with a rational person, but if it's not obvious by now, I don't think you'll ever accept the fact that you are both wasting your time.
I've used this analogy before, but I'll say it again.
You'll have greater success in teaching a javelina to roll over than you'll have trying to get any sense out of Cox---especially on this issue
Hi, all.
Sorry to be out of the loop. I was up in Phoenix again today, as I was on Friday.
I have provided many more statistics about my survey than did Marketing Intelligence, who accepted $17,500 to do the last Town survey. I also provided this information to my fellow Council members and to the Explorer. I'm not sure why the latter didn't publish it.
Thinker,
You haven't responded to my last post. I'll assume that means that you have surrendered!
;)
Post a Comment