from Con to WVG

Because of the Title to this main Comment, I’d like to stick to that subject: What exactly about the comment is “…just plain a lot of baloney, double-talk and whining…” as your comment had stated about “most” of Frank’s primary comment? A lot of us readers do actually think for ourselves, but you must back up your assertions like everyone else.

This is NOT a pattern of everyone ganging up on you because we disagree - it’s about making completely unsubstantiated, empty assertions about the merits of a Comment. We think for ourselves and require strong back up if a comment is to be taken seriously.

Whenever I make critical comments on certain other websites, I’m often set upon first by a Haughty Admin, then followed by most readers - however, those comments are almost always immature insults, personal attacks which have nothing to do with the merits of my comment or any of my assertions in a ‘point-counterpoint’ type back and forth. All to say, you may feel similarly ’set upon’, but you won’t be insulted by me nor will I make any personal attacks. ‘Ad Hominem’ may be over-used, but does describe much of it: “…an argument which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.”

I’m asking for an argument from you ‘which links the validity of a premise’ to the actual subject matter and proves it out - I’m not linking anything to your apparent dislike/vindictiveness toward Frank C.

But blanket statements like yours are next to meaningless if you don’t back them up with facts, etc. If you don’t support your assertions then you DO appear merely vindictive and showing sour grapes.

Powers & Schultz have gone ’straight to lawsuit’ time and again (or Administrative Action, or Complaint with some Authority or another - ALL costly to Taxpayers) and Frank and many of us ask legitimate questions about HOW IS IT WORTH THE COST!?!

So, WVG, please illustrate for us on a point-by-point basis what about his initial Comment is ‘baloney’ or ‘double-talk’ etc. I have made a contribution illustrating clearly and with historical events how I see matters (including an admission that I may be wrong, but nothing has come to light to change my mind) - and that was merely ONE Costly ‘Event’ out of many.

Currently on woodstocktruth.com there appear many mocking and sarcastic comments about how current Administrators/Decision-makers first turn for legal advice (and about how costly and unnecessary it all is) - yet as is their fashion, they do not mention even the Possibility that Town Officials are so Gun-Shy primarily because of that groups ’straight to lawsuit’ mentality, which they have proven time and again they are willing to do REGARDLESS of how much it cost Taxpayers (and then they later - in the height of hypocrisy - whine about the high costs and then blame everyone but the party who INITIATED the matter).

Thanks