I agree that as you state in your paragraph that would be inappropriate.
-----Original Message-----
From: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of bluebishop82
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:23 PM
To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Responding to Tommy Deseno - Again
Geez Mark I've already conceded here. Jim has the information. Us
Asbury folk just don't have it. We can't make an informed,
intelligent decisions until Jim tells us all the information we just
havn't learned ourselves.
I've given in. There is nothing condescending about Jim asserting
that about us.
Now let's try it out on you:
Mark, you don't know enough about the redevelopment of Asbury Park.
You can't make an informed and intelligent decision, because you
don't know enough. I've made the decision you don't know enough. I
will listen to your opinions, but with the pre-conclusion that you
lack information to make intelligent decisions.
Not condescending, so don't take umbrage.
Now just agree with me. To do disagree with me is to twist my words.
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it that the rest of the world must always own up to the
standard you
> state but you don't have to own up to anything? Why do you want
to tear
> down everything that makes Asbury Park distinctive? And how can
you justify
> your logic? Jim didn't have to write the circular sentence you
suggest to
> make his point. Jim's sentence meant that people need information
to use
> their intelligence. And you cannot tell me that you have not
heard the
> exact same phrase used on many occassions without coming to the
strained
> conclusion you present here. This is ridiculous.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com]On
> Behalf Of bluebishop82
> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 3:05 PM
> To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Responding to Tommy Deseno - Again
>
>
>
> I guess it's an optical illusion, Dan. I see the
word "intelligent"
> there in Jim's quote. Apparantly no one else can see it.
>
> Or perhaps you've gone Clintonian on me, and Intelligent now no
> longer means having the capacity for higher thought, since that
old
> definition makes Jim look bad here.
>
> If Jim had only said the people in AP don't have information to
make
> an "informed" decision, then he would have been simply accusing
them
> of not paying attention, which is insulting enough.
>
> He didn't stop there. He inserted the word "intelligent" which
> means the "capacity" for higher thinking. That's worse than the
> first insult of not paying attention.
>
> Now I know there is going to be a post that knocks me for using
> definitions again, but I believe words mean things. I will be
> astounded again when someone posts to the contrary.
>
> Look, if Jim and his supporters can't read through the lines here
> that I'm giving him an admittedly heavy handed slap for his own
> good, then let your boy just keep making these types of
statements.
> It will catch up to him in public later.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Tom, come on now. People will always have differences of
opinion.
> > That is not the problem I, and others have with you. But you
have
> > this habit of, and I will refrain from using the tw*sting word,
> > TAKING WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT.
> >
> > I know you are big enough of a person to admit you are wrong.
Now
> to
> > break it down real clear, this is what JK said (I am taking it
> from
> > your post):
> >
> > > "What I have found in my conversations with "the people" is
that
> > many
> > > of our citizens do not have all the information needed TO MAKE
> > > INTELLIGENT, INFORMED DECISIONS that I believe they would make
> if
> > they
> > > had all the facts." [emphasis supplied]
> > >
> >
> > Now Tom, everyone can see that he said he believed that citizens
> > didn't have the necessary facts and info to make those
decisions,
> > and furthermore, he believed that they WOULD BE ABLE to make
> > INTELLIGENT, INFORMED DECISIONS if they had all the facts.
> >
> > It is not as you say Tom. You did the same to me. I know its
hard,
> > but sometimes you have to leave your lawyering at home. This is
a
> > typical cross examination trick and when it happens to me I ask
> the
> > court reporter to read back my answer. You have done as much
here,
> > but it is clear that you are wrong.
> >
> > Let's continue to express our differences of opinion, but let us
> not
> > put words in people's mouths. BTW, I thought you looked quite
> > dashing in that groucho disguise as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
