Rather than see it as a "rediculous camparison" you should see it as parody, satire, comedy and fun. It's pretty obvious I'm teasing Maureen.
I know you are pretty jazzed about this issue, but we all can share a joke once in while. Maureen is the goods. I go to her website everyday. --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Oh my. You mean she made a clerical error? She attached the wrong > > pages? She confused the two? etc > > But she is not getting up and lying or have someone else lie. Your > comparison is ridiculous. It was a shame to someone with the > reputation of John Clarke to get up and cover for them. Even > Loffredo is not satified by the answers although he is simply > concerned about how the wrong plan got submitted. Reagan would have > been proud at Clarke's "I can't recalls" > > > > > > I feel bad for her. Some people are going to read this all > wrong. > > They are going to say that there is a reason she did it. Perhaps a > > conspiracy. Perhaps something deliberate. Perhaps intentionally > > misleading! They will accuse her of not having the people of > Asbury > > Park's interest at heart. They will accuse her of loyalty to the > > developer! > > > > Some will claim she is trying to deceive a government agency. > Some > > will say it is perhaps criminal and call the Prosecutor! A > > councilman may move for a vote of "no confidence" in her. Still > > others will claim gross incompetence or negligence. They will go > > the council meeting and demand that she be fired from her job! > > > > What they won't do is say she made an oversight that caused no > > harm. They can't say that, because the don't believe in occam's > > razor. > > > > I of course can say it. She made a simple, harmless mistake. So > > what. In the word's of Bill Clinton, can we just move on? > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > --- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Asburyradio.com, Maureen links to a page from the March > > proposal > > > and > > > > a page from the June proposal, and says the wording is > different > > > > regarding C8 (referred to as 300 Ocean Mile on the pages). > > > > > > > > I don't see where the wording is different between the two. > Can > > > anyone > > > > else? Maureen? > > > > > > > Maureen put up the wrong pages. That shows page 79 from both the > > March > > > and June plan. They are identical in that they require the > > developer > > > to FINISH the project to build to the existing height. The > > comparison > > > should be between page 77, that is the Dwelling Unit ditribution > > chart > > > that has the added language about demolishing c-8 in the June > > version. > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/Y2tolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 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/
