"Look, Jim's post said "People" have 3 shortcomings. It was clear he
was identifying Asbury Park people. You certainly didn't make clear
he was talking about anyone else. Maybe Jim should clear it up.
Please name names, Councilman. Who are the folks you were referring
to?" Tom De Seno
Dan, isn't it obvious that Jim's comments cover both council and
residents of Asbury, I'd add Aaron but suspect his shortcoming falls
in the realm of extreme conflict of interest? Seems to me, and I know
I'm on shaky ground here cause it's a gut thing, that Jim was
attempting to find a middle ground of compromise between the love it
and hate it groups re the redevelopment. Perhaps you would find this
more palatable if written by your champion of compromise and good will
to all DJ.
Following the original offensive text.
"What I have learned in the past weeks in both my campaigning and my
preparations to take office is that we have a massive communications
problem in our city on all fronts, this board included.
In my assessment, there are a couple of key shortcomings:
1. People dont' have a historical framework that they are basing their
comments on.
2. People don't have all the information necessary to make informed
decisions and offer informed criticisms.
3. People don't always have nor do they seek out the professional
experience to make informed decisions." Jim Keady
--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "bluebishop82" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Dan,
>
> A constant accusation that I am "twisiting words" is the cry of
> someone who doesn't want to revisit his own past words. I'm certain
> you and Jim can think of a better response than that. The truth is
> I didn't twist words when I cut and pasted what you said, and the
> same for when I cut and pasted what Jim said.
>
> Look, Jim's post said "People" have 3 shortcomings. It was clear he
> was identifying Asbury Park people. You certainly didn't make clear
> he was talking about anyone else. Maybe Jim should clear it up.
> Please name names, Councilman. Who are the folks you were referring
> to?
>
> As for who is an Asbury Parker? Well, my definition there has
> always been quite liberal. In short, Asbury Park belongs to anyone
> who wishes to claim it. Even though it is, corporately speaking,
> younger than many of the surrounding communities, a great deal of
> the faimilies in the surrounding areas came from here. The world-
> wide tourism of its past allows many other people happy memories
> that give them a connection here. To love it is to own it. It's
> like NY in that regard. That's why NY never cares if their Senator
> is from somewhere else (see Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton).
>
> That being said, do I think people with little connection to the
> everyday events here should have more say then people who are here
> everyday? No. Case in point: Save Tillie. The only reason those
> people wanted to save him was because they live so far away
> (Maryland) they don't have to look at his ugly face everyday. I do.
> That's why I jailed him. Soon I will kill him.
>
> As for your questions about why can't anyone be a member of the bar,
> you seem to misunderstand the role of the lawyer. It is to advise,
> not decide. When settling a case, I tell the client what juries are
> typically doing on similar cases and suggest ranges of settlement
> value. Do I decide? No. The client decides. In a criminal trial,
> I counsel the client on whether he should take the stand. The
> decision is made by him.
>
> So you see Dan and Jim, I have no trouble with seeking advice from
> experts on AP issues; but ultimately the people must decide the
> issue, experts be damned.
>
> I never thought I'd have to explain Populist ideals to a Democrat.
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/
