written solely by Stanley H. Wotring, Jr. I am not a representative of the LSC,
nor are they responsible for the content ***ALTHOUGH IT DOES LOOK LIKE I'LL BE ON THE BALLOT IN THE FALL ***
Hong was there.
Thanks Jesse, you're right. I remember now! It's important to remember who was there to hear the parents concerns
Lozzi and Cyr and Dusty Caufield were there.
Cyr spoke for and Lozzi and Hong voted for. Don't just remember who showed up, remember who they voted to endorse.
I know Dusty was there. I remember seeing Hong. I didn't know Lozzi was there. Wayne is my COUNCILMAN. CYR spoke in favor of LATHAM. All COUNCIL voted to send the letter, SORRY HONG (remember it's just politics).
Darren Cyr is my my councilman and ran unopposed. I don't recall him asking me my opinion before he decided Latham was doing a great job, though...I was glad to see Clay Walsh there, as well, though, and hope he decides to run again. I like the way he listened to us and then made a decision, based on the facts, based on the experiences that we parents had had, instead of doing what the others did, which was continuing to vote with the old boys network...These are the things we need to remember when voting time comes around again. Sue Walker
Clay Walsh: For Our Kids.http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2008/08/02/news/3479133.txtYou have any remaining credibility. Slink back to the rock you crawled out from under.
I don't believe you have been out from under your rock for too long or you would know I already reported on this. Having survived my poetic purgatory CLAY has been remolded until I have reason to point out further flaws that may surface. And I will if need be.
Shorter: I'm willing to overlook this now because Clay took my side.
Mr. Shorter, could you tell me what "this" is? We do have laws and there is that constitution thing - innocent until proven guilty. A lot of mistakes were made in this whole mess, not all of them his.
Sure let's vote for people because they show up. Those are credentials u can take to the bank.
You're out of your depth, poet. He admitted to the charge, waiving the presumption of innocence and his right to trial in exchange for probation without a formal finding of guilt. Nonetheless, a judge concluded that the state's allegations warranted such a finding. So, yeah, you're a hypocrite when you pretend to be all about the kids.
Depth? I believe it is you who are in over your head, You neglect to tell the whole story. Since there is no admission of guilt, you can't treat it as a conviction. It is you being the hypocrite. Granted the whole "affair" did level of concern. I believe I pointed it out long before you did.
I'm sorry you're confused. I appreciate that these are technical distinctions that may be beyond your comprehension. Let's try again: Did I say he was convicted? No. I said that he admitted to sufficient facts -- true. I said that a judge heard the evidence and agreed that the factual allegations supported a finding of guilt -- also, true. But, acknowledged that the actual sentence imposed was a continuation without a finding which involves probation without a formal finding of guilt -- very much true.