| Author | Post |
|---|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 04:49 pm |
|
Steve Adkins wrote:
Next letter - Fact Based Positive Response from Jay Copeland
The way to do this is to immediately counter with facts,
Facts? Really? Well let's see......
I picked up a copy of last week's Northwest Observer on Friday and took it with me to lunch, where I read both the Strickland letter and then Copeland response, while waiting on my lunch to arrive. After reading both letters, I wondered if Copeland was indeed responding to the same letter written by Becky Strickland which I had just read. It certainly didn't seem so to me then, nor does it now.
The Copeland response headline read: "Athletic Fields Not "Dilapidated". I immediately thought to myself, Ms. Strickland NEVER said that.
Copeland then goes on to assert: "The current balls fields are not in a dilapidated state as Ms. Strickland reports". Instantly, I thought again to myself, Strickland NEVER said that nor made 'that' statement either.
I immediately went back to reread the Strickland letter and found that my recollections and instinct were indeed correct. She never made either statement attributed to her by the respondent.
Where were the honest among the NWO readers or NWO Forum posters in not correcting this mistake or bringing it to light I wondered?
What Strickland said was this: "What Mr. Copeland omitted is that SRA has been given a firm opportunity by this town and current council to rectify the dilapidated SITUATION with a reimbursement from the town."
With all due respects to those who write, speak and understand the Good King's English, there is a world of difference between a dilapidated situation versus dilapidated athletic fields. Now personally, I might have chosen the word deplorable rather than dilapidated to describe a situation, but it is clear to most readers that what Copeland purports to be FACT, is in fact a false fabrication.
One word can ignite a war or bring peace. One word can mean the difference in success or failure. One word can discern between victory or defeat. And one word can change the meaning of a poem, a lecture, a sermon or a sentence. Clearly, there would be a vast chasm of difference in understanding in the minds of most who would read of a dilapidated situation as compared to a dilapidated field.
Copeland's further statement: "I spend town funds.......and now I believe I am being criticized for spending them wisely" seems to me to be without any objective foundation or support from a simple reading of the Strickland letter. I did not read nor could I find contained within the Strickland letter ANY criticism of Copeland for misspending town funds. If any of you can direct us to such criticism of misspending, please share that language from the Strickland letter here for the world to see. I simply cannot find it.
Again, there appears to be an incorrect (albeit probably intended) characterization or misinterpretation of the Strickland comments or else an attempt to spin the situation to his own audience or purpose by the mischaracterization of the words of the proponent.
Since my first exposure to this whole episode on Friday, I have waited and wondered when those who would argue for honesty and intellectual honesty would post their own critiques or clarification pointing out what is obvious propaganda, but not surprisingly, silence has been the mainstay. Not surprisingly, it was business as usual with no interest in facts nor truth. When Copeland decided to recklessly drive the vehicle of statement over the cliff, the rest of the passengers here simply jumped on board and cheered the ride unmindful of the danger ahead and the impending crash without ever questioning the roadmap or direction.
I suppose the thinking being that the spin is mightier than the words.
I do think personally, and from the responses I hear "out there" that the real winner in this public relations debacle, has been Becky Strickland, with Copeland the loser in the larger court of public opinion.
What I as only one reader thinks about each of the two letters is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. What is important is how and what the other 25,000 or more readers of The Northwest Observer think or thought as they read the exact same words, statements and accusations that I did as they were published in the NWO. I recognize that is not what most of you want to hear, but hearing the truth means we have to sometimes abandon our own innate prejudices and see past our own bias in order to separate fact from fiction and fabrication from truth.
Last edited on Mar 5th, 2007 07:52 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Steve Adkins
Member
| Joined: | Oct 14th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1669 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 04:54 pm |
|
| Jim, the NWO did not share the Strickland letter. Last edited on Mar 5th, 2007 04:55 pm by Steve Adkins
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 05:00 pm |
|
Steve Adkins wrote: Jim, the NWO did not share the Strickland letter.
The larger issue is the blatant and intentional mischaracterization of what Strickland said.
Which, by the way, no one here to my knowledge, ever tried to point out or correct. Which makes a statement in and of itself.
As I suggested earlier, the public relations victory in the instant situation clearly belongs to Strickland. If you don't believe me, go out and talk to and poll the folks 'out there.'
I do know a little bit about trees and one of the things I have learned, is that when some folks get too close to the trees, they lose sight of the forest. That happens from time to time with the best of us. Which I think is most particularly applicable here in the instant situation.
At best, it is a difficult balancing act for most to see clearly both forest and trees, but it is a principle we would all be the wiser not to lose sight of in our search for both fact and truth.
Last edited on Mar 5th, 2007 07:41 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 05:47 pm |
|
| This is a typical play with words just as Mrs Stickland did in say I implied something I never said. She did say a state of disrepair and spoke of a dilapidated situation. That is not what I spoke of during my 5 min. Jim she was responding to what I said in front of the Town council and I never spoke of any disrepair only that the fields were outdated and inadequate. Plus if she had any questions on monies spent all she had to do was ask myself or the Town administrator. Mrs Strickland said I implied something I never did or said. That was the problem. I asked the Town to move forward with the purchase of the "Friddle property" for athletic fields not anything Else! THAT'S THE FACTS!!!
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 05:48 pm |
|
| I don't get it. I also thought the two letters were in conjunction. i didnt read them really except for the beginnings of each one. I thought the second one was sayig that it was in response to "the one above that was sent in email earlier" -or something like that. Just an FYI of what I perceived.
____________________
Roll Tide and Go Pack. Maybe or maybe not in that order. [insert profound quote here]
This post will self destruct in 10.......9......8....
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 05:58 pm |
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: This is a typical play with words
I beg to disagree.
My earlier post quoted verbatim that which was said in the Strickland letter AND what was published by The Northwest Observer and attributed to you. My quotes were verbatim extracted from each of the two letters published and I have not tried to interpret the words of either. My purpose and intent was merely to show the discrepancy between what was actually SAID in the Strickland letter with what YOU stated that Ms. Stickland said, which differs greatly with the facts from a simple reading of both letters as published. With a note, that I did and do make the assumption that both letters were printed and published exactly, precisely and verbatim as they were written and posted in actual copies of The Northwest Observer.
The only play on words or attempts to play on words or parse words here, belong to you and not I. Assuming as well, that your letter in The Northwest Observer said what you meant and meant what you said. I trust that most readers would make that same assumption in their reading of each.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 06:01 pm |
|
Jim Flynt worte this is his opinion
I do think personally, and from the responses I hear "out there" that the real winner in this public relations debacle, has been Strickland with Copeland the loser in the larger court of public opinion. I know that is not what most of you want to hear, but hearing the truth sometimes means we have to abandon our own set of innate prejudices.
This is the problem today there is too many us verses them and it gets nowhere. Why can't we just agree to disagree and move along for something positive. I was not looking for a winner or looser here JIM. The real looser will be Summerfield in the long run if this sort of thing keeps happening without people speaking up. Mrs. Strickland and the CC's group have not done 1 positive thing for Summerfield's youth. I do! And that's a fact.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 06:12 pm |
|
The larger issue is the blatant and intentional mischaracterization of what Strickland said
Jim my whole issue with Mrs. Strickland was for this reason. I think you got it backwards. If you would take the time and listen to what I said in front of the Town Council I never said what she said I did and I implied nothing. That's the facts!! GET IT !!??
Last edited on Mar 5th, 2007 06:13 pm by Baseball Buddy
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 07:02 pm |
|
The outrage here should be over why Strickland didn't do her "due dilligence" and find out answers to her questions before she chose to "speak for" the mayor, the town administrator, and the rest of the council.
Jay we appreciate all you do to he'p our young'uns.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 08:41 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: The larger issue is the blatant and intentional mischaracterization of what Strickland said.
Your games with semantics are growing tiresome to say the least, Jim. They mirror the same "games" that we must suffer through at town council meetings.
Strickland threw the first punch and bandied the word "dilapidated" about. I don't know why. It was seemingly a random attack on the SRA when in fact, there are some "tree huggers" in this little "forest" who feel that Mrs. Strickland was trying to create a smokescreen in order to stop the purchase of the Friddle property. Ever think about that??? She was "hot" to buy the tainted land on 220, to gain ballfields for Summerfield's children, but ONLY if it isn't in HER backyard.
Your dialogue about it seems to be and extension of that smokescreen. A Crawford tactic if ever I've seen one.
Perhaps if you had attended the council meeting and heard Jay's speech you would instead be saying to yourself, "Copeland never said that!"
If you had been at the council meeting, you would have heard Mr. Copeland ask the council to move forward with the purchase of ballfields due to the number of children that the SRA services. He never mentioned money or lack thereof. Why would Ms. Strickland choose to attack him in about money? How can you NOT ask yourself this? Just like Strickland, you missed the point.
Strickland's letter states:
Mr. Copeland stated that, “[t]he ball fields SRA uses at Summerfield Elementary are inadequate and outdated” implying that Council has turned a blind eye to the plight but moreover safety of the children at play. What Mr. Copeland omitted is that SRA has been given a firm opportunity by this Town and current Council to rectify the dilapidated situation with reimbursement from the Town.
IMPLYING??? What gives her the right to put words in Copeland's mouth??? Why do you fail to mention this?
Jim Flynt wrote: Clearly, there would a vast chasm of difference in understanding in the minds of most who would read of a dilapidated situation as compared to a dilapidated field.
Clear to whom? You threw up a lot of words in your post Jim but you failed to tell us the actual difference. What IS a "dilapidated situation" when one's referring to ballfields?
As for the NWO and who showed who the letter, perhaps you should do your due diligence or at least a little homework first before spouting "false fabrications" that you've picked up on the street...... 
Strickland writes:
Mr. Copeland and the SRA have only themselves to blame for the state of disrepair of the Summerfield Elementary school ball fields. Not the Town of Summerfield. The Town did its job; the SRA has not. That in effect is what the Town Mayor and Town Administrator should have said in response to his comments at the last regular Summerfield Town Council meeting.
What gives her the right to speak for the Mayor and Town Administrator?? It is the policy of the Summerfield Town Council NOT to answer speakers from the floor. EVERYONE who attends council meetings know this. Ms. Strickland should have known this.
Perhaps it was just ANOTHER "attempt to spin the situation to her own audience or purpose."
It's one thing to have a differing opinion Jim, but it's another thing entirely to attack us and then turn around and call us friends. I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping up with your mood swings.
You're probably not reading this anyway since Cracker's not my "given" name. 
Last edited on Mar 5th, 2007 08:43 pm by Cracker Jax
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 5th, 2007 10:16 pm |
|
"Mr. Copeland and the SRA have only themselves to blame for the state of disrepair of the Summerfield Elementary school ball fields. Not the Town of Summerfield. "
I never heard Jay mention the school ball fields being in a state of disrepair. What I heard Jay say was they were "inadequate and outdated" some thing entirely different from "state of disrepair."
Ballfields are something that has been of great concern for several years in the community. Why is Ms Strickland an elected official of Summerfield not aware of what the issues are in this concern?
|
EditorPS
Administrator
| Joined: | Oct 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 6th, 2007 03:05 am |
|
Since the audio of Jay's presentation to the council is on the Friends For Summerfield Web site, I would suggest that everyone who is involved in this debate go there and listen to it -- the beauty of the audio is that it transforms the "What I heard or "What I thought I heard" to "What was said."
Now, before I do this, I want to say that the purpose of this forum is not to promote the Friends for Summerfield Web site, the Concerned Citizens Web site, or anyone else's Web site. However, since the audio is stored on this site, here you go -- http://www.friendsforsummerfield.com. To listen to the audio of Jay's presentation, click on Scrapbook once there, then audio recordings of the 2-13-07 town council meeting.
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Mar 6th, 2007 10:09 am |
|
I just listened to those two speeches... BTW: Nice job to both Steve and Jay!
I didn't hear what Strickland said Jay said... I heard that the ballfields, which are property of Guilford County Schools, are indadequate and outdated -- nothing about "dilapidated." I heard an eloquent plea for Town Council members to take action now to make Summerfield a place that provides for its children, and thus, its future.
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Mar 6th, 2007 11:20 am |
|
Just remembered something I meant to include in prior post... At the very end of the taped segment (Jay's), it sounds as though someone (female voice) said "Point of order" after he asked that those who supported him to please stand. What was that about?
Oh, and regarding public officials not responding to speakers during their time set aside to address issues, I've been to meetings where speakers implore the officials to respond and have heard the officials say that under the law they are not allowed to do so. In the few instances when they have, I've seen them consult with legal counsel first.
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 6th, 2007 11:47 am |
|
Ms Strickland called a "Point Of Order" on the audience?, Jay? for standing up in support of the need for ball fields. NWO had a good article on it week before last I believe.
The 5 minute "speaker from the floor" time at the beginning of the meeting I always thought was a time for the council to find out what's on the public's mind. It is not a public forum. Nobody is sworn in. It is a time for us the public to hopefully get our council's attention about what we think is important. I think having people stand up in support of a speaker is probably much better use of time as everybody didn't have to speak but if it is a problem I guess everybody who supports a subject could get up and take their 5 minutes too so as to not get a "point of order" thrown at them.
|
Current time is 02:38 pm | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   |
|