No kidding, I hadn’t heard that over and over and over.
<
p>But staying on topic, can you please tell me how that differs from any other organization’s endorsement? In all the endorsement processes I’ve been involved with it is exactly the same thing so if you’ve got some specifics that show this to be different and therefore an extraordinary endorsement please enlighten us.
p>You do not have to just take MY word for what the word “smear” means.
<
p>I did not “smear” anyone, but reported information I had received.
<
p>On the other hand, your post appeared designed to smear me!
<
p>I do consider the choice of the word “smear”, which may merely have been ignorant or unfortunate, an attack because of what the word means.
<
p>You can disagree with me – I don’t mind that at all.
<
p>But to call me a liar and a slanderer – that required a strong response as it is an “ad hominem attack” [deliberately, or merely due to poor word choice – I do not know].
Yes, I am fully aware of what the word “smear” and the phrase “ad hominem attack” mean. Because I am pretty darned certain both teacher’s organizations received questionnaires (though not necessarily their own, but from organizations they belong to) and you said that AFT made a decision without viewing any questionnaires, I deemed that you were villifying them.
<
p>More specifically I always think of smear as an unsubstantiated charge which I still believe to be the case. You say AFT never saw anything in writing about Garballey. I highly doubt that.
I said that nothing was sent to the candidates by the AFT. Three of them told me that.
<
p>I said the AFT did not interview any of the candidates in person as far as I knew – two of them have told me that so far.
<
p>I did not say what AFT may or may not have “seen” only compared what the MTA did, with what the AFT did not do such as [send out questionaires, invite all the candidates in for interviews – MTA did, AFT did not].
<
p>I know what the MTA did – and what the AFT did not do.
<
p>What the AFT may have done privately, I cannot and did NOT say.
<
p>Putting words in my mouth that I did not say and then smearing me for allegedly saying them is an ad hominem attack. It is also dishonest and beneath who I thought you were, at one time.
<
p>And I could use other carefully chosen adjectives and phrases, such as “an apparent attempt to smear”…and smear me. Reread my post.
I said the AFT did not interview any of the candidates in person as far as I knew.”
<
p>I talked to Jeff Thielman after his interview with the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers. I also talked to a union leader, who was in the room for the interview, who said that Mr. Thielman’s interview was most impressive.
<
p>Jeff’s passion for public educaiton, along with his deep knowledge of issues facing our schools, makes him a most attractive candidate.
<
p>There’s no room for doubt. Jeff earned the MFT endorsement.
And whether I “know very far” I speak very clearly and honestly and I don’t “smear” anyone. Or any organization.
<
p>Also, which other candidates, if any, did the MFT interview?
<
p>Unless the MFT interviewed ALL the candidates, while you may feel their endorsement was “earned” – I will not feel their endorsement was FAIRLY earned because not all candidates were given an equal opportunity.
<
p>With the MTA ALL the candidates received an equal opportunity.
<
p>Since you “know” so much more, was that the case with the MFT? Or did they just interview one, vetted candidate recommended to them by an insider? I would like to know.
<
p>Since you say I don’t “know” very far…do tell me, did the MFT let any other candidate into their interview process, at all??????
If I send you a questionnaire, or if the organization to which I am a member, the Alliance of Righteous Arlingtonians, which holds similar beliefs as me and includes questions of importance to me, sends one and gives me your responses, isn’t that effectively the same thing? Haven’t I effectively sent you a questionnaire since what ARA sent has my questions?
What information do you have that the questionnaire was ever sent to AFT or is that mere speculation?
<
p>How is a questionnaire – if that even happened – for which there is no factual basis that the MTA questionnaire went to any organization but the MTA – how is a questionnaire the equal of a live interview?
<
p>How is an anonymous process which may or may not have occurred the same as an open and democratic process? It is not.
<
p>Your hypothetical is not on point. And I would answer, your question as follows:
<
p>”No, it does not apply. No it is not the same thing at all”.
<
p>Just like your post where you smeared me for saying something I did not say and did not post.
And for the record, I’m still not supporting anybody in this race yet. But yes, I am still posting anonymously so you should feel free to comment about that, as you so often do.
My source, which I do trust, informed me that the interview was solely by the MTA, and that no contact at all was received from the AFT. It is not a “smear” to report accurately.
<
p>I would greatly appreciate your source for your assettion that the questionnaire, which was solely attributed to the MTA [so I am reliably informed] was somehow also utilized by the AFT.
<
p>I see no reason to take the word of an anonymous poster who utilizes a snarky, unpleasant, and snide tone and provides neither foundation, links nor attribution. You lack both courtesy and credibility with me – cannot say for anyone else Mr. Inaction.
<
p>But maybe your choice of handle says it all – perhaps those who espouse “political inaction” as their preferred calling card exist only to tear down anonymously? Do educate me, friend.
<
p>You note I do not sling insults such as “smear” even though you are anonymous, provide no links, provide no foundation, and no way at all to verify your naked accusations.
Indeed you may be correct. I don’t know which, if any, teaching organizations were at the interview. I am, however, pretty darned certain that all the candidate’s responses get sent to all the member organizations.
<
p>However, I do not believe I ever stated that the MTA questionnaire was used by AFT or vice versa. Do you have reason to believe an AFT questionnaire was sent to Thielman?
<
p>As I said earlier, feel free to go after my anonymity, as you always do. You have no reason to take my word on anything, nor do I particularly care whether you do. However, if you actually want to see that I don’t “exist only to tear down anonymously” feel free to browse my comments. You may even recall that I’ve stood up for Mr. Garballey in a few posts!
burlington-maul
2021 years ago
If you look at MFT (endorsed Thielman) versus the MTA (endorsed Garballey), the difference is the Arlington teachers are an MTA affiliate.
<
p>Why is this significant? The whole principal-teacher sex email scandal, where the principal and teacher were both fired, involves the vice-president of the local. In the midst of this, Thielman backed the superintendent, Garballey backed the teacher.
<
p>I just think the MTA endorsement is more about the whole teacher-principal scandal as opposed to the merits of the candidates.
Did you know that the MTA sent questionnaires to all five candidates? They did.
<
p>Did you know the MTA offered live interviews to all five candidates? They did. I don’t know whether all five candidates availed themselves of this opportunity, hnowever.
<
p>Did you know that the state organization discussed and voted [whether the vote was their Board or a committee is more detail than I know – maybe someone else can supply that]
<
p>Now, what is your basis for casting aspirsions on an entire state organizations decision making process???
<
p> What is it you know for certain that entitles you to attack the MTA in this fashion??
<
p>Or are you just slinging mud based on speculation?
And I also want to know — I also want to know on behalf of voters here in South Carolina, this kind of squabbling, how many children is this going to get health care? How many people are going to get an education from this? How many kids are going to be able to go to college because of this?
We have got to understand — you know, and I respect both of my fellow candidates — but we have got to understand this is not about us personally. It is about what we are trying to do for this country and what we believe in.
I look forward to voting for John Edwards on February 5.
There is a vigorous, grass roots steering committee – I know because I am part of it.
<
p>I will be taking time away from the 23rd campaign to hold signs and be an Edward’s surrogate – part of why I am not on the “Committee” though a vocal supporter for Sean is that too many things are happening at the same time. See also the hearing for S 999 which I am wrapped up in, which is 2/7/08 not to mention trying to work.
No kidding, I hadn’t heard that over and over and over.
<
p>But staying on topic, can you please tell me how that differs from any other organization’s endorsement? In all the endorsement processes I’ve been involved with it is exactly the same thing so if you’ve got some specifics that show this to be different and therefore an extraordinary endorsement please enlighten us.
…which sent out no questionaires. Which only contacted the candidate it endorsed…nice of you to ask in such a friendly way!
AFT is a member of the Mass Alliance which interviewed the candidates. Anybody else you care to smear?
<
p>PS- you’re welcome.
To “smear” is to villify, or slander, to knowingly speak untruth.
<
p>See: http://www.answers.com/topic/s… and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S… and http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/…
<
p>You do not have to just take MY word for what the word “smear” means.
<
p>I did not “smear” anyone, but reported information I had received.
<
p>On the other hand, your post appeared designed to smear me!
<
p>I do consider the choice of the word “smear”, which may merely have been ignorant or unfortunate, an attack because of what the word means.
<
p>You can disagree with me – I don’t mind that at all.
<
p>But to call me a liar and a slanderer – that required a strong response as it is an “ad hominem attack” [deliberately, or merely due to poor word choice – I do not know].
Yes, I am fully aware of what the word “smear” and the phrase “ad hominem attack” mean. Because I am pretty darned certain both teacher’s organizations received questionnaires (though not necessarily their own, but from organizations they belong to) and you said that AFT made a decision without viewing any questionnaires, I deemed that you were villifying them.
<
p>More specifically I always think of smear as an unsubstantiated charge which I still believe to be the case. You say AFT never saw anything in writing about Garballey. I highly doubt that.
I said that nothing was sent to the candidates by the AFT. Three of them told me that.
<
p>I said the AFT did not interview any of the candidates in person as far as I knew – two of them have told me that so far.
<
p>I did not say what AFT may or may not have “seen” only compared what the MTA did, with what the AFT did not do such as [send out questionaires, invite all the candidates in for interviews – MTA did, AFT did not].
<
p>I know what the MTA did – and what the AFT did not do.
<
p>What the AFT may have done privately, I cannot and did NOT say.
<
p>Putting words in my mouth that I did not say and then smearing me for allegedly saying them is an ad hominem attack. It is also dishonest and beneath who I thought you were, at one time.
<
p>And I could use other carefully chosen adjectives and phrases, such as “an apparent attempt to smear”…and smear me. Reread my post.
AmberPaw wrote:
<
p>I talked to Jeff Thielman after his interview with the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers. I also talked to a union leader, who was in the room for the interview, who said that Mr. Thielman’s interview was most impressive.
<
p>Jeff’s passion for public educaiton, along with his deep knowledge of issues facing our schools, makes him a most attractive candidate.
<
p>There’s no room for doubt. Jeff earned the MFT endorsement.
And whether I “know very far” I speak very clearly and honestly and I don’t “smear” anyone. Or any organization.
<
p>Also, which other candidates, if any, did the MFT interview?
<
p>Unless the MFT interviewed ALL the candidates, while you may feel their endorsement was “earned” – I will not feel their endorsement was FAIRLY earned because not all candidates were given an equal opportunity.
<
p>With the MTA ALL the candidates received an equal opportunity.
<
p>Since you “know” so much more, was that the case with the MFT? Or did they just interview one, vetted candidate recommended to them by an insider? I would like to know.
<
p>Since you say I don’t “know” very far…do tell me, did the MFT let any other candidate into their interview process, at all??????
Lots of other folks do not find him an attractive candidate.
<
p>But then, that IS what democracy is all about. Choice.
<
p>Each of the five candidates has strong supporters. And that IS how it should be.
If I send you a questionnaire, or if the organization to which I am a member, the Alliance of Righteous Arlingtonians, which holds similar beliefs as me and includes questions of importance to me, sends one and gives me your responses, isn’t that effectively the same thing? Haven’t I effectively sent you a questionnaire since what ARA sent has my questions?
What information do you have that the questionnaire was ever sent to AFT or is that mere speculation?
<
p>How is a questionnaire – if that even happened – for which there is no factual basis that the MTA questionnaire went to any organization but the MTA – how is a questionnaire the equal of a live interview?
<
p>How is an anonymous process which may or may not have occurred the same as an open and democratic process? It is not.
<
p>Your hypothetical is not on point. And I would answer, your question as follows:
<
p>”No, it does not apply. No it is not the same thing at all”.
<
p>Just like your post where you smeared me for saying something I did not say and did not post.
<
p>
Who ever said an endorsement process had to be democratic?
But I can choose to find an endorsement process valid – or not.
<
p>Democratic – or not.
<
p>Such as to make an endorsement meaningful – or not….
And for the record, I’m still not supporting anybody in this race yet. But yes, I am still posting anonymously so you should feel free to comment about that, as you so often do.
My source, which I do trust, informed me that the interview was solely by the MTA, and that no contact at all was received from the AFT. It is not a “smear” to report accurately.
<
p>I would greatly appreciate your source for your assettion that the questionnaire, which was solely attributed to the MTA [so I am reliably informed] was somehow also utilized by the AFT.
<
p>I see no reason to take the word of an anonymous poster who utilizes a snarky, unpleasant, and snide tone and provides neither foundation, links nor attribution. You lack both courtesy and credibility with me – cannot say for anyone else Mr. Inaction.
<
p>But maybe your choice of handle says it all – perhaps those who espouse “political inaction” as their preferred calling card exist only to tear down anonymously? Do educate me, friend.
<
p>You note I do not sling insults such as “smear” even though you are anonymous, provide no links, provide no foundation, and no way at all to verify your naked accusations.
Indeed you may be correct. I don’t know which, if any, teaching organizations were at the interview. I am, however, pretty darned certain that all the candidate’s responses get sent to all the member organizations.
<
p>However, I do not believe I ever stated that the MTA questionnaire was used by AFT or vice versa. Do you have reason to believe an AFT questionnaire was sent to Thielman?
<
p>As I said earlier, feel free to go after my anonymity, as you always do. You have no reason to take my word on anything, nor do I particularly care whether you do. However, if you actually want to see that I don’t “exist only to tear down anonymously” feel free to browse my comments. You may even recall that I’ve stood up for Mr. Garballey in a few posts!
If you look at MFT (endorsed Thielman) versus the MTA (endorsed Garballey), the difference is the Arlington teachers are an MTA affiliate.
<
p>Why is this significant? The whole principal-teacher sex email scandal, where the principal and teacher were both fired, involves the vice-president of the local. In the midst of this, Thielman backed the superintendent, Garballey backed the teacher.
<
p>I just think the MTA endorsement is more about the whole teacher-principal scandal as opposed to the merits of the candidates.
Did you know that the MTA sent questionnaires to all five candidates? They did.
<
p>Did you know the MTA offered live interviews to all five candidates? They did. I don’t know whether all five candidates availed themselves of this opportunity, hnowever.
<
p>Did you know that the state organization discussed and voted [whether the vote was their Board or a committee is more detail than I know – maybe someone else can supply that]
<
p>Now, what is your basis for casting aspirsions on an entire state organizations decision making process???
<
p> What is it you know for certain that entitles you to attack the MTA in this fashion??
<
p>Or are you just slinging mud based on speculation?
I look forward to voting for John Edwards on February 5.
There is a vigorous, grass roots steering committee – I know because I am part of it.
<
p>I will be taking time away from the 23rd campaign to hold signs and be an Edward’s surrogate – part of why I am not on the “Committee” though a vocal supporter for Sean is that too many things are happening at the same time. See also the hearing for S 999 which I am wrapped up in, which is 2/7/08 not to mention trying to work.