Last login: Sunday, September 22, 2013
"This is better than having to go all the way up there, and dealing with the traffic,"...
Way better, Jake! Now instead of having to deal with it on Navarro, we--the folks who live in Tanglewood--will have to deal with it right here!
Not everyone believes Walmart is a welcomed addition to the Houston Highway!
Flag this comment
wuzup, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I won't try to change it.
But for all the other folks who may be reading and forming their own opinions, let me clarify that Heather McMinn's decision most likely had nothing to do with getting re-elected. She is running unopposed.
The decision by a grand jury not to indict was the right one.
First off, this column by the city councilperson who was one of a group that wanted to finagle the amendments is rather amusing! A couple of points and then I’ll move along.
You write: “But if this project isn't properly funded, the public can expect one of two things to occur. Either the defense of the permit will fail because it wasn't given the funds to succeed, or they will get part way through the fight and have to return to Council for additional funding.” Do you suppose the defense might fail, no matter how much money is applied to it, simply for the reason DaleZuck cites—“contestants who proved, to an Administrative Judge, that there are sufficient questions which need to be asked and answered.”?
And you write: “It is clear to everyone that the small group of individuals that is contesting the permit are the cause of this additional expense to all the citizens of Victoria.” Again, I will make reference to what Zuck said. The city chose to continue the fight rather than gather input from the citizens. The city made up its mind, and there was no budging, discussing or trying to find agreeable resolution. The affected citizens are not the cause of the extra expense at all! How really juvenile for you to even say that. As to the mediation that has been brought up over and over, I asked last week how much the legal expenses would have been for that. Mediation wasn’t going to be free—it involves attorneys, and as we know they don’t work for free.
It is time for this to be settled, but please grow up and accept responsibility for your decisions—all of you—in this matter! The expense issue is not the fault of the affected parties! And the time to sit and talk with those affected is long past. It should have been well before mediation because an option. Can you blame them for not wanting to sit with you now? Seriously?
I think more than one of you who have posted on this thread need to pause and reflect back.
Ask yourself this question, "Have I ever sent an email to anyone on the Advocate forum and revealed my true identity?"
Some of you have very poor short term memories.
I have come to the conclusion that all the details are not yet worked out on how this is going to be handled. I am leaning strongly to calling it quits again. As folks leave and the conversion is made, I believe I'll make my exit also.That will sadden some and gladden others. So be it.
Chris Cobler, Jessica Puente--
Why don't you guys start all over with the explanation of the new rules regarding blogging and posting on blogs.
There are bits and pieces scattered all over the place and from the comments, it is clear that many are still confused.
Maybe start with "If you DON'T have a Facebook account, you will not be able to..."
I don't really understand why it has been so difficult for you all to explain this.
The score as it stands now is--You don't have to have a FB account to blog.You have to have a FB account to comment on a blog. It will show your FB name.No one has mentioned posting comment on stories, not blogs. Any changes there?
That's what I have gathered from the Advocate posted blogs and comments.
Sugar--I think they thought this was going to be more well received than it is turning out to be. I wonder if they planned for a certain percentage to leave? It looks like a little back-pedaling to me.
I clicked on your FB Advocate page, and I did not find any of that robust discussion you were mentioning. One story on the Shiner murder had a lot of comments, but most everything else was without comments. Many stories had 'likes', but not so on the comments.
If the goal was to be inclusive, this appears pretty restrictive.
I agree this will be an interesting experiment, but what I think could be way more interesting is what was the thought process on this? Who thought this would be a good idea? Who thought this was the thing to do?
If you wanted to get rid of the disagreeable ones, just ban them (us?) and be done with it.
I looked at the AdvoSports thing that you suggested elsewhere and yes, it will be very simple to comment. The problem is, you are commenting under your Facebook identity, not your Advocate identity. It has a drop down box, but the options there were my Facebeook name or signing out.
I don't understand why you targeted Advocate bloggers and not Advocate comment posters. It affects all posters.
Oh, I agree. It is those who just make hit and run comments without having any factual information to contribute.
There is a lot of that going on right now on the VA. itisi, tafoer and sometime you, too. Slamming the president does nothing but remind of what we already know--y'all don't like our President. That's fine. But when that is always your default mantra on any thread, it only makes you guys look like that is all you know. Think about it.
Remember, if we're talking about President Obama, we're not talking about Mitt Romney...