Submitted by Joe Taylor on Thu, 2008/02/14 - 5:57pm.
Pcard audit claims another body... the problem as I see it is the folks who have been fired aka resigns learned their PCard abuse from Mike Ragsdale and Mike Arms... now it is time for the Mike's to resign!!!!
Submitted by Ragsdale2010 (not verified) on Thu, 2008/02/14 - 6:23pm.
In my opinion, Finch was very, very busy tending to the sorority's business on the county taxpayer's dime and they have been caught, bigger than big, and there is noway Ragsdale can look a tax paying citizen in the eye with a straight face and tell him it was a justified and necessary expenditure of taxpayer money.
It will be interesting to see if Ms. Finch elects to speak about the shennanigans and other happenings within the County Mayor's office during her tenure now that she is unemployed, as she has the goods on Ragsdale and Arms and utilized the threat of public disclosure to hang on to her $136,000 a year job this long and now, most of what she knows in well known in community circles in the local media, and the leverage to hold over Ragsdale and Arms is gone and so is she.
Hopefully, taxpaying citizens will realize that the County Mayor's office is merely an administrative position, carries no political clout, no political power, and all Ragsdale has done during his 6 years in office is to try and turn the office and himself into something much more important that they really are.
Monica Lewinsky had the blue dress, fortunately for the Knox County taxpayers we had SunTrust P-card statements and Lewis Cosby and the common characteristics between Bill Clinton and Mike Ragsdale will soon come to light.
Submitted by knoxvegas99 on Thu, 2008/02/14 - 6:28pm.
...and to his ultimate detriment, Randy. Hanging on to Finch like he did has to rank as one of the most bizarre decisions by a local politician in a while. I understand that the parting was not "amicable." (Aw, go on!)
Finch is a skilled infighter. M.R. will not be rid of her so easily as all that, IMO.
Submitted by Toad In The Hole (not verified) on Thu, 2008/02/14 - 6:35pm.
Blood on the 6th Floor of the City County Building?
Rest assured if there isn't, there will be, Ragsdale rode that bucking bronco to his own politcal funeral and for every shot Finch takes, he's taking two of the same and he doesn't even know it and probably doesn't even care. What's left of his political life will be vaporized by Finch's explanation of all the other hocus pocus happening up top. Smoke and mirror budgets, $500 supplement to each county employee, P-Cards, cars, travel allowances, meddling in county elections, meddling with the school board, complete arrogance and disregard for everybody except for the maitre de at Morton's in Nashville. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
If Ragsdale was a star in Hollywood, he'd check himself into rehab with the rest of the egos and those of overstated importance.
Submitted by Getcha Popcorn Ready (not verified) on Thu, 2008/02/14 - 6:42pm.
i really don't think the press release will say that she has chosen to pursue other opportunities in the business community. i think the press release will say that there really wasn't anybody else to blame for the bad publicity my administration has endured and the uncontroverted proof of wholesale waste and abuse of the citizen's tax dollars, so today i'll blame the Finch winch.
hopefully ragsdale will realize what an absolute baffoon he and his administration are and just resign and let county commission appoint somebody else as a caretaker for that position for the next two years, that position doesn't really do anything under the charter form of gubmint anyway.
Wow. I can't believe some of the comments KNS is allowing over there.
MEMO TO DRIVEBY TROLLS: Don't try posting any of that bullshit here.
UPDATE: The really offensive comment is gone. There are still a couple of questionable comments. Carry on. And thanks to the regulars here for being civil and staying on topic.
Submitted by Bird_dog on Thu, 2008/02/14 - 7:24pm.
The Parable of the Shrewd Steward. A dishonest manager was found out and immediately began cheating the master to secure a position or favors for himself down the road. Just that Mr Ragsdale Sir is so into Biblical references.
Submitted by I told you so (not verified) on Thu, 2008/02/14 - 8:51pm.
When these abuses were first reported Ragsdale said they were baseless allegations. Wonder what he will say next? I'll bet she is just a troubled young woman. Does anyone see a pattern?
Interesting. Did you know that after you turned off comments, they disappeared? I could see that there were x number of comments, but only the original post showed up if you tried to click on either the comments link or the post title.
Submitted by Ragsdale2010 (not verified) on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 8:27am.
Can't imagine there is anything in an audit or a HUD claim for reimbursement that hasn't already been debated? Ragsdale made a decision to defend her and vouch for her capability, transfering the iffy responsibilities to other department people, that's about as bad as it gets? Why now the move to sack Finch when the worst part of the Finch storm is really over?
Submitted by RayCapps on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 11:30am.
But the one thing in all this that would make sense is if she's done something recently. It could something only recently uncovered, but if it predates the launch of the audits, the Ragsdale team would still have room to offer her cover if they chose. If she's done something recently, in the past couple of months, there's just no possible way to let her keep her job.
I just can't buy the notion that team Ragsdale has finally decided past indiscretions were just too great and she has to go. There was no impetus to do that. The news coverage has been preoccupied with the new appointment process. The Hutchison faction was soundly defeated in the primary. Heck, it didn't even happen on a Friday. If you're going to do something politically unappetizing in this town, Lord knows you do it on Friday, preferably in front of a holiday. Unless something was just about ready to come boiling over, you make the Finch decision on Good Friday in advance of Easter, not on a Wednesday in February.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 11:53am.
I just can't buy the notion that team Ragsdale has finally decided past indiscretions were just too great and she has to go. There was no impetus to do that.
Disagree.
If the release of the audit is imminent, they may have just faced up to an unpleasant task they'd been dreading. It doesn't have to be anything "new" to them -- just "new" to the taxpaying, voting public. Remember, the chain of command was restructured at the turn of the year so that Finch reported to Arms instead of Ragsdale. This was not a good omen for Finch, and I'm sure she knew it. It meant Ragsdale didn't have to dirty his hands when Arms fired her.
Submitted by Toad In The Hole (not verified) on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 10:29am.
Gordon Ball is from Newport originally as is Cynthia Finch, such that she would want to speak to somebody she trusts. It will be interesting to see if Gordon stays out front on her case or if he has somebody else affiliated with him handle the matter.
To prove the case of discrimination, there is an abundance of video tape of Mike Ragsdale talking about how valuable she has been to his administration and how her spending habits are justified by the ends accomplished, there plenty of quotes attributable to the administration that purport to justify the manner in which the grant monies have been disbursed and the administration has attempted to justify the manner in which the HUD money was doled out, such that if the administration had OK'd all of these things, why are they now looking to terminate her employment? Can't be misuse of local or federal tax dollars, Ragsdale has already said that was justified, all that's left is racial/sexual/hostile environment.
Taxpayers can get the checkbook out and getcha popcorn ready.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 11:16am.
Anymore, everybody thinks they're a damn reporter.
I'm about 30 years past being shocked by anything that happens in politics and media, but some of the things being said about this matter just make my flesh crawl.
Not much can be done about innuendo, but there are a couple of people commenting on Knoxnews and WBIR who are actually naming names and personal information about those they suspect of having improper relationships. They better be damn sure of their facts, because if they are wrong, they have crossed the line between fair comment and defamation, and they shouldn't be surprised if they get some letters from some lawyers soon.
I have reason to believe they are pointing fingers at the wrong person, and I'm willing to bet that i know more people on the 6th floor than they do.
You CANNOT make these kinds of allegations without proof, and we may soon see some interesting ground being broken.
Submitted by SteveMule on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 6:47pm.
Ms. BBeanster,
I went it checked it out and ... I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! There's gossip going on there!
So what exactly is upseting? Gossip? Gossip and ... ?
What 'interesting ground being broken' will there be? Lawsuits about gossip? Or ... hmmm ... gossip being revealed as FACT!?!?
Oh, I shudder to think ...
besides, even if true, it would really have to have bearing on the matter at hand (Ms. Finch's resignation) and I don't see it.
Submitted by Pam Strickland on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 6:07am.
The problem is that it is gossip. And gossip printed w/o any facts to back it up becomes libel. Not a good thing for anyone involved. You can hear things a million ways to Sunday, but w/o facts you don't repeat it in print. That is the problem. You can think it's true because you don't like someone and you want to see them in trouble, but w/o facts and solid evidence, you don't go spreading it everywhere. Get the facts, verify them a few times. Then, you can think about repeating them for public consumption.
pgs
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Submitted by Bbeanster on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 10:20am.
I went it checked it out and ... I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! There's gossip going on there!
So what exactly is upseting? Gossip? Gossip and ... ?
What 'interesting ground being broken' will there be? Lawsuits about gossip? Or ... hmmm ... gossip being revealed as FACT!?!?
Oh, I shudder to think...
besides, even if true, it would really have to have bearing on the matter at hand (Ms. Finch's resignation) and I don't see it.
Of course you don't "see it." You think it's OK to publicly accuse someone of [] with nothing factual to back it up. In fact, there are comments on a wingnut blog from someone named SteveMule congratulating the wingnut blogger for running the accusation and naming a name. ("At the risk of giving you the big head -- YOU MADE GOOGLE! ")
Submitted by SteveMule on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 10:47am.
Ms. BBeanster,
First, yes that was me on the Rightwing Nut blog congratulating the blog owner for making Google with GOSSIP. Nothing worthwile, nothing important, nothing ... nothing but gossip. Just that, gossip. His new claim to fame is based soley on gossip.
Secondly, what I "didn't see" was how this gossip had any bearing on Ms. Finch's resignation. No. Bearing. What. So. Ever. Even if true, and right now, as you point out, there's no proof, it would only provoke a moral scandal and not necessarily a political scandal. If and only if true, []. Wow, that's never happened before ... oh, wait, it happens all the time. YAWN. So what?
Third, in order to be legally actionable, the agrived party has to show and PROVE injury (physical, financial, etc.) and gossip on a rightwing nut blog, or the comments section of any blog hardly rises to that standard.
Fourth, I didn't make the accusation (produce the gossip) or publish it, or anything other than #1 above and ask you WTF you were talking about earlier.
Relax, Ms. BBeanster, we're on the same side on this one. I'm just a little more jaded toward gossip than you (it would appear) and was having fun with gossip, not what the gossip was about.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 12:29pm.
Third, in order to be legally actionable, the agrived party has to show and PROVE injury (physical, financial, etc.) and gossip on a rightwing nut blog, or the comments section of any blog hardly rises to that standard.
you need to fire whoever gave you this "legal" advice. You are dead wrong about the above statement (and most every other point you're attempting to make the case for in this post).
Evidently you didn't bother to Google "libel per se".
If it's a case of libel per se, you do not have to prove damages. All you have to do is prove that it's false. And I feel safe in saying that your belief that adultery is a piddling thing is not one that is widely shared.
I did not say that you had committed defamation, and I wasn't even going to respond to your dopey post until later last night when I noticed that you were getting such a giggle out of the irresponsible use of someone else's name. You have more than one response to that post, btw.
Most everybody, except maybe the most saintly of us, gossips. The thing is, you PUBLISH gossip at your peril. With the advent of the Internet, the legal definition of publishing is expanding, and people who have not been heretofore forced to think about those things in school and/or on the job are stepping into uncharted waters.
And far as gossip being harmless, I doubt that [] would agree with you.
Submitted by SteveMule on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 4:34pm.
Ms. BBeanster,
First, I haven't published anything, other than a couple of comments on two blogs. That's it. Go to the other blog and raise cain there about what HE published, OK? He used names, he mentioned a confidential source that mentioned a possible story that Sandra Clark may break in the Halls Shopper News, he got his blog artcle listed on google and so on. All I did has have a laugh (or two, or three, or ... ) since to this point all this is just GOSSIP. Unactionable gossip.
Secondly, Your definition of libel is correct altho, that and $1 will get you a cup of coffee and change, and that's all. Go to court with what HE wrote on HIS blog and by the way, HE also wrote in that blog entry: "Normally, we wouldn't bother with a story like this, but if this proves to be corroborated there is a ... " HE does not claim it is true; only that IF it is it'll be interesting for X number of reasons important to HIM. As for what is in the comment sections of other blogs most of those are published anonymously and you'd have trouble linking them to any specific person (not impossible just difficult) so what do you have? Despicable gossip. That's all. And that's what a court would tell you.
I have no idea if any of this is true or not, and to be perfectly honest, I don't care. True or false, I still don't see what it has to do with Ms. Finch's resignation. I've read GOSSIP concerning why it might, but in my opinion I think the theories concerning the truth behind the JFK assination hold more water.
Finally, I only made two comments on the Rightwing Nutjob's blog concerning this. Who the other anonymous commenters were/are is unknown to me. I sign all my comments. (I don't have a google identity so I can't sign-in and get a neat avatar pic like I do here)
I asked, I looked, I read, I was shocked, shocked, I tell you and I had fun ... so sue me.
Or relax.
Submitted by SteveMule on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 9:27pm.
Libel per se:
n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.
Malice: n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.
I guess that the last sentence was my sticking point. Public figures get talked about, often in unkind ways. The principles in this spate of gossip are all public figues and let's all remember the recent events in Knox County Government have definitly given rise to alot of talk. I want nothng bad to happen to any of the principles involved in any of this recent spate of gossip. []
I still don't see what bearing that has on Ms,. Finch's resignation. Public Figure XX is a crook and wears purple socks. Public Figure XX may indeed be a crook, or they may not be, BUT what does wearing purple socks have to do with whether or not they are a crook???
The last line is a kicker: "The Supreme Court reversed the libel judgment, saying that the First Amendment protected "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" criticism of public officials, at least unless it could be proved that the critic was deliberately lying or showed "reckless disregard" for the truth."
Submitted by Pam Strickland on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 12:14am.
Personally, I think you are being arrogant and unreasonable. Those of us who have had our work printed across teh front page of a newspaper and have had rumors and innuendo thrown at us like a bone on a daily basis have been told by more than one good first amendment lawyer to CYA very carefully before we even so much as whispered gossip to our neighbor in the newsroom. -- And it doesn't matter if you don't see a connection to Finch's departure. It doesn't matter if it's couched in some sort of false safety net. What matters is that the reporter -- or blogger or person on the street -- knows or doesn't know what the truth is. That why you don't go repeating rumors on the internet or anywhere else as far as that's concerned.
You take a Communications Law course, and then we'll talk.
Pam
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
WBIR reports that Ragsdale will meet with them this afternoon. They also say Finch is leaving with a "sizable" paycheck. $14,000 for accrued leave is "sizable"?
Submitted by RayCapps on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 1:14pm.
At a base salary of $136,000, $14,000 equates to slightly over 5.35 weeks salary. That's within the norm for a severance package on a negotiated resignation.
Submitted by SteveMule on Fri, 2008/02/15 - 1:44pm.
Mr. RayCapps,
Thank you for clearing that up. Nevertheless, $14K was about 10 months pay for me. So ... normal? Evidently, yes. Different unviverse? Absolutely.
I am ashamed to admit that I simply can not feel her pain. My bad.
This is the sort of stuff I just don't get. From WBIR's interview on Friday with Mayor Ragsdale:
"He (Mayor Ragsdale) insists he doesn't know exactly why Finch decided to leave.
"The Mayor said he hadn't had a chance to talk with Arms or Troyer about what was discussed during that meeting, even though both were in the office Friday."
10 News wanted to know if his administration asked her to resign.
"No," he said. "Well, I wasn't in the meeting, I would defer to those that were. If you like to ask them, I'm sure they'd be delighted to talk to you." (when asked, these folks were not available)
So, the Mayor's line is: Gee, I just don't know why good ole Cynth resigned, she did so many good things here.
And more than that, you mean to tell me a senior administrator you hired, who's been in turmoil for months, resigns from her job and you, her boss, the Mayor, don't even bother to go talk to Troyer or Arms and find out what happened? It's not as if this is the federal government. All these folks are in the same office suite, just steps from one another. Am I the only one who finds this completely 1. unbelievable or 2. completely irresponsible?
It's no wonder people have lost their faith in government.
That's a ploy to get around the EEOC charge that is looming. She wasn't really needed so we "restructured." Why they do this I have no idea as the EEOC investigators are so used to seeing this claim that they consider it spurious on its face unless their investigation proves otherwise.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by Bbeanster on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 7:27pm.
Finch is a political appointee and this is a labor-unfriendly, employment at will state. Plus, her lawyer may have other issues to attend to when this audit comes out, if the NS "sources" are accurate and receipts were falsified.
EEOC is a federal thing. Most people under the gun settle to avoid the investigation. They go through everything. I don't know if they have jurisdiction on an appointee though.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Speaking as someone who had a subordinate invoke an EEO claim while I was at TVA - they are a pain in the ass.
However, my experience was that they were also fair. The initial TVA investigation resulted in the employee's claims being rejected. She then asked for and got a team from Washington to investigate. They also rejected her claims.
And lest you think that I only think they were fair because they decided in my favor, before the employee went the EEO route, she tried to file a grievance. The union not only told her they wouldn't support her, they called ME and told me they'd told her so. After the EEO claims were turned down, the employee filed a civil suit. After depositions her attorney told her to drop it; she had no case. Which she did.
Of course, this consumed a good part of three years of my life. But I have the distinction (?) of being the only person I know who actually fired someone from TVA and made it stick.
Update: Just for the record, the employee in question was not invoking EEOC on account of race or gender.
Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 6:47pm.
Two things to consider:
1. Libelous or slanderous statements are not made LESS libelous or slanderous if you preface them with 'This is what I heard", or "this is just a rumor" or "it's just gossip."
2. IP addresses are easily traceable.
WHOEVER started naming (and repeating) names may soon find a process server at their door. Randy was pretty smart to cut off the posting in this thread during the height of the speculation on those other blogs. This is a subject best left well alone.
[edit] one more thing to consider. "Publishing" in the context of defamation actions simply means making a statement to a third person about someone else. Such a statement can be oral or written. It doesn't matter whether you take out a full page ad in the NYT or whisper it to someone on a street corner. If you make an actionably defamatory statement about someone else to anyone other than that person, you have "published" that statement.
Submitted by SteveMule on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 8:58pm.
Mr. Ringo,
My questions are not to be construed as to cast doubt on the veracity of what you've said, OK?
#1) Why doesn't FOX News, Rush, Hannity and the like (and even Oakley, for that matter) get sued for Libel?
#2) What is an actionably defamatory statement? Specifically, what consitutes actionable?
Submitted by Ragsdale2010 (not verified) on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 10:12pm.
Ragsdale and crowd are all definately public figures for establishing actual malice to prevail on any type of defamation claim.
If I were on the 6th Floor, I'd be contacting my lawyers for something else besides digging out bloggers and trying to hold them liable for comments which as ridiculous as they are, don't appear to be made with actual malice to hold a person up to any more scorn, ridicule, or humiliation than they already are.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 11:08pm.
Ragsdale is a public figure. The woman who is being slimed is not. I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but this is one little bitty area of the law that I know pretty well.
Being a county employee does not make one a public figure, which means that the "actual malice" standard -- which applies to public figures and gives reporters more leeway to say bad things -- does not apply. Actual malice is construed very narrowly and means that the person doing the sliming is saying the stuff in spite of knowing that it is false or, as later cases have held, with reckless disregard for the truth. You can say pretty much what you want about Ragsdale, and maybe Van de Vate or Arms or probably Finch. But I do not believe anybody else there is a public figure.
Submitted by Johnny Ringo on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 8:45am.
Being a county employee does not make one a public figure, which means that the "actual malice" standard -- which applies to public figures and gives reporters more leeway to say bad things -- does not apply. Actual malice is construed very narrowly and means that the person doing the sliming is saying the stuff in spite of knowing that it is false or, as later cases have held, with reckless disregard for the truth. You can say pretty much what you want about Ragsdale, and maybe Van de Vate or Arms or probably Finch. But I do not believe anybody else there is a public figure.
Steve, what she said. If you read the comments section at the KNS site, you'll see the admins of the site have been pretty zealous in scrubbing such "rumors" and "gossip" from the site. Apparently their lawyers are getting nervous. Again, something to think about.
Submitted by SteveMule on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 9:48am.
Mr. Ringo,
I agree with what you said. It is prudent for KNS to put a lid on the rumors/gossip being posted on their blog. If they didn't they could be held to the "reckless disregrad for the truth" clause. Samething for Randy.
Public figures are fair game for almost anything. What was it Larry Flynt said about Jerry Falwell and his mother (in print, no less)?
The Mayor and some others in his administration may be public figures. However, it might be a close call on some staffers.
If a person's personal conduct impacts their public job, it may be a story. Until then, it's personal not public. And, until then, it won't be in the news.
Let's see the audits. The KNS and WBIR haven't been shy about pointing fingers. Good for them.
I bet the right judge would rule Finch a private person who was only made public because of the actions of a public official. There was some case I read in CommLaw about that. I hated J-School, so I have scrubbed the details.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 11:39am.
The reporter/blogger who's post initiated that off-topic conversation did NOT mention any names. It was others who jumped in (with both feet) to round out details of the salacious rumor.
Clearly, the salacious rumor was well-known before the unfortunate reporter/blogger alluded to it.
I think those rounding out the details have been adequately humbled now. They became aware that they aren't truly anonymous at the N-S site, too.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 12:05pm.
I was referring to the eight people whose posts were removed yesterday. Each of them posted under a pseudonym (and did not sign their names to their posts), but they seemed unaware that readers could simply click on those pseudonyms just above their comments to go to their profile pages.
All eight of their profile pages revealed their true names, which all eight had used to log on to the site.
Submitted by SteveMule on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 1:00pm.
Tamara,
Are you talking about posts here on Knoxviews or else where? I've never attempted to hide my identity and I apologize if anyone thinks I was. I'll go check my Knoxviews profile to see if I ned to add anymore identifying data to it.
Submitted by Anonymously Nine (not verified) on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 2:15pm.
The reporter/blogger who's post initiated that off-topic conversation did NOT mention any names.
Not so sure about that, the "reporter/blogger" is the one who created the chaos.
[]
Why do that? It was so incredibly off topic it made no sense.
Maybe not a name, but it didn't take much to figure it out. Had the Sentinel caught that earlier the chaos would not have happened. It was poor judgment. That person may be a blogger, but they are not a reporter.
Submitted by Bbeanster on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 3:07pm.
Nine, you got to the crux of my gripe when you said
That person may be a blogger, but they are not a reporter.
I disagree with you (I think).
The line has been so blurred that IMO bloggers need to familiarize themselves with libel law, and perhaps just think a little harder about basic standards of decency. Posting something on a web site is publishing it. Heck -- this trash was injected onto the News Sentinel web site, which should be a freaking clue that you're not just whispering this over the back fence. I do not know who the person was who first brought it up on the KNS comments section, but it was nothing to be proud of. There is a lynch mob mentality at work here, and I say that as one who was criticizing the Ragsdale administration before it was cool to do so.
And having said that, I'm going to try to bow out of this conversation lest I repeat myself even more.
Submitted by Tamara Shepherd on Sun, 2008/02/17 - 3:26pm.
Steve: "Are you talking about posts here on Knoxviews or else where?"
Steve (and Rachel), I was referring to that recent incident at the N-S site. Sorry to have been unclear about that. I wasn't referring to you or to anything you've said.
Me: "The reporter/blogger who's post initiated that off-topic conversation did NOT mention any names."
Nine: "Not so sure about that, the "reporter/blogger" is the one who created the chaos."
Nine, I AM sure about this--100% sure. The blogger did NOT, at ANY point in the conversation, mention any names. It is others who did mention names who created the chaos.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify. I'm done on this subject.
Submitted by SteveMule on Mon, 2008/02/18 - 7:51am.
Lefty Libs can co-exist and even be friends with Wingnuts! We're living proof!
Now all we need to do is hold hands, sing Kumbya and everything will be OK!
Pcard audit claims another body... the problem as I see it is the folks who have been fired aka resigns learned their PCard abuse from Mike Ragsdale and Mike Arms... now it is time for the Mike's to resign!!!!
In my opinion, Finch was very, very busy tending to the sorority's business on the county taxpayer's dime and they have been caught, bigger than big, and there is noway Ragsdale can look a tax paying citizen in the eye with a straight face and tell him it was a justified and necessary expenditure of taxpayer money.
It will be interesting to see if Ms. Finch elects to speak about the shennanigans and other happenings within the County Mayor's office during her tenure now that she is unemployed, as she has the goods on Ragsdale and Arms and utilized the threat of public disclosure to hang on to her $136,000 a year job this long and now, most of what she knows in well known in community circles in the local media, and the leverage to hold over Ragsdale and Arms is gone and so is she.
Hopefully, taxpaying citizens will realize that the County Mayor's office is merely an administrative position, carries no political clout, no political power, and all Ragsdale has done during his 6 years in office is to try and turn the office and himself into something much more important that they really are.
Monica Lewinsky had the blue dress, fortunately for the Knox County taxpayers we had SunTrust P-card statements and Lewis Cosby and the common characteristics between Bill Clinton and Mike Ragsdale will soon come to light.
Bookem Dano.
Wow. That's pretty huge. Ragsdale sure defended her to the bitter end.
...and to his ultimate detriment, Randy. Hanging on to Finch like he did has to rank as one of the most bizarre decisions by a local politician in a while. I understand that the parting was not "amicable." (Aw, go on!)
Finch is a skilled infighter. M.R. will not be rid of her so easily as all that, IMO.
Larry Van Guilder
"Ragsdale sure defended her to the bitter end."
And there is a very good reason for that.
Loose lips sink ships. Now that Ms Finch has been cut loose, it will be interesting if she reveals what she undoubtedly knows and has seen.
Get out the popcorn folks, it just might get real interesting.
Hmmmm.........
Blood on the 6th Floor of the City County Building?
Rest assured if there isn't, there will be, Ragsdale rode that bucking bronco to his own politcal funeral and for every shot Finch takes, he's taking two of the same and he doesn't even know it and probably doesn't even care. What's left of his political life will be vaporized by Finch's explanation of all the other hocus pocus happening up top. Smoke and mirror budgets, $500 supplement to each county employee, P-Cards, cars, travel allowances, meddling in county elections, meddling with the school board, complete arrogance and disregard for everybody except for the maitre de at Morton's in Nashville. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
If Ragsdale was a star in Hollywood, he'd check himself into rehab with the rest of the egos and those of overstated importance.
i really don't think the press release will say that she has chosen to pursue other opportunities in the business community. i think the press release will say that there really wasn't anybody else to blame for the bad publicity my administration has endured and the uncontroverted proof of wholesale waste and abuse of the citizen's tax dollars, so today i'll blame the Finch winch.
hopefully ragsdale will realize what an absolute baffoon he and his administration are and just resign and let county commission appoint somebody else as a caretaker for that position for the next two years, that position doesn't really do anything under the charter form of gubmint anyway.
Wow. I can't believe some of the comments KNS is allowing over there.
MEMO TO DRIVEBY TROLLS: Don't try posting any of that bullshit here.
UPDATE: The really offensive comment is gone. There are still a couple of questionable comments. Carry on. And thanks to the regulars here for being civil and staying on topic.
I have heard that too, and that entities she has been responsible for could not speak up about it for fear of retribution.
The Parable of the Shrewd Steward. A dishonest manager was found out and immediately began cheating the master to secure a position or favors for himself down the road. Just that Mr Ragsdale Sir is so into Biblical references.
Link...
abuses of travel expenses happened long after promises were made that things were under control.
When these abuses were first reported Ragsdale said they were baseless allegations. Wonder what he will say next? I'll bet she is just a troubled young woman. Does anyone see a pattern?
Ed. Note: Comments temporarily suspended. Check back tomorrow when they are reopened.
Interesting. Did you know that after you turned off comments, they disappeared? I could see that there were x number of comments, but only the original post showed up if you tried to click on either the comments link or the post title.
Yeah, my bad. I meant to make them "read only" and instead I disabled them completely. No comments were lost, though.
Carry on.
Can't imagine there is anything in an audit or a HUD claim for reimbursement that hasn't already been debated? Ragsdale made a decision to defend her and vouch for her capability, transfering the iffy responsibilities to other department people, that's about as bad as it gets? Why now the move to sack Finch when the worst part of the Finch storm is really over?
But the one thing in all this that would make sense is if she's done something recently. It could something only recently uncovered, but if it predates the launch of the audits, the Ragsdale team would still have room to offer her cover if they chose. If she's done something recently, in the past couple of months, there's just no possible way to let her keep her job.
I just can't buy the notion that team Ragsdale has finally decided past indiscretions were just too great and she has to go. There was no impetus to do that. The news coverage has been preoccupied with the new appointment process. The Hutchison faction was soundly defeated in the primary. Heck, it didn't even happen on a Friday. If you're going to do something politically unappetizing in this town, Lord knows you do it on Friday, preferably in front of a holiday. Unless something was just about ready to come boiling over, you make the Finch decision on Good Friday in advance of Easter, not on a Wednesday in February.
Disagree.
If the release of the audit is imminent, they may have just faced up to an unpleasant task they'd been dreading. It doesn't have to be anything "new" to them -- just "new" to the taxpaying, voting public. Remember, the chain of command was restructured at the turn of the year so that Finch reported to Arms instead of Ragsdale. This was not a good omen for Finch, and I'm sure she knew it. It meant Ragsdale didn't have to dirty his hands when Arms fired her.
No letter of resignation, verbal only. Resigned after a 90 minute meeting with Arms and Troyer.
Van de Vate " we do understand she has been in contact with an attorney, Gordon Ball."
Gordon Ball is from Newport originally as is Cynthia Finch, such that she would want to speak to somebody she trusts. It will be interesting to see if Gordon stays out front on her case or if he has somebody else affiliated with him handle the matter.
To prove the case of discrimination, there is an abundance of video tape of Mike Ragsdale talking about how valuable she has been to his administration and how her spending habits are justified by the ends accomplished, there plenty of quotes attributable to the administration that purport to justify the manner in which the grant monies have been disbursed and the administration has attempted to justify the manner in which the HUD money was doled out, such that if the administration had OK'd all of these things, why are they now looking to terminate her employment? Can't be misuse of local or federal tax dollars, Ragsdale has already said that was justified, all that's left is racial/sexual/hostile environment.
Taxpayers can get the checkbook out and getcha popcorn ready.
Anymore, everybody thinks they're a damn reporter.
I'm about 30 years past being shocked by anything that happens in politics and media, but some of the things being said about this matter just make my flesh crawl.
Not much can be done about innuendo, but there are a couple of people commenting on Knoxnews and WBIR who are actually naming names and personal information about those they suspect of having improper relationships. They better be damn sure of their facts, because if they are wrong, they have crossed the line between fair comment and defamation, and they shouldn't be surprised if they get some letters from some lawyers soon.
I have reason to believe they are pointing fingers at the wrong person, and I'm willing to bet that i know more people on the 6th floor than they do.
You CANNOT make these kinds of allegations without proof, and we may soon see some interesting ground being broken.
Ms. BBeanster,
What/who exactly are you talking about?
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
Steve, you're on your own with that one.
Ms. BBeanster,
OK, I'm off!
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
Ms. BBeanster,
I went it checked it out and ... I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! There's gossip going on there!
So what exactly is upseting? Gossip? Gossip and ... ?
What 'interesting ground being broken' will there be? Lawsuits about gossip? Or ... hmmm ... gossip being revealed as FACT!?!?
Oh, I shudder to think ...
besides, even if true, it would really have to have bearing on the matter at hand (Ms. Finch's resignation) and I don't see it.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
The problem is that it is gossip. And gossip printed w/o any facts to back it up becomes libel. Not a good thing for anyone involved. You can hear things a million ways to Sunday, but w/o facts you don't repeat it in print. That is the problem. You can think it's true because you don't like someone and you want to see them in trouble, but w/o facts and solid evidence, you don't go spreading it everywhere. Get the facts, verify them a few times. Then, you can think about repeating them for public consumption.
pgs
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Of course you don't "see it." You think it's OK to publicly accuse someone of [] with nothing factual to back it up. In fact, there are comments on a wingnut blog from someone named SteveMule congratulating the wingnut blogger for running the accusation and naming a name. ("At the risk of giving you the big head -- YOU MADE GOOGLE! ")
Since you are such a Google fan, Google this:
Libel per se.
Ms. BBeanster,
First, yes that was me on the Rightwing Nut blog congratulating the blog owner for making Google with GOSSIP. Nothing worthwile, nothing important, nothing ... nothing but gossip. Just that, gossip. His new claim to fame is based soley on gossip.
Secondly, what I "didn't see" was how this gossip had any bearing on Ms. Finch's resignation. No. Bearing. What. So. Ever. Even if true, and right now, as you point out, there's no proof, it would only provoke a moral scandal and not necessarily a political scandal. If and only if true, []. Wow, that's never happened before ... oh, wait, it happens all the time. YAWN. So what?
Third, in order to be legally actionable, the agrived party has to show and PROVE injury (physical, financial, etc.) and gossip on a rightwing nut blog, or the comments section of any blog hardly rises to that standard.
Fourth, I didn't make the accusation (produce the gossip) or publish it, or anything other than #1 above and ask you WTF you were talking about earlier.
Relax, Ms. BBeanster, we're on the same side on this one. I'm just a little more jaded toward gossip than you (it would appear) and was having fun with gossip, not what the gossip was about.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
you need to fire whoever gave you this "legal" advice. You are dead wrong about the above statement (and most every other point you're attempting to make the case for in this post).
Evidently you didn't bother to Google "libel per se".
If it's a case of libel per se, you do not have to prove damages. All you have to do is prove that it's false. And I feel safe in saying that your belief that adultery is a piddling thing is not one that is widely shared.
I did not say that you had committed defamation, and I wasn't even going to respond to your dopey post until later last night when I noticed that you were getting such a giggle out of the irresponsible use of someone else's name. You have more than one response to that post, btw.
Most everybody, except maybe the most saintly of us, gossips. The thing is, you PUBLISH gossip at your peril. With the advent of the Internet, the legal definition of publishing is expanding, and people who have not been heretofore forced to think about those things in school and/or on the job are stepping into uncharted waters.
And far as gossip being harmless, I doubt that [] would agree with you.
Ms. BBeanster,
First, I haven't published anything, other than a couple of comments on two blogs. That's it. Go to the other blog and raise cain there about what HE published, OK? He used names, he mentioned a confidential source that mentioned a possible story that Sandra Clark may break in the Halls Shopper News, he got his blog artcle listed on google and so on. All I did has have a laugh (or two, or three, or ... ) since to this point all this is just GOSSIP. Unactionable gossip.
Secondly, Your definition of libel is correct altho, that and $1 will get you a cup of coffee and change, and that's all. Go to court with what HE wrote on HIS blog and by the way, HE also wrote in that blog entry: "Normally, we wouldn't bother with a story like this, but if this proves to be corroborated there is a ... " HE does not claim it is true; only that IF it is it'll be interesting for X number of reasons important to HIM. As for what is in the comment sections of other blogs most of those are published anonymously and you'd have trouble linking them to any specific person (not impossible just difficult) so what do you have? Despicable gossip. That's all. And that's what a court would tell you.
I have no idea if any of this is true or not, and to be perfectly honest, I don't care. True or false, I still don't see what it has to do with Ms. Finch's resignation. I've read GOSSIP concerning why it might, but in my opinion I think the theories concerning the truth behind the JFK assination hold more water.
Finally, I only made two comments on the Rightwing Nutjob's blog concerning this. Who the other anonymous commenters were/are is unknown to me. I sign all my comments. (I don't have a google identity so I can't sign-in and get a neat avatar pic like I do here)
I asked, I looked, I read, I was shocked, shocked, I tell you and I had fun ... so sue me.
Or relax.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
Libel per se:
n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis) or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses.
Malice:
n. a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong like libel (false written statement about another) or a criminal act like assault or murder, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. This intention includes ill-will, hatred or total disregard for the other's well-being. Often the mean nature of the act itself implies malice, without the party saying "I did it because I was mad at him, and I hated him," which would be express malice. Malice is an element in first degree murder. In a lawsuit for defamation (libel and slander) the existence of malice may increase the judgment to include general damages. Proof of malice is absolutely necessary for a "public figure" to win a lawsuit for defamation.
I guess that the last sentence was my sticking point. Public figures get talked about, often in unkind ways. The principles in this spate of gossip are all public figues and let's all remember the recent events in Knox County Government have definitly given rise to alot of talk. I want nothng bad to happen to any of the principles involved in any of this recent spate of gossip. []
I still don't see what bearing that has on Ms,. Finch's resignation. Public Figure XX is a crook and wears purple socks. Public Figure XX may indeed be a crook, or they may not be, BUT what does wearing purple socks have to do with whether or not they are a crook???
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
I'll save everyone the trouble:
Link...
The last line is a kicker:
"The Supreme Court reversed the libel judgment, saying that the First Amendment protected "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" criticism of public officials, at least unless it could be proved that the critic was deliberately lying or showed "reckless disregard" for the truth."
So with this I'm out.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
Personally, I think you are being arrogant and unreasonable. Those of us who have had our work printed across teh front page of a newspaper and have had rumors and innuendo thrown at us like a bone on a daily basis have been told by more than one good first amendment lawyer to CYA very carefully before we even so much as whispered gossip to our neighbor in the newsroom. -- And it doesn't matter if you don't see a connection to Finch's departure. It doesn't matter if it's couched in some sort of false safety net. What matters is that the reporter -- or blogger or person on the street -- knows or doesn't know what the truth is. That why you don't go repeating rumors on the internet or anywhere else as far as that's concerned.
You take a Communications Law course, and then we'll talk.
Pam
Pam Strickland
"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." ~Kurt Vonnegut
Link...
WBIR reports that Ragsdale will meet with them this afternoon. They also say Finch is leaving with a "sizable" paycheck. $14,000 for accrued leave is "sizable"?
Fourteen THOUSAND dollars?????
My gosh, these people really do live in a different universe than I do.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
At a base salary of $136,000, $14,000 equates to slightly over 5.35 weeks salary. That's within the norm for a severance package on a negotiated resignation.
Mr. RayCapps,
Thank you for clearing that up. Nevertheless, $14K was about 10 months pay for me. So ... normal? Evidently, yes. Different unviverse? Absolutely.
I am ashamed to admit that I simply can not feel her pain. My bad.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
This is the sort of stuff I just don't get. From WBIR's interview on Friday with Mayor Ragsdale:
"He (Mayor Ragsdale) insists he doesn't know exactly why Finch decided to leave.
"The Mayor said he hadn't had a chance to talk with Arms or Troyer about what was discussed during that meeting, even though both were in the office Friday."
10 News wanted to know if his administration asked her to resign.
"No," he said. "Well, I wasn't in the meeting, I would defer to those that were. If you like to ask them, I'm sure they'd be delighted to talk to you." (when asked, these folks were not available)
So, the Mayor's line is: Gee, I just don't know why good ole Cynth resigned, she did so many good things here.
And more than that, you mean to tell me a senior administrator you hired, who's been in turmoil for months, resigns from her job and you, her boss, the Mayor, don't even bother to go talk to Troyer or Arms and find out what happened? It's not as if this is the federal government. All these folks are in the same office suite, just steps from one another. Am I the only one who finds this completely 1. unbelievable or 2. completely irresponsible?
It's no wonder people have lost their faith in government.
and her very important $122K position will not be filled...
I noticed that as well Bird Dog. If they can get along without you, they didn't need you in the first place.
That's a ploy to get around the EEOC charge that is looming. She wasn't really needed so we "restructured." Why they do this I have no idea as the EEOC investigators are so used to seeing this claim that they consider it spurious on its face unless their investigation proves otherwise.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Finch is a political appointee and this is a labor-unfriendly, employment at will state. Plus, her lawyer may have other issues to attend to when this audit comes out, if the NS "sources" are accurate and receipts were falsified.
EEOC is a federal thing. Most people under the gun settle to avoid the investigation. They go through everything. I don't know if they have jurisdiction on an appointee though.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Speaking as someone who had a subordinate invoke an EEO claim while I was at TVA - they are a pain in the ass.
However, my experience was that they were also fair. The initial TVA investigation resulted in the employee's claims being rejected. She then asked for and got a team from Washington to investigate. They also rejected her claims.
And lest you think that I only think they were fair because they decided in my favor, before the employee went the EEO route, she tried to file a grievance. The union not only told her they wouldn't support her, they called ME and told me they'd told her so. After the EEO claims were turned down, the employee filed a civil suit. After depositions her attorney told her to drop it; she had no case. Which she did.
Of course, this consumed a good part of three years of my life. But I have the distinction (?) of being the only person I know who actually fired someone from TVA and made it stick.
Update: Just for the record, the employee in question was not invoking EEOC on account of race or gender.
According to the latest KNS report, Finch's firing may be related to "bogus receipts" for some p-card purchases:
Link...
According to the article, this may have been the final straw for which there was no further justification in defending her.
This puts the grants in a new light for anyone who might have been willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on that situation.
Two things to consider:
1. Libelous or slanderous statements are not made LESS libelous or slanderous if you preface them with 'This is what I heard", or "this is just a rumor" or "it's just gossip."
2. IP addresses are easily traceable.
WHOEVER started naming (and repeating) names may soon find a process server at their door. Randy was pretty smart to cut off the posting in this thread during the height of the speculation on those other blogs. This is a subject best left well alone.
[edit] one more thing to consider. "Publishing" in the context of defamation actions simply means making a statement to a third person about someone else. Such a statement can be oral or written. It doesn't matter whether you take out a full page ad in the NYT or whisper it to someone on a street corner. If you make an actionably defamatory statement about someone else to anyone other than that person, you have "published" that statement.
Mr. Ringo,
My questions are not to be construed as to cast doubt on the veracity of what you've said, OK?
#1) Why doesn't FOX News, Rush, Hannity and the like (and even Oakley, for that matter) get sued for Libel?
#2) What is an actionably defamatory statement? Specifically, what consitutes actionable?
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
Ragsdale and crowd are all definately public figures for establishing actual malice to prevail on any type of defamation claim.
If I were on the 6th Floor, I'd be contacting my lawyers for something else besides digging out bloggers and trying to hold them liable for comments which as ridiculous as they are, don't appear to be made with actual malice to hold a person up to any more scorn, ridicule, or humiliation than they already are.
Let's just see how it all unfolds.
Ragsdale is a public figure. The woman who is being slimed is not. I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but this is one little bitty area of the law that I know pretty well.
Being a county employee does not make one a public figure, which means that the "actual malice" standard -- which applies to public figures and gives reporters more leeway to say bad things -- does not apply. Actual malice is construed very narrowly and means that the person doing the sliming is saying the stuff in spite of knowing that it is false or, as later cases have held, with reckless disregard for the truth. You can say pretty much what you want about Ragsdale, and maybe Van de Vate or Arms or probably Finch. But I do not believe anybody else there is a public figure.
Being a county employee does not make one a public figure, which means that the "actual malice" standard -- which applies to public figures and gives reporters more leeway to say bad things -- does not apply. Actual malice is construed very narrowly and means that the person doing the sliming is saying the stuff in spite of knowing that it is false or, as later cases have held, with reckless disregard for the truth. You can say pretty much what you want about Ragsdale, and maybe Van de Vate or Arms or probably Finch. But I do not believe anybody else there is a public figure.
Steve, what she said. If you read the comments section at the KNS site, you'll see the admins of the site have been pretty zealous in scrubbing such "rumors" and "gossip" from the site. Apparently their lawyers are getting nervous. Again, something to think about.
Mr. Ringo,
I agree with what you said. It is prudent for KNS to put a lid on the rumors/gossip being posted on their blog. If they didn't they could be held to the "reckless disregrad for the truth" clause. Samething for Randy.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
Public figures are fair game for almost anything. What was it Larry Flynt said about Jerry Falwell and his mother (in print, no less)?
The Mayor and some others in his administration may be public figures. However, it might be a close call on some staffers.
If a person's personal conduct impacts their public job, it may be a story. Until then, it's personal not public. And, until then, it won't be in the news.
Let's see the audits. The KNS and WBIR haven't been shy about pointing fingers. Good for them.
I bet the right judge would rule Finch a private person who was only made public because of the actions of a public official. There was some case I read in CommLaw about that. I hated J-School, so I have scrubbed the details.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Metulj, Cynthia Finch isn't the issue here.
The reporter/blogger who's post initiated that off-topic conversation did NOT mention any names. It was others who jumped in (with both feet) to round out details of the salacious rumor.
Clearly, the salacious rumor was well-known before the unfortunate reporter/blogger alluded to it.
I think those rounding out the details have been adequately humbled now. They became aware that they aren't truly anonymous at the N-S site, too.
They became aware that they aren't truly anonymous at the N-S site, too.
Especially when they, you know, sign their names to it.
I was referring to the eight people whose posts were removed yesterday. Each of them posted under a pseudonym (and did not sign their names to their posts), but they seemed unaware that readers could simply click on those pseudonyms just above their comments to go to their profile pages.
All eight of their profile pages revealed their true names, which all eight had used to log on to the site.
Tamara,
Are you talking about posts here on Knoxviews or else where? I've never attempted to hide my identity and I apologize if anyone thinks I was. I'll go check my Knoxviews profile to see if I ned to add anymore identifying data to it.
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
The reporter/blogger who's post initiated that off-topic conversation did NOT mention any names.
Not so sure about that, the "reporter/blogger" is the one who created the chaos.
[]
Why do that? It was so incredibly off topic it made no sense.
Maybe not a name, but it didn't take much to figure it out. Had the Sentinel caught that earlier the chaos would not have happened. It was poor judgment. That person may be a blogger, but they are not a reporter.
What the heck are you people going on and on about?
On second thought - never mind. I think I'm better off not knowing.
Nine, you got to the crux of my gripe when you said
I disagree with you (I think).
The line has been so blurred that IMO bloggers need to familiarize themselves with libel law, and perhaps just think a little harder about basic standards of decency. Posting something on a web site is publishing it. Heck -- this trash was injected onto the News Sentinel web site, which should be a freaking clue that you're not just whispering this over the back fence. I do not know who the person was who first brought it up on the KNS comments section, but it was nothing to be proud of. There is a lynch mob mentality at work here, and I say that as one who was criticizing the Ragsdale administration before it was cool to do so.
And having said that, I'm going to try to bow out of this conversation lest I repeat myself even more.
Steve: "Are you talking about posts here on Knoxviews or else where?"
Steve (and Rachel), I was referring to that recent incident at the N-S site. Sorry to have been unclear about that. I wasn't referring to you or to anything you've said.
Me: "The reporter/blogger who's post initiated that off-topic conversation did NOT mention any names."
Nine: "Not so sure about that, the "reporter/blogger" is the one who created the chaos."
Nine, I AM sure about this--100% sure. The blogger did NOT, at ANY point in the conversation, mention any names. It is others who did mention names who created the chaos.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify. I'm done on this subject.
Steve;
I'm now a wingnut! Thanks, coming from this gang, that's a real badge.
Lefty Libs can co-exist and even be friends with Wingnuts! We're living proof!
Now all we need to do is hold hands, sing Kumbya and everything will be OK!
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!
SteveMule
Post new comment