| Author | Post |
|---|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2244 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 02:20 pm |
|
You state: "It just seems like when someone hears the truth, and it doesn't go along with their way of thinking, they attack it." "Is that the case here?" History. You state you are telling the truth. How do I know that? I don't know who you are or if you really were on that stage, other than your account on here by yourself stating it. I do know some posters on here, first hand, and I know them well enough that they would not lie to me, so I believed their rendition, as their stories were all the same, and it's a tad different than yours.
So, yes, because of your strong stand on anonymity, I must question your posts credibility, always.
How do you feel about anonymous phone calls? Does that type of anonymity bother you? Or anonymous letters;
I feel you are young and bright. I may be wrong, as I can only guess. I feel you are sincere in researching a way to bring resolution to our problems. I feel you do have the community in mind. But you'll never "produce" what you want, talking about it on here. Come over to YOUR site, and plan and engage your dreams.
Hold on Tight to your Dreams.
Last edited on Fri Apr 4th, 2008 02:22 pm by Bambi
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 401 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 01:30 pm |
|
History_101 wrote: She did prove one thing though; the 911 response time was much faster then what we were being told it was by the incorporation committee.
I would hope that the police would respond as a MAJOR priority a 911 call originating from an school where there was a known, and contraversal, meeting going on. This did not prove anything about response time in my opinion.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 168 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 09:52 am |
|
Bambi,
Biased? If telling the truth makes me biased then I’ll agree with you. Maybe you have a different definition of being biased then I do. It just seems when some people hear the truth and it doesn’t go along with their way of thinking they attack it. Is that the case here? Is it so hard to hold a civil conversation without inserting barbs? If one doesn’t say it was the correct thing to do can’t you assume they don’t agree with the action? Come on you are smarter then that. OK, here… It wasn’t the correct thing to do. Now do we all feel better?
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 04:26 am |
|
twas nothing but a planned tactic to disrupt the meeting. They (the ruras) were pulledout of the incorporation, therefore they had no damn business attending the meeting.
It was to disrupt, just like her and an unmentioned parachuter on this site do on here when the talk gets started. Maybe one day, some of you will wake up to reality. She can talk a good talk, but that's all it is.........TALK
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2244 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 04:16 am |
|
History_101 wrote: I’ve never said what she did was the correct thing to do. I’ve stated I don’t know what prompted her to make the call and I only know what she told me outside after the incident. The two officers spoke with her and several other individuals and didn’t seem all that excited. She did prove one thing though; the 911 response time was much faster then what we were being told it was by the incorporation committee.
No, you didn't say that it was the correct thing to do. But neither did you say it was the incorrect thing to do. Sorry but according to another poster on here who attended the meeting, the cops were right there, next to the school, just by chance.
Why not put a rest to it, and request the police report? Surely they filed a 911 false call....isn't that compulsory?
Too bad you are so biased. I thought you were sharper than that. My mistake. Stay on this site.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 168 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 03:17 am |
|
I’ve never said what she did was the correct thing to do. I’ve stated I don’t know what prompted her to make the call and I only know what she told me outside after the incident. The two officers spoke with her and several other individuals and didn’t seem all that excited. She did prove one thing though; the 911 response time was much faster then what we were being told it was by the incorporation committee.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 02:21 am |
|
Bambi, you said it as true and honest as any could have put it.
She should have had her arse thrown in jail for abusing the 911 system. If it would have been me that responded, you would have seen her picture hanging up in the post office. Of course that would be the Queen Creek post office as we don't have one of our own for all these people living here.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2244 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 02:04 am |
|
As I see it, History was there, so he has first hand knowledge, based on his observations. And, I have the accounts by some others, as I was not there, but they were and saw the cops respond to the call. But, if held on public property, they, the opposition has the right to attend, like others, and behave in a peaceful manner, for this peaceful assembly.
So, based on History's first hand observations, Anne had the right to object, if she was not recognized. I accept that. The issue here is how/the manner in which she raised the objection....the call to 911, which she has admitted to doing, because they were making a false statement? in her opinon, a false statement. The Constitution guarantees the people the right to a peaceful assembly for the purpose they assembled for, and to be able to express their wants and needs and beliefs, without fear of repercussion or being told they are wrong....even if they are wrong in someone elses opinion.
People don't have the right to disrupt the peaceful assembly, by calling an emergency phone number, that is only designated for emergencies, posing life threatening circumstances....she not only abused the rules of conduct at that meeting, but she broke the law by calling an emergency number, when no life threatening emergency existed. The reason: just because she "believed" that the person is making a wrong statement.
Let's be civil. Let's follow rules of order. Let's follow rules of conduct. Let's show respect to the person who paid for that assembly. He wasn't soliciting terrorist or suggesting anarchy. He was just making a proposal, based on his objectives and motives and whatever else. His legal right, whether we think he's right or wrong. Hold your own meeting to counter it. Send your own statement to the Press. Send out cards or fliers to counter it. Their are rules we live by to express ourselves. Bring in your own subject matter and policies and issues and suggestions and your own true statements to your own meetings.
That caused the "anxiety" that erupted, the police showing up, and the end result, which will live on forever, based on it's continual eruption on here.
So, to me it was that call that prompted this fiasco, because of the unrealistic expectations by her, that people should know and believe what she considers true, is true, everywhere, and if they don't believe her, then she has the right to demonstrate right there and then and call them liars or call for backup.
Which means, if you agree with what she did, then she has the right to show up at your meeting anywhere that is held on public property, and object vocally to your presentation, disrupting your meeting and possibly with a call to 911, for backup. Which means that using her logic, when one attends the focus meetings that Anne announced today for the GreaterSanTanCoalition, that we too have the right to call 911. and raise a ruckus, if we object to what is said. Makes no sense.
I have never heard her say that she used poor judgment in doing this, which makes me believe she still thinks she was right, which makes me want to hold my meetings on private property.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 168 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 01:01 am |
|
2 cents wrote: Are they, like you, a person with a will and an opinion? I wasn't there and do not know all of the particulars however I surmise that they may have remained at the meeting to observe the goings-on and may even have been attempting to respond to statements that may have been made that they perceived to be in error.
Don't know for sure. Just trying to put together a picture based on several of the previous posts.
2
For the most part, this post hits the nail on the head. Very few rural residents attended Sean's meetings (this is when the rural areas were excluded) and those that did, only observed and like you said, only spoke to clarify information and/or keep it valid. Very respectful from what I remember.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 93 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 4th, 2008 12:28 am |
|
Are they, like you, a person with a will and an opinion? I wasn't there and do not know all of the particulars however I surmise that they may have remained at the meeting to observe the goings-on and may even have been attempting to respond to statements that may have been made that they perceived to be in error.
Don't know for sure. Just trying to put together a picture based on several of the previous posts.
2
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 401 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 02:06 pm |
|
2 cents wrote: Open to all yet certain ones should not be able to speak?
2
In my opinion if they are not in the boundaries then they should not have a say. These are the same people that insisted on us leaving them out. When they were given that opportunity they choose to still stay involved in stopping the potential will of the people. They chould not be allowed in the meeting if they are not in the affected area. There would be no purpose except to stir up trouble and cloud they real issues
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 93 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 11:57 am |
|
Open to all yet certain ones should not be able to speak?
2
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 3rd, 2008 07:42 am |
|
anne.reed wrote: JJohnson wrote:
Anne,
Was the 911 call due to your personal safety? Was someone threatening you? Was someone removed from the event as a result of the officers being called? I was not living here at the time so I don't know all of the details and would appreciate hearing it right from the horses mouth to avoid further confusion.
Also could you please refer me to the ARS statute that "requires" these public meetings. I have not found that either.
Check with the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, also with the Pinal County Recorders office. I wish I had time to reresearch this for you, but I don't. Maybe later this week.
Here's a general overview.
http://www.azleague.org/pdf/pub_municipal_incorp.pdf
Sorry,
Anne
jj, notice how she rufused to answer your questions. none threatened her, noone threw her out. She was pissed because she wanted to speak and couldn't.........soo 911 was the result. Nothing more, nothing less. I have NEVER read anywhere that states an incorporation meeting must be open as suggested. Should the rural folks been aloowed in after they were taken out of the boundaries? I think not, as the meeting would not have pertained to them. Why would they even want to go, other than to stir up trouble as they did with this one. Besides, the meeting was open to all, as all walks of life were there, rurals, subdivisionites, etc... IT WAS OPEN TO ALL.........................
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 401 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 08:21 pm |
|
I agree 100% that public meetings are necessary and needed for this type of undertaking. However I also think that trouble makers and those wishing to disrupt should be told to leave and not come back. To me the public process is at the voting box. That is where every registered voter has their say. 1 person 1 vote. No intimidation or lieing.
At some point the people need to be given a chance to have their say. What happened 4+ years ago should not drive what is needed today.
I am still interested in what the 911 story is all about. If it was not you and is a different "Anne" then I will seek out the person that this pertains to.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 07:56 pm |
|
JJohnson wrote:
Anne,
Was the 911 call due to your personal safety? Was someone threatening you? Was someone removed from the event as a result of the officers being called? I was not living here at the time so I don't know all of the details and would appreciate hearing it right from the horses mouth to avoid further confusion.
Also could you please refer me to the ARS statute that "requires" these public meetings. I have not found that either.
Check with the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, also with the Pinal County Recorders office. I wish I had time to reresearch this for you, but I don't. Maybe later this week.
Here's a general overview.
http://www.azleague.org/pdf/pub_municipal_incorp.pdf
Sorry,
AnneLast edited on Tue Apr 1st, 2008 08:02 pm by anne.reed
|
JJohnson
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 401 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 06:34 pm |
|
Anne,
Was the 911 call due to your personal safety? Was someone threatening you? Was someone removed from the event as a result of the officers being called? I was not living here at the time so I don't know all of the details and would appreciate hearing it right from the horses mouth to avoid further confusion.
Also could you please refer me to the ARS statute that "requires" these public meetings. I have not found that either.
|
anne.reed
Member
|
Posted: Tue Apr 1st, 2008 06:26 pm |
|
pipeman wrote:
History_101 wrote: pipeman wrote: H, you were there and you know dern well that Anne did not fear for her safety, she was pissed because she wasn;t being allowed to talk. PERIOD and nothing else.
I was there that day standing behind the individual that was running the meeting. And I must agree, there were many residents in the audience that were upset by the way the meeting was being run. Have you spoken to the individual you named in your posting? I did the day it happened and I know what I was told. If you haven’t spoken to her, then all you have is your opinion.
When one does something as idiotic as that just to stir trouble, then to me talk is cheap. I know what I seen, there was no fear in her, just bitterness and looking for a way to get even, which she did.
Public meetings are a stated requirement within the guidelines for those who would hope to incorporate an area. This was purported to be a required public meeting, not an incorporation rally. There is a distinct difference.
I consider "railroading" an area into incorporation via false statements, improper public meetings, and threats of expulsion to those of dissenting opinion a matter for official intervention. As it turned out, most residents shared my concern over the corrupt process and the effort was defeated.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 19th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2244 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 02:57 pm |
|
Talking about meetings. I have publized my meeting yesterday with the Senators and Commissioners of our State, in regards to how we solve some of our local and state problems, inasmuch as the State is experiencing a huge deficit. I spoke about Todd House and his plans for us. About the Commissioner and the water problems and how I have prompted him to look into it for us out here. All in the Open.
So, for those who attended the Greater SanTanCoalition meeting yesterday;, Sandie Smith, Gordon, Jack and others. How did your meeting go? It was common knowlege, even though it was meant to be secret perhaps; I'm not sure....sorry, but I had 4 different people call me about it from all over the County when I returned home last night. I welcome you to jump on board with us, as we are on a discovery journey ourselves, to determine sustainablity for the masses out here. We are engaging State agencies to help guide and direct us.....not developers.
No developers, so you don't have to worry about pay backs. I understand you have a developer or two on your team.....that's been done before for our Comprehensive Plan a few years ago, and some of those developers got real independent with the people, as they were endowed with power over us to shape our future......and then they built and they left us....with what? A MESS. And Lots of debt. No Developers on our Team. No Special Interest. Just the people. And Open to anyone.
Come on.....Share with us as I have shared with you. We are working towards the same objective I think. Why not work together? The invitation is open.
Last edited on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 02:57 pm by Bambi
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 04:50 am |
|
History_101 wrote: pipeman wrote: H, you were there and you know dern well that Anne did not fear for her safety, she was pissed because she wasn;t being allowed to talk. PERIOD and nothing else.
I was there that day standing behind the individual that was running the meeting. And I must agree, there were many residents in the audience that were upset by the way the meeting was being run. Have you spoken to the individual you named in your posting? I did the day it happened and I know what I was told. If you haven’t spoken to her, then all you have is your opinion.
When one does something as idiotic as that just to stir trouble, then to me talk is cheap. I know what I seen, there was no fear in her, just bitterness and looking for a way to get even, which she did.
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 168 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 30th, 2008 12:13 am |
|
pipeman wrote: H, you were there and you know dern well that Anne did not fear for her safety, she was pissed because she wasn;t being allowed to talk. PERIOD and nothing else.
I was there that day standing behind the individual that was running the meeting. And I must agree, there were many residents in the audience that were upset by the way the meeting was being run. Have you spoken to the individual you named in your posting? I did the day it happened and I know what I was told. If you haven’t spoken to her, then all you have is your opinion.
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29th, 2008 08:56 pm |
|
2 cents wrote: History, to carry your thought a little further, would you suppose that if, pipeman = us and gk = them, pipeman were to attend a meeting of 'them' that pipe would be civil and gentlemanly? I suspect not.
At some point these 2 sides will need to set in a common forum and express their opinions. I think that both sides are much closer to a common goal than they think. The incorporaters want to incorporate. The rurals have said, on these blogs, that they wouldn't have a problem with that, just don't include them (their area).
One day they'll figure it out. All of the rest of the crap they post is just 'oh poor me' mentality,. Just crap.
2 cents
2, it is not as easy as you would like to think it is. First off, I have meeting daily with those I don't agree with, but these meetings go off without a hitch. Secondly, you assume the rurals want to be excluded......... have you spoken with every last one of those people out there? Have you done a survey and asked their input and not taking the word of Gordon or one of his group? Nope you haven't so you really have NO IDEA if they want to be included or not. Plus if what you say istrue, when the rurals were pulled out of it last time, why then did the fighting continue?
Not one day we will figure it out, it has been figured out for some time, we just had the wrong team on the field. Well let me tell you, that is changing. Poor oh me mentality? not from me my friend, not poor me, it's about this poor community. Maybe one day uyou will wake up and see that, but I doubt it...
Last edited on Sun Mar 30th, 2008 04:51 am by pipeman
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29th, 2008 08:50 pm |
|
History_101 wrote: morgan wrote: Pipeman - when I 1st scrolled to the bottom of the post and started reading I thought instantly - why post about a secret meeting for all of the internet world to see. As I scroll up it appears you are trying to reach out to the selective group - still odd but then as I finish reading it seems like you have tried to have open meetings before and it has gotten ugly with those in attendance who can not remain civil (and 911 called) ? If that is the case then I don't have an issue with the "secrecy" - it appears its out of "safety". Maybe not to stir the hornets nest you collect email addresses and only take referrals to the group from now on v. continuing the division of "us" v. "them". Honestly people tend to act like 10yr old sometimes. (the ones who cant have a mature conversation and agree to disagree w/out 911 being called)
Is it possible Morgan you are looking at all of this from a different view point? Is it possible the person that called 911 was in fear for their safety? Is it possible the person conducting the meeting acted in a way that made the individual feel intimidated or insecure? When will the division of “us” vs. “them” end? When will the community come together and work together for the betterment of “our” community? You mention 10 year olds, well that is a good point as some of us are acting just like that. But then maybe it is a 10 year old that is making the posts to this blog. Hummmmm, never thought of that.
H, you were there and you know dern well that Anne did not fear for her safety, she was pissed because she wasn;t being allowed to talk. PERIOD and nothing else.
|
morgan
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 392 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29th, 2008 04:03 pm |
|
History_101 wrote: morgan wrote: Pipeman - when I 1st scrolled to the bottom of the post and started reading I thought instantly - why post about a secret meeting for all of the internet world to see. As I scroll up it appears you are trying to reach out to the selective group - still odd but then as I finish reading it seems like you have tried to have open meetings before and it has gotten ugly with those in attendance who can not remain civil (and 911 called) ? If that is the case then I don't have an issue with the "secrecy" - it appears its out of "safety". Maybe not to stir the hornets nest you collect email addresses and only take referrals to the group from now on v. continuing the division of "us" v. "them". Honestly people tend to act like 10yr old sometimes. (the ones who cant have a mature conversation and agree to disagree w/out 911 being called)
Is it possible Morgan you are looking at all of this from a different view point? Is it possible the person that called 911 was in fear for their safety? Is it possible the person conducting the meeting acted in a way that made the individual feel intimidated or insecure? When will the division of “us” vs. “them” end? When will the community come together and work together for the betterment of “our” community? You mention 10 year olds, well that is a good point as some of us are acting just like that. But then maybe it is a 10 year old that is making the posts to this blog. Hummmmm, never thought of that.
you missed my point - i was sticking up for pipeman afterall. and your reply insinuates i know who called 911 - regardless of who did - i support it being done no matter who felt unsafe or in fear. my point was how said that adults cant get together to sit down and maturely talk about a topic that many are passionate on both sides of the view and having it get so escalated to the point of calling 911. this is happening too much in our society - lunatics. so therefore i understand the secrecy of these meetings ....
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 168 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29th, 2008 03:56 pm |
|
2 cents wrote: History, to carry your thought a little further, would you suppose that if, pipeman = us and gk = them, pipeman were to attend a meeting of 'them' that pipe would be civil and gentlemanly? I suspect not.
At some point these 2 sides will need to set in a common forum and express their opinions. I think that both sides are much closer to a common goal than they think. The incorporaters want to incorporate. The rurals have said, on these blogs, that they wouldn't have a problem with that, just don't include them (their area).
One day they'll figure it out. All of the rest of the crap they post is just 'oh poor me' mentality,. Just crap.
2 cents
Mr. Cents,
You are probably more correct then you’d like to think you are. I can’t get into the mind of the individual that made the 911 call; however, as I stood behind the moderator of that meeting on what I’ll call the stage where this all happened, I could sense hostilities on both sides. I just wonder how many that write about it on this blog was actually there. That was over 4 years ago and some still can’t forget about it.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 93 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29th, 2008 03:16 pm |
|
History, to carry your thought a little further, would you suppose that if, pipeman = us and gk = them, pipeman were to attend a meeting of 'them' that pipe would be civil and gentlemanly? I suspect not.
At some point these 2 sides will need to set in a common forum and express their opinions. I think that both sides are much closer to a common goal than they think. The incorporaters want to incorporate. The rurals have said, on these blogs, that they wouldn't have a problem with that, just don't include them (their area).
One day they'll figure it out. All of the rest of the crap they post is just 'oh poor me' mentality,. Just crap.
2 cents
|
History_101
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 16th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 168 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29th, 2008 02:50 pm |
|
morgan wrote: Pipeman - when I 1st scrolled to the bottom of the post and started reading I thought instantly - why post about a secret meeting for all of the internet world to see. As I scroll up it appears you are trying to reach out to the selective group - still odd but then as I finish reading it seems like you have tried to have open meetings before and it has gotten ugly with those in attendance who can not remain civil (and 911 called) ? If that is the case then I don't have an issue with the "secrecy" - it appears its out of "safety". Maybe not to stir the hornets nest you collect email addresses and only take referrals to the group from now on v. continuing the division of "us" v. "them". Honestly people tend to act like 10yr old sometimes. (the ones who cant have a mature conversation and agree to disagree w/out 911 being called)
Is it possible Morgan you are looking at all of this from a different view point? Is it possible the person that called 911 was in fear for their safety? Is it possible the person conducting the meeting acted in a way that made the individual feel intimidated or insecure? When will the division of “us” vs. “them” end? When will the community come together and work together for the betterment of “our” community? You mention 10 year olds, well that is a good point as some of us are acting just like that. But then maybe it is a 10 year old that is making the posts to this blog. Hummmmm, never thought of that.
|
morgan
Member
| Joined: | Fri Mar 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 392 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 29th, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
| Pipeman - when I 1st scrolled to the bottom of the post and started reading I thought instantly - why post about a secret meeting for all of the internet world to see. As I scroll up it appears you are trying to reach out to the selective group - still odd but then as I finish reading it seems like you have tried to have open meetings before and it has gotten ugly with those in attendance who can not remain civil (and 911 called) ? If that is the case then I don't have an issue with the "secrecy" - it appears its out of "safety". Maybe not to stir the hornets nest you collect email addresses and only take referrals to the group from now on v. continuing the division of "us" v. "them". Honestly people tend to act like 10yr old sometimes. (the ones who cant have a mature conversation and agree to disagree w/out 911 being called)
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 28th, 2008 04:31 am |
|
dejavu wrote: Ben,
Pipe's blowing smoke to get a rise ...
Oh my gosh, I have been found out. Who are you dejavu, the blog detective? What am I to do now......
Last edited on Fri Mar 28th, 2008 05:54 am by pipeman
|
dejavu
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | On A Dirt Road |
| Posts: | 191 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 08:25 pm |
|
Ben,
Pipe's blowing smoke to get a rise ...
|
dejavu
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | On A Dirt Road |
| Posts: | 191 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 08:22 pm |
|
Last edited on Thu Mar 27th, 2008 08:27 pm by dejavu
|
OZ
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 543 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 06:23 pm |
|
If people could get off of the San Tan bit and select something else it might go faster
Gilbert now has San Tan plastered all over shopping centers, housing commmunities , service trucks etc, etc,.
There would be too much confusion if we stuck with "San Tan anything now". It's all over the lower East Valley.
|
Black Jack
Member
| Joined: | Mon Feb 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 05:56 pm |
|
I thought we were “Just Outside of Queen Creek”. Good question though. I also thought someone out in the rurals was working on it. If people could get off of the San Tan bit and select something else it might go faster as there is an Indian community called San Tan and I’m sure they don’t want to share their identity with us.
|
OZ
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jan 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 543 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 04:54 pm |
|
Whatever happened to having a name for our area, a lot of people thought getting our own identity was a good place to start? There was even a vote set up in the Hotspot newspaper.
Gold canyon is unincorporated but they have a name seperate from Apache Juction which is the Town next to them.
Whatever happened to the new name? I'm tired of being known as "Might be Queen Creek".
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 05:59 am |
|
dansjensdad wrote: azsunshine wrote: dansjensdad wrote: I find this very interesting:
A meeting organized by anonymous people at a secret place and with a secret agenda supposedly to "better" our community.
Make sure you bring enough hoods for the attendees and enough rope for the lynchings.
Ben
Sounds like another group we know of (or don't know of) doesn't it? One that is on some days still operating and some days isn't operating. Hoods and lynchings kinda sounds like truck/flags/and shot guns.
I still fail to see how that makes any of this right.
Ben
And yes Char, people are interested. Keep posting.
You are completely wrong Ben, this IS all about the betterment of the community. That is all I have preached on this site. I meant it when I said it, I am all about what is best for this area. I have my reasons as to why I am doing things this way, it will all come out in due time. People are excluded and always will be due to their past actions in group settings. Not allowing certain people into the meetings is also what is best for the community, as we would get no where with people like them coming in and starting trouble. I will not tolerate that in the meetings I hold. If I thought that they could come and have a respectful open dialog, then that would be great........but that will not happen, as the past shows, so they will not be allowed in. I will not tolerate crap like 911 being called again. Now that is all I am going to say about it.
|
dansjensdad
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 05:35 am |
|
Actually Ted, I have set a rule for myself that I would not respond to any anonymous person on this site.
I have just broken my own rule by posting here and I already regret it.
I question all secrecy.
Just because someone says Mr Brown and the BLC are secret does not make it OK for them to do the same.
I have seen many postings here that have prompted me to type long diatribes in response, but when it is time to hit "send" and get in a big pissing contest, I walk away and let the site "time out".
Anyone who says they have the betterment of the community in mind while excluding the "undesireables", worries me.
I think I will now go back to reading and refrain from posting. It will be more rewarding to me and you.
Ben
|
Ted
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jan 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 270 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 27th, 2008 05:01 am |
|
dansjensdad wrote: I find this very interesting:
A meeting organized by anonymous people at a secret place and with a secret agenda supposedly to "better" our community.
Make sure you bring enough hoods for the attendees and enough rope for the lynchings.
Ben
Just out of curiosity Ben, why do you need to question this, when in fact the exact same thing has been going on for years with Gordon Brown and the BLC. Are you publically questioning their secrecy as well? Please tell me how this is different from the BLC?
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 377 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:51 pm |
|
| sorry dp Last edited on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:55 pm by azsunshine
|
dansjensdad
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:41 pm |
|
azsunshine wrote: dansjensdad wrote: I find this very interesting:
A meeting organized by anonymous people at a secret place and with a secret agenda supposedly to "better" our community.
Make sure you bring enough hoods for the attendees and enough rope for the lynchings.
Ben
Sounds like another group we know of (or don't know of) doesn't it? One that is on some days still operating and some days isn't operating. Hoods and lynchings kinda sounds like truck/flags/and shot guns.
I still fail to see how that makes any of this right.
Ben
And yes Char, people are interested. Keep posting.
|
CharWester
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:14 pm |
|
Oops, I somehow posted it more than once. Last edited on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:16 pm by CharWester
|
CharWester
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:14 pm |
|
Oops Last edited on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:17 pm by CharWester
|
CharWester
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:13 pm |
|
Just a quick update on a previous post I posted that is somewhat related to this topic.
I spoke with Jeff Flake's office and they are going to work with me to educate our community (those that are interested) on the options we have in regards to incorporation & annexation. I have scheduled a teleconference with them for next Monday. I will update you all when I know more.
I just asked Mr.Flake to help me better understand our options etc and I will try to pass that on to those that are interested.
Personally, I am hoping for annexation or incorporation as I do not see remaining unincorporated county to be beneficial to our community.
He also suggested that we all get more involved with East Valley Partnership as well as Pinal County Partnership. I have participated in a few Pinal County Partnership events. I am also attending the "Pinal County Town Hall" event coming up.
I understand that so many of us, especially those raising a family while working full time (I also attend college full time) have a difficult time fitting in the time to really participate in our government. Well, let's work together to educate ourselves, our children, and our community.
I will be in touch soon.
If anyone would like to call or email me please feel free to.
602-469-1073 Char@BambisTeam.com
Take Care!
|
azsunshine
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 377 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 05:02 pm |
|
dansjensdad wrote: I find this very interesting:
A meeting organized by anonymous people at a secret place and with a secret agenda supposedly to "better" our community.
Make sure you bring enough hoods for the attendees and enough rope for the lynchings.
Ben
Sounds like another group we know of (or don't know of) doesn't it? One that is on some days still operating and some days isn't operating. Hoods and lynchings kinda sounds like truck/flags/and shot guns.
|
dansjensdad
Member
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
I find this very interesting:
A meeting organized by anonymous people at a secret place and with a secret agenda supposedly to "better" our community.
Make sure you bring enough hoods for the attendees and enough rope for the lynchings.
Ben
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 02:41 pm |
|
Now please explain to me why one of those that should not know about the meeting, just pm'ed me and gave me some information about it? If we are going to continue this cause, it is critical that until the time is right, we all remain mum. This is for the betterment of "our" community people, let's keep it that way please.
No worries though, I will put a call in today for some security to be at the door with a list of those invited as well as instruction that those not on the list are not to be let in unless approved by me or one of the other group leaders.
Have to get to the water plant now and start this system up. I will check pm's later.
Last edited on Wed Mar 26th, 2008 02:42 pm by pipeman
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 01:29 pm |
|
| Thanks for the good questions people. I am not going to try and pm everyone who've asked, so I will say here, that all the great questions will be answered at the meeting. And for those that asked, there is no reason to ask who is outside the group, you have been on here long enough to know who these people are. Also the special guests I mentioned, have confirmed and will be attending to speak and give their guidance. We will prevail..........
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 02:47 am |
|
also don't forget about the dish you said you would bring to pass.
The meeting agenda should be reaching you in the next day or two. And remember, this agenda is not to be shared with others outside of the group
|
pipeman
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 436 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 26th, 2008 12:05 am |
|
| Just a reminder for those in the know. Do not forget about the meeting. If you forgot the time, date and place......pm me and I will give it to you. See you there.
|
Current time is 08:19 pm | |
|