I deleted the post about the fire chief. Comments were too personal, and someone figured out that i cant delete the "name" of the person, so they put their comment in the name section.
It is not censorship. You do not have a "right" to post here. You are allowed to post here.
Some of the same people who moan about entitlements for the poor are the same people who feel entitled to post nastiness here anonymously.
Does anyone else see any hypocrisy there?
I am just not going to be a part of assassinating someones character, especially when the person doing the assassinating is too chicken s*** to stand behind their words. People have said nasty stuff about me on here too, and of course, dont have the guts to put their name on it or say it to my face.
I do allow anonymous posts, but i do not respect them or take them very seriously.
I am getting pretty tired of people being nasty and being anonymous.
If you dont like it, dont read it, or start your own blog.
they are free to start.
Ok, now that ive ticked everyone off, im going back to work.
JJ, I always post anonymously. I often have some things to say that I'd just assume not be associated with me, for whatever reason. I am always respectful, and usually try to have a well thought out and reasoned post. Also, I do not see how hiding behind some made up pseudonym of a name is much different. I have no problem with the site being moderated. This should not be a forum for personal attacks, or be used to ruin someones reputation. Had Mr. Leach violated a public trust, misused his office, or public funds or resources, then I think we have a right to know, and the media has a duty to report. other than that, let it alone.
ReplyDeleteYou were right to pull down the thread.
i just wonder if there is a problem with upper management in ac. d. oh yeah james knows who i am so i can do this.d.
ReplyDelete1:06-
ReplyDeleteIf you feel you have the right to know, then do not speculate on things you have no first hand knowledge. Why don't you go straight to the sources instead of attacking someone?
If you have things to say and do not want to be associated with them, then why do you bother saying them at all?
The Fire Chief is not the only one affected by these malicious attacks. He has a wife and two kids. How do you think they would feel after reading those horrible posts or having to hear the town gossip? I don't think anyone would want their family to have to suffer because others want to ruin someone's character.
Thank you for being the bigger person and pulling the blog!
Do NOT judge others, lest you be judged.
@April 9, 2010 9:42 PM - I agree with everything you said. I do not think I have a right to know.
ReplyDeleteFrom all that I have heard, it is a personal matter. As I said, let it alone!!!
I have never been hurtful or malicious with my comments, but we live in a small town, and my opinions are not always mainstream. To my friends and family, I am straightforward and honest. To anyone who asks, I am the same. To others, I just do not volunteer my opinions...
Sometimes it is easier to hide behind anonymity.
You are more free to speak what is on your mind...
To all....
ReplyDeleteJJ, I don't recall you getting this upset when things got out of hand concerning the police notes.
I read many, many posts maligning the names & character of some good people.
It's amazing. I just think that people need to watch what they say, and not just toss accusations around like throwing out old water.
hmmmmmm. Judge Not..... should be touted to all areas of your blog.
Just a thought, while it IS wrong to post mean things about others, when someone is being looked at by law enforcement or fire department they some times end up in the paper. It should only be public knowlege if they are convicted...Right???? If they aren't convicted they too have family and children to consider. Again, just a thought.
ReplyDeleteDifference being, fire chief was not charged with a crime, and no one would go on the record saying what it was.
ReplyDeleteIf he had broken a law and charge had been filed, i would have been all over it.
The bigger story here is, that two dept heads have been let go in the last month and no one is willing to talk about it.
To me, thats the bigger story.
I am still amazed at how much everybody THINKS they know. JJ you almost give the impression that he committed a crime. Others say he has a love child from an employee. I know the man, he is a good person and has a nice family, and it seems that people are out to destroy his life with accusations and rumors. Will we not be happy until we run him out of town? Most have already labeled him as damaged goods with no evidence, I'am sure it will be impossible for him to find a job around here. So running another good family out of town seems to be the latest thing for good ole AC.
ReplyDeleteI dont think i have given any such impression.
ReplyDeleteI have said several times that i belive NO crime was committed, and that what little info i have, indicates there was NO CRIME.
that is not insinuating a crime...
Technically Adultry is still a crime. Look it up. It just never gets prosecuted anymore.
ReplyDelete*Adultery
ReplyDeleteNo, technically it is not a crime. In some states it may be grounds for divorce, and it is immoral, but it is not a crime, civil or criminal, anywhere in the U.S. Give a link to back up your claim.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet post your evidence that this is what he did! You people make me sick, you can't back it up so you post anonymous so you cant be held accountable for you malicious comments.
ReplyDelete"No, technically it is not a crime. In some states it may be grounds for divorce, and it is immoral, but it is not a crime, civil or criminal, anywhere in the U.S. Give a link to back up your claim."
ReplyDeleteOkay smarty pants. Here you go:
"According to Kansas statute 21-3507, adultery is unlawful and defined as a Class C misdemeanor, said Tom Stanton, Reno County Deputy District Attorney.
The law defines adultery as "engaging in sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person who is not married to the offender if the offender is married or if the offender is not married and knows that the other person involved in the act is married."
As a Class C misdemeanor, it carries a 30-day jail term or a $500 fine.
Because it's a state law, it is prosecuted in district court."
Satisfied?
UH, BURN!
ReplyDeleteSo if it takes two to tango, why is the other employee involved still working at the FD? Seems a little one sided on the attacks on this blog. Or are there people that just wanted the fire chief out so they could take over?
ReplyDeleteI agree. The other party should be fired or allowed to resign as well. Unfortunately, since one was a supervisor, the one who wasn't can file a sexual harassment suit against the city and cost them big bucks. That is probably the reason they are still employed. Fear.
ReplyDeletespeaking of fear I wonder if Leach has any fear of the woman's husband who is a cop on the ACPD?
ReplyDeleteHe must have no fear or you all are blowing smoke just to cause pain to others because I see the cop and leach together all the time.
ReplyDeleteThings that make you go HMMMMMMM.
ReplyDeleteIf we are just blowing smoke, and none of this is true, then how do you know which cop the above poster was referring to? I seriously doubt the officer spends much time hanging out with the guy who is banging his wife. At least not now that the cat is out of the bag.
This is the major rumor.
ReplyDeleteWe have no idea whether it is true or not.
sure.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of proof would you have to have JJ? I thought you weren't big on having to have solid proof for something. Can't you just take it on faith?
Something has to have some level of credibility to put much faith in it, an anonymous poster does not deserve much faith.
ReplyDeleteProof would be .. someone actually having the guts to make the accusation publicly, putting their name on it ... and verified. anyone can put any name on here.
AND someone showing some actual proof, other than just words.
Now apply that to your religion.
ReplyDeleteI made you an offer ...........
ReplyDeleteYeah, like I wanna listen to your delusions any more than I have to. It's bad enough I read them on here. Rational thinkers have no place in your life or your religion.
ReplyDeleteNo one is so blind as the one who will not see.
ReplyDelete"No one is so blind as the one who will not see."
ReplyDeleteI agree. With all the evidence to the contrary staring you in the face, you still think the Earth is 6000 years old.
The age of the earth is completely irrelevant. Not that many Christians think that, and certainly the bible says no such thing.
ReplyDeleteMany christians do think that, and for good reason. If you use the bible as a guide it says so.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.creationtips.com/earthsage.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/young-earth-evidence.html
I am aware that there are groups who believe in the young earth theory. But even they - in the links you give - admit that you have to make certain interpretations for that to work - just as those that believe in old earth do.
ReplyDeleteIll stick to my position that a natural reading of the text of Genesis - without any interpretation whatsoever - does not say.
There are several problems.
One is that the seven days of creation need not be literal 24 hour time periods. The hebrew word for DAY, can just as easily be translated TIME, or Period of time, or AGE.
The geneologies clearly do not list every generation, but only certain ones through the ages.
Also in hebrew. the same word is used for father, grandfather, ancestor .. they really didnt differentiate on that.
There is no way to know how much time expired between creation and the flood.
The earliest anything can be dated is Abraham - Genesis 12. (and a whole lot of history went down before that) and thats 2300 b.c.
I cant see a young earth - and i dont think the bible says the earth is 6000 years old.
You have to do some interpreting, and conjecturing, to make it say that.