Hayward…..how bout that “weeks and months” statement buddy? Stretching things there a bit, aren’t you? (see the smiley face)

Here’s why:

You have spent your time so far on this blog characterizing myself, Tom, Hayward and others as

liars,
unqualified
irrelevant
corrupt
hysterical
insane

You now procalim yourself a “crusader for progress who seeks the truth.” (paraphrased)

You ignore or don’t understand the simple substance of the discussion at hand and focus only and repeatedly on your poorly designed attempts to discredit everyone who disagrees with you.

It makes you look unintelligent.

You should either engage in a substantive discussion, or leave.

I like the fact that you are finally doing some investigative reporting. However, I think you should expend some of that energy on gathering facts fairly and not slanting the issues since you can edit and control comments people leave here. An example of this would be to advise people in the article by Rob Snyder that he is not an architect but rather a computer software developer. Its obvious that you threw the degree in Architecture in there to give this guy some validity. It has been up to me to find out the truth, and as a result of finding out the truth, Rob is now seemingly obsessed, hoping beyond hope that I am 17 and naive so he can implement whatever machinations are churning in that mind of his. I can only imagine, based upon his posts, what could happen if I were to post my real name for Rob, since he now feels this is a “private” conversation.

While I agree with Dennis to some degree, I do believe in being able to zealously argue a point. I vehemently disagree with Rob Snyder’s insult to your blog where he states “No one reads this crap.” I can’t believe I am championing you, unsolicited as it is, but this characterization is completely erroneous and unfair to you and your blog. Thank you Tom for allowing people, even those like me who call you into question, to voice their concerns, feelings and thoughts on this issue. That is truly the American way.

You make some excellent points. I tried to make some of those points in a post April 7, when I urged people to stick to issues and avoid personal attacks. I also urged those who want to post provocative comments to have the courage to do so using their real names. Some have, and some haven’t. It’s time to make that request again, especially to stop the personal attacks and replies. Please, let’s stick to the issues and sharing useful information and opinions.

I’m still figuring out how to manager this new public forum. In some ways, I feel like a bouncer in a bar — I want everyone to have a good time, but I occasionally need to step in and warn people when they’re getting too rowdy. And, if they persist, I’ll have to throw them out.

So far, I have avoided approving or rejecting comments before they appear, because I don’t want to slow down the conversation. I also have avoided, with a couple of exceptions, deleting comments that have been posted. I don’t want to play censor. But I will if necessary.

Another note: When you leave a comment on this blog, I see your email address and your computer IP address.

I can’t require people to use their real or full names, but I won’t allow people to use different identities under the same email address. Pick an identity and stick to it.

Also, I’m seeing one example of a number of identities and email addresses coming from the same IP address. I’m no techno wiz, so I don’t know whether that means they’re coming from the same computer, or the same computer network, or what.

In the interest of full disclosure to readers, here are the identities I have seen coming from the same IP address: K-Rock, Jared, Right On, M, Obrian, Theresa, 123sassy, E. Weber, Warren R., Lucinda, Sun Yon Yi, Mike, Kristen, James W., Sturgill, Rick Past, Samantha and the first three comments made by Tim. Somebody who knows more about this than I do may be able to offer an explanation.

So, let’s continue the discussion, but stop the bickering.

Many of the topics presented are inherently contentious, and a certain amount of verbal conflict is to be expected. However, allowing unlimited sniping to occur not only takes us off-topic, but discourages others from contributing, and that is a shame.

I would suggest that those whose contributions are either clearly designed to antagonize or otherwise disrupt or derail the conversation should be given a public warning from the blog-site administrator. Any continued problem and the offending poster should be banned for 30 days or more.

Computer-savvy flamers can figure out work-arounds, but the net effect is that it becomes progressively harder for offenders to post, the civility level raises, and more people are likely to post their questions, concerns, or opinions knowing that they won’t be ridiculed or harrassed for doing so.

So you think a group of people with day jobs who get together to volunteer their time for a common interest (preservation), actually knew in advance anything that the Webbs were planning, but “lay in waiting” because they wanted to fight about the project AFTER it was made public?

Wow Tim! Here’s a simpler explanation:

The people of Preserve Lexington did not know the Webbs plans because those plans had been kept secret,

All of your statements and ideas about the timing and purpose and intent of the formation of Preserve Lexington come strictly from your own overworked imagination. They have no basis in reality. You know the date that the organization was formed, and nothing else.

You make premature erroneous conclusions, and you contribute nothing.

Again,

What kind of work do you do?

How old are you?

Do you believe it is possible to develop a great project on this site and to include re-use of some fo the existing buildings.