Back to main points>> 1.) Is the Sentinel going to do some real investigative journalism and also provide a place for all of us to voice ourselves without sabotaging unrelated articles? 2.) Is the new city council and mayor going to keep ignoring what's so obviously blatant, or are they working on solutions that will address what's been covered in the above posts?
Okay, you just heard more from the "silent majority." Yeah, we're fed up with the attitude.
Back to main points>> 1.) Is the Sentinel going to do some real investigative journalism and also provide a place for all of us to voice ourselves without sabotaging unrelated articles? 2.) Is the new city council and mayor going to keep ignoring what's so obviously blatant, or are they working on solutions that will address what's been covered in the above posts?
And, when do we the "silent majority" public get to hear the answers to these questions?
see??? you're doing the same thing i just posted above. awwwwww, tsk tsk... and you've got somebody holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read/"listen" to the postings. why would that be? who hates you enough to make you do that?
don't you guys ever get tired of using the "big lie" technique? you guys think you're the only ones who live in Basehor? just throw labels, no substance or truth, but quick to accuse others of what you're doing. again. news flash, there are more "tribes" living in Basehor than just yours and the other one you keep referring to out of anger (but maybe it's out of fear of them?) scheeez, your example is why us "silent majority" are waking up to what's going on and trying to have a voice that you deny anywhere else.
LOL! LOL! LOL! Trying to "compartmentalize" truth seekers never works. Can't handle the "silent majority" out here who's finally had enough and speaking out, can ya? LOL!
Never thought about it before, but "Boss Hogg Syndrome" and "parasites" do provide a name for what's going on down at City Hall.
TOTALLY agree that the Sentinel needs to be providing more coverage, and make sure it's for both sides. Matt Erickson's article covering the interviews about the recall election was really good in showing how it all got started as one example of great coverage. He covered both sides about how people on the street, exiting the voting booth, said they were confused with the conflicting petitions and just decided to vote everybody out, and then they were recognizing that they'd been played and were questioning their vote.
Too bad that article's powerful on-going storyline (reasons for firing city administrator by city council, petition to recall his partner-in-crime since he was an elected official, opposition to the firing and recall starts their own petition against city council members who did the firing) had not come out earlier so the public could've understood how it all had started. We all would have been better informed voters for the recall election, maybe even coming up with other options priot to it.
We certainly have heard plenty in the Sentinel about what led up to the recall, but nothing about any of those legal documents that just surfaced last month before the recall. Shouldn't matter how or who exposed them. They all appear to be legally recording the actual events that led up to the recall, as well as provide more about other events such as the fired officer's November 2011 plea for justice and about the fired city administrator's January 2012 plea to believe his victimhood. Original "justification" for opposing the 3 city council who fired the guy was that they talked outside a closed meeting. Erickson covered that by asking them if they'd talked outside a closed meeting, printed their denials, but what about digging for more proof as to which side is giving truth? Now "justification" for wanting the 3 city council out of office is that they "broke the contract" and "didn't follow the current city attorney's counsel to not fire him."
So which is it? They talked outside a closed meeting, or they (allegedly) didn't follow legal counsel to not break a contract? Former city attorney provided copies of his investigations and counsel, but we don't see any proof that the current city attorney gave the alleged counsel, let alone proof that it contradicted what the former city attorney had on his researched counsel.
Been plenty about the fired city administrator, both verbal and written, and plenty about his supporters defending his illegally breaking his own contract and making it null and void long before the city council even knew anything about it. When do we get the same unbiased, transparency coverage about all those legal papers posted on a website the opposition-to-truth appears to keep ignoring/discrediting? The Sentinel doesn't do "double-standard" reporting, do they?
About both cases, what did you read and where did you get it? Where can I get this info about his problems with his superiors? If this type of info is in his personnel file, how do you have access to it? If it's not, can you give me a link or provide me with this negative info?
Blood thirsty posters! It’s very telling that “thinkaboutit,” “proudofourcity,” and “jayhawk83,” plus a few others, sound like they could easily be employees or even maybe supervisors with the city. Have gone through all their posts again, and they give their opinions and expect us to take their word for it with nothing to back it up--no legal documents to prove their opinions are correct, but plenty of threats, insults, intimidation, and incendiary remarks made by these posters to bully the others on this forum who are trying to refer to what facts and legal documents are available.
Agree with LR, and minus the hateful-sounding jabs from the others, LR does have very simple concepts to consider.
Aside from everything else, two of the current situations are very similar, in that Mr. Loughry and the former police officer were denied an appeal process after being fired. Why?
It also appears they both may have been fired incorrectly by not following proper city procedures. Why?
The 3 above posters are so adamant that Loughry’s termination and appeal process was not followed correctly, yet are so quick to judge and insult the former police officer’s claim that’s asking for the same treatment. Why?
Agree with LR, it is ironic that Loughry apparently denied the former police officer’s request for an appeal process, yet he feels he was entitled to have the city council follow the regular process for his appeal. Why?
The 3 posters are okay with Loughry having a lawsuit about not getting an appeal, but they’re not okay with the former police officer trying to have the same legal rights. Why?
Blood thirsty posters! It’s very telling that “thinkaboutit,” “proudofourcity,” and “jayhawk83,” plus a few others, sound like they could easily be employees or even maybe supervisors with the city. Have gone through all their posts again, and they give their opinions and expect us to take their word for it with nothing to back it up--no legal documents to prove their opinions are correct, but plenty of threats, insults, intimidation, and incendiary remarks made by these posters to bully the others on this forum who are trying to refer to what facts and legal documents are available.
Agree with LR, and minus the hateful-sounding jabs from the others, LR does have very simple concepts to consider.
Aside from everything else, two of the current situations are very similar, in that Mr. Loughry and the former police officer were denied an appeal process after being fired. Why?
It also appears they both may have been fired incorrectly by not following proper city procedures. Why?
The 3 above posters are so adamant that Loughry’s termination and appeal process was not followed correctly, yet are so quick to judge and insult the former police officer’s claim that’s asking for the same treatment. Why?
Agree with LR, it is ironic that Loughry apparently denied the former police officer’s request for an appeal process, yet he feels he was entitled to have the city council follow the regular process for his appeal. Why?
The 3 posters are okay with Loughry having a lawsuit about not getting an appeal, but they’re not okay with the former police officer trying to have the same legal rights. Why?
Basehor City Council to consider new scoreboards for sports complex
Exactly. Still waiting for answers to the below:
Back to main points>>
1.) Is the Sentinel going to do some real investigative journalism and also provide a place for all of us to voice ourselves without sabotaging unrelated articles?
2.) Is the new city council and mayor going to keep ignoring what's so obviously blatant, or are they working on solutions that will address what's been covered in the above posts?
April 11, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Basehor City Council to consider new scoreboards for sports complex
Okay, you just heard more from the "silent majority." Yeah, we're fed up with the attitude.
Back to main points>>
1.) Is the Sentinel going to do some real investigative journalism and also provide a place for all of us to voice ourselves without sabotaging unrelated articles?
2.) Is the new city council and mayor going to keep ignoring what's so obviously blatant, or are they working on solutions that will address what's been covered in the above posts?
And, when do we the "silent majority" public get to hear the answers to these questions?
April 10, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Basehor City Council to consider new scoreboards for sports complex
see??? you're doing the same thing i just posted above. awwwwww, tsk tsk... and you've got somebody holding a gun to your head, forcing you to read/"listen" to the postings. why would that be? who hates you enough to make you do that?
April 10, 2012 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Basehor City Council to consider new scoreboards for sports complex
don't you guys ever get tired of using the "big lie" technique? you guys think you're the only ones who live in Basehor? just throw labels, no substance or truth, but quick to accuse others of what you're doing. again. news flash, there are more "tribes" living in Basehor than just yours and the other one you keep referring to out of anger (but maybe it's out of fear of them?) scheeez, your example is why us "silent majority" are waking up to what's going on and trying to have a voice that you deny anywhere else.
April 10, 2012 at 4:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Basehor City Council to consider new scoreboards for sports complex
projection
April 10, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Basehor City Council to consider new scoreboards for sports complex
LOL! LOL! LOL! Trying to "compartmentalize" truth seekers never works. Can't handle the "silent majority" out here who's finally had enough and speaking out, can ya? LOL!
April 10, 2012 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Basehor City Council to consider new scoreboards for sports complex
Never thought about it before, but "Boss Hogg Syndrome" and "parasites" do provide a name for what's going on down at City Hall.
TOTALLY agree that the Sentinel needs to be providing more coverage, and make sure it's for both sides. Matt Erickson's article covering the interviews about the recall election was really good in showing how it all got started as one example of great coverage. He covered both sides about how people on the street, exiting the voting booth, said they were confused with the conflicting petitions and just decided to vote everybody out, and then they were recognizing that they'd been played and were questioning their vote.
Too bad that article's powerful on-going storyline (reasons for firing city administrator by city council, petition to recall his partner-in-crime since he was an elected official, opposition to the firing and recall starts their own petition against city council members who did the firing) had not come out earlier so the public could've understood how it all had started. We all would have been better informed voters for the recall election, maybe even coming up with other options priot to it.
We certainly have heard plenty in the Sentinel about what led up to the recall, but nothing about any of those legal documents that just surfaced last month before the recall. Shouldn't matter how or who exposed them. They all appear to be legally recording the actual events that led up to the recall, as well as provide more about other events such as the fired officer's November 2011 plea for justice and about the fired city administrator's January 2012 plea to believe his victimhood. Original "justification" for opposing the 3 city council who fired the guy was that they talked outside a closed meeting. Erickson covered that by asking them if they'd talked outside a closed meeting, printed their denials, but what about digging for more proof as to which side is giving truth? Now "justification" for wanting the 3 city council out of office is that they "broke the contract" and "didn't follow the current city attorney's counsel to not fire him."
So which is it? They talked outside a closed meeting, or they (allegedly) didn't follow legal counsel to not break a contract? Former city attorney provided copies of his investigations and counsel, but we don't see any proof that the current city attorney gave the alleged counsel, let alone proof that it contradicted what the former city attorney had on his researched counsel.
Been plenty about the fired city administrator, both verbal and written, and plenty about his supporters defending his illegally breaking his own contract and making it null and void long before the city council even knew anything about it. When do we get the same unbiased, transparency coverage about all those legal papers posted on a website the opposition-to-truth appears to keep ignoring/discrediting? The Sentinel doesn't do "double-standard" reporting, do they?
April 10, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Breuer becomes new Basehor mayor
About both cases, what did you read and where did you get it? Where can I get this info about his problems with his superiors? If this type of info is in his personnel file, how do you have access to it? If it's not, can you give me a link or provide me with this negative info?
March 23, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Basehor City Council meeting agenda: March 19
Blood thirsty posters! It’s very telling that “thinkaboutit,” “proudofourcity,” and “jayhawk83,” plus a few others, sound like they could easily be employees or even maybe supervisors with the city. Have gone through all their posts again, and they give their opinions and expect us to take their word for it with nothing to back it up--no legal documents to prove their opinions are correct, but plenty of threats, insults, intimidation, and incendiary remarks made by these posters to bully the others on this forum who are trying to refer to what facts and legal documents are available.
Agree with LR, and minus the hateful-sounding jabs from the others, LR does have very simple concepts to consider.
Aside from everything else, two of the current situations are very similar, in that Mr. Loughry and the former police officer were denied an appeal process after being fired. Why?
It also appears they both may have been fired incorrectly by not following proper city procedures. Why?
The 3 above posters are so adamant that Loughry’s termination and appeal process was not followed correctly, yet are so quick to judge and insult the former police officer’s claim that’s asking for the same treatment. Why?
Agree with LR, it is ironic that Loughry apparently denied the former police officer’s request for an appeal process, yet he feels he was entitled to have the city council follow the regular process for his appeal. Why?
The 3 posters are okay with Loughry having a lawsuit about not getting an appeal, but they’re not okay with the former police officer trying to have the same legal rights. Why?
March 23, 2012 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Breuer becomes new Basehor mayor
Blood thirsty posters! It’s very telling that “thinkaboutit,” “proudofourcity,” and “jayhawk83,” plus a few others, sound like they could easily be employees or even maybe supervisors with the city. Have gone through all their posts again, and they give their opinions and expect us to take their word for it with nothing to back it up--no legal documents to prove their opinions are correct, but plenty of threats, insults, intimidation, and incendiary remarks made by these posters to bully the others on this forum who are trying to refer to what facts and legal documents are available.
Agree with LR, and minus the hateful-sounding jabs from the others, LR does have very simple concepts to consider.
Aside from everything else, two of the current situations are very similar, in that Mr. Loughry and the former police officer were denied an appeal process after being fired. Why?
It also appears they both may have been fired incorrectly by not following proper city procedures. Why?
The 3 above posters are so adamant that Loughry’s termination and appeal process was not followed correctly, yet are so quick to judge and insult the former police officer’s claim that’s asking for the same treatment. Why?
Agree with LR, it is ironic that Loughry apparently denied the former police officer’s request for an appeal process, yet he feels he was entitled to have the city council follow the regular process for his appeal. Why?
The 3 posters are okay with Loughry having a lawsuit about not getting an appeal, but they’re not okay with the former police officer trying to have the same legal rights. Why?
March 23, 2012 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )