I do hope that the Pro-Active Committee has some very deep pockets, because if it continues to attack without provocation, it may need them!
Given the amount of 'alleged' support this committee purports to have, isn't it rather odd that they suddenly feel it's imperative to embark on an over zealous attempt to censor the 'Reporter' and UCO?
So, what on earth has happened to have the Pro-Activists stomping around like ballerinas with holes in their hose? What has led them to want, nay demand, that the 'Reporter' publishes a disclaimer each time it reports something about the golf course from 'the other side', which on this occasion is far from spiritual.
Whilst I appreciate that this group is, rightly so, passionate about this proposed development and has every right to bring their ideas to the Delegate Assembly for consideration, it is totally unacceptable to publish blatant untruths in any medium, even on a blog. I do trust, if it comes down to it, they can present evidence to substantiate their claims.
Unable to wait for Friday's Delegate Assembly to democratically allow a vote, the Pro-Active's have already posted a proposed motion, as a given fact, on their blog.
They advise residents that when reviewing material from the UCO Administration or the Editors of the 'UCO Reporter' it should be regarded as information only.
Says who? What happened to freedom of speech and when did the Pro-Active Committee - not even a UCO Committee- have the authority to speak for anyone other than themselves. More importantly, what are they suddenly so afraid of, and why are such extreme measures necessary when they claim that victory is on the horizon?
I have no idea who wrote this piece of verbiage, but it wasn't a lawyer. It is not particularly wise to imply that Editors have been less than honest to their readers, which the Pro-Active blog does.
It's always saddening when a cause becomes a crusade especially when some really good people have worked hard to achieve goals in a logical, sensible way. To see this credibility destroyed through irrational demands, merely devalues what has already been achieved.
The UCO Reporter has a zero tolerance for censorship, and we will defend not only freedom of speech, but our reader's right to read both sides of any story. By the way, we also have a zero tolerance for libel, so may I remind 'certain parties' they too may just find themselves on the wrong side of civil law – the one the Pro-Active's claim will ultimately protect us from this development.
Justice is blind, and like good reporting, relies on facts not feelings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am wondering where the Pro Active committee has come up with a 90% of the village against the development of the golf course. The committee has not come around to canvas the whole village to come up with that figure. They are pulling figures out of thin air.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact they never came around to my association with the post cards that they were to deliver. I am quite sure that they would get an almost 90% against development. The big question is what is the percentage of people who are willing to pay to fight this. I, for one, don't want to see anymore of UCO's money, our money, spent to fight this. It will drain our pockets dry. This fight as the one further south has gone on for years and they have not won. the developer just keeps changing his plans as this one to hopefully get it passed. I hope the Pro Active Committee can raise money from their own pockets and from people in the village willing to pay. Our roads must be repaved, the clubhousse must be repaired as well as the rest of our infrastructure. With the economy tanked I just don't see where all the money will come from. People here are crying now that they don't want to pay so much money. Lets just hope the Pro Active Committee can come up with a lot of money for the lawyer!!!
I also wonder where the Pro Active Committee has arrived at the 90% figure for those in the village favoring the development of the golf course.. I,in conversation with many people, have not seen that to be true. All of the people I have spoken to are against spending Our $$$ on the "cause" that the Pro-active committee presents. By the time this dream team gets through, attorney fees will equal what they could buy the land for themselves!
ReplyDeleteAnd,as the southern fight tells us, this can go on for years.
Of course, if they want to, they can take the $$$ from their own pockets and the few others are for their cause.
That's a strange Proactive Committee (PC) Reminder, I thought everything in the media was for information only, and I was allowed to make up my own mind. I also assumed the info in the Reporter was a joint effort of the PC and writing skills from the Reporter staff. The PC certainly needs people who can quantify, clarify and communicate. The emotional ranting, distortions and paranoia of the PC work against their cause. C'mon PC guys keep it current, accurate and complete.
ReplyDeleteThere are two support numbers here.
90% of the village may wish to show polite unity against development.
What percentage of villagers have donated $ to support the Proact Cmte?
Good for you Sue!!
ReplyDeleteGood for you Sue!!!! Cannot wait to return to CV. New York is boring compared to life in Century Village.
ReplyDeleteHad I known that the Pro-Active Committee was going to propose a motion of censorship for the UCO Administration and the Editors of the UCO Reporter, I would have vehemently opposed funding them with even a single penny.
ReplyDeleteHow would the Pro-Active's feel if the Editors of the UCO Reporter refused to publish any more of the Pro-Active's submissions. Or, even better, to place a disclaimer that information presented from the Pro-Active Committee, has not been fact checked and the UCO Reporter will assume no responsibility as to the accuracy of any of their claims! Now that's a disclaimer worthy of a vote by the Delegate Assembly.
I'm sure, as Sue Cohen says with regard to the Pro-Active Committee, that "some really good people have worked hard to achieve goals in a logical, sensible way." Unfortunately, my respect for this group takes a nose dive when I hear of their exaggerations and wild attempts to censor. Only now (at the July delegates meeting) do we get a correction about the "90%." Oh, I see: It was "90% of those who attended a Pro-Active Committee meeting," not 90% of the Village! Well, that makes a slight difference!
ReplyDelete(Why not just say "I was wrong" or "I exaggerated," as our honest Randall Borchardt does? Good for you, Randall. Intelligent people will LISTEN to someone like this.)
I can't believe the nerve of these people (or some of them), trying to muzzle the Reporter. A man sitting near me rightly shouted out "Censorship!" when this began to be voiced at the delegates meeting.