Ludington Talks Loses It's Voice!?!?

[XLFD]

I checked out the other local site today and saw that they have changed their focus, and have now become a photo sharing site.  They took off the forum earlier this year for a short time, but it looks as if this is more of a permanent move.  Here is what the main page looked like as of this post.  Please invite any and all of those good folks who have been conributing to that forum over here.  We welcome their input, and their right to talk. 

 

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

Hmm and do we know who Cyndi is?? By full name??? Seeing as that seems to be a problem for some even though anyone who wants to know knows who XLFD is.

As Far as I know Joe Maloney got involved is after the counsel was told the FOI were going to have to be honored. Wow That's an upfront kinda guy hiding behind countless layers of bureaucracy and only after exhausting those trying to make contact. And we wont go into just how those contacts were approached.

Now on the other hand I have read the actual covenant that was placed on the dead way back when the property was turned of to the City/County to entrust. While I do not personally have an issue with the Dog park usage myself.. I can see where some might.

The first step in the whole process should have been a public referendum IE voters involved. correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe I was afforded a vote on the project. Again I personally would have been a yea vote.

XLs problem with the park is the same as any other in that the local government tends to carry a "we can do as we want" mindset rather than what do the voters want one.

And has it ever occured to you that when some people left Ludington Talks to persue other sites that some screen names were canned by LT and just maybe that's why XL isn't using XLs nic name? Just a thought here.

Listen to yourself Cyndi (No name) ... ( Infiltrate after Ludington talks was shut down) it wasn't a consorted effort to do.. Anyone who bookmarks site links to go to after the fact was there including Scott hardly a fan of the torch. Save the "in secret" crap for those who specialize in it and that is not here. Facts are many who live out of the area are the ones still trying to talk to Ludington on the site the simply de-linked from the rest of the site.

[AQUAMAN]

How does this sound Cyndi, set yout calendar to 12/18/10, 6pm, for a get-together with your fellow Torchers at your house. Since you are so driven and infactuated with whom everyone's identity is, what they do in life, what they make per year, and all the rest of our personals, plus, for our troubles, we insist you serve us all a nice pre-Xmas dinner, prime rib or turkey is ok, maybe even ham, complete with soft and adult beverages. That sound like a challenge you could meet? Maybe then all your curiosities could be met? Afterwards, maybe you could finally find the time to concentrate on what these threads are about and post with some relevance to the issues of our day. Or could you?

[XLFD]

And don't forget to invite Joe Moloney to this shindig too, Cyndi. I really would like to find out why he has so little regard for Ludington's ethic laws, and why the city has given him a free pass. Okay, I promise we won't discuss this until after we are at least ten minutes into chowing on the entree.

[Max]

Sounds like some great dinner talk -- can I come too?

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

I didn't say I personally that I even disproved of the dog park in fact in a referendum I would probably have voted for it Cyndi.

Now correct me if I am wrong.. but is Cartier Park in Ludington? Or in the PM township? You must have missed the part where my only complaint is the process was not done correctly if you go way way back to last year in the Ludington Talks forum I was actually for the park.

[XLFD]

And for the record, I would vote for a Dog Park in Ludington if it's location was acceptable to me, if it was either fully publicly or fully privately owned, if it was accessible to disabled individuals, and if the appropriate processes were followed. None of these are the case with the current dog park.

[XLFD]

Jen did come onto here and talked in a reasonable manner, but I didn't chase her away or stop her from posting. I just corrected the record; and the record will show that there was not a public meeting to my or her knowledge where the public had a right to discuss where this park was to be put. After a March 2009 meeting over discussing having a dog park, there was no public input at all.

The thread, "Today, I Witnessed a Rape" has all of our repartee, and I stand by everything I said in it, and every reply I made to Jen's assertions. Dog lovers or Torch-haters may have a visceral reaction to what I said in the post, but my comments weren't anti-dog, just anti-secrecy and anti-corruption.

[AQUAMAN]

Cyndi, methinks you barked up the wrong tree, not surprising though, haven't seen much positive posts from you since joining, just whining like a pup. Woooof. So, what's for desert? Humble pie?

[AQUAMAN]

After DINNER TALK anyone? Guess what fellow Torchers? We, yes us, the Ludington Torch membership, is being accused in writing, on another local forum, one that is dying on the moronic vine of apathy, boredom, & financial and moral bankruptcy, of deliberately and intentionally sabotaging the Ludington Talks site, so the talk part of the forum would be cancelled. Sound familiar? It's true, and sadder and madder than imaginable, or is it? It's a given, round up the usual suspects, you'll have the answers. HarHarHar Everytime you think those low peeps have stooped no lower than anyone you've known before, they come up with a new one even lower, gasp..........rolls eyes.

[Edie Lindsey]

Hey Aquaman, you have a new fan over at Ludington Talks, who wears a 'flamboyant' costume and uses your name. Saw him a couple of hours ago. You almost look Behr nekkid.

The Soupers may have had a point in that most of us here at the Torch posted over there at LT too, and most of us here are outspoken and back our talk with cold hard facts. Dangerous, if you consider that the facts have worked counter to what's actually being portrayed and wanting to be portrayed by the LDN and our local city headers. Better to just show pictures of our area, and not hear from the unwashed, heathens that actually know the area.

[Susan Rose]

Wow, all I got for that is bravo! The LDN rag is just as corrupt as the local politicians. The lights are starting to shine on to some of the collusion that has tainted this community for many years now. The next couple of years are going to get very interesting. It was not just irony that they took down the forum just as Consumers was putting the final touches on their industrial coup in Riverton/Summit Townships. The LDN was killing post as fast as they were being written, and getting an editorial published requires writing with kids gloves. I am new here and looking forward to some good discussions. And hopefully pull the sheets back on the local wheels dealings.

[AQUAMAN]

Thanks Edie, looks like the guy went all out to actually costume himself into the part, unlike the original. Fake, fake I do cry, and copycat to boot. He's also got a member "private page setting", so what does that tell you? Those types are usually out for hijinx and chaos, hope they don't mix him with me. Unwashed heathens indeed, poor locals just keep getting the raw end of the big city deal from the outlanders in office, and power. Welcome Susan, pull those sheets back anytime for me, bravo senora.