[LCSD] Lying about the views of others isn’t going to move anything forward

Lebanon Proof:

The recall election was about one thing to one group and a totally different thing to the other…

The CARES group (PAC members and those who ascribe to the same philosophical paradigm) initiated the recall because they knew that there were now enough board member votes to get Mr. Robinson out the door… They were afraid that their friend/leader could possibly be removed and they believed (erroneously) that they were in the majority. They hoped they could spread enough rumor and innuendo to get all of those who were not paying attention to vote against the “loose cannons” Alexander and Wineteer.

This is one thing I just don’t get.  LP gets the first part right – that different people understood the recall differently – but then completely misses the second part when they describe CARES as pushing a recall because they were afraid of Robinson being pushed out.

Did LP miss all the times CARES supporters said the recall was about the behavior of Alexander and Wineteer on the board?  Did LP miss all the times those same supporters pointed out that it wasn’t about Robinson whatsoever?  Did LP somehow miss that fact that some CARES supporters and members would have been perfectly happy seeing Robinson go out the door as long as it was done in a legal manner?

I can’t believe LP missed all that.  It’s been all over blog comments and letters to the editor.  Therefore, I can only conclude LP is intentionally mischaracterizing CARES’ view of the recall – i.e. lying.  That’s not OK – LP can characterize reasons for opposing the recall however LP wants; they clearly opposed it, so they probably know firsthand.  But claiming that all pro-recall people supported the recall because they were afraid of Robinson being canned is flat-out wrong.

I have to admit I’ve been intrigued by the presence of LP.  Whoever they are clearly has the ability to write lucidly and clearly when they want, and on occasion they have been bringing up useful information.  But in between those posts are ones like the above, where LP somehow claims to know the minds of other individuals better than they do.  Given that, when LP says things like

I admit that the negativity is contagious, I have fallen into the trap as well…

but then a mere two posts later mischaracterizes a whole group through either gross ignorance or willful obfuscation of truth, I have to wonder:  Do they think they’re not being negative when they do that?  Do not they not think they’re being negative when they say things like this?

I believe that if there is a person… that needs to… be eliminated, I will address that issue.

The ellipses don’t change the meaning of the sentence.  See for yourself. (Oh, and that sentence was in the very next post after LP noted that they fall into the negativity trap.)

If LP doesn’t think such things are negative, what would LP consider negative?  Worse yet, what makes LP think it’s OK to lie about the views of others?

The end result of their last several posts is that I trust even less the nice rhetoric about moving forward, especially that which comes from LP.  The other, corollary, result is that I’m starting to believe the people who are telling me that things are going to get a lot worse, and that’s kind of depressing.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

Tags:

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

11 Comments on “[LCSD] Lying about the views of others isn’t going to move anything forward”

  1. Tracy Says:

    I agree. I was hoping with the resignation of Mr. Robinson and the recall effort failing that everyone would get together and be civil and try to help the students. This is why I voted against the recall. But it seems that some are going on an attack on anyone that supported Mr. Robinson or worked within the system Mr. Robinson set up. I hope that the school board members do not share this attitude. Otherwise I agree, we are in for a long and depressing time in Lebanon.

  2. rhetoricalwasteland Says:

    Tracy, there is still time for everyone to be civil and focus on students. It’s only been a week, after all.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    Lumping everyone who agrees with holding School Board Members accountable for their actions as Robinson Supporters who are now full of “sour grapes”, as if anyone who disagrees with them is expendable is exactly why there was a recall in the first place.
    Many people around the District gave the Board the benefit of the doubt. Now everyone will be paying the consequences for that.

  4. Tracy Says:

    RW I would agree with you but in the past week, the blogger on Lebanon Proof has advocated for the removal of three administrators, two directors, and three teachers. Unfortunately very few people have come to the defense of these people. I know this is one person/group but they seem to be confident in their reports. I fear they will follow through with a vendetta against those whom they perceive to be”pro-Robinson”. I heard today that the paln is to make Mr. Sansom superintendent and Mr. Yates Principal at the high school. Rumor I know but a terrifying one. Not that I know either one of these men but I do know they were part of the controversy and appointing them would just stir the pot some more.

  5. Anonymous to Tracy Says:

    Tracy,

    Now that the board’s focus is off the Superintendent I think they are committed to the principles of fairness and transparency. If the rumors had in fact been their intentions they would have implemented them during the last board meeting due to the recall deadline they faced.

    Real or perceived… top down management, oppressive leadership, lack of trust, these are the very things they were trying to address by their past actions. They know all eyes are on them and I’m sure will act accordingly.

    They’ve called a special board meeting for this Wednesday night to get community input on the interim. Why would they do that if they had already decided who that interim was going to be?

    This is a new beginning and we should at least start by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt otherwise we will never move forward.

    Please don’t allow a “blogger with a vendetta” to terrify you.

  6. RW Says:

    Tracy,

    I don’t want to rule anything out, but very few of the rumors in the last several months have come true. This does not mean it’s not *possible* they will come true, just that it doesn’t seem as *probable* as it once did.

    Alternatively, one could argue that a reason they aren’t coming true is that they are being exposed beforehand. I doubt that’s what’s happening, but it’s also possible.

    I think it’s more likely a combination of rumor mill and Alexander allegedly telling people what they want to hear that generates these things.

  7. Old friend Says:

    In the book, K. is still running this puppet show and none of the puppets know it. K’s puppet collection has grown considerably. We’re talking first puppet twice removed kind of thing.

  8. anonymous Says:

    “Did LP miss all the times CARES supporters said the recall was about the behavior of Alexander and Wineteer on the board? Did LP miss all the times those same supporters pointed out that it wasn’t about Robinson whatsoever? Did LP somehow miss that fact that some CARES supporters and members would have been perfectly happy seeing Robinson go out the door as long as it was done in a legal manner?”

    For myself, Cares had no creditability with me. If the recall was about board behavior or actions during meetings, that in my mind is not grounds for a recall. The purpose of the recall was to silence the board and ultimately save Robinson’s job.

  9. rhetoricalwasteland Says:

    Anon @ 7:35, a few questions:

    Since CARES has no credibility with you, do you really then think they were lying all those times they said the recall was about Alexander and Wineteer?

    Even if you don’t think that the behavior of Alexander or Wineteer justified a recall effort, do you acknowledge the possibility that other people – such as those in CARES – do? If not, why not?

    How do you reconcile the claim that the recall was about Robinson’s job when he made the choice to sign a settlement before the votes had been counted? If that was true, wouldn’t he at last have waited to see the election results?

  10. anonymous Says:

    If Mr. Robinson waited until after the recall, and the recall failed, what kind of package would he have gotten? Not much, as he probably would have been canned. He probably took a calculated risk, and jumped from the ship with the best package he could have had.

  11. rhetoricalwasteland Says:

    Anon @ 11:11 – certainly I think that’s what happened. But not everyone agrees.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: