Tim et al.,
I am sorry to have written something which violated the rules of this forum. Since I signed up, I haven't seen a complete written list of rules, and have assumed that the same sort of free-wheeling posts would be as appropriate here as on other discussion lists. Perhaps a list of rules would be useful so that we would know what we are working with. That might dispel my and others confusions about the nature and purpose of this forum.
In terms of the contents of the post, you are correct, it was not respectful and was intended to be a somewhat humorous, but pointed, commentary on the letter I got in the mail. I hoped to start a discussion on the ramifications of Mayor Kelly's endorsement of George Bush. I find that discussions are more interesting when people use the passion that they feel in their arguments. Perhaps I let my passion get away with me. I didn't mean to be discouraging, nor would I hope that my comments cause people to drop out of the group.
That being said, let me follow with this: When the Mayor can publicly act the way he has (very un-respectful), I think that he needs to be called to task. When in meetings, he minimizes the importance of citizen participation in the political process, he invites attacks from involved citizens. When he disregards everything he stands for politically to side with George Bush, who has shown his willingness to distort fact time and again, then I think that he has to answer for it. Saying something like he made "a personal choice" to support Bush is not a good enough explanation for his actions. Tim, you and I can make personal choices, but when an elected official takes a public stand and campaigns against his own party, that rises beyond a personal choice. He was trying to influence voters by virtue of his public office, not as a private citizen. Why did he do that? What benefit came to the people who elected him? How will he guarantee that he will support his city, when he threatens the entire city bonding package to protect his own project?
I admit that I intentionally used incendiary words that would cause strong feelings among my readers. I don't apologize for using the English language effectively. I also don't agree that political discourse should be dispassionate. Nonetheless, if those are the rules of the forum, I will abide by them. My only request is that such rules be applied evenly across the board.
Jacob Dorer Passionate about everything
--On Saturday, April 2, 2005 2:58 AM -0600 Tim Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A few personal opinions on this post: -------------------------------------
At 7:07 PM -0600 4/1/05, Jacob Dorer wrote:I would like to respond, respectfully, to the letter by saying "What a crock of foul smelling effluent!"
There was nothing respectful about this post. I spend a lot of time trying to elevate the level of political dialogue in this city and this kind of stuff is very discouraging. This is the kind of political rhetoric that makes me want to leave the forum.
-------------------------------------------------
JOIN the St. Paul Issues Forum TODAY:
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/
-------------------------------------------------
POST MESSAGES HERE: [email protected]To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
