The Observation Deck

I need to make a correction - the Fitz piece to which I referred does not have "Endorsed Democrat" on it.

It says, "Democratic Leadership Team."

Somtimes the electoral environment is such that no amount of money is going to make a difference. Ex-senator Dewine had a decent (although unaccomplished) record, spent a lot of money, ran a decent campaign and was crushed. He could have spent 3 times as much and the result would have been the same.

I think the political environment is such that Ed Fitzgerald is the next mayor no matter how much the George campaign spends or how clever the material.

My guess is that the Mayor gets less than 40%. Maybe less than 30%, but thats a strech. Most likely? 36.2567%

I saw the George commercial while watching Fox News last night.

At this point, I would love to see how much money has been spent (in total) on this election.

Rare is the day when my mail doesn't include at least one political flyer.

Anybody else remember the Richard Pryor movie "Brewsters Millions"? The closer we get to the election, the more I'm thinking of voting for "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

Sharon,

Ok, let's do it. Post your exact numbers on the donations from Metelko. I dare you. Show us your "credibility." Remember the documents are available for the public to view. So are you gonna eat crow now or should I give you a few days?

Love, Ryan

Ryan -

Love you too - no - really I do.

The figures aren't the same as what I thought I saw. I'm usuallly very good at this and swear that the figures are different that they were which would account for the pm fight Suzanne and I had (7 different pm'ss going back and forth) and she never challenged my numbers.

Set up? Conspiracy - nah - those named would never do that.

Sorry about the mistake. Really. Would never do anything like that intentionally.

Now someone can make this into a Sharon is trying to ruin western civilization and that's fine.

I can't keep up with a lot of posts right now - had outpatient surgery on Wednesday, on my left eye. A couple small complications and now the computer screen hurts my eye. The light is too intense, so I'm just checking in sporadically, I'm not even supposed to be on here.

So I'll keep checking back (for a short time for now) to make sure that all the lies I told are uncovered. Hmmm. There are just so many, because I have absolutely no scruples you know.

Crow soup mwy help my cold.

Have fun boys!

Love and kisses - Sharon the horrible.

Ryan:

Thanks for sticking with this issue.

Ms. Kinsella asserted boldly:

â€Â

Ken -

You want blood - I did not do this deliberately - however - you continue to talk in a superior, condescending manner.

You are vindictive and arrogant.

I will apologize again, not to you but the deckers.

If you don't find that adequate - tough.

Keep making classist, racist and sexist remarks. Since you walk on water, the rest of us will drown in our inadequacies.

Hold yourself to the standards you demand of others - that would be refreshing. You don't like me - that's fine - right back atcha. You do think that you are omnipotent, you are not. You think you are universally respected you are not.

I, for one, know that I am hated, detested and I DONT CARE. If you don't pay my bills, what you think does not matter to me. I'm also very much loved and cared for (surpising isn't it).

You don't dictate the status quo and I think there will soon be a little bird eating on your part - hope you don't miss the red meat.

By the way Ryan - when do you start boot camp for the Marine Corp. reserves?I heard you were telling people that you were joining if you didn't win.

This could just be me talking all silly again, but I thought there were campaign contribution limits? Wouldn't it be impossible for someone to donate $15,000 directly to a campaign?

deleted

Rick Uldricks wrote:The Deck was tolerable for about a day.

It was and then she was back. Unable to stand the world without the sound of her own voice.

Sharon Kinsella made a pointed claim in the attempt to somehow impact the mayoral campaign. Instead it revealed her intemperate, slow witted, ignorant and caustic bias.

Ken Warren and Ryan Demro joined me in my challenge and Sharon Kinsella is still unable to respond with any integrity. Instead she responds with personal remarks that are irrelvant to the question at hand. Sharon Kinsella is unable to back up her claims with facts and figures and now claims that the board of elections has participated in or perpatrated a fraud. And she has implied that Mr. Demro and Mrs. Metelko have been involved as well.

Sharon Kinsella doesn't really listen to what she says, or what anyone else says - she just talks. How many distortions and lies has she posted here?

BEWARE.

How many distortions and lies has she posted here?

Really no more or less than many other posters here.

I think we're all big enough and smart enough to measure the worth of a poster's words for ourselves.

BTW, Mr Rosebrook, in an effort to make full disclosure, would you mind confirming if you are related to Ms. Metelko by marriage?

Grace:

A Google Search indicates Mr. Rosebrook is likely a son-in-law. As such his defense of the truth with regard Ms. Kinsella’s efforts to spin the campaign through a falsehold concerning the amount of money Ms. Metelko contributed to Demro’s may be played as a matter of self-interest.

Ms. Metelko is a library trustee. So I you could say that I am self-interested as well. Yet the facts are the facts and the truth serves all.

Do you really think many posters have pressed so hard with distortion as Ms. Kinsella does here:

“I sincerely think that people need to quit harping on the developer money. It's really not a big deal, developers always give money to incumbent candidates. It's not all that much in the scheme of things, heck Suzanne Metelko gave three times that amount to Ryan!â€Â

Mr Warren

Mr Roseebrook IS Ms Metelko's son-in-law.

Are you saying that should not have been disclosed?

Distortion is distortion regardless of whom is perpetrating it. Why would a man from Columbus Ohio be so concerned with a local chat board. Was his interest purely in exposing misinformation or exonerating his mother in law?

Frankly, I find it odd that Ms Metelko cannot defend herself and chooses to have an out of town relative jump in and do it for her. My perception of her is not that of a reticent woman.

She could have chosen (wisely) to either ignore the statements or come here herself and put it to rest. Straight from the horse's mouth, as they say.

Why the subterfuge?

Since when are LO posters expected to declare any lineage that may bear on motivation but not on the fact of the matter behind a claim being contested?

That a son-in-law rises to the occasion to defend against a falsehood linked to his family should not trump the general public interest in truth and the matters of general conduct and norms of the LO Deck raised in his question.

Kenneth Warren