Page 5 of 5
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:20 pm
by dl meckes
Perhaps I did not communicate clearly, which is the hallmark of this misunderstanding.
No-one expects tears, there is simply a hope for sincerity.
As far as I know, Ruth Koenigsmark has not asked for an apology, but others made the request on her behalf.
Yes, a candidate have to take the slings and arrows if there is a run for office. Whether or not Mr. Carroll makes an apology is up to him.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:22 pm
by Justine Cooper
Ryan Salo wrote:TIM CARROLL wrote:Fine Mr. Koenigsmark, you don't have to accept my explanation, I can live with that. I know that I wrote was not intended to be malicious or offensive to anyone. If you take that way, I am sorry.
Tim Carroll
Sharon,
Is this not enough? I really don't understand people that get into the lime light and complain it is too hot, people need to get tougher skin. People say things that can be mean, I don't think Tim meant it that way, but even if he did, people say tough things.
Look at the negative things people say about every candidate in every race local or national. This interview was for a position that is normally given to someone who goes through the heat of an election. People should think long and hard before applying. The newspapers/blogs/LO could have been a lot rougher on all of the candidates.
I really can't believe this is still going on. Don't we have more important things to discuss??
Apparently not if you are posting in a discussion you weren't even part of. And missing the point.
FYI Ruth was not seeking a "limelight" position. She wanted the council position to further help in the city. Big difference. And "I am sorry if you took it that way" is extremely different from "I am sorry I made the comment" or qualifying the comment which is all that was asked for.