Friday, September 12, 2008

Bully the blogger

Bully version of bet (pretty clear to me)

My original version: even clearer

So retired professor Ackerman, obviously with lots of time on his hands, must have been one of those professors who let the grad students do all the research. If he had bothered d to read two paragraphs beyond the lead of Scott’s Merzbach's article from LAST YEAR he would have discovered the $10,000 challenge was in the form of a bet. One the town manager did not have the chutzpa to take.

And if he just stayed at the Select Board meeting for another half-hour he could have asked me directly about it since I was on the agenda for the 9/11 flag issue at 7:05 PM.

That would be the 5’th time I have attempted to make that kind of wager with a town official. The other times it related to Cherry Hill revenue prediction and if any of the officials taken those bet I would have won—or I should say local charities would have been enriched.

In fact if Mr. Ackerman, also an Amherst Bulletin columnists--so you would think he knows how to research and corroborate material--had read the online Amherst Bulletin version of the story, I added a comment where I would give the Town Manager two-to-one odds, or $20,000.

I guess maybe His Lordship the Select Board Chair set a strange precedent by publicly whipping and trying to silence my blog (so I must be doing something right). So now we get social activists trying to get the Select Board to collect on bets that were never taken. Only in Amherst.


Anonymous said...

This should not be happening in a government meeting, even for 3 minutes.

Ackerman should know better.

Rich Morse

Anonymous said...

"So now we get social activists trying to get the Select Board to collect on bets that were never taken. Only in Amherst."

.....Larry Kelley.... only in Amherst....
I take it that Mr. Kelley was wrong again, even though there was no bet.

LarryK4 said...

Depends on how you define wrong. If he had taken my bet then of course I would have appealed the decision of the State Ethics folks to a higher authority.

Just like I have appealed the equally idiotic decision of the Amherst Board of Registrars saying there was not even enough evidence to schedule a hearing about the residency of Anne Awad...who is now a resident of South Hadley.

ARHS '76 said...

Did the reporter from the Bulletin try to contact you and ask for a reaction?

If he did, and he learned the facts, he shouldn't have written the story.

LarryK4 said...

Well he asked me about it Monday night after the 9/11 issue, which of course was a tad more important to me.

And I could attest simply from memory that it was indeed a bet that had not been taken. And you can see the Town Manager remembered it the same as well.

Anonymous said...

I think this was handled properly.

First, public comment time is not time for a judgment of the value of the comment. Bob Ackerman stayed within the context of asking questions and really was within his right to ask them.

I think Brewer handled this quite well, deferring it to the town manager (who I thought wasn't supposed to be there that night). I even think that, for once, the Town Manager handled this right, gambling is illegal in Massachusetts and thus *collecting* a gambling debt is illegal.

What would you like - the Selectboard having the authority to dictate which questions can and can not be asked to them? Good lord...

The First Amendment does not protect the speech rights of those with whom we agree but those whom we detest, "while I may disagree with everything you have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Ed Cutting

LarryK4 said...

Perhaps the town should erect a soapbox in town center for wild eyes former academics to climb on and shout about the world coming to an end, or 9/11 was an "inside job" or Elvis is indeed still alive.

That too too is "freedom of speech"-- but at least it does not waste the time of people who have an important job to do.

Anonymous said...

Whyle we're acidemec bashing again, I jus wanna say darn those acidemecs. They don't have important things to doo, like us bloggers. Rite? So all they do is sit on sope boxes and talk. How they waste theyr time and our time two when we sit in theyr classes or have to lissen to them on the TV!!

Can anybody name ANY suceses we know who were edukated by those fancy coffee drinkin acidemecs at the universitee? Educashun... what a waste of hour mony and time!

The wourld is reely lucky to have open-mnded smart peopel like all of us to get things rite.

Former acidemecs and current acidemecs. We shoold get rid of them. The town wood be a much better place. Rite?

Thank you Mr. Kelley for always bein rite! Maybe you cood get a job at the universitee and teech them a theng or too.

a said...

If that's satire, you get a gentlemen's C-.

LarryK4 said...

No, just one academic in particular (or maybe he even thinks himself a journalist).

I (almost) always prefer a surgical strike over carpet bombing.

Anonymous said...

Larry, everything other than what you agree with is a waste of time. And should there not be a rule that you can spend 3 minutes of public time on anything, YOU would be censored.

As happened with the Hadley Housing Authority, which appears to be not unlike its Amherst counterpart:

Not unlike in multiple ways...

And Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I say let people speak (briefly and orderly) and they will either make legitimate points or promulgate lunacy and so be it...


LarryK4 said...

Yeah, well Ackerman certainly made an idiot of himself.

But--better him I suppose--than His Lordship Chair Gerry Weiss, who also "breaks for lunacy" (about the only bumper sticker he does NOT have on his car)