Report Inappropriate Comments

Normally, I wouldn’t acknowledge your ludicrous comments and insults. I’m not going to stoop to your level of insult, but rather would prefer to present facts in order to let people make their own determinations. First and foremost, people are well aware here and on talk radio that your comments and public statements are presented with a shade of perspective on them. Everything that you say is skewed in a particular light in order to have a predetermined reception. People are not idiots.

1. You guys did not destroy the administration what so ever. Especially wearing the only article of clothing that you own (white pullover). Your “facts” were skewed and it was apparent that your basis of contention is not based purely on facts, but rather hatred and discontent for a particular institution.

2. No one from the administration spoke because professionals were present in order to convey facts for the record. Unemotional, factual, on the record statements were presented by qualified professionals in order to provide clarity for the record. Attorney Ragosta is a premiere labor attorney who validated himself and the current position of the situation and facts clearly, decisively, and articulately. To say you destroyed him is a bit of a stretch even for a narcissist such as yourself.

3. Correct terminology for a side deal as Attorney Penza stared. MOU. Memorandum of Understanding. A common and legitimate practice in the labor world. Regarding Federal Agents... can you please clarify as to what the charges were that have been filed in conjunction with this so called investigation? Wait... there haven’t been any. What was the basis of this investigation again? Oh. That’s right, there has been no official confirmation regarding that either. Is it fair to assume that a valid, active federal investigation is more of a loose assumption as opposed to statements based on compounding, current, and definitive documentation? I’d have to say so.

4. The fire chief was present. Professionals spoke on the record, and this has been addressed previously. The actuary is contracted out of state. I am sure that you or any member of the council could have requested their presence or the presence of any of the other professional if it would have satisfied the needs of the council. That burden does not fall on the city, bargaining unit, or any other party unless specifically requested.

5. Solomon had enough balls to have some of the particular council members who are in your pocket served by a Constable. I’d have to disagree with your statement. Make no mistake, Mayor Solomon will be reasonable with reasonable people. If people want to grand stand and politic in order to delay normal city business while colluding with the likes of you in an attempt to muddy the water, I’d ask you to roll your sleeves up and firmly gauge the magnitude of his balls. Though it would not be your first time with a set in your hands, you may be surprised when making a comparison.

6. Zero heckling. And I guarantee that some of the firefighters are thoroughly more articulate than you. You are in fact well spoken at times, but professionalism dictates that an unemotional, factual response is provided in order to maintain perspective and continuity of the record. However, if you’d like to take the Pepsi Challenge, in a battle of white, I’m sure there are several members of the fire department who would be happy to participate. Maybe even some of the ones who responded to the explosion caused as a result of your illegal disposal of gasoline incident that resulted in a fiery end.

7. Not one firefighter did such a thing. Complete fallacy. Mr. Varras for the record is more of a lover than a fighter given my professional interactions with him. His strength is his ability to clearly and decisively matriculate in harmony with members of the public.

8. Mr. Mcallister simply didn’t want to answer loaded questions from my interpretation of the stream. He simply knows no matter what answer he provides that it is an exploratory mission on your part to simply collude the facts and manipulate as opposed to an attempt to obtain true clarification on a particular subject.

9. This statement is based on what facts and documentation? Again, regarding the ball comment aspect of your statement... if you were unsuccessful with previous attempts to quantify balls through touch, an oral attempt may prove more effective in the future. Given the size of your mouth, I do not believe a full pair should be an issue simultaneously for you. If your feeling spry, you may even venture 2 pair at once like at the rest stop recently.

10. Being the expert yourself on profound sausage consumption, I am genuinely surprised at your high level of restraint to resist the ingestion of such the other night. My applause