John Putnam has a long list of inappropriate emails and apologies...check out this one.
Putnam writes: "The only problem with this man’s idea is that the City Attorney is one of the biggest crooks in the bunch! (right behind Harrison)." John
Check out this wonderful, heartfelt apology for the statement above which he cc'd to a long list of recipients who I have deleted for their privacy (didn't hide the councilors names as this is public).
From: John Putnam [mailto:jwputnam@] Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:54 AM To: John Arceri; Ted Forcht; Chuck Kiester; Mike Minozzi; Bill Moss; Rob Popoff; Bill Trotter; Glen Tucker; Terri DiSciullo Cc: CAVE DWELLERS
Subject:
"I must apologize for that last comment. That was over the top and uncalled for. I do not believe that either the City Attorney or Mr. Harrison is a crook. It was an impassioned (frankly, irresponsible) remark, bought forth by many months of frustration with our city government and obfuscation of 119 requests. For that matter, I look forward to the City Attorney investigating the violation of the Sunshine Law."
Seems like Putnam flies off the handle frequently and perhaps even dangerously.
I am still waiting to see Putnam’s fury over Kiesters Sunshine violations. John, where is your outrage at this public official who broke the law? I thought you were a man of principles and scruples.
I see nothing wrong with either of those emails. They are well written even.
In regard to "dangerous", I submit that people who write hate mail under an (many) anonymous name are dangerous. Everybody knows where to find me now don't they Ray.
My idea of "dangerous" would be you son. I think that you should worry about your son more and spend less time on the net.
Oh....and be sure to check the LTEs on Wednesday. Take your valium first.
John. frankly you have gone too far. I am not Ray Beaufort, therefore you owe Mr. Beaufort and his lovely wife and very sincere apology. You are so reckless in your assumptions that you have lost your commonsense and I question whether you know right from wrong.
I use an alias because of people like you! Thank God you are the minority and there are very few individuals like you left on this island!
You attack people with wild abandon and when they respond in kind you you can't handle it. John, I have no fear of you, none at all, but I fear for my business and my family. Mr. Beaufort is an example of how ruthless and inappropriate you can be. If you were actually on the island I would offer to meet you in person but I don't suspect that would be anymore productive than these blogs.
It just occurred to me...why do you "fear for (your)business and (your)family"? I thought that I was the only nut out there. Do you mean to tell me that there might be others on the Island that might disagree with you? NO! Impossible. You are "Soloman"!
Wow! This must be a new record for the number of responses to a simple comment. Maybe you guys need a good hurricane to distract you! Just kidding, but you turkeys amaze me with your stupidity. You ignore the economic disaster that has hit Marco and the rest of our country. You ignore Marco's runaway expenditures. You ignore the destruction being done to the last man-made paradise that will ever be allowed to be built in the United States. You ignore what you have and devote thousands of words to whether John Putnam did or did not apologize to Terri DiSciullo and to whether Chuck Kiester purposely destroyed public records residing on his computer.
You idiots! Terri was the first councilor to listen to me. She tried hard to do what she thought best for Marco. We parted company on several occasions when others "got to her" with their lies. And I blastered her more than once in e-mails ... after which I apologized ... not for what I said (which was no more than the truth) but for my anger which led me to use the words I used.
If "apology" means that I admitted I was wrong on the facts, I did NOT apologize and would, as John did, say I did not apologize. If "apology" means I wish I hadn't used the words I used, I did apologize. Can't any of you idiots see the difference?
Did Representative Wilson (if I have his name correct) "apologize" for calling Obama a liar in Congress (a fact) or did he "apologize" for losing his cool when he shouldn't have?
As for your tiresome tirades about Kiester's deleting information from his computer, do you not remember that Terri and E. Glenn Tucker publically admitted to doing the same thing? Were they brought in front of a judge by Sal Sciarrino who was so nervous about his accusation he had to be supported on both sides by John Arceri and Monte Lazarus? If the others weren't accused of the same thing after admitting to having done so, why weren't they? If you can't figure that out, you truly are idiots! This was a politically driven Kiester witch-hunt and those who perpetrated it should be ashamed of themselves. EVERYONE deletes information from his private computer. Did Terri or Tucker turn their computers in to the Sherriff? NO! Did Kiester offer his to the Sherriff? YES! And what incriminating evidence was found? NONE! After hiring an expert to piece together the deleted e-mails, they found dinner invitations, personal letters, etc. and nothing that pertained to City business that wasn't already on the City Server. Sciarrino, Arceri, Lazarus and the rest of the syndicate know that, but they whip blathering idiots like Issler into beating this dead horse!
It amazes me how caught up people can get in worthless bickering. Ed, you are correct...idiots, me included but please indulge me one last thought!!
I know you to be a very intelligent man and am somewhat curious as to why you are the only one on this blog who offers support towards jwputnam; he is a certified sociopath. The rest of the bloggers should be smart enough to not engage with this childish individual; it's just so easy to get consumed by it.
Interestingly, Webster's Ninth does not define "sociopath" other than to say that it is a relatively new (circa 1944) equivalent to "psychopath." A "psychopathic personality" (circa 1923) is defined as: "an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by clear perception of reality except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by the pursuit of immediate personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction or sexual perversion."
The John Putnam I know doesn't fit the definition except for having a "clear perception of reality." I agree he is a passionate man ... I suffer from the same affliction if it is to be called one ... and our passions may lead us to speak out forcefully when a "correct perception of reality" conflicts with the blather, lies and disiinformation we are fed daily by our political leaders - local and national - and by their sycophants. He certainly does not pursue "immediate personal gratification in criminal acts" and has never performed one in his life to my knowledge. Nor do I know of any "drug addiction" or "sexual perversion" which is more than I can say for many of our leaders (local and national) who are eulogized after their deaths.
I met John at a gathering held in the Marco Community Bank meeting room to hear a presentation on the state of septic systems on Marco Island. I contended that septic systems were not the source of pollution on the island; John opposed me because he had given up on supporting "lost causes." Eventually, he changed his mind and we soon became friends. He gave me a book - "Boyd" by Robert Coram - that seriously affected my life and encouraged me to continue when it seemed I was pursuing a lost cause. I commend it to you. I also commend "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Both demonstrate that a single man of passion and ability can cut through the layers of pious piffle and insidious disinformation that we are daily being drowned in and restore sanity to our world. Do not misinterpret Rand's hero's vow: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man or ask another man to live for the sake of mine" as the statement of an anti-social sociopath. This was the principle on which our country was founded and that made our country great. If agreeing with it makes one a "certified sociopath," I will be proud to list myself as one.
Be careful. This is libel and you are lucky that I am going to ignore it.....however, if you wish to continue on this, go ahead and make another such comment.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 61
Soloman writes:
No John, this is pathetic...
John Putnam has a long list of inappropriate emails and apologies...check out this one.
Putnam writes: "The only problem with this man’s idea is that the City Attorney is one of the biggest crooks in the bunch! (right behind Harrison)." John
Check out this wonderful, heartfelt apology for the statement above which he cc'd to a long list of recipients who I have deleted for their privacy (didn't hide the councilors names as this is public).
From: John Putnam [mailto:jwputnam@]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:54 AM
To: John Arceri; Ted Forcht; Chuck Kiester; Mike Minozzi; Bill Moss; Rob Popoff; Bill Trotter; Glen Tucker; Terri DiSciullo
Cc: CAVE DWELLERS
Subject:
"I must apologize for that last comment. That was over the top and uncalled for. I do not believe that either the City Attorney or Mr. Harrison is a crook. It was an impassioned (frankly, irresponsible) remark, bought forth by many months of frustration with our city government and obfuscation of 119 requests. For that matter, I look forward to the City Attorney investigating the violation of the Sunshine Law."
Seems like Putnam flies off the handle frequently and perhaps even dangerously.
I am still waiting to see Putnam’s fury over Kiesters Sunshine violations. John, where is your outrage at this public official who broke the law? I thought you were a man of principles and scruples.
You have no credibility in this community!!
jwputnam writes:
Ray,
I see nothing wrong with either of those emails. They are well written even.
In regard to "dangerous", I submit that people who write hate mail under an (many) anonymous name are dangerous. Everybody knows where to find me now don't they Ray.
My idea of "dangerous" would be you son. I think that you should worry about your son more and spend less time on the net.
Oh....and be sure to check the LTEs on Wednesday. Take your valium first.
John
Soloman writes:
John. frankly you have gone too far. I am not Ray Beaufort, therefore you owe Mr. Beaufort and his lovely wife and very sincere apology. You are so reckless in your assumptions that you have lost your commonsense and I question whether you know right from wrong.
I use an alias because of people like you! Thank God you are the minority and there are very few individuals like you left on this island!
You attack people with wild abandon and when they respond in kind you you can't handle it. John, I have no fear of you, none at all, but I fear for my business and my family. Mr. Beaufort is an example of how ruthless and inappropriate you can be. If you were actually on the island I would offer to meet you in person but I don't suspect that would be anymore productive than these blogs.
You should be ashamed of yourself!!
jwputnam writes:
Feel free to give me a call anytime. You know my numbers. I will be back in November.
You seem to have blown a gasket! HAHAHAHA You amuse me to no end Ray. I have witnessed your temper first hand as you might recall.
LAST WORD!!! LAST WORD!!! nah nah na nah nah!
hahahahahaha
jwputnam writes:
It just occurred to me...why do you "fear for (your)business and (your)family"? I thought that I was the only nut out there. Do you mean to tell me that there might be others on the Island that might disagree with you? NO! Impossible. You are "Soloman"!
Semper_Fidelis writes:
Wow, jwputnam is coo coo for coconuts...
EdFoster writes:
Wow! This must be a new record for the number of responses to a simple comment. Maybe you guys need a good hurricane to distract you! Just kidding, but you turkeys amaze me with your stupidity. You ignore the economic disaster that has hit Marco and the rest of our country. You ignore Marco's runaway expenditures. You ignore the destruction being done to the last man-made paradise that will ever be allowed to be built in the United States. You ignore what you have and devote thousands of words to whether John Putnam did or did not apologize to Terri DiSciullo and to whether Chuck Kiester purposely destroyed public records residing on his computer.
You idiots! Terri was the first councilor to listen to me. She tried hard to do what she thought best for Marco. We parted company on several occasions when others "got to her" with their lies. And I blastered her more than once in e-mails ... after which I apologized ... not for what I said (which was no more than the truth) but for my anger which led me to use the words I used.
If "apology" means that I admitted I was wrong on the facts, I did NOT apologize and would, as John did, say I did not apologize. If "apology" means I wish I hadn't used the words I used, I did apologize. Can't any of you idiots see the difference?
Did Representative Wilson (if I have his name correct) "apologize" for calling Obama a liar in Congress (a fact) or did he "apologize" for losing his cool when he shouldn't have?
As for your tiresome tirades about Kiester's deleting information from his computer, do you not remember that Terri and E. Glenn Tucker publically admitted to doing the same thing? Were they brought in front of a judge by Sal Sciarrino who was so nervous about his accusation he had to be supported on both sides by John Arceri and Monte Lazarus? If the others weren't accused of the same thing after admitting to having done so, why weren't they? If you can't figure that out, you truly are idiots! This was a politically driven Kiester witch-hunt and those who perpetrated it should be ashamed of themselves. EVERYONE deletes information from his private computer. Did Terri or Tucker turn their computers in to the Sherriff? NO! Did Kiester offer his to the Sherriff? YES! And what incriminating evidence was found? NONE! After hiring an expert to piece together the deleted e-mails, they found dinner invitations, personal letters, etc. and nothing that pertained to City business that wasn't already on the City Server. Sciarrino, Arceri, Lazarus and the rest of the syndicate know that, but they whip blathering idiots like Issler into beating this dead horse!
I loved Marco but I'm glad to be out of there!
Ed Foster
Former Marco Resident
ejburger writes:
It amazes me how caught up people can get in worthless bickering. Ed, you are correct...idiots, me included but please indulge me one last thought!!
I know you to be a very intelligent man and am somewhat curious as to why you are the only one on this blog who offers support towards jwputnam; he is a certified sociopath. The rest of the bloggers should be smart enough to not engage with this childish individual; it's just so easy to get consumed by it.
Sailor writes:
jwputnam writes: "LAST WORD!!! LAST WORD!!! nah nah na nah nah!
hahahahahaha"
Very mature John, how old are you?
EdFoster writes:
Mr. Burger,
Interestingly, Webster's Ninth does not define "sociopath" other than to say that it is a relatively new (circa 1944) equivalent to "psychopath." A "psychopathic personality" (circa 1923) is defined as: "an emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by clear perception of reality except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by the pursuit of immediate personal gratification in criminal acts, drug addiction or sexual perversion."
The John Putnam I know doesn't fit the definition except for having a "clear perception of reality." I agree he is a passionate man ... I suffer from the same affliction if it is to be called one ... and our passions may lead us to speak out forcefully when a "correct perception of reality" conflicts with the blather, lies and disiinformation we are fed daily by our political leaders - local and national - and by their sycophants. He certainly does not pursue "immediate personal gratification in criminal acts" and has never performed one in his life to my knowledge. Nor do I know of any "drug addiction" or "sexual perversion" which is more than I can say for many of our leaders (local and national) who are eulogized after their deaths.
I met John at a gathering held in the Marco Community Bank meeting room to hear a presentation on the state of septic systems on Marco Island. I contended that septic systems were not the source of pollution on the island; John opposed me because he had given up on supporting "lost causes." Eventually, he changed his mind and we soon became friends. He gave me a book - "Boyd" by Robert Coram - that seriously affected my life and encouraged me to continue when it seemed I was pursuing a lost cause. I commend it to you. I also commend "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Both demonstrate that a single man of passion and ability can cut through the layers of pious piffle and insidious disinformation that we are daily being drowned in and restore sanity to our world. Do not misinterpret Rand's hero's vow: "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man or ask another man to live for the sake of mine" as the statement of an anti-social sociopath. This was the principle on which our country was founded and that made our country great. If agreeing with it makes one a "certified sociopath," I will be proud to list myself as one.
Ed Foster
jwputnam writes:
"he is a certified sociopath."
Be careful. This is libel and you are lucky that I am going to ignore it.....however, if you wish to continue on this, go ahead and make another such comment.
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.