Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

u2cane writes:

Believe or know? According to Webster's those are two very different words. And I don't care if she is a board member or not, doesn't mean she is squeaky clean either? Doesn't mean that she has alterior motives. I still feel that certain things should be kept private, especially personal information (like home addresses and such) of employees. Now if that person was convicted of something in the past, now that is different. But personal information that can lead to stalking or possibly open someone up to an attack, nobody needs that info.
Still, I have to ask why the reporter would only print half a quote? and why they would suck you in with that headline to lead you in one direction. Shame on you Kelly for slanting your story and not printing everything relative to the case, only what she wanted to slant the story in a negative direction. Why do that? Negativity unfortunately sells in our society. Says something about the state of our current society also. Do you think the Romans saw the fall of Rome? If they knew that their society was in decline and could have done something about it, would they have? So what are we going to do? Learn from the past or repeat it?

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.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features