Reply to a comment

"Mr. Sacher admits that he was never involved in the purchase process, had never spoken to anyone who was involved and is second guessing what was done. Despite this he continues to condemn what was done and offers no specific alternative as to what he would have done different. This is the essence of negativism."

Interesting, the progression started with LTE's with the theme of misinformation to now negativism.

Let me add a thought on the essence of negativism. Based on your definition, all voters who cast a NO vote on a referendum for a 24hr health clinic is expressing negativism.

Given your attributes of negativism:

1. Process involvement: voters were not involved in the creation of a subsidy or involved in the process
2. Direct communication: voters did not speak to author (i.e. Mr Magel) when he proposed and crafted such a resolution
3. Second guessing/lack of alternative: voters did not offer any alternatives or options but to vote Yes or No.

Mr. Arceri (and I suspect Mr. Magel since the themes are closely matched) are doing a major disservice to this community by debating major issues on a theme of misinformation and negativism.

Well I am simply in awe. Truly in awe! To engage in a debate based on such themes is problematic, because it reveals a sense of arrogance. Why? Because it appears, if it is not their idea or if you may have an opposing view or perspective, or not directly involved, you are deemed misinformed and now negative or the term Mr. Magel loves to use naysayers!

Folks pay attention, those who calls you misinformed or a naysayer are now attempting to dupe the citizens into selling you on the "fact" as they present them.

Consider, the comment made in Mr. Arceri's earlier LTE that other municipal "buyers" would have purchased the water plant and created a cash cow for themselves at our expense.

Well I say that is quite a scenario that he presented given he was directly involved in the process, and the purveyor of "facts"; giving the illusion that the purchase by outside municipalities was a forlorn conclusion if no action was taken. Was Mr. Arceri, in fact, second guessing? If so, only those in the discussions can comment or second guess, or is it a fact as presented in the Mr. Arceri's earlier LTE?

I believe it was just another scenario in an effort raise fear then to now denigrating citizens with opposing views, as misinformed! With the intent to stifle?

Fear mongering has got to come to an end on this island especially as it applies to establishing and pushing through an agenda wrapped in "facts" as presented by Mr. Arceri et al. To now those running for a council seat, who question the wisdom, are negativists ( or naysayers).

My term for Mr. Arceri et. al. - MISGUIDED.