Is Someone Lying Here?
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Geo
Mar 4, 2009, 6:08:30 PM3/4/09
to HarmonyFL
On 1/14/2009 David Leeman wrote ( http://tinyurl.com/cz9vp3 ):
"I say you lie."
What follows is a proof that David's claim is false and therefore I
did not lie.
The context of David's claim is the following statement from me:
"There has been talk between David Leeman, Kerul Kassel, Nancy Snyder,
myself and others that perhaps we should trust the developer to
control the membership of the new gardens amenity. Perhaps we should
let Bob Evans decide who has a right to plant a garden in Harmony and
who does not. It has been suggested that this might be an option so
that Bob Evans can put limits on who can access the gardens."
David also wrote:
"This statement is completely false."
He also added:
"I spoke with all the officers of the garden club. They all agree.
There has never been "talk" of letting the developer control the
membership. There was a discussion of the developer choosing the
site, but never a discussion of the developer controlling the
membership. George, you made this up to suit your own purposes."
While I can't know who Dave spoke to (although it's a joke for him to
imply some significance to the fact that he may have spoken to ALL of
the garden club officers since there are only 3, including himself and
his wife Kerul), I can produce documentation proving that Bob Evans
did indeed suggest that he should have control over the garden club
membership.
This fact appears in official garden club meeting minutes. The only
detail in which I was error was that David did not attend the specific
meeting that was documented. I thought that Dave was in attendance
during some meeting when this topic was discussed, but I could be
mistaken on this point, as I wrote previously.
Thus, unless David is referring specifically to my mistaken impression
that he was in attendance at the documented garden meeting, his claim
that I lied is false.
Dave's claim that "This statement is completely false." is also false.
Dave's claim that "[There was] never a discussion of the developer
controlling the membership" is also false.
David's claim that "George, you made this up to suit your own
purposes." is also false.
Thus we have 4 claims made by David Leeman in rapid fire succession
that are all false.
Therefore I did not lie.
QED.
PS. Rather than conclude that David is a liar, I will assume that he
misread or misunderstood the significance of Bob Evans' statement:
"the garden should not be on CDD property, mainly because we can not
exclude anyone from the garden"
It was obvious to me that Bob Evans meant that by having the gardens
on developer property some residents COULD be excluded (in other
words, the developer would have the power to exclude some residents
from the gardens while the CDD would not have that power).
This means that the developer would control the membership of the
community gardens if they were implemented on developer property.
Note: the term "we" in Bob Evans' statement meant "we the CDD" not "we
the developer" since he was speaking in his capacity as the chairman
of the CDD, not in his capacity as consultant to the developer.
"I say you lie."
What follows is a proof that David's claim is false and therefore I
did not lie.
The context of David's claim is the following statement from me:
"There has been talk between David Leeman, Kerul Kassel, Nancy Snyder,
myself and others that perhaps we should trust the developer to
control the membership of the new gardens amenity. Perhaps we should
let Bob Evans decide who has a right to plant a garden in Harmony and
who does not. It has been suggested that this might be an option so
that Bob Evans can put limits on who can access the gardens."
David also wrote:
"This statement is completely false."
He also added:
"I spoke with all the officers of the garden club. They all agree.
There has never been "talk" of letting the developer control the
membership. There was a discussion of the developer choosing the
site, but never a discussion of the developer controlling the
membership. George, you made this up to suit your own purposes."
While I can't know who Dave spoke to (although it's a joke for him to
imply some significance to the fact that he may have spoken to ALL of
the garden club officers since there are only 3, including himself and
his wife Kerul), I can produce documentation proving that Bob Evans
did indeed suggest that he should have control over the garden club
membership.
This fact appears in official garden club meeting minutes. The only
detail in which I was error was that David did not attend the specific
meeting that was documented. I thought that Dave was in attendance
during some meeting when this topic was discussed, but I could be
mistaken on this point, as I wrote previously.
Thus, unless David is referring specifically to my mistaken impression
that he was in attendance at the documented garden meeting, his claim
that I lied is false.
Dave's claim that "This statement is completely false." is also false.
Dave's claim that "[There was] never a discussion of the developer
controlling the membership" is also false.
David's claim that "George, you made this up to suit your own
purposes." is also false.
Thus we have 4 claims made by David Leeman in rapid fire succession
that are all false.
Therefore I did not lie.
QED.
PS. Rather than conclude that David is a liar, I will assume that he
misread or misunderstood the significance of Bob Evans' statement:
"the garden should not be on CDD property, mainly because we can not
exclude anyone from the garden"
It was obvious to me that Bob Evans meant that by having the gardens
on developer property some residents COULD be excluded (in other
words, the developer would have the power to exclude some residents
from the gardens while the CDD would not have that power).
This means that the developer would control the membership of the
community gardens if they were implemented on developer property.
Note: the term "we" in Bob Evans' statement meant "we the CDD" not "we
the developer" since he was speaking in his capacity as the chairman
of the CDD, not in his capacity as consultant to the developer.
Dave Leeman
Mar 4, 2009, 10:14:53 PM3/4/09
to HarmonyFL
Well, George maybe you were mistaken, and maybe not. But this post is
"incorrect" in several ways.
Before we get to those issues, my main complaint was, indeed, that you
put my name on a list of names that you supposedly "discussed the
garden membership" with. If you now say you were only mistaken and
admit that you and I never had that conversation, I will withdraw my
statement that you lied, but I will not apologize. It seemed like you
were bolstering your story of defending the resident gardeners by
falsely adding my name to the list.
Now, to the rest of your post.
Your statement that: "The only detail in which I was (in) error was
Your words:
Maxim. So even if you aren't lying, your statement is incorrect.
Also, it's not a "joke" that I personally spoke to each one of them
(OK, one of them IS my wife) and asked specifically about this
subject. They all denied any such conversation. What was I supposed
to believe? Three people, 2 of whom can be termed "neutral" (as in
not my immediate family) all said it didn't happen.
Your words:
1. It is not I, but you, George who mistakes the meaning of Mr
Evans' statement. (whether deliberately ot not is questionable). The
ostensible reason for the garden not being on CDD property is because
the CDD (supposedly) could not exclude NON Residents, while if the
garden is on developer land, NON residents can be excluded. (This is
the reason the lakes are developer owned instead of CDD owned, because
then the lakes would be open to all the public, not just residents.)
It was obvious to me, (and everyone I've discussed this with) that the
developer never wanted to exclude residents from the garden, only NON
residents. Do you really believe that Mr Evans, or anyone else, would
say we want the garden on developer land so we can exclude RESIDENTS?
2. Everyone (I guess everyone except you George) knew all along that
this was a smoke screen from Mr Evans to prevent, or at least delay
the garden from happening on CDD property. I won't get into why the
developer feels that way, as it would be speculation on my part.
So, to put this in your post as evidence of you defending resident
gardeners from being excluded from the garden was less than
convincing.
You were wrong about the number of officers in the garden club.
You wrong to imply that, because two of the officers are me and my
wife, the info I obtained is somehow suspect. (you said a joke)
You were wrong in two ways about Mr Evans statement.
I was right that no conversations with me took place.
I was right that no conversations about the developer excluding
residents took place. (Only non residents)
Even though my wife is an officer, I was honest about seeking council
from the others and simply reported their answers.
So, If you reply to this post that you were mistaken about having
conversations with me about residents being excluded, that you were
mistaken about the number of officers in the garden club, and also
that you were mistaken about the real meaning of Mr Evans' statement,
I will certainly withdraw my claim that you were lying, although I
will not apologize, since I can surely be forgiven for thinking that
you couldn't possibly make so many mistakes at one time, and I spoke
to two people who are not my wife and are generally reliable who
denied your claim.
(You should apologize for the crack about it being a joke, but I won't
hold you to that.)
"incorrect" in several ways.
Before we get to those issues, my main complaint was, indeed, that you
put my name on a list of names that you supposedly "discussed the
garden membership" with. If you now say you were only mistaken and
admit that you and I never had that conversation, I will withdraw my
statement that you lied, but I will not apologize. It seemed like you
were bolstering your story of defending the resident gardeners by
falsely adding my name to the list.
Now, to the rest of your post.
Your statement that: "The only detail in which I was (in) error was
that David did not attend the specific meeting that was documented".
Is "Incorrect."
Your words:
While I can't know who Dave spoke to (although it's a joke for him to
imply some significance to the fact that he may have spoken to ALL of
the garden club officers since there are only 3, including himself
and
his wife Kerul)
George, there are 4 officers. Kerul, me, Pam Lemenager, and Beth
imply some significance to the fact that he may have spoken to ALL of
the garden club officers since there are only 3, including himself
and
his wife Kerul)
Maxim. So even if you aren't lying, your statement is incorrect.
Also, it's not a "joke" that I personally spoke to each one of them
(OK, one of them IS my wife) and asked specifically about this
subject. They all denied any such conversation. What was I supposed
to believe? Three people, 2 of whom can be termed "neutral" (as in
not my immediate family) all said it didn't happen.
Your words:
Rather than conclude that David is a liar, I will assume that he
misread or misunderstood the significance of Bob Evans' statement:
"the garden should not be on CDD property, mainly because we can not
exclude anyone from the garden"
It was obvious to me that Bob Evans meant that by having the gardens
on developer property some residents COULD be excluded (in other
words, the developer would have the power to exclude some residents
from the gardens while the CDD would not have that power).
This is specious at best, for two reasons.
misread or misunderstood the significance of Bob Evans' statement:
"the garden should not be on CDD property, mainly because we can not
exclude anyone from the garden"
It was obvious to me that Bob Evans meant that by having the gardens
on developer property some residents COULD be excluded (in other
words, the developer would have the power to exclude some residents
from the gardens while the CDD would not have that power).
1. It is not I, but you, George who mistakes the meaning of Mr
Evans' statement. (whether deliberately ot not is questionable). The
ostensible reason for the garden not being on CDD property is because
the CDD (supposedly) could not exclude NON Residents, while if the
garden is on developer land, NON residents can be excluded. (This is
the reason the lakes are developer owned instead of CDD owned, because
then the lakes would be open to all the public, not just residents.)
It was obvious to me, (and everyone I've discussed this with) that the
developer never wanted to exclude residents from the garden, only NON
residents. Do you really believe that Mr Evans, or anyone else, would
say we want the garden on developer land so we can exclude RESIDENTS?
2. Everyone (I guess everyone except you George) knew all along that
this was a smoke screen from Mr Evans to prevent, or at least delay
the garden from happening on CDD property. I won't get into why the
developer feels that way, as it would be speculation on my part.
So, to put this in your post as evidence of you defending resident
gardeners from being excluded from the garden was less than
convincing.
You were wrong about the number of officers in the garden club.
You wrong to imply that, because two of the officers are me and my
wife, the info I obtained is somehow suspect. (you said a joke)
You were wrong in two ways about Mr Evans statement.
I was right that no conversations with me took place.
I was right that no conversations about the developer excluding
residents took place. (Only non residents)
Even though my wife is an officer, I was honest about seeking council
from the others and simply reported their answers.
So, If you reply to this post that you were mistaken about having
conversations with me about residents being excluded, that you were
mistaken about the number of officers in the garden club, and also
that you were mistaken about the real meaning of Mr Evans' statement,
I will certainly withdraw my claim that you were lying, although I
will not apologize, since I can surely be forgiven for thinking that
you couldn't possibly make so many mistakes at one time, and I spoke
to two people who are not my wife and are generally reliable who
denied your claim.
(You should apologize for the crack about it being a joke, but I won't
hold you to that.)
Geo
Mar 5, 2009, 7:34:03 PM3/5/09
to HarmonyFL
I can't help but think of my favorite line from "Michael" (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aK0IU1uK-o ):
"Are you impaired in some way that I haven't noticed Miss?"
Dave, time and again you seem to miss the big picture in these
discussions. While you nit-pick at the minutia you fail to grasp the
major implications. I find it increasingly hard to believe that you
really just don't get it.
Let's see if we can avoid the silly distractions for one moment and
focus only on the hard facts, shall we?
This is from the Harmony CDD August 28, 2008 Meeting Minutes, Page 24
( http://tinyurl.com/buovke ):
"Mr. Evans stated having been involved in one of these before,
managing and monitoring a community garden is very difficult. ... At
the same time, you exclude that piece of property for a select number
of residents to be able to use it ... I think we run into problems
with exclusivity. I think it is an excellent idea but we probably
should consider having the developer put it on developer-owned
property and then they can implement a utilization policy."
This shows the true intentions of Bob Evans. Do you understand the
words "for a select number of residents" Dave? Do you understand the
term "utilization policy"? Bob Evans said nothing about non-residents
gardening in Harmony. Folks from Holopaw have plenty of garden space.
They don't need to trek several miles just to till soil in Harmony.
Doesn't that make sense Dave?
The concern of Bob Evans is about how some residents can be excluded
from the gardens, not necessarily right away but eventually, should
the available space run out. The CDD can't exclude anyone, but the
developer can. That's the point. But even if the issue was non-
residents (which it isn't and it never was), putting Bob Evans in
control of the membership opens the possibility that Bob Evans can
decide which residents can or cannot utilize the community gardens.
Can't you see this Dave? Or are you really so trusting of Bob Evans?
Are you willing to give him more power over us?
I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand all of this
Dave. Your wife understands it. Didn't she explain it to you?
"Ms. Kassel stated when we discussed the site that Mr. Golgowski
brought up, we looked at it and looked at the number of people
[residents only] who expressed interest. There is no where near the
interest as there is the space. For a long time, a space like that
will not have a problem with exclusivity."
So let's keep our eyes on the ball Dave. The point is not who I
discussed this critical issue with, whether it was you, your wife or
anyone else. The point is that Bob Evans would control the membership
of the community gardens if the gardens are not on CDD property.
Also, it's not about how many community gardens officers there are.
Oops! Did I say 3? Since when is the secretary who keeps the meeting
minutes considered an "officer"? Anyway, I concede another decisive
victory to you Dave! You proved me wrong again. Only half of the
community gardens officers are members of your family. Your
credibility is restored! LOL
Do you finally understand the real issue here David? Let me spell it
out for you one last time.
I do not lie. The possibility that the developer might control the
membership of the community gardens WAS discussed. It was discussed
during at least one community gardens meeting and it was discussed
during at least one CDD meeting. These discussions were documented in
writing after the meetings.
All that said (and just in case you are still missing the biggest
picture of all) the bottom line is this: we don't want Bob Evans
controlling access to the Harmony Community Gardens like he does for
the Harmony Horse Amenity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aK0IU1uK-o ):
"Are you impaired in some way that I haven't noticed Miss?"
Dave, time and again you seem to miss the big picture in these
discussions. While you nit-pick at the minutia you fail to grasp the
major implications. I find it increasingly hard to believe that you
really just don't get it.
Let's see if we can avoid the silly distractions for one moment and
focus only on the hard facts, shall we?
This is from the Harmony CDD August 28, 2008 Meeting Minutes, Page 24
( http://tinyurl.com/buovke ):
"Mr. Evans stated having been involved in one of these before,
managing and monitoring a community garden is very difficult. ... At
the same time, you exclude that piece of property for a select number
of residents to be able to use it ... I think we run into problems
with exclusivity. I think it is an excellent idea but we probably
should consider having the developer put it on developer-owned
property and then they can implement a utilization policy."
This shows the true intentions of Bob Evans. Do you understand the
words "for a select number of residents" Dave? Do you understand the
term "utilization policy"? Bob Evans said nothing about non-residents
gardening in Harmony. Folks from Holopaw have plenty of garden space.
They don't need to trek several miles just to till soil in Harmony.
Doesn't that make sense Dave?
The concern of Bob Evans is about how some residents can be excluded
from the gardens, not necessarily right away but eventually, should
the available space run out. The CDD can't exclude anyone, but the
developer can. That's the point. But even if the issue was non-
residents (which it isn't and it never was), putting Bob Evans in
control of the membership opens the possibility that Bob Evans can
decide which residents can or cannot utilize the community gardens.
Can't you see this Dave? Or are you really so trusting of Bob Evans?
Are you willing to give him more power over us?
I find it hard to believe that you really don't understand all of this
Dave. Your wife understands it. Didn't she explain it to you?
"Ms. Kassel stated when we discussed the site that Mr. Golgowski
brought up, we looked at it and looked at the number of people
[residents only] who expressed interest. There is no where near the
interest as there is the space. For a long time, a space like that
will not have a problem with exclusivity."
So let's keep our eyes on the ball Dave. The point is not who I
discussed this critical issue with, whether it was you, your wife or
anyone else. The point is that Bob Evans would control the membership
of the community gardens if the gardens are not on CDD property.
Also, it's not about how many community gardens officers there are.
Oops! Did I say 3? Since when is the secretary who keeps the meeting
minutes considered an "officer"? Anyway, I concede another decisive
victory to you Dave! You proved me wrong again. Only half of the
community gardens officers are members of your family. Your
credibility is restored! LOL
Do you finally understand the real issue here David? Let me spell it
out for you one last time.
I do not lie. The possibility that the developer might control the
membership of the community gardens WAS discussed. It was discussed
during at least one community gardens meeting and it was discussed
during at least one CDD meeting. These discussions were documented in
writing after the meetings.
All that said (and just in case you are still missing the biggest
picture of all) the bottom line is this: we don't want Bob Evans
controlling access to the Harmony Community Gardens like he does for
the Harmony Horse Amenity.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages