Glenn Cashuric wrote:

---

Mrs. Gatelli is making a big mistake here. I realize that she was backed into a corner, but she should have done SOMETHING to defuse this situation earlier. That is her responsibility as an elected official.

I have been telling the DDsfor two years that some of their comments skirted close to the edge.However, I'm not sure that "actual malice" has been demonstrated here. If Mrs. Gatelli ends up suing twenty or thirty taxpayers on the basis of a few nasty comments on the internet, she is putting her political career (and public persona) in jeopardy.

This did not have to happen.

GC

---

Glen I have to respectively agree and disagree with you.

I agree that Mrs. Gatelli may actually be harmed in the short run by this move but isnt that usually the way when someone stands up and says NO MORE?Usually the person who takes that bold move suffers for a time. However, they blaze the trail for the others who will come later and eventually history remembers them fondly.

I disagree that she could have diffused this in any effective way.That would only have been possible if the people who are orchestrating this assault were actually reasonable, albeit angry, people. However they are not reasonable, in fact, they far from anything resembling reasonable. Their goal is not to implement change, which is a noble endeavor, but instead to assert total control over the public domain to ensure that their agendas are enacted, regardless of the will of the majority of the public. Please let me give you two examples.

1. Most of the loons over there are still fighting the battle over the recover plan. Despite (at their request mind you) having this issue put to a vote on a referenda and losing the vote overwhelmingly by a 2-1 margin they refused to acquiesce to the will of the voting majority.They have instead embarked on a constant barrage of complaints and criticisms with the ultimate goal of reversing the recovery plan. Mrs. Gatellis only crime was having the nerve to support a Mayor they have decided must be destroyed politically and based on some of their postings ( i.e. comments about his wife, children, and marriage) personally as well.

2. The second group of loons is the gang of groupies that have followed Little Miss Sunshine around since her SSD Director days.(I think foam-at-the-mouth Fay is the president of that club).Their only agenda is making sure Jan is worshipped and obeyed.So basically anything she wants done shall be done or else!

So you have two groups who were just railing against all and anything without any real organization until Joey appeared on the horizon.He gave them a banner to rally around and a platform to spew on, in the form of his website.Unfortunately he did not, himself, have any real issue.Refused an allowance to build a handicap ramp?Please!! When exactly has Joey ever taken no for an answer?You dont believe if he really wanted to build that ramp he wouldnt have gone ahead and built it anyway, then fought the good fight to keep it afterwards.I think he, maybe, was secretly glad he got the no as it seems he didnt want the ramp in the first place.However, that wouldnt be a good thing to let on the wife would it?I think what we had here was a person who had an axe to grind as a disgruntled DPW worker.This silly event was just a ruse to give him a platform to wage the battle he clearly wanted to wage all along.It also, I suspect, covered his butt with the missus as to his real thoughts about the father-in-law moving in to his home.I have no idea how Mrs. Gatelli could have diffused this group since they are less than honest about their true agendas.

As to the merits of the lawsuit, I believe it is high time that this issue be debated, as it should, be in the courtroom.I think it is time to decide what free speech is, as defined in the constitution, and how it relates to public officials, as opposed to what is simply an assault on a personal level.I have to disagree with you about DDs comments not being malicious, throwing out accusations about a persons sexuality, (Mellow and Harhut) about their fidelity in their marriage (Doherty) about a childs paternity (Mrs. Gatellis grandchild) seems pretty malicious to me. It also seems to be irrelevant to the persons job as a public official.Now that I have worn out your eyeballs reading this lol lol lolWhat do you think?

I appreciate the ability to have useful and interesting debates with everyone.Thanks Lus for this format.

Agreed.This is a watershed event for them both as you have stated.

GC

I also want to say I sincerely appreciate your views, Glen, and I look forward to many more discussions in the future.