Fay goes to the meetings for one purpose and that only purpose is to ANNOY Mrs. Gatelli, and the bequest of the head honcho Miss Jan

If Janet Evans stops short, Fay's head is going to go square up janet's ass and she'll need a freaking winch to get the bastard out. Ugh, the two of them sicken me.

Art Gordon wrote:

---

This was coming, we all knew it. Thanks Joe.

Mrs. Gatelli should have her defense paid for - the real criminal is the guy pretending to be on the side of the taxpayer.

A-hole!

City will pay to defend Gatelli

The city is picking up the tab through its liability insurance carrier to defend City Council President Judy Gatelli from a $1 million defamation lawsuit.

---

Art...I'm asking for your help here. Youv'e got to help me understand how Joe is the bad guy in this one? Judy Gatelli went to the print media, and the local news stations, and made claims of her and herfamilybeing stalked, harrassed, receiving threatining e-mails, and phone messages, damage to her property, and yet by her own admission, DID NOT file one police report, or make one phone call to the DA's office to report any of this supposed activity against her. I know I try and come off as a big tough guy, but when it comes to my family, if someone were leaving threatining phone messages, or stalking my family, you can bet your sweet a$$ I'd have the "Boys in Blue" on the case, and I would not rest until the sicko{s} were locked up!

What really puzzles me Art, is that you and others here are always screaming for "PROOF". Where is Ms. Gatelli's "PROOF" that any of this even happened to her, and that Joe Pilchesky, and Janet Evans, conspired to have these events happen to her, and yes, those words DID come out of her mouth, go back and check the Council tapes, and I believe one of ch. 16's broadcasts on this subject. That is why Joe filed his lawsuit, because Ms.Gatelli made unfounded, and yet unproven allegations against him, and all he, and others, like myself have asked from Ms. Gatelli, is where's your proof, where's your documentations that any of this bullsh!t even happened? The bottom line is...THERE IS NO "PROOF"...BECAUSE NONE OF IT EVER HAPPENED!!! It sure as hell doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out!!!

Let me ask you Art, and anyone else who would like to chime in, set aside all the name calling for a minute, because I, as well as others here, and there, are all guilty of that, whether it's me calling Ms. Gatelli an "Ursula" look a like, or you calling me a "pantload,"say I went to the paper,or the TV news, and said Art was threatining my family, and Art damaged my vehicle, and Art has been leaving threatining messages on my phone, and has also been stalking me in a threatining manner, I want him arrested, but yet, I haven't filed one police report, or have one solid piece of documentation to back up my claims, wouldn't you be just a little pissed Art, or anyone else, that I'm publicly screaming for your arrest{s}, and tarnishing your name{s}?!?!?!?!?!?

For you to start this thread, again, one word comes to mind...HYPOCRISY!!!...Jimbu15.

I'm sure this will come as no great surprise...but, Art, I have to respectfully disagree. If Ms. Gatelli has no proof, or documentation of these events happening, and it is my opinion she doesn't, she is the one who will be costing the taxpayers a cool million dollars, not Joe Pilchesky. All other lawsuits aside, if Ms. Gatelli were to publiclyaccuse me, Jim Burch, of doing these terrible things, and I KNOW that I didn't do it, I'd sue her a$$ to, and I would win. That's all Joe is doing, he's been publicly accused, he knows he didn't do any of it, and now he's fighting back, just as I, or anyone else would.

IMO, Judy Gatelli is the liar here, if you wanna be pissed at someone for costing the City possibly 1 million dollars, be pissed at her, and what will soon be proven in court, HER LIES!!!...Jimbu15.

I don't know Jim, I still blame Pilchesky.

He gets to host a site that allows everyone and anyone to say pretty much anything they want about her (and everyone else).

He instigated this. You and I might have responded differently (I know I would have), but we're not her. Remember, I'm still expecting proof from Mrs. Gatelli. Neither of us know if she felt threatened or was threatened beyond what is obvious on the message board. I have to think that she received some threats along the way, (I know I have) but she'll be required to put up or shut up.

Right or wrong, someone had to challenge Pilchesky. He shoots off at everything he dislikes or doesn't trust. As the dust begins to settle we see how little he's actually proved. Let's not get too hung up on Cordaro either. Bob made that one easy for Joe - he didn't have to prove anything that wasn't already on the record. Not real investigative reporting there, just the obvious.

Art...I understand your logic, I just don't agree with all of it. I would think that Gatelli and company could've picked a better battle than this one to go at Joe with. Afterall, if it turns out that Ms. Gatelli is lying, which IMO, I thinkshe is, think about what a "black-eye" that is going to give Scranton, on top of the financial loss of 1 million dollars. Joe Pilchesky has stated several times that he would go to jail before releasing ANY poster's names, that listincludes you Art. I know I wouldn't make a statement like that unless I knew I wasn't guilty of anything! I think Judy Gatelli, and some others, are in for a very rude awakening on this one, just my opinion though....Jimbu15.

Get yourself a drink and a comfy chair - this is a long one, but I would like to add my two cents, if I may.

I have been sauntering across the hall for quite some time. I will be honest and say I was being nosey about one particular tidbit I heard mentioned about the board and wanted to check it out for myself. This was at the beginning of the chumster era. What I could differentiate between the original message board and the chumster board was that there was a no-holds-barred attitude when posting on chumster. I particularly remember reading a post by one or the other administrator to the effect that he chose an overseas carrier, not only for the leniency but it would be more difficult for the authorities to catch up or shut him down. Do I have proof of this? No because the chumster board is no longer operable, but I know what I read.

Much information was lost when chumster shut down. Many negative posts disappeared from public view. Many threatening posts disappeared from public view. Can I prove this? No. But I know what I read. If anyone has a copy of any of the posts, it is the admin of dd.com. If I were the admin from dd, I might see the disappearance of the incriminating posts as a blessing - because proof of the incriminating posts can no longer be produced. Many people read those posts and may agree with me that they are accusatory, incriminating, vulgar and threatening - many may not. No, no one came out to say they had an uzi and had so-and-so in the cross hairs, but there were too many negative posts, too many derogatory posts, and too many posts that contained private information which is no ones business and certainly didnt need to be posted on a message board. Sure these people are public officials, but a line must be drawn in the sand somewhere as to what is acceptable and appropriate and what is not.

Along with some of the avatars and comments made in some of the posts, I as a private citizen, would see a threat in the fact that most of what has been posted is conjecture and opinion based on a miniscule portion of fact. taken individually theymean nothing, but put it all together and it does seem threatening. The fact that such unproven private information can be found on the internet for the world to see is a scary thing to me. Much of what IHave stated earlier went through my mind as well. The dd admin didn't like it when someone mentioned his child (for whatever reason) and wasn't there a school change for that very same reason? Do I have proof, no. Is it conjecture, maybe.

Before we point an accusatory finger at Judy, we truly do have to ask "What if it were me or my mother, sister, granny or auntie being spoken about in that manner?" Would I/we be scared - you bet.

I have posted this before and certain people have ridiculed me for it, but just imagine ten or fifteen years down the road when a 10-12 year old Junior McTiernan or a Junior Gatelli has to do a school project and types in the word Doherty or Gatelli or McTiernan and that message board is listed on page 4 of a google search with fifteen year old garbage about his granny or good old Uncle Mic. Will he read that Uncle Mic was not a good city council representative - hell no.

Sure, you think Judy is wrong and may be grasping at straws with the countersuit against the admin at dd for lack of actual proof, but what other recourse does she have? The dd admin feels that his speech is free speech - but it does not allow him to slander with rumor and innuendo - and just because you think it, does not make it reality or fact.

Glenn ... I know that you are more than likely trying to conserve space ... but I am respectfully requesting that you please use a font size a bit larger as I have problem reading your posts when such a small font is used ... I know that Ag also has bad eyes as he has expressed this to us before ... Thank you in advance should you choose to use a larger font.

Excellent post Glenn, however it just proves my point more. You use the pay raise as an example, that is a duty relevent issue. You would have to agree most of the stuff posted over there isn't relevent to the officials duties. In the case were it is, they approach it in the wrong way. Let me explain by way of an example below, I will be a voter and you will be the official with the pay raise.

So I say the raise was wrong, I write an letter to the editor, talk to my friends, call the public official, write it on a webpage, vote against you next time, maybe I even run against you on that issue. All good, all fine, all within the relm of normal. A public official should expect that and live with it.

Or

I say the raise is wrong, I write letters to your home vile and disgusting, I talk about you (he/she did so and so with you know who back in the you know when), I call you at home to harrass and upset you, I write rumor, inuendos, untraceable half-truths on a web page, I vote against you and run a vicious smear campaigne against you using your past, your families past, and your childrens past, to upset, embarress, intimidate you, I don't have the balls to announce who I am and I do not run against you thus allowing no scrutinity of myself. Not good, not fine, not within what is normal. No public official should be expected to live with it.

I agree sometimes it's best to let things run and say nothing, but...... by doing so you have some who say if you don't say anything it means you are guilty by your silence. Sheri has stated that, DD posters have said that, possibly it was stated today on talk radio show according to those that heard it (I didn't). You also run the risk it will hurt you, there are those who say the "swiftboat guys" are what cost Kerry his election because he did not respond well enough or fast enough to the comments. As to the officials you sited as an example, Munley and Rinaldi are virtually unknown to the general public, most voters couldn't tell you who they are, and less could tell you what they do, so how they would behave under attack is untested. Staback and Wansacz almost the same, most people don't know who their reps are and couldn't tell you which of those two are theirs, they may know the names but that's about it. You have to feel connected to someone, either for good or bad, to become passionate about them. I doubt these two had anywhere near the level or pure grossness of vitriol thrown at them, as had Mrs. Gatelli, or Miss Fanucci. Again their reaction to such attacks is unknown at this point. Now as to Mr. Doherty, he is indeed in the same boat as those two women, I agree he has held up well on a personal level but how much damage has been done to his professional career by these attacks and his reaction, which has been to ignore? Do we know yet? I don't think so. So the choice is, to engage and look foolish or to not engage and look guilty. Not much of a choice is it? So basically a small vocal majority could in the right circumstances, due to the unregulated nature of the internet sabotoge by paralysing the public official into virtually doing nothing controversial so as to not get anyone upset and on the "new" road to 'change".
Please tell me how this can possibly be what a democracy is meant to be? I believe if this is left to continue the very people who none of us would consider ever being near will be the only people who run for office, as they will be such total slimeballs already, what people think of them won't matter to them. Also since they only other people running will also be slimeballs it won't hurt them one bit, as we won't have any choices. We will just have the choice of which slimeball we want in office.


-- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 22:46, 2007-06-28

I second what Lus said IHave...very well put.

In the end what people write...and what they say...are mirrors for their character. Yes, reasonable people can question whether or not Joe Pilchesky's lawsuits do more harm than good (Art and Jimbu do that is this very thread), but NO ONE can deny that Pilchesky ALLOWS, ENCOURAGES and REVELS the very personal attacks launched against people and families of people Pilchesky simply does not like.

Yes (with a nod to Glenn), Sherry and Judy should be more professional about how they respond to the crew of hate-mongers that parade in front of City Council every Thursday night. But let's remember this: Sherry and Judy's actions are OUTCOMES of a situation...not the CAUSES. Every time the spotlight of blame is shown on them, the crew causing the stir is further encouraged. That, friends, is just plain wrong.

Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.