Joe Pilchesky Posts: 1829 Date: Dec 7 11:53 AM, 2007 Views: 137	Quote | Reply RE: Standard Diversionary Tactics We know that no matter what we do, we're not going to change the course of that budget. The passing of the budget is a minor technicality in the course of money management and trafficing. As soon as any mayor sees his council majority get elected, he knows it's just a matter of what he wants to do to fully benefit from it.That comes down to how corrupt and unethical the council people are, and this mayor got lucky. We may never see two council members more unethical and corrupt than Fanucci and Gatelli. Does it mean the people should not stay the course and confront them on every single issue possible to let them know that we are fully aware of the corrupt action council takes? Most certainly not, or as Elliot would say it, soitinly. It's this exposure that can put limits on what they'll try to get away with, andhold them publicly accountable for re-election purposes. It's this exposure, when donein open confrontation style,that is the only source of mental and emotionalpunishment and political disgrace for them, absent loss at the voting booth. It's this exposure that grinds down their arrogance and exposes the nervefor us to repeatedly contact. It's the constant grinding away at their arrogance and exposing them for who they are that will deliver our rewards over time. We can't stop the corruption, the cronyism, the theft and the disloyalty, but we can brand them, and brand them publicly for life. Let others see the brand, see the pain, see the public disgrace and see the justice, and then consider if they want the samebrand burned uponthem if they intend to do the same thing.There are several of Doherty's cronies who would not throw their hat into the ring for no other reason than this site exists. He couldn't come up with a council candidate to run with McGoff. We cannot fully stop the rape, but we can brand the rapists, and that's exactly what we're doing. The more we do it, the more others know, and the more others will join in, and that's what is called a deterrent for the future Fanucci's and Gatelli's in the city. It took decades and generations for them to build what they'vebuilt,but they did it without much of a light shining on them. Now the light shines brightly. It will take time to neutralize and disarm the machine, but we're doing all we can, and over time this approach ofexposing them and disgracing them willtake its toll and we shall reclaim control of the government. Until that happens, continue to confront them and disgrace them publicly. They believe they are more durable than us. If we can change a vote, or alter a budget to our favor in the meantime, that's a huge plus.
its ugly out there Posts: 3 Date: Dec 7 12:29 PM, 2007 Views: 110	Quote | Reply RE: Standard Diversionary Tactics Punishing them with public exposure is what has them unraveled and that's what will get the job done. Mr. Pilchesky is right. Make them pay publicly through character attacks when they do wrong. The paper sure as hell ain't going to do it. We have to. Thank god we have the place to do it.
Nobody Posts: 494 Date: Dec 7 1:32 PM, 2007 Views: 57	Quote | Reply RE: Standard Diversionary Tactics Peter is right and Joe is right. The budget will pass regardless of comment because the three council people in the majority belong to Doherty and a fourth is open to discussion. However, it's the public's attention, cooperation and continued votes that Doherty needs. To that end, Doherty and his PR consultant know the average taxpayer doesn't understand or care what Nelson, Gervasi or Krake say. They don't hear them. I have a friend who said it succinctly: "Nelson gives too many figures. I tune him out and haven't got a clue what the duck he's talkin' about." What Nelson has to say is both important and relevant but the public hears what the carefully crafted PR says because the carefully crafted PR tells them what they want to hear in small snippets, with all negative, annoying details removed. The result is a blissfully misinformed public that can go about its daily routine, ignorant of the growing debt, failing Public Safety departments and its future impact on them. Our culture bombards us with news, advertising and information. The public's attention is captured by certain words, phrases and ideas. I would venture most of the controversy at council is carefully considered and orchestrated by the PR consultant before it ever hits chambers. The public hears about the smoking ban, for example and the kids used to promote it. Nice fluffy story guaranteed to be attacked by smokers, who are considered evil. When the ban was shot down, it was a "terrible thing" because the council was only trying to protect the citizens from themselves. The businesses and workers who lost money became the bad guys and council wore white hats. Nice diversion, if you didn't lose money or your rights because of it and the ban looked so good in print. The PR around the Gatelli tearjerkers and Fanucci tangents are designed for one purpose- to discredit the speakers. Then, when speakers like Nelson, Gervasi and Krake take to the podium, their comments are ignored or simply thrown aside because of the reputation carefully constructed for them. Dan Hubbard is another example. Make the man out to be a crazy and a spokesman with a very important message and the ability to deliver it is neutralized as a threat. Neutralization is very important. Neutralization is control and control is what this whole bag of rocks is about. Add in Ray Lyman and you see the process is ongoing and effective. Lyman was a good choice, in my opinion, because his reputation for erratic behavior allows the message to be delivered and any admittance that he was "encouraged" to speak feeds his reputation. Add in the deliberately shortened time speakers have to make their point, the arrests and threats of arrest for simply attempting to talk to council and you have a picture of a council with an agenda- to follow the mayor's agenda. No mere citizen will interfere with this agenda, because, as a person who speaks before council, that person is automatically "One of them." Most frustrating is we were told the mayor was hiring a PR person to "drive" the news and "drive" he does. We have the wool pulled over our eyes and we accept it like the sheep we are and paying for the service, to boot. As one poster said, "You can't make this $hit up!" There is one bright sign in this whole, sad calamity. Gatelli, in my opinion, is a loose canon and Tuesday night's performance was not what I would have expected from the PR professional. I believe the performance was ego-driven and delivered by a speaker who knows she doesn't matter any more but won't admit it and the show cost Gatelli more than she realized. This site is, at its heart, educational and understanding the PR game is the first step in benefiting from it. Hell, the people pay for it, shouldn't We gain from it? __________________ "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out." -Pastor Martin Niemller http://nobodyscorner.blogspot.com

Oh a lot of people read it ... 12 or 20 posters could not generate the hits per day that they get over across the hall ... but for most who read it is nothing more than a guilty pleasure ... something they will not admit to ... it's kind of like watching the Flavor of Love on VH1 ... it's something you do just to see what crazy thing will happen next ... and just like the above mentioned television program ... DD never fails to dissapoint.

Now what it is you really have to ask yourself is this ... how many who do read only read for the entertainment value ... meaning ... most who read do not believe a word that is said across the hall ... if you have a strong mind and a free will you will not believe what you read ... however weaker people hang on every word the kids across the hall write.

Exactly Ag ... you hit that nail right on the head!

You also have to take into consideration the number of times each narcissistic poster clicks in and out of a given topic (all day long). Only to see how many people have read the topic or actually replied to their posts. They could spend all day doing it. Most of the time when there is a back and forth debate, the post are flying at a few per minute -- and for the most part, they are all from the same three or fouir people. Does he actually think 20,000 individuals actually read that site? Hell no. Knowing him, he probably has a few people who spend all day going in and out just to boost the numbers.

Please ...a multitude of lawyers have their secretaries checking the site a few times a day for dirt (it's their JOB), the jobless wonders who follow pilcheski's sorry ass also pop in and out all day long and then there's joe himself who spends all day meandering through. Heaven knows he's got nothing better to do since janet's in school all day.

(edited because my mind was working fafster than my fingers)


-- Edited by His Girl Thursday at 16:32, 2007-12-08