Anonymous is Upset
Posted by auroracitizen on September 7, 2009
Some commenter’s are upset that we have not published every negative comment they have posted about Councillor Buck — usually without making any reference to the actual post that everyone else is discussing. They call it censorship.
They will continue to be disappointed. This is not a vehicle for them to tell everyone how much they dislike Councillor Buck. That is not the purpose of the blog. It is and will continue to be a discussion.
We will continue to publish both positive or negative comments that are about the posts.
So feel free to disagree, just don’t make the sum of your comment “We/I hate Councillor Buck”.
Or, if you feel that strongly, we invite you to submit an article to be posted. Then that entire post will be about your topic and others can comment as they see fit — on that topic.
We will continue to try and keep comments related to the subject of the original post. We ask that commenter’s try to as well.
Use the envelope and pencil icons immediately below to forward this post to friends or leave a comment.
Aurora Citizen 
Anonymous said
Dear Council Cop: You better hope this Council doesn't hire a new IC on a long term contract thereby saddling the next Council with their choice.
Anonymous said
During the election I engaged a canvasser for Phyllis Morris who came to my door that i would not vote for Ms. Morris. When asked why I responded town straff were mortified at the prospect Ms. Morris would be elected. She was not seen as staff friendly. The canvasser assured me Ms. Morris was in fact well loved by staff and that my sources were misinformed.Well guess what. There has been an almost complete turnover of senior staff and in some cases ie solicitor several. This from a mayor who trumpets her over 10 years of HR experience.If that canvasser is out here and one of the Ms. Buck bashers….all I can say to you is… I told you so! Also, would love to hear your take now.
White Knight said
To Anonymous of September 7, 8:12 pm
Yes illiterate people do graduate from universities today (how sad a statement is that?) and we know in Aurora that they are elected as councillors by stupid people.
Anonymous said
The only one talking out of both sides of her mouth is the MAYOR! The sooner you and the the other supporters of this excuse of mayor see it the better this town will be!!!
Council Cop said
September 8th 8:32 anonymous quote: "Talking out of both sides of her mouth is the root of the problem as I see it. But I guess I shouldn't expect more from a long tenured politician." The same could be said for Mayor Morris and a few others that I can think of as well.
Maybe we all agree that a clean sweep is what is required at the next election. I can live with that, with maybe one or two exceptions.
And as for the code of conduct rules being applied evenly and without political bias by a Commissioner at arms length from council (i.e. without apparent political interference), I’d like to see that as well, but we may just have to wait until after the next election given the pattern we have witnessed to date.
Anonymous said
Anonymous September 8, 2009 8:32 AM
Thanks. You nailed it… at every level.
Anonymous said
but the mayor accusing Mr Nitkan of not following procedures is ok?????
rules should be the same for all….not selective!!!!!!!!
Anonymous said
To: Anonymous September 7, 2009 8:00 PM
My point is that, true to form, Councilor Buck has no problem in raising the spectre that someone has failed in their duties. In this case the lawyer. She even throws in that, "A judge might well be vexed by court time being wasted. Might even hold such non-evidence to be in contempt." to give credibility to her claim. But my guess is that she will never ask a judge if he's "vexed" or not. Her convictions don't appear to run any deeper than the paper (or blog) she writes on.
The man's reputation is put to question through implication. If she has an accusation to make then she should make it. Tlaking out of both sides of her mouth is the root of the problem as I see it. But I guess I shouldn't expect more from a long tenured politician.
That's what's wrong with that.
Aurora Citizen said
No one said that Councillor Buck will be protected (see comment 2 at 5:44). This one isn't really about the post, but at least it has some content besides simply stating that they don't like Councillor Buck.
Just make your comments relevant to the post in question. If they aren't, the comment may not be published — regardless of the Councillor or Mayor.
Anonymous said
"We are not stupid we know there is and always has been for some time now, a group of people who don't like Evelyn. So what! There are groups left right and centre who don't like the GOS again so what! "
Exactly, so why suddenly take the position that Evelyn will be protected?
Anonymous said
Will this policy be applied to everyone, or just Councillor Buck?
Anonymous said
Oh give it a rest. If your spelling and grammar is not perfect so what! People graduate from university and clearly cannot spell,compose or understand everyday life this becomes quite evident all of the time!
Are we trying to save the world here? Don't make me laugh..
We are not stupid we know there is and always has been for some time now, a group of people who don't like Evelyn. So what! There are groups left right and centre who don't like the GOS again so what!
Evelyn has not and will not state that "she thinks the hired lawyer acted in a way that can be seen as contempt. But she doesn't come out and say it." because as you stated that is your take, so back it up with some factual information why is this your take?
The object again is quite clear this blog is for people to partake in discussion…….You cannot put words, written or verbally in someone elses mouth.
I challenge you to make a statement on the information you chose to use in your assumption. Is the only information you have what Evelyn wrote in her blog?
Come on let's here it.
Anonymous said
"My take is that she thinks the hired lawyer acted in a way that can be seen as contempt. But she doesn't come out and say it. Why not?"
She said a judge might find it so. What's wrong with that??
Anonymous said
Anonymous said…
"singuler"
If you want to quibble over spelling, I think you mean "singular".
Fowler said
"So how about posting positive, negative AND literate?"
…AND pedantic.
Anonymous said
Wow, that's pretty critical. Anyone can make a typo. And by the way, it's "singular", not "singuler". Lighten up a little.
Anonymous said
In Councilor Buck's latest blog entry she states:
"Mr. Mascarin, solicitor retained at taxpayer's expense to compile a case of wrong-doing …reported "many factually incorrect statements" among various utterances of mine he had been instructed to examine."
"Provincial regulations require only evidence acceptable in a court of law be considered by an Integrity Commissioner in dealing with a complaint."
"Throw-away references to"falsehoods" and "many factually incorrect statements" would hardly meet the test."
"A judge might well be vexed by court time being wasted. Might even hold such non-evidence to be in contempt."
My take is that she thinks the hired lawyer acted in a way that can be seen as contempt. But she doesn't come out and say it. Why not?
Is it any wonder she isn't on everybodies Xmas list.
Anonymous said
I made the assumption that "the Aurora Citizen" is fairly literate.
I wonder about that now. "Commenter"s", (as the poster wrote), meaning more than one commenter is the plural of the singuler "commenter" and therefore does not have an apostrophe "s". It should simply be "commenters".
"Commenter's", as the poster wrote would mean "belonging to the commenter.
So how about posting positive, negative AND literate?