[Cedwards38]

(1) I don't think Lauren Ritchie lied. It's her job to report to us the facts as she finds them, and as a columnist, it's also her job to express her opinion about what she discovers. Journalists have standards to follow in reporting and in opining, and if she lied, then she may be subject to professional censure or damages in court. I'm seriously doubting that an experienced journalist would take that chance over something like this.

(2) I don't think Lauren Ritchie is trying to be "Woodward and Bernstein." Again, it's her job. This is not a matter of national security like the Pentagon Papers, and she doesn't make that claim. She simply uncovered a set of facts, reported them to us, and opined about the values of that action as she saw them, which as has been stated is part of her job.

(3) Like many of you, I admire the Morse family and the wonder and magic they have created here in The Villages. But let's not kid ourselves. They made the place nice for one reason, because "nice" attracts more home buyers. Nothing wrong with that. They had an idea and developed it and it made them rich. BRAVO! But don't kid yourself into thinking that the attention to detail and the plethora of amenities in The Villages was done as a favor to us. It was done to attract all of us to come spend large sums of money in the Morse family business. I'm fine with that, and so should we all be. But it was not humanitarianism. It was capitalism.

(4) Ritchie's point, as I read it, was that a piece of equipment was purchased with funds raised by the generous giving of individuals in this community because they had been solicited, and when Moffitt pulled out (for whatever reason) the equipment was sold to the new tenant. I guess the "Collective Us" gave the money, purchased the equipment, and gave it to the hospital. We gave it, so they could do as they saw fit, including selling it. But I do see her point that this seems to be profiting on the charity of others, and there is some shame in that. Maybe the hospital sold it because the new service provider demanded that they be allowed to own it, or the new service provider needed to own it for liability or insurance purposes, or whatever other reason that is unbeknownst to us. If the hospital spokesperson had simply been forthcoming with Ritchie when she inquired, and told the reason, and the reason was justifiable, then there is no shame, thus no Ritchie article. Under the current circumstances, I think many of us will be a bit reluctant to contribute donations again for purchases like this one.

(5) Even though Ritchie has a point, I'm not terribly troubled, yet. The equipment is still there. It's still available to the citizens of this community, including those who contributed toward it's purchase. If that changes, then the stakes are raised for me.