[Bucco]

Time and space has been offered since the beginning of this discussion. The "no" vote comments were posted at no charge. The vote yes committee had to pay.
__________________________________________________ _______________________

I have posted NO comments and sure glad that was free !!! Where, other than the standard thread start, were these free NO comments ???? Not trying to give you a hard time but trying to understand this !!

[Talk Host]

Originally Posted by Bucco

Time and space has been offered since the beginning of this discussion. The "no" vote comments were posted at no charge. The vote yes committee had to pay.
__________________________________________________ _______________________

I have posted NO comments and sure glad that was free !!! Where, other than the standard thread start, were these free NO comments ???? Not trying to give you a hard time but trying to understand this !!

Can you point out to me where anybody with a "NO" opinion was charged. The "NO" campaigners paid to have signs made, but were not charged to post their thoughts here, where they? There were plenty of "NO" vote comments posted in the space that was paid for by the "Vote Yes" committee. Nobody on that side complained that their paid space was being used by the opposition. I just don't understand where the "NO" campaigners think they were deprived of space on TOTV to voice their opinion. Please help me here.

[Hancle704]

This is starting to occupy more attention than what it is worth. The voting started yesterday and will be over on June 17th. Why not cool it until the results are known?

I mean, aren't there any other issues worth discussing? :dontknow:

[Bucco]

Can you point out to me where anybody with a "NO" opinion was charged. The "NO" campaigners paid to have signs made, but were not charged to post their thoughts here, where they? There were plenty of "NO" vote comments posted in the space that was paid for by the "Vote Yes" committee. Nobody on that side complained that their paid space was being used by the opposition. I just don't understand where the "NO" campaigners think they were deprived of space on TOTV to voice their opinion. Please help me here.
__________________________________________________ _________

Gee....first of all I am not a "campaigner" !!!!

You are bragging that those of us who oppose this project were able to post our comments for free...that, to me,is scary. It implies that since you were paid, only positive statements should have been accepted.

I never heard any "campaigners" or just plain old Villagers complaning of being derived of space. I simply made a comment that it would be have been nice to have had a neutral site with both sides represented. You informed me that you had invited the opposition folks but they turned you down. I accept that, and was trying to understand exactly what you were saying in this thread.

If you wish us who oppose to stay out of the "special" area,fine....then it will be allthoseYES votes talking to each other !

[Muncle]

I'm going to type this real slowly so it can be readily understood:

What the :edit: is the problem???

We have an open forum here where just about anyone can post just about anything (except me when I disagree with certain people) with no restraints. I don't know the business arrangements made by the administrator with MikeG. I do know that he (MikeG) posted his first comment in a general forum and that shortly thereafter the Oxford Horse Park Information Forum was created. It seemed logical then and even more so in retrospect that since this was a hot button issue and would generate a lot of discussion, having a separate forum would allow interested viewers to more easily track comments. That Jan and Co got OHP to fund this forum was an excellent business move.

If you notice the header for the forum, it states "This is your chance to talk directly to the developer of the proposed Oxford Horse Park. Ask any question and receive a timely response." It does not say only positive comments are accepted. It does not say that posters cannot be members of any organizations opposing OHP. To the best of my knowledge, no posts have been deleted because they have been negative toward OHP or asked embarrassing questions of MikeG. Yes, some of the banter between pro and con people has gotten a tad strident at times, but never from MikeG. I think he has been ultra patient, replying to the same or at least similar questions several times. Additionally, MikeG has taken some minor abuse and been asked some questions where I'd have been tempted to reply with my infamous "FOAD, it's none of your business." But he's a business man and knows that it's best in the long run to tolerate this. And he's probably more patient (and intelligent) than I.

[mikeg]

Thanks Muncle, you are absolutely right.

I am the administrator of the OHP forum. The point of the forum is to answer questions from the residents of The Villages in an effort to inform and educate people on what actually is being proposed.

Muncle is correct in stating that I have the power to delete any post I want. Not one single post from anybody, positive or negative, has been, or will be, deleted.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I know that I am not going to change everybody's mind.

However, just as I believe that everyone has the right to choose how they want to spend their time, (gambling, fishing, golfing, golf cart riding, smoking...), I also believe in freedom of speech.

Deleting any comment that I thought was wrong, or directed at me in a negative manner would have made me a hypocrite.

Therefore, all comments were left online, allowing the OHP forum to be open for both the positive and negative viewpoints.

[samhass]

Muncle, MikeG is way more patient than I am. I liked his comment about not being a hypocrite.

Originally Posted by Muncle

I'm going to type this real slowly so it can be readily understood:

What the :edit: is the problem???

We have an open forum here where just about anyone can post just about anything (except me when I disagree with certain people) with no restraints. I don't know the business arrangements made by the administrator with MikeG. I do know that he (MikeG) posted his first comment in a general forum and that shortly thereafter the Oxford Horse Park Information Forum was created. It seemed logical then and even more so in retrospect that since this was a hot button issue and would generate a lot of discussion, having a separate forum would allow interested viewers to more easily track comments. That Jan and Co got OHP to fund this forum was an excellent business move.

If you notice the header for the forum, it states "This is your chance to talk directly to the developer of the proposed Oxford Horse Park. Ask any question and receive a timely response." It does not say only positive comments are accepted. It does not say that posters cannot be members of any organizations opposing OHP. To the best of my knowledge, no posts have been deleted because they have been negative toward OHP or asked embarrassing questions of MikeG. Yes, some of the banter between pro and con people has gotten a tad strident at times, but never from MikeG. I think he has been ultra patient, replying to the same or at least similar questions several times. Additionally, MikeG has taken some minor abuse and been asked some questions where I'd have been tempted to reply with my infamous "FOAD, it's none of your business." But he's a business man and knows that it's best in the long run to tolerate this. And he's probably more patient (and intelligent) than I.