[cabo35]

The March POA bulletin addresses many questions raised in this forum. Articles largely clear up the RBOI (Boissoneault) controversy. The path to the outcome is indirect but the result seems to be that the equipment availability will not be duplicated as antagonists have purported. The net result, in fact, will mean more treatment options for Villagers. The POA articles are well researched and expose the bumps and blemishes influencing the decision making process. If Lauren Ritchie had been as thorough and unbiased as the POA, a lot of acrimony could have been spared. Just my opinion. Draw your own from today's POA Bulletin.

The Bulletin also sheds light on the ACS Relay for Life controversy. If the Bulletin was a daily, some big paper columnists would be out of work.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by cabo35

The March POA bulletin addresses many questions raised in this forum. Articles largely clear up the RBOI (Boissoneault) controversy. The path to the outcome is indirect but the result seems to be that the equipment availability will not be duplicated as antagonists have purported. The net result, in fact, will mean more treatment options for Villagers. The POA articles are well researched and expose the bumps and blemishes influencing the decision making process. If Lauren Ritchie had been as thorough and unbiased as the POA, a lot of acrimony could have been spared. Just my opinion. Draw your own from today's POA Bulletin.

The Bulletin also sheds light on the ACS Relay for Life controversy. If the Bulletin was a daily, some big paper columnists would be out of work.

I agree that the POA has done a good job in digging into this issue and has been responsible for clarification of a number of matters.

From what I gather, I don't think anyone (except Boissoneault, which faces a new competitor, subsidized with donations from Villagers) has a problem with the Moffitt Center's coming here. The concerns that many, including myself, have expressed are: (1) the Moffitt fund-raising campaign, backed by the Developer (who has a financial interest in the project), has made misleading and contradictory statements in its solicitation of contributions; and (2) the Developer attempted to shake down Relay for Life and the American Cancer Society for funds for the Developer-backed Moffitt campaign.

In regard to the POA's support of the Center's coming here, the POA has NOT suggested that residents contribute to the Moffitt Center fund-raising campaign. In this regard, see the POA response to the letter captioned "Moffitt Equipment" on page on page 11 of the latest POA Bulletin.

Finally, in regard to Lauren Ritchie's article, I just re-read it. I don't think that any of her facts are wrong, but I would be glad to be corrected.

[cabo35]

Originally Posted by Advogado

I agree that the POA has done a good job in digging into this issue and has been responsible for clarification of a number of matters.


In regard to the POA's support of the Center's coming here, the POA has NOT suggested that residents contribute to the Moffitt Center fund-raising campaign. In this regard, see the POA response to the letter captioned "Moffitt Equipment" on page on page 11 of the latest POA Bulletin.

Finally, in regard to Lauren Ritchie's article, I just re-read it. I don't think that any of her facts are wrong, but I would be glad to be corrected.

Regarding your contrived post title, I respectfully submit that the conclusion of the article enumerates and speaks to the partnership "coming here", allowing Villagers to receive treatment at the Villages Moffitt Center. It acknowledged the benefit option for 2500 Villagers who currently travel to Tampa for treatment. Unfortunately, the forum will not allow you to edit your deceptively misleading title.

In regard to the POA's support of the Center coming here, the POA does NOT suggest that residents NOT contribute to the Moffitt Center. To abstractly suggest anything to the contrary is disingenuous.

Regarding your defense of Ritchie, I don't believe I disputed her selective assignment of fact, rather, I specifically suggested in my opinion, her thoroughness was deficient. To her credit, I believe her bias is not transparent. It is my opinion that she has persistently demonstrated an agenda that reveals an anti-Villages, anti-Morse and anti-big business bias.

Have a good day in the Villages.

[chuckinca]

Originally Posted by cabo35

Regarding your defense of Ritchie, I don't believe I disputed her selective assignment of fact, rather, I specifically suggested in my opinion, her thoroughness was deficient. To her credit, I believe her bias is not transparent. It is my opinion that she has persistently demonstrated an agenda that reveals and anti-Villages, anti-Morse and anti-big business bias.

Correct. She is doing her job - selling newspapers.

(believe you wanted to say ... reveals an anti-Villages ... )


.

[rubicon]

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

What are the issues that they have "bent" to please the developer?

[Challenger]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

You have already speculated on the reason for the POA's "turnaround" Why not support your speculation with some facts?

[downeaster]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

If I remember correctly, the POA backed a Villages based Moffitt center as soon as it was announced Moffitt was locating in Leesburg.

I have followed the POA bulletins for years and can not recall them bending to please the Developer.

Are you confusing them with some other organization?

As to Ritchie, she is to the liberal media as Ann Coulter is to the conservative.

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past.

Holy crap, that's the first time I've heard that. Are you sure you don't mean the VHA? I heard just the opposite about the POA.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by cabo35

Regarding your contrived post title, I respectfully submit that the conclusion of the article enumerates and speaks to the partnership "coming here", allowing Villagers to receive treatment at the Villages Moffitt Center. It acknowledged the benefit option for 2500 Villagers who currently travel to Tampa for treatment. Unfortunately, the forum will not allow you to edit your deceptively misleading title.

In regard to the POA's support of the Center coming here, the POA does NOT suggest that residents NOT contribute to the Moffitt Center. To abstractly suggest anything to the contrary is disingenuous.

Regarding your defense of Ritchie, I don't believe I disputed her selective assignment of fact, rather, I specifically suggested in my opinion, her thoroughness was deficient. To her credit, I believe her bias is not transparent. It is my opinion that she has persistently demonstrated an agenda that reveals an anti-Villages, anti-Morse and anti-big business bias.

Have a good day in the Villages.

Cabo35:

As you might expect, I don't agree with your assertion that my post was "contrived". Actually, I'm not really sure what you mean by "contrived" in this context, but I don't think that you are trying to be complimentary. In my view, my post simply stated the facts.

In any event, your assertion leads me to believe that you didn't have time or take time to read the POA's reply to the letter on page 11 of the POA Bulletin, which I cited in my post. Therefore, I will now be even more specific than I was in my earlier post. The writer of that letter, after criticizing the Moffitt fund drive, states: "Sure, Villagers are very generous givers. But wouldn't it be a better idea to use their donations for something that is really needed?" The POA issued a two-word reply to that question: "We agree." What part of "We agree" do you have trouble understanding?

In reply to your attack on Lauren Ritchie, you concede that she is factually correct. It appears, however, that you just plain don't like the fact that she is outraged by the outrageous conduct on the part of the Developer in conducting the Moffitt Fund drive. Legitimate criticism of the Developer's conduct is not "bias" against the Developer.

[cabo35]

Advogado.....I believe we are on different wave lengths. I never said your post was contrived. I suggested the title of your post was contrived. Your title implies that Moffitt's coming here is not the focus of the issue. To the contrary, the title of my post was, word for word, the headline for the POA Bulletin. I also quoted from enumerated and specific excerpts to support the point that "coming here" was the focus of the Bulletin's headline.

Further, I specifically cited the plural version of article,(articles) as the basis for my brief assessments. You are wrong to infer I did not read the article on page 11. I read all the articles referencing Moffitt and fundraising. Perhaps my original post suffered in its clarity as I attempted to economize on the word count in order to encourage TOTVers to read the bulletin and form their own conclusions.

Without being redundant, I suggest you read again my OP. I did allude to the fundraising.

Regarding your reference to the page 11 letter to the editor, I suspect the letter was received and the comment made before the recent POA disclosure that the equipment in issue is apparently not the same as many had represented in making a case against Moffitt and the developer. The letter and response you cite is predicated on that flawed assumption. I have a recollection of antagonists ranting over the duplicity of equipment. That clearly appears not to be the case at the moment. I also euphemistically acknowledged the bumps and blemishes that were exposed in the decision making process. I deliberately left the detail out because I didn't see the benefit of elaborating on a flawed process, human errors and miscalculations that were largely made and corrected to some extent by the developer. I leave that criticism to those more inspired to do so.

I agree that the Relay for Life controversy was poorly handled, but I understand both sides of the issue. It could have been totally avoided with the slightest injection of diplomacy. I also agree that the developer's position can give those looking for it....the appearance of impropriety. I personally don't believe the facts and the law would support that position. I still have my rose colored glasses.

My disappointment with Moffitt is that an oncologist will not be on staff there. At least that's what I have been told.

Thanks for responding.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by rubicon

I find it remarkable that in post after post no one bothered to question why the POA did a complete turnaround? I also find it interesting that some residents find Richie's fact-based statements bias but the POA's fact-based non-biased? Are some people saying its the singer not the song? Please do yourselves a favor ask more questions and don't rely on labels. Ritchie is not the spoiler she is being portrayed to be. This is misleading and meant to discredit her reporting. I suspect the POA is once again bending to please the Developer as they have done in the past. Why? I believe I know but find it not productive just to speculate.

What possible reason could that be?

And I agree with what Russ said.

Taj will be on in a minute.

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by cabo35

My disappointment with Moffitt is that an oncologist will not be on staff there. At least that's what I have been told.

I would think that a local oncologist would be on-site or at least available. They may not be "moffitt" doctors but perhaps CFHA staff? I would assume that your care is indeed prescribed by an oncologist and the Moffitt approach.

[Avista]

I have been a patient of Moffitt for the last 8 years. Following my cancer surgery and radiation, they saw me every three months for 5 years. The last few years I have been in their Survivership program and am seen annually. http://www.moffitt.org/Site.aspx?spi...37B733BDC50181

I am so pleased they are coming to The Villages. When I was in Tampa this week, everyone was mentioning it in a very happy manner.Don't know if the survivorship program will be here, but the person I talked with thought someone would probably be here one day a week (for that program). It's not such a bad drive down to Tampa--no tolls like Orlando, but will still be nice to have them here.

[cabo35]

Originally Posted by Avista

I have been a patient of Moffitt for the last 8 years. Following my cancer surgery and radiation, they saw me every three months for 5 years. The last few years I have been in their Survivership program and am seen annually. http://www.moffitt.org/Site.aspx?spi...37B733BDC50181

I am so pleased they are coming to The Villages. When I was in Tampa this week, everyone was mentioning it in a very happy manner.Don't know if the survivorship program will be here, but the person I talked with thought someone would probably be here one day a week (for that program). It's not such a bad drive down to Tampa--no tolls like Orlando, but will still be nice to have them here.

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. It really puts things in perspective.