Comments on: Dogs matter more than Connecting Point clients and employees…

By: LisaRenee

LisaRenee — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:49:39 +0000

I agree your last sentence was a bit strong, it was a close call, but I hoped for the best as far as you’d come back and clarify.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:36:06 +0000

I expected to be taken to the woodshed for that last post…too personal, but I just couldn’t help myself. So frustrating sometimes!

Sorry.

By: kat

kat — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:25:24 +0000

I think it was a sad day when Connecting Point closed their doors.Children are very important too!

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:16:50 +0000

No Sujay,

Carol’s not right. And the blade began the witchhunt we are still witnessing today. Skeldon did his job or the committee and the commissioners would have been forced to weaken to the daily’s demands. Note the essential word: “demands”. This paper makes demands instead of reports and the ignorant doesn’t know how to distinguish between the two.

Because of you two they live another day to destroy our community and those within.

I rest my case.

By: Sujay

Sujay — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:55:14 +0000

Carol is right. Although this issue is certainly Blade-hyped, it’s not Blade-generated. People have been complaining about Skeldon for at least 15 years for, for the very reasons that the Serchuk committee now cites. Nothing was done because of a lethargic board of county commissioners (Isenberg, Barlos, Old Man Copeland – not exactly the most active trio you’ll ever come across). That changed when Ben jumped on board. Sure, the newspaper has been going over the top (its “dog log” is reminiscent of the ridiculous and short-lived “plea bargain log” that it put in place after the Jeffrey Hodge/Melissa Herstrum case), but that doesn’t detract from the overall issue that has been simmering for a long time. It is not a Blade-generated issue. The Serchuk committee was formed for a reason. Let them complete their work, and let the chips fall where they may.

By: Carol

Carol — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:51:02 +0000

Mike, you’re still missing the point. My opinion is based on personal knowledge and has nothing to do with what is printed in the Blade. No one is
“sucking me in”.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:14:31 +0000

A dog log.

I had to say it and type it to believe it.

a dog log.

I still don’t believe it.

Is it just me or has this publisher lost his mind, or what is left of it??

Someone please stop the Twilight Zone music…

By: Sue

Sue — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:05:22 +0000

Yes, read article.

Really ridiculous and misplaced
interests to print on the Toledo
Blade daily log the list of dogs
killed and or adopted when they
never even follow up on if the
Connecting Point children received
placement or services or any
mental health issues.

By: SherryET

SherryET — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:59:28 +0000

Have you guys seen this?

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091113/LOG01/911139994/-1/LOG

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:47:23 +0000

This witch hunt is another example of how the daily makes their “kill” of a community member. They begin with a contrived issue that drags the reader in, they spin it and build it and put it on the front page making it into something that looks similar to a murder case. And not just any murder, “small puppy murders” as on today’s front page. If someone murdered a small child, viciously, they’d be on page 3, one paragraph lost in the bottom of the left side of the page. And just after the court decides the sentence, one more paragraph, page 3, top right. But the dog warden?Front page, day in, day out, top of the fold! You would think the publisher would occupy his time better printing something news worthy than attacking some guy that works in a dog pound for 60 some thousand a year.
The way they play with people’s careers and reputations is petty, ridiculous, disgusting and criminal.

And Carol, I didn’t call you a hater, I said: “don’t be a hater”. Don’t let them suck you in…this is what they do. And it’s done by and for the mere pleasure of the publisher.