(admin delete)

I’m sorry, I know name calling is a sign of ignorance but I just can’t take it.

Sorry, forgive me, I apologize but I don’t regret writing it. It needed to be said. UGH!

Your long time friend is incorrect on the insurance aspect, as previously pointed out, I’ve actually spoken to Mr. Olman on this. Further, it’s not logical to expect someone who had better coverage for free would want to keep less that comes at a cost. It’s also been told to at least one Blade reporter who has opted to not include that in any of the coverage.

Anyway – here’s something you may not have considered about the blogosphere. Just because somebody posts with a name like, say bobmc, or samantha, I never assume that the first is a guy and the 2nd a gal. That the first reason I choose non-gender-specific handles – as do the majority of posters on the majority of posting sites. The second reason is that I believe ideas should stand or fall on their own. The only thing about most online discussions that interest me is what is being stated or argued. I couldn’t care less whether you or anyone else are a man or woman, have a good paying job, drive an expensive car or anything else. If you are not a public figure, collecting money from the taxpayer – I don’t even want to know. I only care what the argument or discussion at hand is, and how people defend their positions.

[watching screen intensely]

One thing should be clarified, as my posts were intended to defend Stainbrook and the Blade’s grasp of facts. A long-time friend who was peripherally involved in Ohio politics a couple decades ago e-mailed me, in part, the following last nite:

“In answer to your question, yes, I believe the Blade was on solid ground in saying that Mr. Olman doesn’t want to give up his county-paid insurance. What they did on the blog was adroitly change the subject on you. The Blade and you were talking about 2009, in the event Stainbrook deposed Olman. Whereas, they turned the discussion back to a question of whether Olman took the position to get the insurance, which of course he didn’t, thereby making him appear unconcerned about losing insurance now in 2009, which of course he is not (not unconcerned that is).”

The ‘refund’ truthseeker is referring to, I believe, is not really a refund – it is an employee’s option (up until a certain length of service) to ‘withdraw’ the portion of contribution that the employee paid in while working once employment is terminated. This amount can also be rolled over in to an IRA instead of a cash withdrawal. So the ‘refund’ is basically an early withdrawal of retirement funds, kind of like taking money out of your IRA early – you get hit with a penalty and income tax on the amount taken out. An employee (or former employee) can not withdraw that portion of contribution paid in to PERS by the employer; that is forfeited and goes to support the system as a whole. (Not sure about the situations where the employer pays both employer and employee portion – whether that ‘employee’ portion is subject to withdrawal after separation from employment.)