Skip to main content

BataviaAmbulance.com poll currently shows sentiment running against reinstating service

By Howard B. Owens

Supporters of keeping an ambulance service in Batavia set up BataviaAmbulance.com to rally public support for their cause.

Judging by their own online poll, the strategy isn't working.

On the site, the current poll asks: "Do you think eliminating the City Fire-Based Ambulance service is safe?" The possible answers are, "NO!" and "Sure, I'll risk it."

Of the first 203 answers, 65 percent of those taking this very unscientific of polls indicate they're willing to forgo a city-backed ambulance service.

Russ Stresing

Is this the standard we can expect from the newly re-invented Thebatavian.com? People can vote in this poll as many times as they want. There isn't even the easily circumvented security of Thebatavian.com 's polls. This is too important an issue to trivialize to forward a fringe political agenda with this post, Howard.

Mar 4, 2009, 6:37pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

That's somewhat flawed logic isn't it.

Howard readily admits the poll on their site is very unscientific.

Since people can vote as many times as they want and the poll is on the pro-Ambulance site, shouldn't the numbers be skewed the other way?

How does a vote of 9 - 0 make a fringe element? That is more along the lines of an overwhelming majority.

Mar 4, 2009, 7:16pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

No, Andy, its not flawed logic. Not even close. Howard doesn't "readily admit" anything. Howard goes so far as to assert that the poll is evidence that the supporters' strategy is flawed. The fact that the poll is unscientific is in the small print near the end of the post. Its not in the headline.

The fact that its a pro-ambulance site has nothing to do with the result of the poll. Nothing at all. It's irresponsible of Howard to highlight the poll. And your attempt, Andy, to conflate the poll's result with the council vote is just silly. One has nothing to do with the other. You are arrogantly dismissive of the people who read thebatavian.com if you expect they'll swallow your obvious attempt to equate my comments as describing the city council as 'fringe'. Smug doesn't equal smart.

Whatever side people take in this debate, Howard's highlighting of an easily manipulated result is a piss poor example of unbiased reporting.

Mar 4, 2009, 7:34pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Just a guess but those last few sentences look like cut and paste taken directly from the ambulance website which would explain the different type size.

Explain to me again how a poll on a pro issue site that you claim can be manipulated (Beth disagrees) isn't skewed in that direction?

Mar 4, 2009, 7:43pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Beth,
Not only can you vote more than once on BataviaAmbulance.com, if you have a Mozilla browser, you can vote as many times as you like on www.thebatavian.com.

It would take no effort at at all to skew the results of a poll on either site. My point is nothing more than an objection to using the results of the poll to headline a post that goes on to make a point about the flawed logic of the supporters or to credit the results of the poll.

Let's all take into account that thebatavian.com is a blog site. Its a place to express opinion. It has no ombudsman. It has no tradition of journalism, investigative or otherwise.

Mar 4, 2009, 7:45pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Andrew,
Please copy-n-paste from the website to support your assertion. It looks more like Howard couldn't change font. Why would the site highlight the results in that way?

"<i>Explain to me again how a poll on a pro issue site that you claim can be manipulated (Beth disagrees) isn't skewed in that direction?</i> I'll type s-l-o-w-l-y, A-n-d-y. People can vote as many times as they like. If people with a decided opinion can vote as many times as they like, they can skew the results. Its not scientific. One or two or however many people can unscientifically skew the poll.

First, you said that its 'unscientific'. Then you try to say that if its on that specific site, it must have some significance. Please, pick a pivot foot. You're on the verge of being called for logical travelling.

Mar 4, 2009, 7:54pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Russ - I must be doing something wrong. It won't let me vote more than once and I do have Mozilla. I didn't say that it couldn't be manipulated. Just that it wouldn't let me vote more than once.

Mar 4, 2009, 8:00pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Beth,
Since Howard posted this <i>opinion</i>, the results of the poll on the ambulance site have been reversed. While I may not be able to explain why I can vote repeatedly on this poll or those on www.thebatavian.com, I think my point has been made.

Mar 4, 2009, 8:08pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Russ, Russ, Russ <sigh>.

A) yes, you can vote more than once, but only if you know how, and most people aren't going to go to the trouble. And if anybody was going to purposely skew the results in that way, there would be more than 203 votes and the results would be more like 98 percent to 2.

B) I never asserted anything. I posted what I observed in the manner of "isn't this interesting."

C) And has been pointed out, if anybody was going to be motivated to skew the poll via multiple voting, it would be the ambulance supporters, since it's their own site.

D) You keep chirping about the Mozilla browser, but less than 1 percent of The Batavian visitors use Mozilla. 76 percent use IE, 20 percent user FireFox (which may or may not have the same capability as Mozilla, I don't know and don't care), and 3 percent use Chrome.

E) I also clearly note the poll is "very unscientific."

Russ, for the first time, your normally infallible logic has failed you. You're grasping at straws.

Mar 4, 2009, 8:14pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Howard,

<a>(A)</a> You headlined a post by citing an unscientific poll, but didn't mention the poll was unscientific until the bottom of the post. As of this post, the total is 377 votes. And the results are reversed.

<a><B></a>You described the supporters' logic concerning developing a webstite as flawed. <i>"Supporters of keeping an ambulance service in Batavia set up BataviaAmbulance.com to rally public support for their cause.

Judging by their own online poll, the strategy isn't working.</i> Howard, you cited the poll in support of your criticism of their strategy. How is that not an assertion?

<a><C></a><i>And has been pointed out, if anybody was going to be motivated to skew the poll via multiple voting, it would be the ambulance supporters, since it's their own site.</i> That's not a fact, Howard. As I <b>have pointed out</b>, anybody could skew the poll results. Your assertion (after the poll has been reversed) has no weight of logic.

Howard,
Your post was provocation.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:00pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Russ, and now that you've educated people on how to skew the poll, and how it was pointed out that sentiment was running against the ambulance poll (which was probably a more honest result before I posted this), it's not surprising the results of switched.

"Howard,
Your post was provocation."

Yes. Thank you. Of course it was, because it was humorous and interesting. And completely meaningless, as I pointed out by saying it was "very unscientific."

Mar 4, 2009, 8:37pm Permalink
Lincoln DeCoursey

When about fourteen I wrote a shell script to use my modem to war dial into a newspaper opinion poll phone line. At the time I thought the call was toll free, but later I'd learn that it wasn't. Since then I haven't endeavored to skew any additional opinion polls.

I think most view the ambulance topic as now having been explored. It's sad that the city couldn't make its ambulance float even while sharing overhead costs with the fire department but that a company with no foothold in our community will probably set up shop and turn a profit trivially. Frankly I also think the claims that a company such as Rural Metro would fumble on service delivery are FUD. Are we to believe that this company got to be a market leader in ambulance logistics through incompetence or that we wouldn't've heard if they had a habit of missing targets?

Mar 4, 2009, 8:41pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

That's a good point Lincoln. I have personally been transported by Rural Metro following a car accident on 490 in Rochester. I had no issues with them at all. They sent a bill and I sent it to my insurance company. I know that it's not the same as the great local people that we have here working but hopefully whatever service we end up with will hire at least some of them on.

Mar 4, 2009, 8:50pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Howard,
69 words into your post of 80 words, you say 'unscientific'. You never <b>pointed</b> it<b> out</b>. I <b>pointed</b> it out.

<i>(which was probably a more honest result before I posted this)</i> Howard, why were the results more honest before you <b>pointed</b> things out than after?

My issue isn't with the discussion about the pros/cons of the ambulance service issues. My issue is with Howard's irresponsibility in using these issues to drive traffic to a website that enriches him.

This isn't a game.

Mar 4, 2009, 8:58pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Russ, you're trolling. There was nothing irresponsible about my post. It very simple a post about something I found interesting and I thought people would find interesting. I'm sorry that's too simple of a concept for you. Hate to use a cliche, you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. People are smart enough, which you can't seem to comprehend, to draw their own conclusions.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:04pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Howard,

How many visits a day do you need to be "enriched"? I'm all for free enterprise and will sign on/off/on/off/on, etc. as much as possible to help you turn a profit.

Also, as editor in chief could you explain to me how you writing the words; "Of the first 203 answers, 65 percent of those taking thsi very unscientific of polls indicate they're willing for forgo a city-backed ambulance service." is not "pointing it out" to me?

Mar 4, 2009, 9:10pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Andrew, I'm not sure if you're pointing out that I'm a bad copy editor, or if you're asking a question about the substance of the statement.

As for enriching ... hell, I'm just hoping over the next few months I can keep food on the table. My wife is hoping this will be enriching. I'll be happy just to make a living.

We don't sell on a CPM basis, so driving up the page views (loggin in/off) won't help much. Advertisers pay the same whether we deliver 10,000 page views in a day, or 15,000.

I just want to run a site that people who live in Genesee County find interesting, lively and informative. Some posts will be more interesting, some more informative.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:20pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Howard,
As close as your characterization of me as a troll reinforces the mental image of most people who know me, the headline is proof otherwise.

<b>BataviaAmbulance.com poll currently shows sentiment running against reinstating service</b>

<b><i><a>Howard</b></i></a>,

<i><b>you own the site.</i></b> You chose to post underneath a headline that assumed a result. By that action, you abdicated, denied, removed yourself from any responsibility or claim to being a journalist.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:25pm Permalink
Lincoln DeCoursey

I do think that ideally all emergency services should be provided by public entities. The primary motive of government emergency services is clearly to serve and protect. The motive of a for-profit company on the other hand just as clearly is not.

I wasn't aware of the Alden study cited by BataviaAmbulance.com showing SLA misses by the private provider. Previously I had heard speculation that service might suffer but hadn't seen anything cited.

To me it does seem like our priorities might not be right-side-up lately. Things like fire, ambulance and police service are the main things we use to justify having government and paying taxes. Instead our new focus is on propping up uncompetitive manufacturing businesses and perpetuating insane bank lending practices.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:25pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Howard;

No, I was merely trying to use some humor to support the position we seem to be sharing on this particular issue. I know perfectly well my logging on to the site doesn't equate to money in your pocket. I also was directing some sarcasm in Russ general direction with the whole "pointing out" blah blah blah. I understood the points you were trying to make but then, I don't claim to be smarter than your average bear.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:32pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Also, a more telling sign about how much support the FD Ambulance Service does or does not have from their own site is the petition. If I'm reading it correctly, all of 20 people have signed it. If that indeed is the actual number, that's hardly a groundswell.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:36pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Russ, I am a journalist. But that doesn't mean I define journalist the way you do. I can't help it if you're mind is stuck in newspaper/dying-media mode.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:38pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Good point, Andrew. Here's the link to the <a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?batavia">petition page</a>. Yup, 20 people.

Since Russ is such an expert in skewing polls, I wonder how many times he voted in the poll?

FWIW: I have nothing against the pro-ambulance side. I just find all this very interesting, and if it's interesting, it's worth discussing. I guess Russ would rather the whole thing be swept under the rug.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:42pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Andy and Howie,
As hard as you try to make this seem funny,

as much as you want to try to redirect this;

My comments aren't directed to the ambulance issue. No one with the least modicum of intelligence would try to misconstrue my intent to that end.

I'm taking issue with Howard's efforts at presenting himself and his website as being anything more than his attempt to present his philosophy and political agenda as objective journalism.

Mar 4, 2009, 9:45pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

<b>Posted by Howard Owens about 16 minutes ago</b>
<i>Russ, I am a journalist. But that doesn't mean I define journalist the way you do. I can't help it if you're mind is stuck in newspaper/dying-media mode. </i>

Howard,
<i><b>I am an astronaut. </b> But that doesn't mean I define astronaut the way you do. I can't help it if your mind is stuck in NASA/doesn't serve my self-interest mode.</i>

Mar 4, 2009, 10:01pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Russ, I've never said we committed "objective journalism." In fact, from one of the very first posts, I said we wouldn't be "objective."

Read some of my early posts about The Batavian, from last May or so.

I remember when I was went to a parade on Main Street last May, the first time I handed out bumper stickers for The Batavian, a guy asked me "Objective?" and I thought he meant, "what is your objective?" and I started to answer that question, and he said, "no, are you objective." And I said, "No. We're more honest than that."

Objective journalism is a fallacy. We don't hide behind that skirt.

There is no such thing as objective journalism. There never has been.

The man credited with creating modern objective journalism, Walter Lippmann, was never objective himself, in the terms journalism schools seem to teach it. In his book "Liberty and News," (1922) Lippmann writes about the need to apply scientific objectivity to gathering facts and <em>drawing conclusions</em>, as a scientist would. That's not what journalism schools teach, even as they claim to be teaching Lippmann-style objectivity. Lippmann expected journalists to gather the facts, decide what they mean and then provide an interpretation to readers ... not just to recent the facts, which is what many of today's print journalists seem to think "objectivity" means (and a false notion you seem to share).

In Lippmann's pantheon of great journalists of his day, as listed in "Liberty and News," not one would be considered "objective" by what most of today's print journalist think "objective journalism" means. They were all outspoken progressives/liberals, as was Lippmann (who graduated Harvard at age 17 as an avowed Socialist ... the most famous socialist/journalist of the day, John Reed, a Harvard classmate, once predicted Lippmann would one day be president of the United States).

Yes, Russ, I'm not an objective journalist. I'm too honest to call myself that.

Mar 4, 2009, 10:01pm Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Russ;

And???

If you feel that strongly about it, here's what you do, start the anti-Batavian site and compete for readers/advertising dollars. Or, you could just not contribute if the site's moderator and other posters bother you so. But then, if you did that, who else but you would know how vastly more intelligent you are compared to everyone else in all of Western NY. What an awful dilemma.

Mar 4, 2009, 10:07pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Russ, I never said this wasn't a source for news. It's very much a source for news. The only difference is, it's honest journalism. If we have an opinion, we'll tell you.

And I've always said I had a philosophical and political agenda: to promote localism, to promote Batavia/Genesee County, to make community life better.

As for broader politics, I've been pretty clear about my libertarian leanings, my distaste for partisanship and the fact that I belong to no political party, that I'm militantly anti-partisan.

I've always been very upfront and honest about this. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you or anybody is a long time reader.

So why do you act as if it's some big revelation?

Mar 4, 2009, 10:48pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

For chrissakes, Howard,
This isn't a source for 'news'. This is a source for what you, Howard, decide is 'news'. This is Howard's blog.

Mar 4, 2009, 11:02pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Russ, we can argue all night if you like. You're not winning now and you're not going to win.

You can kick my ass in any political argument, but when it comes to media theory you're over matched.

Anybody who looks at today's home page would recognize it contains news. That makes it a source for news.

Every editor decides what news is. That's nothing new. It was true of Horace Greeley and it's true of Mark Graczyk. Every editor makes choices, so what's your point?

Mar 4, 2009, 11:15pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Howard,

<i>Russ, we can argue all night if you like. You're not winning now and you're not going to win.</i>

No shit, Sherlock. You own the site. I'm overmatched because you say so.

Deciding what is 'news' doesn't define 'journalism'. Any monkey can buy time on a server. Figuring out the combination on the vault doesn't mean you own the money.

What happened to facts? Owning the platform doesn't mean you own the proof.

Mar 4, 2009, 11:35pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Now could you decode that nonsense please?

You're overmatched because you've never studied journalism history or media theory, or to what degree you have has been bound by traditional thinking, which is out of step with modern reality.

If it were just a matter of me owning the server CPUs, I could just delete your posts, but I don't need to do that because you're pwn'd.

You haven't refuted a single point I've made about objective journalism, or my honesty in telling people what I do and why I do it. You've made several assertions as if they were sinister allegations, and I've clearly demonstrated why they are not based in reality. You haven't been able to refute any of that so you drift further and further into the area of personal attack and/or obfuscation.

Mar 4, 2009, 11:43pm Permalink
Timothy Paine

Howard, the vast majority understand what you are doing with this site. Some of us do get news here, some socialize, some comment, and some just like to argue. I like what you do here and after all, it's YOUR site. You can do what ever you want, when you want, and how you want. We all accept you rules (well most of us) on posting. I'm glad you're willing to do this and can maintain the ability to deal with certain people that only argue for the sake of it. Don't get me wrong, some disagreements actually have value. I for one thank you for having the balls to try and earn a living as a self-employed person in this state. The best part is we can all take advantage of and enjoy your risk.

Mar 4, 2009, 11:43pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Thanks, Tim. I just decided tonight was a good night to break Russ's balls. He's much smarter than I am about politics, and I think he can do a great job of tearing apart the Limbaughites. But I've got him on my turf now and it's fun.

Mar 4, 2009, 11:49pm Permalink
Russ Stresing

Howard,
You characterize what I post as 'nonsense'. Not by any accepted standard, but simply by your characterization. You tell people that I've never studied journalism history or media theory as if you have proof of that.

But just in case you're right, you immediately dismiss any standards. <i>"to what degree you have has been bound by traditional thinking, which is out of step with modern reality."</i>

Wheeeeeee.

"Even if you have a degree, it ain't worth nuttin' if it don't agree with Howie"

Howard,
Pick a spot, please.

Mar 5, 2009, 12:02am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Now just arguing about arguing. That's no fun. If you want to get back on topic and refute why my journalism theories don't hold water, let me know.

Mar 5, 2009, 12:08am Permalink
Brian Hillabush

Howard,
I am a "Limbaughite" and I wouldn't lose if I felt like getting into it. I've just noticed that when you challenge some liberals, you get personally attacked in this area.
I'm a sports guy and have always stayed out of political discussions. I know that more than a few of my conservative friends won't post on this site because of the "angry democrat". Don't get me wrong, there are many good dems that can be civil, but many can't.
I can remember in my youth hearing that my party was the angry one, but I'm finding it to be the opposite nowadays. You would think owning government and being socialists would make you happy. Maybe not.

Mar 5, 2009, 12:16am Permalink
Lincoln DeCoursey

I'd like to hijack this thread again in order to weave in my concluding thoughts regarding the ambulance service.

It's a shame on the city and its fire department that our ambulance service failed. I suspect that service must've been mismanaged on some level and that it's about to be "shown up" by a competent and sensible private provider.

To me the BataviaAmbulance.com "facts" section purporting to show that private ambulance services are tangibly inferior is unconvincing. It's nothing more than a combination of some apples vs. oranges and some anecdotes. I expect that a lot of communities across our nation have faced this issue and that it should be well-studied by now. Yet no solid, followable references are provided for the BataviaAmbulance.com argument. If evidence truly exists to discredit the private provider model then that evidence should be better collected and more-thoroughly presented by BataviaAmbulance.com. In particular BataviaAmbulance.com should expect a healthy dose of suspicion that its argument is contrived and so it should endeavor to provide a much more comprehensive treatment. Currently the argument reads like a pamphlet.

I believe in my heart that ambulance service is best provided by a dedicated, community-based not-for-profit organization. Our fire department ambulance struggled to provide the best service it possibly could using its resources. It succeeded in providing an excellent service. A for-profit service will struggle to achieve the minimum cost possible while still meeting its obligations (or, without losing its contract). That's the shame of it.

Taxpayers already fund volunteer ambulances. I'd be fine with fully-funding professional ambulances also, but that's just not our current model. Our current model treats a professional ambulance ride as a health care service that should be handled by health care insurance or by self-pay otherwise. I don't blame the affected municipalities including the city for looking for an alternative when they were asked repeatedly to foot the bill.

I'd have much preferred that the existing service been made self-sustaining, but it looks like a substantial effort to that end has for unknown reasons ultimately failed.

Mar 5, 2009, 1:55am Permalink
John Roach

Let’s see.
Howard puts on a post that says another web site (not his own) has a poll and gives the current results and Howard says it is not scientific at the end of the post.

Russ doesn’t like the post, or the reported results, and thinks Howard was wrong to post it the way he did, and Russ goes off on a rant. He accused Howard of having a “fringe political agenda” and accused Howard of using small print at the end. Now please go back and look at the original story. The print is the same size as the rest of Howard's post. And what "agenda"?

Ok, Russ did not like the unscientific poll results from the other web site. Howard comes back a number of times and tries to explain to Russ what and why he did he did, but Russ goes off the deep end. He was desperate to have Howard cast as having taken sides on the ambulance service.

Five other people got in on this (Andrew, Beth, Lincoln, Tim and Brian). None agreed with Russ. Now my own very unscientific poll would say 100% of the other people do not support Russ. (One thought he was drunk).

Russ, you have every right to say you think the poll, that was was on another site, was too easy to rig. Maybe your right, but you flat out overacted again. While five other people is a very small sample, get the hint, you went on another rant and for what?

Mar 5, 2009, 6:16am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

In Russ's defense on the small type issue, it was smaller. Because I copied the text from the poll widget, I picked up the HTML styling from that poll, and continued to write without noticing that I had a different styling on my text ... when I got home, an hour after posting it, I saw that and corrected it.

Mar 5, 2009, 6:13am Permalink
Tom Gilliatt

Now I wonder what they will do with the money saved after axing Batavia Ambulance service?

So sick and Damn tired of people that make more money then I ever will complain about losing money. Always dressed up in nice suits when I see there city meetings on TV sometimes and out around town always well dressed and you can tell well off too.

Ya now were does the money REALLY? GO and you complain! Live with what I got and see what you think and yes I like the way I live even with no job it makes it easier to appreciate thing (Only need enough to support my family thats IT).

GET A DAMN LIFE OOPS sorry you already have one :(

Sorry Howard for this posting I just can't help it sometimes and if it goes against some rule I might have missed you can delete it I will understand.

Tom

Mar 5, 2009, 7:26am Permalink
Mark Wiatrowski

While all of you are at odds about how this issue is posted and who skewed what and whether the poll has any merit at all, I'm hoping that none of you have lost sight of what is actually at risk here.

There is the potential for people to be without critical care in emergency situations where every second counts. People in the emergency medical field are very familiar with the term "Golden Hour". From the time a situation arises, care should be administered within an hour of when the incident occured.

My fear is that this will become an afterthought while people in positions of power will only be concerned about saving money.

If it were either myself or a family member who needed immediate medical attention you can bet your boots I'm going to want a rig there ASAP. I'm not going to care how much it's going to cost who. That can be argued after the fact.

PLEASE don't lose sight of what's really at stake here. One life is a terrible thing to lose because somebody wanted to save money.

Mar 5, 2009, 9:14am Permalink
Tom Gilliatt

Mark I did post something like this on another thread about this problem... I would rather have money wasted or so The City says on saving people then have them save money just to give them self raises or something along these lines in the furture. Just a complete JOKE this whole thing is. When ever I hear The city complaining about there stupid money problem on WBTA I hit the off button faster then you can say "What time is the city console on TV to night"

Tom

Mar 5, 2009, 9:31am Permalink
Karen Miconi

Mark and Tom have made great points today on The Batavian. Its not about saving money, its about saving lives. So sad to see all this argueing, thats why I stepped out of all this. You know it would be a good idea to have a public vote for the people of batavia. Only then would there be a true count. Your right too Mark, there is a "Golden Hour". God Forbid one of us doesn't make it through that time frame, and dies, or has iriversable physical damage. How about we all stop slinging crap and get together on renstating the ambulance service. I don't know, just my silly thoughts.

Mar 5, 2009, 9:45am Permalink
Karen Miconi

Just another thought. Maybe Howard should stop letting all our elected officials blog on this site. They have enough to do at the office, and shouldn't be blogging on the clock. Nothing is getting acomplished. Just another silly thought.

Mar 5, 2009, 10:08am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Karen-They do the "blogging" on their own time. Why would you want to stop them? This is a great way for regular people to get in touch with their elected officials.

Mark and Tom-Why don't we all put pressure on the county to retain the same service, except for the entire county....and with the county paying for it.

Mar 5, 2009, 10:24am Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Why should Howard stop letting our elected officials blog on this site? Both Charlie and Rose Mary were very up front with us and I appreciate hearing their opinions. How do you know they are blogging on the clock and why is that your concern? I work and I have breaks and I am allowed to do what I want. I also have vacation days. Many people are self employed or employed on a salary basis, not hourly so there really is no clock and those people generally work way more than 40 hours a week.

Mar 5, 2009, 10:23am Permalink
Karen Miconi

I'm not going to engage in another arguement with you today Beth. I do know Rosemary, I have worked with her, and have listened to her complain about city council a number of times. She's a nice lady, with good intentions. She has expressed her frustrations to some of us in the past. Again I'm not going to let you sling your poop today. We all have a right to our opinion.So save it Beth. Is this really Beth or are you using an assumed name too??

Mar 5, 2009, 10:33am Permalink
Beth Kinsley

We have a right to our opinion but Charlie and Rose Mary don't? At least not on here? And why are you questioning everyone's names? Does it sound like an assumed name? First Dan and now me. Unfortunately I don't have a video to show you that I exist like Dan does but I assure you, I am a real person. A real honest to goodness taxpayer.

Mar 5, 2009, 10:41am Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Beth;

If you want to prove you're real what you need to do is go to the grocery store and look for the "Karen's Sounding Board" end cap, then go over and introduce yourself. Jeesh, so obvious.

Mar 5, 2009, 10:49am Permalink
Karen Miconi

Yep, thats right people just like you and me with opinions. Wait thats right its the building that talks right?? Get out of your cartoon life Andy. Stop insulting the people of batavia, and stop hiding under the grocery store shelves! LOL You just feed on people like me, and love to "TRY" to make fools of us. You don't scare me. You don't scare anyone. Neither does your sidekick Beth. You 2 are like Batavia's Finest, always lurking in the shadows to insult everyone and turn all the bloggs sour.

Mar 5, 2009, 11:01am Permalink
Andrew Erbell

Who's insulting anyone? You are the one that has written extensively about the number of people that come up to you everywhere you go and bend your ear about this. Shouldn't Beth be afforded that opportunity? Why is it that anyone voicing an opinion that doesn't match your own is suddenly "attacking" you. I'm not trying to scare you. I'm not trying to intimidate you. I simply disagree with you. I am allowed to do that, am I not?

Mar 5, 2009, 11:02am Permalink
Beth Kinsley

Karen, I am certainly not trying to scare or insult anyone. Just because I voice my opinion means I am trying to scare you? Or insult you? You said yourself that everyone has a right to their opinion. Why does that only apply to you?

Mar 5, 2009, 11:10am Permalink
Karen Miconi

Haaaaa Heeeee Haaaa, I know, i'm trying to get outside, but I find myself in this mess, trying to defend myself. Time to go rake the yard. Richard, dont let these bullys intimidate you. Keep on Keepin on Buddy!!

Mar 5, 2009, 11:13am Permalink
Leonard Clark

Howard . . . Why would any advertisers want to be on your site? It is going down hill faster than it took off. You can take my name off this site anytime. Thanks

Mar 5, 2009, 2:40pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Leonard, your wish is granted, but before you go you should know ... traffic is up this week over last, comments are holding steady, the poll votes are running strong ... and two more advertisers signed on today

So there's really no evidence for your supposition.

Mar 5, 2009, 6:35pm Permalink
Beth Kinsley

I notice that the poll is now down from their site. Last night it was 65% willing to "take the risk" to get rid of the service and 35% in favor of keeping it. And now the poll is down. So is the place to leave comments and out of the 45 people who have signed the petition, nearly half of them don't even live in the City. Since the City taxpayers were footing most of the bill for the service, it seems like we should be the ones to have a say in this matter. Some of the signatories don't even live in New York State.

Mar 6, 2009, 11:22pm Permalink

Authentically Local