main line suburban life - snakel smacked silly by sherry and scott
- Access to all of our posts and comments
- Your own profile including an avatar, buddy lists, and other social networking features
- The ability to send private messages to other users on this site
- The ability to chat and interact with other citizens and voters in and around Lower Merion.
(Don't live in Lower Merion? That's okay. We won't hold it aginst you.)
- a leaky tinfoil
- Bill Spingler
- Dan Sherry
- Jerry Scott
- John Nagle
- Main Line Suburban Life
- nagle = suspicious serpent
- Radnor
- Radnor Township Board of Commissioners
- shhhhhh - dont wake up nagle!
- snakel
- snakel supporters attack s.a.c.!
- tin hat rat
- Tinfoil Nagle
- where's a mongoose when you need one?
- wimpy snakelites!
|
i hope john nagle had a warm cup of sunshine to start his day today, because one look at the opinion page of the main line suburban life will likely depress him. for starters, there is a critique of the nagle board by dan sherry (sort of a 'state of radnor' editorial). it does a good job laying out a timeline of what nagle has done (and what he has allowed to be done) -
good stuff by dan. however, a somewhat stranger slam was delivered by jerry scott. usually, scott (who many years ago was a republican school board director) fills up the editorial page with rabid right wing rantings (often at a national level). here however, soctt weirdly whimpers about the fact that bill spingler, a democrat, wasnt elected president by the current b.o.c. -
couldnt disagree more with scott. frankly, the only thing good about the nagle presidency (and i really mean that) is that spingler isnt able to be president! |
- ChickenSandwich's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I sort of expected to see that type of an editorial from Danny boy - but I NEVER would have suspected that Jerry Scott was/is a fan of Bill Spingler!!
it shocked me too. how is the republican party helped by rallying around bill spingler? that makes no sense to me.
on the other hand, it made no sense to me that kevin higgins and don curley would vote to make john nagle president of the board (can you imagine how justifiably angry harriette waldron and ernie shapiro must be?!).
maybe the republican party in radnor has lost its marbles. or maybe they are copying the radnor democratic partys playbook, and backing anyone affiliated with the radnor conservancy. either way, the republican party doesnt look too bright at the present time.
Thanks for posting this...and I'll also use this opportunity to thank Tom Murray for giving me space in his newspaper.
One of the reasons that I wrote the editorial was a reaction to statements that I was being told. Over the past two weeks, several people informed me that John Fisher had voted in support of John Nagle for president (he didn't), others told me that John Nagle had been nominated by Donald Curley (he wasn't), two people told me that the vote was unanimous (it wasn't), four people told me that John Fisher voted in favor of Bill Spingler for president (he didn't), and approximately ten people told me that Bill Spingler nominated John Nagle for president (he didn't).
Another reason I wrote the editorial was due to my disgust at the anti-transparency actions being undertaken by Mr. Nagle and Ms. Schaefer. The justification they have given, thus far, in support of their their pro-redaction philosophy is that Township employees might become upset if their salaries are posted on the Township's official website. This would fall into the category of "good intentions" - because, let's face it, making sure that Township employees are comfortable is certainly something that we would all like to see occur.
However, "good intentions" is not an appropriate substitute for "good government" and strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the law. In my opinion, there is no substitute to making financial records of public employees available and easily-accessible to Radnor's taxpayers...who are paying the employees' salaries.
Indeed, even if there were not an ongoing scandal involving, among other things, the former Township Manager's salary, such information should still be made readily available to Radnor's citizens. However, in the current environment, which is one where Radnor's citizens deeply distrust the Board of Commissioners, an increased effort at transparency should have been put forth by President Nagle so as to reassure the public. Nevertheless, Mr. Nagle supported Ms. Schaefer's amendment to redact the document.
The final rationale for writing the editorial was the revelation (in last week's Main Line Suburban Life) that Mr. Nagle intends to not allocate forty hours a week to his role as Board President. I found that staggeringly irresponsible, particularly given the many significant issues (some of which could aptly be described as "crisis") facing Radnor Township.
Mr. Nagle has been given the tremendous honor from 5th Ward voters to represent them on the Board. Thereafter, he was given the unique honor of presiding over the board by his fellow Commissioners. An elected official with a modicum of humility and decency would have informed the approximately thirty thousand (30,000) people who live in Radnor Tonwship that he would work exhaustively on their behalf. Instead, here's what Mr. Nagle said:
"“I think the job is going to be as little or as much as I put into it. It’s not going to be 40 hours a week, but it’s not going to be just the meetings either."
I still haven't calmed down from reading that quote, and it's been seven days.
Nevertheless, I'm sure there is a significant number of John Nagle supporters in Radnor Township who, in good faith, have a very different interpretation of John Nagle's presidency. As such, I genuinely look forward to reading (and hearing) their reaction to my editorial.
Nevertheless, I'm sure there is a significant number of John Nagle supporters in Radnor Township who, in good faith, have a very different interpretation of John Nagle's presidency. As such, I genuinely look forward to reading (and hearing) their reaction to my editorial.
most people who support nagle will say that youre 'personally attacking' him. they always do that - its a very lazy predictable response to any criticism.
criticize nagle for wanting to have the bashore investigation behind closed doors? personal attack!
criticize nagle for cussing out dan sherry during a public meeting? personal attack!
criticize nagle for conflict of interest due to his radnor conservancy affiliation? personal attack!
criticize nagle for making it a board policy to redact documents that taxpayers have the right to see? personal attack!
it reminds me of the annoying woman in the progressive insurance commercials who is always flailing around and yelling 'discount!!'
Frontpaged, with a minor tweak to the formatting of the post so it didn't break the layout.
woo hoo! thanks doug!
breaking news - it looks like the nagle supporters (or 'snakelites') have banded together and are attacking dan sherry on the main line suburban lifes webpage -
from what i can tell, the snakelites think dan sherry cant be a successful young lawyer, because he took the time to write a letter to the editor. holy cow!
does anyone want to clue the snakelites in, and let them know that lawyers, like any other professional occupation, write columns and editorials all the time?
from what i can tell, the snakelites think dan sherry cant be a successful young lawyer, because he took the time to write a letter to the editor. holy cow!
does anyone want to clue the snakelites in, and let them know that lawyers, like any other professional occupation, write columns and editorials all the time?
I like that term 'Snakelites', Sandwich.
Also, I knew the Nagle suppoorters would sink to new lows, but going after somebody's profession, and insinuating that they can't be good at their job because they write letters to the editor? That's not low - that's pathetic!
I don't like every editorial I see written in the paper (I'm not a big fan of Anne Minicozzi's work, I really don't care for Jan Armon's letters to the editor, etc.) but I usually try to critique the substance of what was written, and not pontificate that the author wrote an article simply because he or she wasn't any good at their job, and therefore had too much time on their hands.
There are a lot of people who blog on this site - Carla and Doug alone must put in hours and hours and hours doing this - and yet they have other interests and jobs. Same goes, I'm sure, for bloggers like Politeia, and Chips, and Sandwich. To draw a conclusion that all of these people (including me) don't have successful careers is pretty obnoxious - and kind of similar to cursing out a speaker during a public meeting.
Thanks for the support...but the types of comments posted at the bottom of my editorial on the Main Line Suburban Life's webpage don't bother me in the slightest.
In my opinion, anyone who truly believes that drafting editorials (or speaking at a public meetings) equates with an unsuccessful professional career is either genuinely pathological, or has intentionally compromised their objectivity so as to create a basis for leveling a personal attack. I don't find either category of people to be particularly threatening or, more importantly, persuasive.
Moreover, it makes little sense to engage these types of critics, because doing so takes the attention off the subject matter that was being discussed (i.e. restructuring of the Board of Commissioners and John Nagle's conduct as Board President) and refocuses the attention onto my career.
I strongly doubt that Radnor's residents are interested about how others perceive my success as a trial attorney...and I have no doubt that these citizens would be even less interested in how I view myself as a trial attorney!
Nevertheless, I do appreciate the support, and hopefully the supporters of Mr. Nagle will respond to the substance of my editorial so that the a public debate on the contentions therein can continue.
seems like the snakelites are now using dan sherrys use of the s.a.c. website to go after carla as well -
be careful where you blog wrote on Jan 21, 2010 10:32 AM:
" From what I can tell, Mr. Sherry is an associate at a plaintiff's firm. Not very old. Could be a terrific lawyer, but not someone who has done a lot of negotiations other than in plaintiffs kind of cases. His biggest community client appears to be his mother. Doesn't mean he couldn't be good at it, but he is just an associate and who knows how much experience he really has? In the public arena, so far he mostly seems to rant, waiving his arms with his shirt tail out. He rails against the Scotts, Radnor Conservatency, Mr. Nagle-- but in a manner not likely to influence anyone as he is terribly long winded and seems to completely lack ANY practical experience in government, how entities are really run, or even private sector experience.
More damning to his effectiveness as an advocate: Mr. Sherry also blogs incessantly on the SAC Blog, which routinely villifies public officials. Its hard to see how someone associated wtih that blog would really have any impact on public life. Their juvenile rantings and association with the head-nut job "community activist" from Lower Merion (who routinely tells people to "bugger off", "you don't matter" while lampooning Bruce Reed and then wonders why he ignores her and no one wants to hire her for their public relations person), seriously undermines anyone associated with them. Ocassionally they are successful in exposing useful information (Balshore), but outside of their role of daily gossip their roles as advocates are very suspect. Not every single thing that happens deserves postings in bold, villification of public officials (who are the decision makers), lectures about the law, and general crisis rantings. But to each his/her own.
I would hope Mr. Sherry would grow up, cut ties to the crazies, and perhaps consider a real career in public life, not one dedicated operating with the disaffected minority whose rudness undercuts his credibility. He would like to be taken seriously, and perhaps deserves to be taken so but first he should grow up, learn brevity, try to persuade rather than rant, and be careful of his bedfellows.
dan, please listen to the snakelite and grow up. you are just a young inexperienced associate at a pesonal injury firm. dont you want to be taken seriously? dont you want to persuade rather than rant? dont you want to tuck your shirttail in (huh?).
and ye gods - going after carla? not a good idea in this sandwichs book.
Wow!!
The Snakelites are now going after Dan Sherry's reputation and career (seems they've modified their tune a tad - Dan is no longer an unsuccessful lawyer, he's just an inexperienced immature ineffective person who needs a mute button) AND they're going after Carla's reputation and career.
Boy, Dan, did you know that your editorial was going to be THAT effective? All of the weasely politicos are crawling out of the woodwork to moan in milquetoast rage! You couldn't ask for a better result.
And I share Sandwich's belief - woe to the person who crosses Carla.
If people are taking that amount of time and effort to denigrate Carla and the SAC website, that means we're having an effect.
It's also interesting that the comment implies that we should not be allowed to complain about public officials. My Free Speech Organ (aka my brain) went into shock when I saw that. Newsflash: public officials are not above having their actions questioned, and as I've stated elsewhere, having people complain about you is pretty much part of the job.
Maybe certain people need to grow thicker skins.
Dear Favorite Chicken Sandwich,
I could have written the script for that. Every time I speak at a public meeting and someone doesn't like what I say this happens. Last night I had a few things to say as did Politeia, so LOL, they will undoubtedly go after him next.
I wrote a little response to the snotpuss on the Main Line Media News site:
" Dear "Be Careful Where You Blog",
Hi. One of those evil SAC bloggers here. You know the one you refer to?
Let's lay it out, shall we? I do speak my mind. So what? I am hardly alone in that regard.
I speak my mind under my own name, and like Dan, do pen the occasional editorial column.
I am a community activist and I am proud of that. I have credibility in the community and have no need to justify myself to people like you.
And as far as blogging goes, well the thing is this: STOP READING. If you don't like it, move on. But apparently as much as you purportedly detest the blog, you still read it don't you?
I find it amusing that you levy personal attacks against those of us who actually have the courage to get out in the public and say how we feel.
As for political lampoons, they are as old as noms des plumes. Another "so what?".
The bloggers on the SAC site actually do have an effect, and it provides a forum to be heard for even the sour grapes like yourself.
I am proud of what I do in the community and the SAC site is indeed a true community resource. We are all quite used to people like you at this point.
When people like you crop up in my world I know one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: I am doing something right.
But thanks in any case for all the compliments! Please make sure to give Bruce Reed my regards, will you?
TTFN "
I mean come on, we all know who it was who save Radnor from the Janssen mistake and it wasn't the Radnor Commissioners. It was THIS blog and all of US bloggers. But you know, hey we have no credibility blah,blah,blah.
_____________________________________________________________
L'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers/Man is born free, yet he is everywhere in chains.–Jean Jacques Rosseau. The Social Contract, 1762
Nicely done, Carla!
I especially like the poster who claims Dan Sherry could be more effective if he wouldn't "rant".
I mean...seriously?
Dan would be MUCH more effective if he would only go up to the microphone, mumble a few words, thank the Commissioners, and then sit down?
Carla would be a MUCH better blogger if she just wrote 'Feelin' fine, 'cause I love L.M.' and posted a picture of a cute, cuddly bunny?
Carla would be a MUCH better blogger if she just wrote 'Feelin' fine, 'cause I love L.M.' and posted a picture of a cute, cuddly bunny?
now thats funny!
Dear Favorite Chicken Sandwich,I could have written the script for that. Every time I speak at a public meeting and someone doesn't like what I say this happens. Last night I had a few things to say as did Politeia, so LOL, they will undoubtedly go after him next.
im not too worried about you and politeia sticking up for yourselves. you guys can brush away critics like gnats.
it just surprises me that the nagle supporters went after dans (and your) professional reputation.
saying that an attorney is inexperienced (even if its meant due to the attorneys age), or not persuasive, or doesnt have a significant workload, is a hardcore insult. if someone ever said that about me, i would be livid.
im not too worried about you and politeia sticking up for yourselves. you guys can brush away critics like gnats.
it just surprises me that the nagle supporters went after dans (and your) professional reputation.
saying that an attorney is inexperienced (even if its meant due to the attorneys age), or not persuasive, or doesnt have a significant workload, is a hardcore insult. if someone ever said that about me, i would be livid.
Yeah - that was a VERY cheap shot by Nagle's pals. Tough to get more classless (or wrong) than that.
As Politeia wisely pointed out on another thread, it doesn't make much sense for Nagle's supporters to attack Carla (who has been friendly to Nagle) yet because they are so angry at Dan Sherry, they've chosen to attack S.A.C. and those who blog on it (especially Carla) because Dan Sherry also blogs on S.A.C.
I guess Nagle and his buds think that they are scoring points in the public. If anything, they're just bringing more attention on Nagle and his actions. That ain't good for Nagle - he'll melt like a candle under the hot lights.
As Doug said, this is also bringing a lot of attention to the SAC blogs, and I welcome that.
What this tells me is that the SAC blogs are read closely by a lot of people - and especially in the political scene. If everybody agreed with what was said here, I'd have a problem with that.
This is not a place to tip toe around and suck up to the powers that be. This is the place where citizens can tell it like it is, and I sense a lot of fear from the politicos and their sheeple in the posts over at MLNM.
=================
~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
As Doug said, this is also bringing a lot of attention to the SAC blogs, and I welcome that.
What this tells me is that the SAC blogs are read closely by a lot of people - and especially in the political scene. If everybody agreed with what was said here, I'd have a problem with that.
Correct..and this is why I utilize this website.
The people who read (and often comment) on the postings are not replicas of each other. Rather, there are significant (sometimes heated) differences of opinion, as well as arguments.
However, the robust discussions on this site are not inherently problematic, and as Politeia properly pointed out, the inverse (i.e. indistinguishable beliefs) is something far more unsettling.
However, the robust discussions on this site are not inherently problematic, and as Politeia properly pointed out, the inverse (i.e. indistinguishable beliefs) is something far more unsettling.
yep.
if you want a bunch of nodding heads and shared beliefs (which i would find boring as hell) join the doofusy politicos at the radnor conservancy (after you pay their membership fee).
if you want to defend your positions and engage people with different beliefs, blog on s.a.c.
if you want a bunch of nodding heads and shared beliefs (which i would find boring as hell) join the doofusy politicos at the radnor conservancy (after you pay their membership fee).
On the topic of the Conservancy, and its little pet projects, I came across this survey at the Friends of the Willows Cottage (a subsidiary of the Radnor Conservancy) website:
http://www.willowscottage.org/home/?page_id=362
Pretty silly and leading questions (seriously...they ask questions about winter sleigh rides and hot chocolate) - but one thing I DON'T see is questions to the public as to whether the Greener Partners farmer should be living at the Willows Cottage (even though the Conservancy has said that he would be about a zillion times despite the fact that they haven't gotten any authorization from the B.O.C. to make that a reality).
What's the matter, Conservancy? Don't you want to know what the public thinks on the issue of farmer residency?!
I am a long time Radnor resident and watch the BOC meetings as often as i can. It certainly has become interesting when Mr. Sherry makes his comments. Good for you, Mr. Sherry.
I do have one comment for you and please take it as constructive criticism. It is so distracting and takes away from your good comments when you touch, move or accidentally bump the microphone in any way. Makes an awful noise for those of us watching at home. This is quite frequent when you are speaking and it really does distract from your thoughtful words.
I agree with Radnor Resident. I told his mother some time ago to pass that message on to him. I guess we should call him the mic banger.
Duly noted, and I appreciate the advice!
And yes, my mother did mention your sage advice...I shall be especially mindful of my "microphone banging" in the future.
to dan sherrys credit, he brushes the microphone with his hand. compare that to bill spingler, who usually hits the microphone with his own face.
One of my favorite bloggers, JustSnarky, is weighing in on the Main Line Suburban Life debate -
http://justsnarky.blogspot.com/2010/01/judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged.html
Good stuff!
very smart comments by snarky. also, is there a radnor b.o.c. meeting tonight?
What has been said about Carla and RadnorLawyer is shameful, but typical for our local governments.
And I feel kind of bad because I know some of that vitriol in slamming the SAC blogs is actually against me because of how I will be exposing government in Lower Merion and Montgomery County over the upcoming months.
To those cowards who are slamming fellow SAC bloggers on the MLMN, you are only further motivating me.
=================
~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
I usually do not post on here, although I do enjoy reading the comments.
I must say that Justsnark's post on his blog is what is wrong with bloggers.
For him or her, as usual, we don't know, to take shots at Main Line Media News is a joke. It's the typical "shoot the messanger" reply. Unlike some blogs and bloggers, we give BOTH SIDES and do no pick and choose what we post or print in our papers. The fact that I gave Dan Sherry the space for his "As I See It" is proof of that.
Justsnarky will always be the bloggers I dislike because they don't understand what we do, and that's give both sides.
Tom Murray
PS... Yes Justsnarky, I do sign my name.
Good counterpoints by Tom Murray, a man I really like and respect.
Tom has run a bunch of guest editorials written by me, and a number with polar opposite views. I think Tom is excellent when it comes to fairness. He reminds me a bit of Howard Kurtz from the Washington Post - very tough to know what political side he's on - and that's a good thing!!!
I read the JustSnarky post to be about the anonymous comments that followed the online version of Dan's editorial,and was not about the newspaper itself. Some of them were grossly unfair to Carla (which was weird, because Dan's editorial didn't mention Carla or SAC). I guess that's the price of having an online version of a newspaper.
Anyhow Tom, I think you're a solid newspaperman, and I would suspect that many bloggers feel similar (though they can certainly speak for themselves)!
Hey Tom,
Good to see you following along.
I respect the line you have to walk as a journalist and you know that. Never a complaint from me about MLMN, and maybe I'll get around to writing another "As I See It" down the road and we shall see what type of response I get on your website.
One minor point I made a ways back on these blogs was that the problem with only reporting both sides is that if one side won't say anything, it often does not get reported by newspapers.
The one side that will always remain silent in the face of wrongdoing, and for which the media will often not report the other side in the face of silence, is when the government seeks to cover something up.
However, I was happy to see your newspaper report on some issues that Radnor government had not confirmed on the Bashore debacle, and it was interesting to note there were a few posts on your website that slammed you and were shocked you allowed facts to be put in print that were not confirmed by the township, but your paper was right on with its facts.
You know I have never asked anything of you, and I have faith and trust that you report the facts on important stories when and how journalistic integrity dictates, because that is how you have always done it.
Cheers!
-- Andy
=================
~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.
not only did you give dan sherry space, you gave him really prominent space. cant tell you how many people have commented on that 'as i see it'.
i am only a sandwich tom, but i think you are a fair guy. your op/ed section covers the spectrum for political discussion and views on local issues.
you should rethink your views on justsnarky though. that blog is excellent.
hey chicken, this is a line from the snarky post ....
Main Line Media News and Journal Register should be ashamed of themselves
Really? for what?
Not really much to rethink.
Tom
I am a long time Radnor resident and watch the BOC meetings as often as i can. It certainly has become interesting when Mr. Sherry makes his comments. Good for you, Mr. Sherry.
I do have one comment for you and please take it as constructive criticism. It is so distracting and takes away from your good comments when you touch, move or accidentally bump the microphone in any way. Makes an awful noise for those of us watching at home. This is quite frequent when you are speaking and it really does distract from your thoughtful words.
yo tom -
why no editorial from you in this weeks paper?! wooz mentioned that there were no pro nagle letters or columns (which was shocking), but it was even more shocking that there was no tom murray editorial!
what gives?!


Wow!
I sort of expected to see that type of an editorial from Danny boy - but I NEVER would have suspected that Jerry Scott was/is a fan of Bill Spingler!!
Hopefully Nagle will CHANGE COURSE before he drives his motorized Laz-E-Boy recliner (and Radnor with it) into the rocks!