Bye Ray
Bye Ray, you're done with the paper now. Good, I'm glad, maybe you will also receive some peace if you get involved in new things. Newspapering by trade is pretty negative. Bye Nathan. Enjoy your new house. Your paper The Gray News is bad, it might get better, but frankly if Ray stays away then there's more hope of that. And if Nathan stays away too. And Biasbuster can always hope for a newspaper that doesn't deliberately hurt people and bring down a whole town, can't s/he?
posted by Gray Maine at
12:36 PM
36 Comments:
"Bye Ray" You have had all your 'undeserved' attention, your last 'sarcastic' editorial; and are now a 'thing-of-the-past'!! Be Smart...BE GONE
'Bye Ray'
By
Anonymous, at 11:46 AM
Jackies allowing the same crap...tell this paper you do not appreciate the service...the advertisers too!
By
Anonymous, at 1:54 PM
We missed you at Ray Clarks surprise party
By
Anonymous, at 9:48 AM
The surprise is that there WAS a party.
By
Anonymous, at 12:32 PM
We all partied when Ray left.
By
Anonymous, at 9:16 PM
It was interesting to see 'Who Partied'!!! Richard Barter, Mitch Berkowitz, Paul Proudian, Wayne Pollard, Judy Huff, Mary Bosse. It sure does clarify all the former negative comments at Council Meetings from these folks. Time has a way of 'sorting things out'.
By
Anonymous, at 9:21 AM
Well, well, well, the Devil and his Minions. AKA the Party from Hell.
By
Anonymous, at 12:52 PM
The rag is still the same...just a rag...cat box liner.
By
Anonymous, at 5:39 PM
Well, give it time. No business changes overnight, and the Gray News is no exception. Changes, if the owners decide to make them, would come slowly and incrementally. And remember, they are still working with the same personnel: Ray Clark and Nathan Tsukroff, neither of which are known for their ethics. The first thing the new owners need to do, if they choose to make healthy changes, is to ensure Ray does not write any more of his acidic columns, and that Nathan Tsukroff does not “report” the news. New people will demonstrate a commitment to a fresh start. But, give it time, and watch patiently. It will happen, I’m sure.
By
Anonymous, at 8:15 AM
The editor makes the statement no attacks and then let's Prudian spew his filth...nothings changed.
More Lies, can't be trusted for real reporting.
By
Anonymous, at 10:14 AM
Time to switch gears. Public-ass is back with his blog and is not accepting any opposing comments. Mr. Proudian may be a candidate for council but he will not receive a vote from the rational thinking side of Gray.
By
Anonymous, at 3:40 PM
biasbuster said:
Please, no matter how much they deserve it or act the part, we don't need to call them names. Can you let us know which blog? Where or when did Paul Proudian declare for council? Thanks
By
Anonymous, at 8:52 AM
I say let Proudian run, that's the best help any moderate to conservative running could have. That guy is off in the left fringe somewhere.
By
Anonymous, at 7:46 AM
Paul Proudian needs to "Run for His Life"!!
By
Anonymous, at 2:05 PM
That's pretty funny. He sure has not endeared himself to people with the way he conducts himself, and his penchant for argument for argument's sake. I really hope he doesn't run.
By
Anonymous, at 2:25 PM
We need to take the Monument to task for allowing slurs and slanders by Public-ass Proudian.
By
Anonymous, at 7:21 AM
biasbuster said:
I know, it’s an issue. The Gray papers, any paper actually, has to make a balance between honoring the reader’s opinions, and respecting the truth.
Paul (please don’t say public ass) has his opinions, to which he is entitled and to which he is allowed to express any way he sees fit (his blog, the paper, on cable cameras…) He is not a palatable person to me and his opinions are bitter and negative, but so be it, they are his opinions.
However, what I do take issue with is the lack of balance in The Monument in allowing Paul’s letter to state a lie. Paul said in his letter that the GPLA deal “would not have cost a cent.” That is an outright lie: both papers discussed how there was a $660,000 taxpayer bond in the offing. The GPLA was planning to ask the taxpayers to pay three quarters of a million, a fact that directly contradicts Paul’s statement! In writing his lie, it costs Paul his soul. But in perpetuating the lie, it tainted the paper. At least The Monument’s former editor always insisted on verifying facts everywhere in the paper, even opinion columns, for the very reason that it is the paper’s responsibility to print the truth.
So I agree with you! Will you write a letter to the editor stating your opinion of Paul’s piece? That is one good and public ay to take the paper to task. Another is to write the Publisher.
By
Anonymous, at 7:48 AM
By the way, Tsukroff posted this on his blog and attributed it only to the Monument - As if the Monument Newspaper wrote it as editorial. That's not okay. It's either an oversight which he will fix, or an on-purpose ploy.
From the lipstick on a pig article:
Pennell will now go to the highest bidder; the chance to create a vibrant, publicly-accessible centerpiece for downtown Gray has been lost.
He is stating that because their plan didn't work out, no other plan can work out. I would guess that any group that was going to invest that much money in anything would create a vibrant publicly-accessible centerpiece for downtown Gray.
We're talking private investment vs. public tax dollars here. I say let's see what the private sector offers, which might be a long shot, and what the locals come up with for a tax-payer funded solution.
By
Anonymous, at 1:39 PM
biasbuster said:
interesting perspective and well said, thank you!
Are you saying that the highest bidder thing is being legitimately pursued by the SAD? or that Paul said this in his opinion letter? If it was something only Paul is stating I never spend one moment believing him.
By
Anonymous, at 2:40 PM
My understanding is that the SAD has to sell it for "fair market value" . Not sure if it is allowed to trade.
They toured the community college person through the building, that's a fact.
They hadn't done the appraisal yet, and that's a fact.
I don't have an opinion of Paul except that he seems really negative in his approach.
What i don't get is that everything is in the same place, again, just where it was before the council sent Pennell to the court for a legal judgement.
If the GPLA idea was a workable plan then, why isn't it a workable plan now? I
By
Anonymous, at 10:48 PM
Biasbuster said:
Yes, the SAD had received permission to sell it but the stipulation the AG put on it was for fair market value. Yes, they can swap for fair market value too, according to the AG opinion.
The difference between the original ‘Pennell as Library’ idea and the GPLA plan is this: when the Pennell as Library idea was proposed to the people it was to ’work with the GPLA in turning Pennell into the library’. The plan was put forth as having no cost to the taxpayers. However upon further discussion, after referendum had taken place, two facts came to light:
1. The GPLA had included an IRS statement in their financial package a stipulation that they would put out a $660,000 bond to the taxpayers. Ray Clark (President at the time) did not tell this to the council but insisted that the plan would not cost the taxpayers anything. This turned out to be a lie.
2. The GPLA plan was to give ownership of the building to the GPLA, who would then become its owners. The GPLA would lease Pennell back to the Town.
The Council did want to release the building into private hands until all other options had been exhausted, including finishing the court case that the Wilkinson council had started. In good faith, though, the council asked GPLA to negotiate a lease arrangement, despite their misgivings. The GPLA balked at the lease and walked. The GPLA plan is not workable now because the GPLA says they don’t want the building any more.
By
Anonymous, at 7:51 AM
The MSAD had the chance to give up their ownership of the building and give the trust BACK to the town of Gray. Instead it insisted on contesting it in court against, intead of FOR the town.
The Historical Society is the ONLY education in this building now and for the last number of years. If the MSAD had any sense of the trust it would let New Gloucester move it's Historical Society into the building along with the Gray Historical Society. Actual education could take place. The Schools could send the kids there to learn about their history and the history of the area, as could Fiddleheads, daycares, etc. The Society's could go a fund raising drive(s) with the matching grant (I'm sure Mr. Barter's offer was genuine).
Problem solved...make it happen MSAD, make it right. CDo justice to the trust given to you, educate.
By
Anonymous, at 8:52 AM
Biasbuster said:
“The MSAD had the chance to give up their ownership of the building and give the trust BACK to the town of Gray”
They did? My understanding is that the AG said that the SAD could NOT give the trust back to the town because the town was not an educational entity.
I like your idea. The NG Historical Society has asked the town if they can move into the Meeting House or the Fire Barn when the new Municipal Fire-PW complex is built on Rt 100. I don’t know if a town’s historical society would want to re-locate to another town, but on the other hand, NG has been part owner of Pennell for so many years and the two towns are united through the SAD and also its newspapers.
Thanks for sharing your neat idea. Personally I hope it goes through!
By
Anonymous, at 9:10 AM
The MSAD could have worked with the town instead of against the town at the AG's office.
By
Anonymous, at 9:05 PM
biasbuster said:
The SAD is trustee of a trust and the SAD’s first obligation is to that trust. In that spirit, they consulted the AG’s office, because the AG oversees trusts in the state. Not the town. The SAD asked the AG how they could legally dispose of the building and trust. They were given an answer. The Town did not like that answer (sell it for fair market value or swap for same) and the town sued the SAD. The town could have worked with the SAD, but they didn’t...
By
Anonymous, at 9:29 PM
Well that being the case the trusts intention was that the BUILDING and the LAND be used for educational purposes. The town uses the fields for sports and team work (education), the Historical Society uses the building for history education the MSAD uses it for...storage?
The MSAD has an obligation to fix neglected repairs and use the trust for EDUCATIONAL purposes. If they don't the previous owners have a case against them for mis use of the trust over the last 10+ years and should get the land and building back. The MSAD has a responsiblitiy here; will the MSAD do what's right or sell it to the highest bidder?
By
Anonymous, at 7:43 AM
biasbuster said:
It’s my understanding the Pennell trust governs Pennell Institute for educational purposes. But there are three trusts. The other two are the Anderson trust, (Lab building, science uses) and the field/land, that’s the Haskell trust, (sports). One of the things the Gray lawsuit tried to do was separate the three. The judge (Or the AG) said no, the trusts could not be separated.
The town (or SAD) has a schematic showing just where all three properties link up and what trust governs what. I think because one of them would end up landlocked and one would end up non-conforming, and there was some discussion with the SAD about an easement…but then it got complicated and I lost track. And then it was decided they had to remain bundled.
By
Anonymous, at 8:10 AM
Only the building can be sold...get rid of it. MSAD is not willing to care for this building and llive up to theirn responsibility maybe a develper will.
By
Anonymous, at 6:42 AM
Yawn....time for a new thread
By
Anonymous, at 7:57 AM
Biasbuster said:
This blog was started to expose and keep attention focused on the Gray News’s misdeeds of its manipulation of the facts, lies, and bias. Those items started when the paper was taken over by Ray Clark, its editor, and continued for 8.5 years under his direction and voice. Now that Mr. Clark has quit and moved on (or almost, with only the occasional column stating he has seen the future) and since the paper has new owners and a new editor, it seems that there is no need to start a new thread exposing bias of a paper that has changed hands and is making a fresh start. I truly thank you for reading and suggesting a new thread. One may appear, if the Gray News does not shape up, but I am hopeful it will. Bias and cranky editors don’t make money for publishers.
By
Anonymous, at 8:14 AM
Watch Ray coming to a council near you? Will he be the spokesperson for Pennell in front of Council. I won't miss that one! Keep us posted.
By
Anonymous, at 4:17 PM
He's baaack. Spewing untriths about our founding fathers this time.As I read on another blog the term "revisionist history", that's starting to sink in!
By
Anonymous, at 6:27 AM
This has to open back up now! Did you read all the mystakes Mr. Clark made this week!
By
Anonymous, at 2:35 PM
Biasbuster said:
I try not to read it... :)
Heck, the Gray news hasn't had an online paper for almost 8 weeks, their office is in a shambles, the editor hates to actually write stories, and they are still johhny come latelies with breaking news. Or any news, for that matter.
I'm not worried. Just don't read it, trust it, or pay attention to it and everything will be all right.
By
Anonymous, at 6:35 PM
Come on...are you asleep at the control panel? Hand off to a more responsible observer. Ray Clark is still spewing his untruths.
By
Anonymous, at 10:12 PM
Biasbuster said:
I know...the article about Pennell was completely unsubstantiated, as ususal.
Unsubstantiated "newspaper" articles are just rumor, conjecture, personal agenda. But the idea of this site was to give examples, share bias busting skills, and have people learn how to spot bias. Now that the paper is owned by Mr. Corsetti, who I believe has a more open mind than the previous local directors, (and a wallet- this for him is a bussiness, to others it was a cult) you can always take your concerns to him. And you should!
By
Anonymous, at 5:50 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home