At least the last "Friend of Colleton" to attack my candidacy made an effort to make an argument--albeit one that was not supported by the facts. Here's a new email that's simply an ad hominem attack:
I just finished that delusional megalomaniac Chad King “fake news” essay on why he wants to be The King of Colleton. What a nightmare that he managed to find enough signatures, including his wife’s which is illegal as anyone who is an expert in Governance as he is knows it is one per household. The worst, and there were many that must have Keith screaming, is his blog Colleton Skeptic. My plan in response is to start my own blog entitled Colleton Scrumptious which will illuminate on a daily basis all the various ways I love living here, how grateful I am for the natural beauty and security, how I treasure my house, and my phenomenal friends including those who sacrifice their time and energy to keep the Chad Kings in check.
Dede
Just to set Dede's mind, the Section 4.1(a) of the Declaration provides that there is one "membership" per Lot, but that if a Lot is owned jointly by spouses, then each spouse is a "member." Section 4.3(a) of the By-Laws provides that "nominations may be made by written petition signed by not less than 25 members in good standing." I agree that the By-Laws are not artfully drafted and I would favor a change to the By-Laws to refer to "memberships" rather than "members"--but Dede is mistaken about the meaning of the governing documents. In any event, I submitted a petition signed by members representing 51 "memberships" (plus another eight spouses who also signed). As luck would have it, it wasn't hard to find the signatures. Many of the people who signed approached me--rather than vice versa. So there are at least 50 Owners who engage in wrong think--including past presidents and board members and current members of committees.
It would be helpful to me if Dede or her friends could point out any factually incorrect statements that I've made. I've made 45 posts to this Blog over the past year. Each post has been viewed an average of 102 times. I try hard to be factually accurate and have repeatedly offered to correct any factual errors that I may have made. It's difficult to escape the conclusion that Dede and her friends simply disagree with the opinions that I've formed based upon the facts. But the bottom line is that everyone--including me and Dede--has the right to their opinions. If you don't like my opinions--don't read them. I promise not to corner you and force my views on you or anyone else.
Let me be clear. I don't want to be "king" of anything. I simply want to empower the Owners to determine the future of our community. But I guess in a world where Republicans winning an election is a "threat to democracy," believing that Owners--rather than the Board--should make the important decisions around here constitutes wanting to be the "King of Colleton." Perhaps Dede should read my Blog a little more carefully to determine what I actually believe. In any event, I can't wait to read her "Colleton Scrumptious" blog--sounds exciting!
“Factual” comments and constructive discourse are healthy and positive for our community. However you have tossed out untrue accusations, and when truth was told, never apologized or accepted that much of your prognosis is guesswork, because after quitting you sidelined yourself from the facts. You quit, why should we put you back on the Board? Whatever your reasons are, you quit and now you want another chance and I can’t imagine how we can trust you. And how could you work with Board colleagues after maligning them in very personal attacks and with your cartoonish visual imagery? Men looking at women’s butts? A cabal of Karen’s? You are a dinosaur.
ReplyDeleteHelp me out. What "untrue allegations" have I made? What "facts" have I cited that are untrue? Be specific. The issue ought to be what I accomplished while I was on the Board--not whether I quit. What "personal attack" did I make? Be specific.
DeleteWriting a Blog is being in the entertainment business. You need to present accurate facts and logical analysis in a manner where people (who usually have many more things to read than time to read them) will make the time to read your post. I like memes. Meme's poke fun--but there's an underlying message. Just by way of example, a meme that shows a boyfriend staring at another women while he's accompanied by his own girlfriend is a visual representation of someone who's worried about the wrong things. Not everybody has the same sense of humor. If you don't like my sense of humor, you can always go to the Colleton Scrumptious Blog for your entertainment!
Let me help you out with some whoppers by the Board:
1. The amenities will cost $14.8 million and be ready in 4Q21 (tennis center), 1Q23 (Fitness Center), and 3Q22 (Dye Clubhouse).
2. We've reached agreement on as settlement to the seawall lawsuit dispute (4Q21).
3. We're probably going to enter into a standstill agreement with the seawall lot owners this quarter (4Q22).
None of these statements were true.
1. The closing of the community pool for most of two summers was not disclosed before either the first vote for the amenities in February 2021 or the second vote for the amenities in March 2022. The Board must have known about the closing of the pool because it finally announced that closing in April 2022 (i.e., immediately after the second vote).
2. The Board claimed that no change in scope was envisioned prior to the second amenities vote, yet one of the pillars of the first vote was moving the pro shop to the location of the current fitness center, which is no longer being done. The scope was indeed changed, and the price of the amenities was not adjusted to account for this deleted work.
I'm delighted that you're such a stickler for accuracy. After you inform me of the factually incorrect statements that I've made, please move on to the Board.
Earlier today I attempted to post my response to Chad's attack on my wife, Dede. My comment was denied, so I emailed Chad and asked him to post it. It's been 8 hours and still nothing. Either Chad is embarrassed by his actions or doesn't have the courage to comply with my request. Keep in mind that this is very person who dislikes secrecy, and yet if secrecy serves his purposes, he is happy to remain mute. If you want to read my response, tell Chad to post it. Michael Mavrogordato
ReplyDeleteLet me make sure I understand this. I somehow "denied" Michael's comment, yet I "permitted" this comment--how does that even make sense? If I wanted to block Mike or anyone else, I would simply disable the comment feature in Blogger.
DeleteI did receive an email from Mike this morning and I'll read it when I get a chance. I've enabled comments on this Blog and have no control (nor do I want any control) over what anyone posts as a comment. No one else has ever had trouble posting a comment. Perhaps Mike made an error. You'll have to forgive me if acting a Mike's tech support group is low on my list of priorities.
Perhaps Mike has other examples of where I embrace "secrecy for my purposes." The usual criticism is that I don't have any filters. More to come when I get around to it--maybe his email explains how my post is an "attack" while the original email is just another example of the civility displayed by the self-styled "Friends of Colleton."
The blog told me that my response was too long, so fix it
DeleteSo it turns out I didn't "deny" your comment, after all. I'll let you know when I go to work for you--that's when I'll respond to your order to "fix it."
Deletestop finding ways to delay to releasing my comments, just post it.
ReplyDeleteAs Trump would paraphrase it...Dede tries to impugn Chad, Chad responds with facts and reason, Dede's man writes a monologue so long the blog won't accept it. Rather comical really.
ReplyDeleteAs administrador of the blog, Chad has the ability to define any parameter, including the size of the responses. He chose not do. Had you had the ability to read my response you would have discovered that there is nothing comical in this exchange. Michael Mavrogordato
DeleteI wanted to comment and was denied. Simply trying to put info forth for Chad to clarify.
DeleteDid you cut and paste the email from Dede (which wasn’t addressed to you) without her permission and out it in her blog?
ReplyDeleteYour blog
ReplyDeleteOf course. The issue isn't whether I cut and pasted her email. Leaving aside the issue of whether her email was appropriate to begin with, the key questions are whether her email is accurate and how it ended up in my email basket. The fact of the matter is that Dede sent her email to an unknown number of people and one or more of those addressees decided to give the email wider distribution. At some point, an individual to whom the email was forwarded sent it to me. The email was in the public domain. Did the people who forwarded Dede's email ask her permission? Either they did and "permission" was granted or they--like me--simply decided that it was a public document that others may find interesting.
DeleteI spent an hour yesterday discussing the issue with Mike Mavrogordato and we're trying to identify what we agree on--and what we don't. The one thing I know we both agree on is that everyone's entitled to their opinion. More to come in a separate post.