What Does It Say About The Credibility Of A Person Who Must Tell Rabid Lies To Defend Their Position?

Apparently somebody out there is so threatened by what I say that they have to resort to outright lies.

And off course the ability to do that is perpetuated by the fact they have no accountability to put their name on it.    I guess if I were telling blatant wild lies like this, I would be ashamed to reveal my name too. 

Here is a comment left on the Pandora Box of Rocks blog. 

"There are still thoughts by many of us that Pundt and Lamora were working with bp all along. Stranger things have happened in the world of industrial exploitation. If you don't believe that, follow his direction for the last several years.

Pandora was too nice to even give this schmuck a platform for his rants. He won't quit until the government is changed back to all his pro wind pals so he can again say he predicted to all along.

Don't trust this guy and his buddy." 

Well “many of you” also have your head up your ass too if this is what you believe!!! And hopefully that is where you will keep it!!!

Now let's examine this for a minute so you can see how wildly distorted this really is.  It is a theme these people continue to perpetuate because the last thing they want you to do is look at the actual record…which we will look at below. 

I have been strongly and publicly anti wind since the day this CV wind battle began. Long before many in the community were willing to express that view publicly.  Many still won't and like the person above cannot even place their name with their beliefs.  They can't even do it in public apparently when they choose to support the Hirschey govt.  And isn’t it funny that so many Hirschey people are now strutting around as if they are anti wind and had a supposed anti wind victory.  Yet they marginalize me, one of the very first people to be strongly and publicly anti wind and have stuck with that position all along...which now the Hirschey supporters claim they are.  Even though the Hirschey board  and WPEG that supports them has never made  an anti wind claim.  Apparently they are a bit confused just like the commenter above!

This argument has always suggested that since I won’t blindly goose step with the Hirschey board and WPEG that somehow this equates to helping pro wind or working for them or BP. 

My suggestion to this person is get back on your medications as soon as possible!

But again let’s examine this claim against the actual record.

Dick Machserry was recently selected by Hirschey to be the town dep. town supervisor.  Macsherry has never had enough confidence from the community to win any CV election.  Why would that be?  Maybe because in 2009 he ran and campaigned right alongside the pro wind Rienbeck gang as a Democrat.  When Macsherry was selected in 2008 to represent WPEG on Rienbeck’s wind law committee he bolted from the supposed anti wind WPEG, and then got all cozy with Rienbeck.  Macsherry even had a private meeting with Rienbeck and the two wind developers at the time to let them privately take that draft wind law apart.  This would be before anyone in the public was allowed to see the law or attend a public hearing on it.

In addition at the point that John Byrne was video recording town meetings as a critical way to expose the conflicted behavior, Macsherry sided with Rienbeck when Rienbeck  tried to illegally remove Byrne and his camera from a town meeting.

Talking about helping pro wind?????

So maybe the “many of us’  making the charges about me should explain to us just exactly how this man was even allowed to  become the dep. super. with this record of being so cozy to pro wind.

Then we have Councilman John Byrne on the supposed anti wind Hirschey board.  He just told the world he is not against industrial wind development, and like Hirschey apparently fully supported how fair the Art 10 process was and what a relief it was. That would be the wind lobbied law and  process that actually helps wind developers fast track their projects by removing our right to home rule on energy issues.  He signed the recent letter thanking the NYPSC and Art 10 for the fairness of Art 10.  

 Now if he is successful at running for NY Assembly he will be in a powerful position in Albany. And he is apparently not opposed to industrial wind development or against the process that helps wind fast track their projects. Byrne also signed off on a CV zoning law that actually allows some wind development.  Maybe now we know why!

 If Byrne was letting the anti wind label stick to him on the Hirschey board, and is now revealing that he is not opposed to industrial wind development, (his own words) then he was running a complete scam on the CV community and the voters.

Then we have Mr. Hirschey who on TV tells a reporter it isn’t fair for her to call him anti wind  and he says in front of numerous other people that “wouldn’t  a few turbines be ok”…then actually passes a zoning law that allows some wind development.

One of Hirschey’s very first statements as CV supervisor was to tell the pro wind people that he was not their worst nightmare, and the anti wind people they would not get everything they wanted.  That sounds an awful lot like an industrial compromise to me…and he later says in a town meeting that in his mind this will all come to a compromise.

No kidding…look at our zoning law.  It allows industrial wind development.

Of course the  entire CV town board thinks the Art 10 system that fast tracks wind developers projects by taking away our home rule rights on energy matters is  fair, balanced, even handed, and was a welcome relief (their own words) in the wind siting scheme.

 Then we have former CV councilman Clif Schneider who back in 2009 has a crazy scheme in an email analysis for WPEG that getting more good neighbors to sign up would reduce potential complaints about any wind farm, better than any wind law could.  Great idea…get more people to sign up with good neighbor agreements and make the wind farms even larger.  Just let BP buy those people off.  Not exactly an anti wind stance.  And as you notice in Clif’s statement he does not oppose wind…he just wants to shove the turbines back away from the river.  The only way you could carry off this goofy scheme was if you HAD wind development in CV!

Of course the commenter above in their delusion somehow over looks this nutty scheme claiming I am the one helping pro wind! 

Clif’s words verbatim from the analysis email.

The principal advantage I see in the overlay district is that it affords additional protection for the heretofore unprotected lakeshore residents south of Mud Bay. Again, I think many of the turbines proposed for this area would be moved because of the noise restrictions. Along the river the noise restrictions applied to property lines that run far back from 12E will provide good protection; I don't see the overlay restrictions helping that area that much.

My personal problem, albiet a small one, is that this added protection provided river and lake shore residents came at the expense of having turbines located closer to inland non-participants, by about 1,000 ft. This could be a concern for a few residents. On the other hand, most of the residents of the town live along the river and lake.

These setbacks will be viewed by many supporters of wind development as too restrictive; I expect developers will contact their local lobbyists and tell them to “just say no.” I think people should keep in mind that in spite of all the new information that has become available about the negative impacts associated with wind development, those landowners with contracts remain happy and supportive. This, I contend, is key to our town moving ahead. Instead of thinking the draft law is too restrictive, developers and their supporters have to look at it differently. What it means is that they have to sit down with all the non-participants that border their project and negotiate a deal so that they become part of the project. If they do, I am more certain the money will lead to fewer complaints than any restrictions we could possibly adopt. Furthermore, I don't think any of our town leaders need to apologize to wind developers for having them give more money to our town's residents.

As for Brooks Bragdon, he publicly stated to BP in a meeting he was willing to work with them if they would abide by our zoning law.  Is he serious…work with BPand allow even some of their turbines???? 

And  all this is ON THE RECORD!

Now why is it this commenter above and his “many of us” doesn’t explore any of this or accuse these people of helping BP?

That is because the above commenter and the people who think like them have to lie and live in a completely separate and protected delusional fantasy to complete their argument, and not upset their little closed informational bubble of thinking.

As I said they desperately don’t want you to look at the actual record, and now they are pumping up the fantasy that Hirschey nearly single handily led the town to an anti wind victory over BP and forced them out of town.  More fairy land thinking!

 There is absolutely no record that I have done anything remotely close to what these people in the Hirschey govt have done in favor of wind development  in  CV.  Especially when you consider Macsherry who actually ran with the pro wind side, and who somehow now becomes our deputy supervisor, or Byrne and his sudden pro wind statements who could give industrial wind a significant leg up if he reaches Albany, or Schneider who was willing to have wind lease holders sign up more good neighbors and that was ok if town leaders demand a bigger bucket of cash from BP!!!

And finally this nut case says I won’t be happy until the Hirschey govt is out of power.  Well they could remove Macsherry and that would not make me unhappy with his previous pro wind alignments!

But find anywhere in any record where I have ever said I wanted to remove this govt…there is NONE!!!