Another question - Fitzgerald - where are getting the money

Moderator: Jim DeVito

Grace O'Malley
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm

Postby Grace O'Malley » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:05 pm

Whatever, Ken.

I think the whole idea of a son-in-law from Columbus running to post on a chatboard to "defend" his mother-in-law's honor is a real hoot.

Does anyone really think he cares about this?

Do we really care what Ms Metelko does?

She would have been far better off to let it fade away into chatboard oblivion.


Darrin Rosebrook
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 4:20 pm

Postby Darrin Rosebrook » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:39 pm

Mr. Warren,

Thank you for your lucid reply. I am Mrs. Metelko's son in law. I am also related to a lot of other people, but that not withstanding, my wife and I are considering a move and my interest in this community should be welcomed. Instead, I am attacked and maligned and for nothing more than trying to get to the facts of a matter.

When I signed up for this forum there was nothing in the agreement that required I disclose my family relationships, my political affiliations, my job, my location, my bank etc. However, it is apparent that some find those detail useful when trying to avoid factual discussions. That an investigation to find out WHO was posting was obviously much more important that WHAT he posted and HOW best to answer his question is an interesting dynamic. Ms. Kinsella's email to me was entitled: How's Columbus? An attempt to intimidate or at least communicate to me that she was "on" to me. What possible relevance could that have to the question/topic? None, but it fits right in with her style of communication.

Mrs. Kinsella and now her buddy Grace are masters of diversion as a tactic to avoid the real topic of conversation and now they've been caught. As I review their past posts it is a revelation as to tone and content. Keep it loud, keep it aggressive, but don't really say anything.

I think we can agree that successful debate is about facts and ideas. What Sharon and Grace are attempting to do is control the discussion by making it political and personal. Sharon's comments to me about "Ed" and my supposed affiliation with him are a case in point. My question was valid - her answer lacked integrity and somehow she thought my supposed relationship with a candidate she does not support would justify her deception. Now she will explain her spurious claim was justified because Mrs. Metelko is my mother in law. Specious argument and the purveyors of such are a disappointment and a waste of time.

The humorous thing about their posts is that if I were Sharon or Grace, I would never have answered with a simple answer; instead I would try to discuss how they are members of a pro-life group that supports the far right conservatives. And then everyone could have wasted time trying to get the "dirt" on the people involved rather than the answer to her question.

However, I don't work that way. I remain, Suzanne Metelko's son in law,

Darrin Rosebrook


Grace O'Malley
Posts: 680
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm

Postby Grace O'Malley » Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:57 pm

I guess chivalry is not dead! :lol:

While I appreciate your defense of your mother-in-law, Mr Rosebrook, my only contention is that she seems perfectly able to defend herself. Why does she need you to do it for her?

This entire matter could have ended 4 pages ago with one post from Suzanne, but instead she chooses to handle it this way, making a spectacle of the entire situation.Alternatively, she could have ignored it and it would have faded away, as well.

Sometimes, the less said, the better.


Jill Jusko
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:58 pm

Postby Jill Jusko » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:16 pm

Had I a son-in-law, I'd be quite happy that he would be willing to speak up on my defense. Far better than the opposite being true.

I disagree that Ms. Metelko made a spectacle of the situation. She neither introduced the initial post, nor posted what apparently was incorrect financial information about her donations to the Demro campaign.

And by way of disclosure, I don't know the Metelko's or the Rosebrook's. It just seems to me in this particular instance, Ms. Metelko is the wronged party, yet she is being blamed for the situation by Ms. O'Malley (I don't know her either).


Shawn Juris

Postby Shawn Juris » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:32 pm

Well I guess the experiment continues.
http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/debate-advice.html Which of these would have helped to defuse this situation?


Frank Murtaugh
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: LAKEWOOD

Postby Frank Murtaugh » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:36 pm

sharon kinsella wrote:By the way Ryan - when do you start boot camp for the Marine Corp. reserves?I heard you were telling people that you were joining if you didn't win.


It's Marine Corps.


Darrin Rosebrook
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 4:20 pm

Postby Darrin Rosebrook » Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:47 pm

Grace O'Malley wrote:I guess chivalry is not dead! :lol:

While I appreciate your defense of your mother-in-law, Mr Rosebrook, my only contention is that she seems perfectly able to defend herself. Why does she need you to do it for her?



Again, diversion. I never made mention of my mother in law, her character, or how I feel about her. Nor did I ever imply that I was speaking in her stead. On the contrary, I asked a simple question. It required a simple answer. Try to stay focused, please.

Grace O'Malley wrote:.Sometimes, the less said, the better.


Physician, heal thyself.


Shawn Juris

Postby Shawn Juris » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:36 pm

To get this back to the original question, where can we research campaign finance? I'd really like to know how much this campaign is costing.



Return to “2007 Lakewood Mayoral Election”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests