New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[Epykat]

..........holding yourself up to ridicule with your refusal to accept what is factual.

Which is such mature way of dealing with people who don't agree with you.

Since when is pointing out the truth immature?
I could say the same thing about your selective editing of my post, i.e. the points I made about any rebuild having to relocate the existing pupils and the existing site being too small for needs.
Please exercise a little more mature consideration and read things in context next time. And don't bother to try to throw stones when you are standing in your own glass house.
And why not try to be a little more consistent and berate the person who called Betty a "mad old bint" while you are at it?

I didn't say pointing out the truth was immature, I quoted what you said about 'holding yourself up to ridicule', which is an issue I've had with this forum for quite some time. I'm quite happy to excercise mature consideration and I don't actually recall me ever calling anybody a bullshitting liar (although I'm sure Sean will try to find evidence to the contrary). I probably don't know you, have absolutely no axes to grind with you and I've no intention of deliberately offending you but I have my own opinions on the subject which just don't happen to be in line with yours. That doesn't make me a nasty, horrible, stupid, compulsive liar, so no, the cap doesn't fit (again Sean, feel free to contradict me) and I agree it does get very wearing, so at least we have something in common.

[seanie]

The 'we're being bullied' response to criticism has been employed almost from the beginning, but I only noticed it being emphasised from the planning committee hearing onwards. Cllr Hawkins only had a short time to speak but wasted the first couple of minutes on how parents opposed to the school were too scared to speak out due to the fear of threats and bullying.

At the time I thought it odd; you've only got a few minutes, surely you'd concentrate on substantive planning issues?

But look at it another way. Years of telling all and sundry that you represent the "significant majority", only to find that, when it comes to the crunch, more local people support than object to it. That's got to induce some cognitive dissonance. How to resolve it?

The significant majority of the area, some 20,000 people, are cowed in fear by the extreme sarcasm of me and about a half dozen people, on this forum and the Evening News comments.

What other explanation could there be?

[seanie]

Bullshitting and lying are different things. I've provided the dissertation on it before. It's worth reading.

[seanie]

Epykat, is the new school an open plan design?

You've made that claim a number of times, I've disputed it, and we can't both be right. It is or it isn't (to a close approximation). This may seem trivial to you but it actually highlights a key problem here.

Is your claim an accurate description of observable reality?

[Porty]

The 'we're being bullied' response to criticism has been employed almost from the beginning, but I only noticed it being emphasised from the planning committee hearing onwards. Cllr Hawkins only had a short time to speak but wasted the first couple of minutes on how parents opposed to the school were too scared to speak out due to the fear of threats and bullying.

I didn't make the meeting due to work commitments, so I'm intrigued as to how Councilor Hawkins bullying comments were received by his fellow councillors?

In your opinion did it seem like there was tacit agreement with the Councillor amongst his fellow councillors or was the response more akin to that of a visit from a pariah who is was generally percieved as a self-serving cock?

I have spoken to several eye witnesses who would agree with the latter, whats your take on it?

[seashell]

I didn't say pointing out the truth was immature, I quoted what you said about 'holding yourself up to ridicule', which is an issue I've had with this forum for quite some time. I'm quite happy to excercise mature consideration and I don't actually recall me ever calling anybody a bullshitting liar ...and I've no intention of deliberately offending you but I have my own opinions on the subject which just don't happen to be in line with yours. That doesn't make me a nasty, horrible, stupid, compulsive liar, so no, the cap doesn't fit ... and I agree it does get very wearing, so at least we have something in common.

Please read my post again, because your response indicates that you appear to have a slight problem with comprehension. I'm not saying that you do, only that your response is indicative of that. I'm not responsible for how you appear in print.

I noted your inconsistencies and that what you wrote was actually a refutation of the situation. BTW - you will see I have edited your response to omit your references to other posters, as I'm only going to deal with your responses directed at me.

It can't remember where the report did not say that the existing site was not too small or that aa decant would be simple and cost effective. Can you please direct me to the relevant paragraphs? you will recall these were the points in my original post that you have chosen to direct your wrath at. I'm sure we can all agree the report is the definitive document, regardless of whether or not we agree with the conclusions. I look forward to your considered response.

Moving back to your attack on me: it would be nice to see you exercising some mature consideration instead of continuing to snipe at me - and for the record, you do not know me, so I have no idea why you've suddenly decided to lash out at me personally. I've never called you a nasty, horrid, stupid compulsive liar either - so you cannot possibly relate this to my post. I do wonder why you feel compelled to quote my post when you've got problems with someone else? (seanie, perhaps?) It simply does not make sense - but it does look like you are deliberately aiming to upset me.

I've no idea what your issues with me are - but do us all a favour and cease and desist forthwith. Like i said - you've had no problem with others calling Betty a mad old bint (funny how you continue to ignore that again- inconsistency or what?) but you decide I'm fair game to lash out at. You've moved totally away from your opinions on the subject to your opinions about other posters and it appears you've chosen to try to drive me away as I am not one of the established presences on here. Do us all a favour and enough with your unattractive attempts at bullying and harrassment.

[Betty Windsor]

I think it is a case of Betty refusing to listen to common sense or fact. But then facts can be terribly inconvenient.
What price a continuing education for existing pupils, Betty? Where would you put them during a rebuild on a site that is too small?
The fact is there was a limited number of options. The park offered the best option. End of story.
You don't want the park built on - and that's fair enough. But sooner or later you're going to have to concede that a) the needs of the many outweight the concerns (however justified) of the few and b) you're flogging a dead donkey and holding yourself up to ridicule with your refusal to accept what is factual.

The erosion of green space is a matter that concerns more than a few, believe me. I fully accept there would be difficulties in re-building on the site, my point is that the loss of the space would be to everyone's detriment, especially the young people whether they "use" it or not.
If people want to ridicule me for holding that position there is little I can do about that. I know the supporters of the destruction of the green space want all of us who want to save it, to shut up and go away. They don't like it being pointed out to them that this green space is in the poorest area of our community and that they have made the council's job of hijacking it very easy. The council's refusal to go through the courts to get this clarified in the first place is the real cause of this current impasse.
I speak to people from all sections of our community and in my experience the only area where the support for the school on the park is strong, is not surprisingly, from parents with primary aged children.
I agree entirely with you that the needs of the many outweigh the concerns (however justified) of the few. It's just that you believe the "many" are the supporters of the school on the park and the few as the folk who want to save it and I believe the complete opposite.
You may be right about me "flogging a dead donkey", but I think we still live in a democracy and I am entitled to express my opinion.
As for me being called a bitter old witch and a mad old bint I think that really says more about the people hurling the insults than it does about me. It's not bullying apparently!

[seanie]

And accusations of hypocrisy, that's just you expressing an opinion is it? When Epykat attributes opinions to people that they don't hold and have never expressed, that's just expressing an opinion is it?

Looks more like insulting bullshit to me.

[rmolehusband]

The erosion of green space is a matter that concerns more than a few, believe me.

As I've mentioned before, it's a matter that concerns me. I thought long and hard before deciding that, in my opinion, the only tenable option is to build a new school on the park site. Yes, the loss of green space is regrettable, but sadly is the only solution I can see to the problems we have.

If people want to ridicule me for holding that position there is little I can do about that.

Nobody is ridiculing you for holding your position, however the way you argue your case, your inability to move beyond a simple black/white view and concede that there may be shades of grey, your attempt to turn this into some sort of class war and your obsession with me and Bob being the same person, to pick just a few examples, do all open you up to ridicule and deservingly so.

have made the council's job of hijacking it very easy.

And there you go again, your view if this has become so warped that it bears no relation to reality. The council are spending millions building a new school for our community, a plan that the majority of that community supports, a plan that was arrived at after an open and democratic planning process. This is not some shady backroom deal where a community asset is sold off to line developers or council officials' pockets. @hijaked' indeed, no wonder people think you ridiculous.

[admin: edit - be nice!]

[Betty Windsor]

R-I see you have removed your previously posted deeply offensive, mysogynystic remarks. Don't worry I took a screen grab so if anyone wants to see them whch really shows up RM for what he is I'd be happy to send you a copy.

[seanie]

Whatever...

The arguments for and against building the school on the park have been gone over again and again, for the best part of 6 years now. I've heard nothing new in those arguments for some time now, and the same zombie arguments keep coming up again and again. And they're largely irrelevant. Whether or not the school goes ahead now rests entirely on the outcome of the legal action that's been initiated. And the outcome, either way, is going to hinge on fairly obscure points of law.

[Porty]

R-I see you have removed your previously posted deeply offensive, mysogynystic remarks. Don't worry I took a screen grab so if anyone wants to see them whch really shows up RM for what he is I'd be happy to send you a copy.

So you now think reg is Wangi? I wish you would make your miind up. Presuming it is your mind.

"I one doesnt wish to be ridiculed they should refrain from being ridiculous" - Kim Wilde

[rmolehusband]

R-I see you have removed your previously posted deeply offensive, mysogynystic remarks. Don't worry I took a screen grab so if anyone wants to see them whch really shows up RM for what he is I'd be happy to send you a copy.

Firstly, it was the admin that removed my comment, not myself. Maybe if you bothered to read before flying off the handle your comments would make some sense.

Secondly, I don't believe anything I wrote was misogynistic, so please explain what comments you believe to be. My opinion of you has absolutely nothing to do with your gender, it is purely based on the nonsense you post here and on Facebook.

Lastly, I'm more than happy to have people see what I wrote so if you want to publish your screengrab on here please feel free or, since you you don't object to my comments being made public, admin could reinstate my them for all to see.

[Betty Windsor]

R-I see you have removed your previously posted deeply offensive, mysogynystic remarks. Don't worry I took a screen grab so if anyone wants to see them whch really shows up RM for what he is I'd be happy to send you a copy.

So you now think reg is Wangi? I wish you would make your miind up. Presuming it is your mind.

"I one doesnt wish to be ridiculed they should refrain from being ridiculous" - Kim Wilde

No Porty I mistakenly thought that Bob had done the decent thing and removed them, but apprenty not.
There I go looking ridiculous again, I just can't help myself.

[Betty Windsor]

R-I see you have removed your previously posted deeply offensive, mysogynystic remarks. Don't worry I took a screen grab so if anyone wants to see them whch really shows up RM for what he is I'd be happy to send you a copy.

Firstly, it was the admin that removed my comment, not myself. Maybe if you bothered to read before flying off the handle your comments would make some sense.

Secondly, I don't believe anything I wrote was misogynistic, so please explain what comments you believe to be. My opinion of you has absolutely nothing to do with your gender, it is purely based on the nonsense you post here and on Facebook.

Lastly, I'm more than happy to have people see what I wrote so if you want to publish your screengrab on here please feel free or, since you you don't object to my comments being made public, admin could reinstate my them for all to see.

Where I come from referring to women as "bints", "witches", "mad" etc is generally viewed as misogynystic.

Bob-I did not ask the moderator to remove them I was just surprised that such personal insults were allowed to go without any reproach given the rules of this forum (which by the way I thought you had written).
If you want to repost them and the people can decide for themselves whether they are misogynystic or not.
Ridicule is a common tool of the bully.

[seashell]

Where I come from referring to women as "bints", "witches", "mad" etc is generally viewed as misogynystic..

Where I come from 'misogynist' refers to a man who hates *all* women.
Funnily enough, the OED agrees with me.
While it is debatable that any poster on here may or may not hate you, it is an incredible exaggeration to claim they hate all women. I think that what you meant to say was actually 'sexist'.
However, as 'mad' is a gender neutral word, you cannot possibly relate any use of 'mad' to a sexist behaviour.
Bullying comes in many forms. Making generalised, unsubstantiated statements like those above is one form of bullying. Throwing allegations around and ascribing false meanings to words does nothing to help your credibility.

[Porty]

No Porty I mistakenly thought that Bob had done the decent thing and removed them, but apprenty not. There I go looking ridiculous again, I just can't help myself.

I agree, you can't help yourself.[admin: edit], Bob Jefferson gave up his moderation rights years ago, possibly 5 years ago? That's how far off the pace you are Betty. Nothing you say has worth.

[wangi]

Bob-I did not ask the moderator to remove them I was just surprised that such personal insults were allowed to go without any reproach given the rules of this forum

You contacted the site administrator - me - and asked if I had any plans to take action on certain posts. I looked at them and removed a small section of one post as it was, broadly speaking, too personal.

Your subsequent posts after that moderation were made seem to be of rather poor judgement and gloating in nature.

All - remember: be nice!

[Makaveli]

So above you say you did not ask the site admin team to remove your post but then the site admin team have just said you contacted them asking them 'to take action'.

Not helping your credibility are you Betty?

[seashell]

Reading Betty's increasingly frantic posts, one can only imagine that 'where she comes from' small things like truth and consistency don't actually count for very much. When it gets to the point that she and the increasingly vituperative Epycat can only snipe at other posters, one has to wonder if they have lost all faith in their somewhat tenuous pseudo-arguments.
For the record: in an ideal world, no green space would have to be built upon. We live in the real world, where there were a limited number of choices and of those, Porty Park was seen to be the most suitable. We now await the judicial review on a point of law, although previous decisions of the court have found that there is no case to answer.

[Betty Windsor]

If you look back on my posts you will see that I have not made any personal remarks about anyone. I don't know any of you personally. I found the remarks made by RM hurtful which presumably was the point of them.
For the record I do think it is hypocritical for a person to be part of a pro-environment group and at the same time advocate building on green space in a built up area. That is my opinion.
I am new to this forum (although I did join some time ago) so am not as au fait with the setup as yourselves. I contacted the moderator (I didn't know who that was at the time) as I felt the guidelilnes were being broken and because I was upset by the comments.
You should really ask yourselves why you're getting so wound up about me that you feel the need to revert to calling me names. I find it odd that many of you claim to have thought long and hard about this issue and have expressed regret. If that really is true why then would you feel the need to undermine someone who also thought long and hard about it but came to a different conclusion?

[seanie]

You accuse people of hypocrisy, say they should be ashamed of themselves, and that no right thinking person could possibly hold the views they do. These are all needlessly personal comments that don't address the substance of the issue at hand in any way, shape or form.

[Makaveli]

Betty that is the problem I have with you - you are trying to make people feel bad about the opinions they have.

There is nowhere on this forum that you will find anyone celebrating the loss of Porty Park. I will say this to you for the last time (although I fear you will not listen) everyone on here wants the new school and unfortunatley we can't have that without the loss of Porty Park.

And the only reason people are 'getting wound up' is because you won't listen!!!!!!!!!!

Take your time to read what people say and please stopping writing your responses as if we are all one person - we are not. We all have different views on plenty other subjects - it is just unfortunate for you that the majority on here hold a different opinion to you on the subject of the new school.

[rmolehusband]

If you look back on my posts you will see that I have not made any personal remarks about anyone.

.
What about all the personal insults and accusations you bandied about on Facebook? What a short memory you have. Or do you think because you're on a different forum, with a different username, that they don't count?

I contacted the moderator (I didn't know who that was at the time) as I felt the guidelilnes were being broken and because I was upset by the comments.

So on this forum you complain about personal comments made by others in order to have have them removed, while on Facebook you complained because personal comments made by you were removed. Now that is true, hard-core hypocrisy.

[rmolehusband]

For the record I do think it is hypocritical for a person to be part of a pro-environment group and at the same time advocate building on green space in a built up area. That is my opinion.

It is an incredibly naive, simplistic and, dare I say, crass opinion. Every action we take has some impact on the environment. Sadly modern life requires compromise, choice.

You're probably reading this on a computer, or maybe a phone, made, amongst other things, of plastics, rare earth metals and all sorts of evil and toxic compounds. You may sit down to watch telly later, or a DVD, same goes for them. They're all powered by burning fossil fuels, as were the cars, buses, trains or planes that you've probably chosen to travel in. You might choose food from the supermarket freighted in from around the world, wrapped in packaging that will end up in landfill. All of these choices are using up finite natural resources in an unsustainable way and there are countless similar examples from all of our everyday lives.

I'm not criticising anyone, they're all choices that I've made at some time, but the key point is that they are choices and, when multiplied by the size of our community, or even just the number of people who will share the school over its life, many will be at least as damaging to our environment as building the school in the first place.

Like many people now, I try to make choices that to lead a more sustainable life but it's simply not realistic to chose the sustainable option in every case. I support the building of the school on the park because, on balance, I think it is worth it and even though I regret the loss of the green space. That is in no way hypocrisy.

[Porty]

Brilliantly put molehusband. Such a pity its likely to fall on blinkered eyes and deaf ears.

[Puerto bella]

What - no mud slinging for 4 days now - are you all feeling ok or could it be that you have called a truce for Oct hols?

[seanie]

PPAG have posted about the Edinburgh Leisure board apparently discussing the possible closure of the golf course.

I don't know how accurate that is but it's been floated as a possibility in the past. If so it would raise some interesting possibilities; would a Community golf course be viable? If not, how would people like to see it being used?

Then again I'm sure the Council were considering a 6 or 9 hole course specifically tailored for kids; maybe some changes would make it a candidate for that.

[seanie]

Turns out the PPAG claim isn't accurate (what a shock eh?).

The board were discussing how they might close an expected financial shortfall, but not any specific proposals for closing anything. Whether such options are considered in detail will very much depend on the outcome of the Council's budget setting for next March which is only just underway.

So it may be something to watch for in the new year as budget options are floated, but there's nothing happening at the moment.

[Porty]

[urlhttp://www.scotsman.com/news/education/brewery ... _1_1961113[/url]

Good news for Boroughmuir and by my reckoning St John's are next up. How they must be relishing a move to the Pitz or another "Brownfield" site- NOT!!!

[seanie]

Save Porty Park says...

At our AGM it was agreed to formalise our supporters' list and introduce a formal membership scheme. So if you support keeping Portobello Park green, please join us!

It's never too soon to formalise these kinds of things...

[Mark Cameron]

Can we start a 'our kids deserve a new school list'? Me thinks it might be somewhat more extensive than their list.

[Betty Windsor]

Can we start a 'our kids deserve a new school list'? Me thanks it might be somewhat more extensive than their list.

It's a shame so many people hold on to the belief that you either want one thing or another. I am not alone in wanting both. I know many of the supporters of the school on the park believe that the only people against this are the people who live on Park Av but this is not the case.
The council have acted illegally, they thought they could get away with it because they banked on the people in Magdalene and the Christians not fighting it, and they were, by and large, correct in that assumption.
I note that the "school on the park" supporters do not feel the need to comment on the evidence produced by the Save the Park group on the importance of green space to the wellbeing of all. I guess they do not want to take this on board as it does not fit with their view that PPAG are all driven by self interest. I think it is more true that the supporters of the destruction of the green space are driven by self interest-apart from the odd one or two, who among them does not have children who would directly benefit?
We are now faced with the prospect of the council getting rid of the golf course (bye-bye golf academy).
Will anyone care, other than PPAG?

[Bob Jefferson]

Boring, boring. Not rising to the bait.

[Betty Windsor]

You only posting under your own name tonight Bob?