player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 0:36:08 GMT -5
No, I don't work that way. I like real raw data. I will give my opinion of it and qualify it as such and encourage others to do the same. I did this with the fuel consumption reports from the department of energy for the peaker plant back yonder. Turns out, DrD made an incorrect statement to the School Board about how many times the diesel fuel was used and the duration. I provided the source of my data and said his was flat out wrong. He was either informed by an inept person or group of people to state that or he flat out knowingly lied. Subsequently that evening, the School Board made a vote to PURCHASE the land for which he presented incorrect data. The same holds true for 'A PIPELINE' 'OUT BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS'. For that, I made people aware of the pipeline mapping systems and told them how to go look up the property themselves. You don't have to trust me, but I would expect you to trust your own two eyes. Unfortunately, some people just don't like what they see. I can see how a layman like Dr. Dash may have made technical statements that were not entirely correct. That's not his core competency. I didn't hear of him denying that diesel was used, or stating that pipelines did not exist. Assuming you are right, if you want to call that lying, fine. Work it out with Dr. D. I don't see any evidence of any intent on his part to decieve. I also don't see how the difference between what he allegedly stated and the facts was consequential to the decisions made. Doesn't excuse the alleged error, but where was the benefit of misrepresenting the facts on purpose? The SB could have well made the decision to buy AME even if he did use the correct numbers. They were well within their rights, as Popejoy's ruling established. Seems like you're harping on a technicality to me. I dont' call it a lie, I call it a mistake. I haven't yet met a human being who hasn't made them - perhaps you will be the first, Arch ;D I am a technical individual, and I do like raw data myself, and I get it myself so I am sure I am not getting it from a biased source, and I triangulate it to make sure my interpretation isn't faulty. I make mistakes too, usually I correct them as soon as I discover them or someone points them out. Your approach seems more demanding. Just curious, do you hold yourself to the same standard? I gather that if I can show that any statement you have made is in error (not that I have found any yet - but you have thousands of posts and presumably all are error free), by your logic, every statement you make should be considered suspect? And that the onus is then on you to prove thereafter that all your statements are true, else they are false? Interesting stance, if that is what you are saying. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 1:02:06 GMT -5
Call me on anything you want to, Player. If I made a mistake, I own up to it. I don't believe I have ever said I don't make some. This is why I put forth my sources of data so others can peer review it. You can consider all of my posts suspect if you wish. Many have in the past so you wouldn't be the first.
The consequences of underreporting things is that they are not given the concern nor the attention they deserve.
Intent does not matter; this is why I said either the people informing him informed him incorrectly (did not do their job properly) or he decided himself to make light of the site hazards and areas of potential problems. It turns out that the use of and quantities of Diesel Fuel at the site did come into play later. 'Spilling a couple of drops of diesel' and the quantities that were later reported in the Phase 2 differ drastically.
eta: typo fix
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 6:09:45 GMT -5
Call me on anything you want to, Player. If I made a mistake, I own up to it. I don't believe I have ever said I don't make some. This is why I put forth my sources of data so others can peer review it. You can consider all of my posts suspect if you wish. Many have in the past so you wouldn't be the first. The consequences of underreporting things is that they are not given the concern nor the attention they deserve. Intent does not matter; this is why I said either the people informing him informed him incorrectly (did not do their job properly) or he decided himself to make light of the site hazards and areas of potential problems. It turns out that the use of and quantities of Diesel Fuel at the site did come into play later. 'Spilling a couple of drops of diesel' and the quantities that were later reported in the Phase 2 differ drastically. eta: typo fix At the SB meetings where site site safety was addressed (one meeting that covered EMFs and pipelines, and one meeting that covered site contamination, testing, & cleanup), everything seemed to be covered in detail. I don't seem how Dr D or any other SB member could have provided that type of information. The public got the information.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 16, 2008 7:02:53 GMT -5
Call me on anything you want to, Player. If I made a mistake, I own up to it. I don't believe I have ever said I don't make some. This is why I put forth my sources of data so others can peer review it. You can consider all of my posts suspect if you wish. Many have in the past so you wouldn't be the first. The consequences of underreporting things is that they are not given the concern nor the attention they deserve. Intent does not matter; this is why I said either the people informing him informed him incorrectly (did not do their job properly) or he decided himself to make light of the site hazards and areas of potential problems. It turns out that the use of and quantities of Diesel Fuel at the site did come into play later. 'Spilling a couple of drops of diesel' and the quantities that were later reported in the Phase 2 differ drastically. eta: typo fix At the SB meetings where site site safety was addressed (one meeting that covered EMFs and pipelines, and one meeting that covered site contamination, testing, & cleanup), everything seemed to be covered in detail. I don't seem how Dr D or any other SB member could have provided that type of information. The public got the information. Ah but WP, that doesn't count. After all, this discussion isn't about site safety. It is in fact about the fictional 9% savings in bus costs at BB over Eola. All the rest is just a distraction. If Dr. Who and Arch had facts instead of well-crafted fiction, they wouldn't have to resort to pipelines and DFO or throwing a blanket of doubt on people including Player.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 7:20:35 GMT -5
At the SB meetings where site site safety was addressed (one meeting that covered EMFs and pipelines, and one meeting that covered site contamination, testing, & cleanup), everything seemed to be covered in detail. I don't seem how Dr D or any other SB member could have provided that type of information. The public got the information. Ah but WP, that doesn't count. After all, this discussion isn't about site safety. It is in fact about the fictional 9% savings in bus costs at BB over Eola. All the rest is just a distraction. If Dr. Who and Arch had facts instead of well-crafted fiction, they wouldn't have to resort to pipelines and DFO or throwing a blanket of doubt on people including Player. As I've mentioned a few times over the last, oh, 6-7 months now, the scrutiny on the SB/Admin, with regards to MV has been ever-present. I understand that some have talked about lack of trust, etc. but if there's going to be scrutiny, fiduciary or otherwise, I hope it's applied across the board, and not just to MV-related aspects. And, I hope people give credit, when credit is due, too. For example the improved custodial contract, the new technology improvements, and during the course of some of the first bids for MV, some of the contracts came in under budget.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 8:09:15 GMT -5
If Dr. Who and Arch had facts instead of well-crafted fiction, they wouldn't have to resort to pipelines and DFO or throwing a blanket of doubt on people including Player. Fiction? Really? What fiction?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 16, 2008 8:12:50 GMT -5
If Dr. Who and Arch had facts instead of well-crafted fiction, they wouldn't have to resort to pipelines and DFO or throwing a blanket of doubt on people including Player. Fiction? Really? What fiction? Talking about the 9% savings. I have yet to see proof.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 8:13:12 GMT -5
... The consequences of underreporting things is that they are not given the concern nor the attention they deserve. Arch: A Phase I and a Phase II analysis of the site is equivalent to not giving it the "concern nor attention"? How? Both these reports were made public! You did your own Phase I equivalent before the official Phase I and discovered whatever you presented for MWGEN's site. The District played by the book on this - got an external environmental company to do it, as per protocol, and made the results public. The Phase I warranted a Phase II and they had that done. The Phase II warranted remediation, and they said they would do that, and have the IEPA eventually certify the cleanup. What did you expect them to do? Stop the process because of non-expert, unverified input that hadn't been validated? It is completely unreasonable to expect that Dr. D or anyone in the District should be able to make any authoritative statements with no analysis having been done, or to even expect that they be accurate prior to the official Phase I analysis. When they did have the data, they shared it, again according to protocol. To conclude from this that means the District was a) lax or b) disingenuous is without basis. These are non-technical people, and unlike you, do not possess the skills or wherewithal to do by themselves what you did, and therefore relied on professionals to do so. The road for the SB to improve is long and wide - and in hindsight, Dr.D should have just shut up beyond saying that a Phase I is underway, and not commented on anything until they had all the data. Instead it appears Dr. D offered opinion prematurely, and you are now castigating him for this! Unfortunately, going forward they will likely withold information till it is in an externally verified state - actions like yours have caused the opposite of the desired openness. And I hope someone is pleased with that - because I am not. Distrust is bred both ways, and the last thing I want is to have the free flow of information impeded because of fear of unwarranted attacks. So while some may feel virtuous about the lynch mob mentality they have fostered, the community has suffered and continues to suffer because of it. There are sensible ways to be a watchdog (and I consider myself one), - inciting malice is not one of them. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 8:15:03 GMT -5
And, I hope people give credit, when credit is due, too. For example the improved custodial contract, the new technology improvements, and during the course of some of the first bids for MV, some of the contracts came in under budget. At one point in the past I went in and sat down for multiple hours w/ Mr. Hunt and we went over a lot of things about how they currently do things (building interconnects via wireless) and the network topologies, information architecture and storage, the actual computers in the schools, cost thereof, alternative multiple sources for future use to reduce costs as well as backup and offsite backup strategies both at the district and local school level for the servers (at the time) there. So, yes.. it's nice and refreshing to see things get done in that department for cost and performance improvement. Same w/ custodial costs (as long as things still get cleaned to standards) and building costs.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 16, 2008 8:19:07 GMT -5
And, I hope people give credit, when credit is due, too. For example the improved custodial contract, the new technology improvements, and during the course of some of the first bids for MV, some of the contracts came in under budget. At one point in the past I went in and sat down for multiple hours w/ Mr. Hunt and we went over a lot of things about how they currently do things (building interconnects via wireless) and the network topologies, information architecture and storage, the actual computers in the schools, cost thereof, alternative multiple sources for future use to reduce costs as well as backup and offsite backup strategies both at the district and local school level for the servers (at the time) there. So, yes.. it's nice and refreshing to see things get done in that department for cost and performance improvement. Same w/ custodial costs (as long as things still get cleaned to standards) and building costs. And thank you, too, for donating your time & talents to help improve our district.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 8:27:32 GMT -5
Player,
I believe the timeline is off.
What I mention being given to the public by DrD was given on Jan 1, 2008.
In there he mentions the Phase1 studies and says with regards to the 'little bit of diesel' "We have found nothing environmentally on that, however, to be safe we are going to a phase 2" That means the Phase 1 was BEFORE he made the statements and BEFORE I did my own fact checking because SOMEONE (TSC) shared w/ DrD that there was Diesel at the site which he reported to the public on Jan 22, 2008. At that SB meeting, he said they have the reports and would share them. I asked for them ever since that date and they finally released them on or about April 7th, 2008.
There is no malice to it. Provide accurate information to the school board for which they will be using to decide how to spend our tax money. Don't leave it incomplete, don't leave it half-baked. Do you want your accountant to half-report your income to the IRS? Give it a shot and tell us how benign that ends up being.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jun 16, 2008 8:28:01 GMT -5
Fiction? Really? What fiction? Talking about the 9% savings. I have yet to see proof. Whose document/research and comments were they - arch's and mine or a member of the SB's ? Sorry , the proof lies with the generator. Bruce saw fit to put all that time and effort in the last time - to ensure the vote they wanted - where is that piece of work this time if it was so important then ?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 16, 2008 8:30:16 GMT -5
Talking about the 9% savings. I have yet to see proof. Whose document/research and comments were they - arch's and mine or a member of the SB's ? Sorry , the proof lies with the generator. Bruce saw fit to put all that time and effort in the last time - to ensure the vote they wanted - where is that piece of work this time if it was so important then ? If it's called fiction, then it was fiction put forth by a School Board official to garner a vote in a particular direction.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 16, 2008 8:33:12 GMT -5
Arch, I'd like to qualify your "raw data" statement just a bit. Sometimes the raw data you, or anyone else for that matter, is not the complete picture one may think it is. It only gives you the data it was designed for, and if for some reason something falls outside of that reporting model, it gets missed in the data points. Case in point (t1p, back me up here if you can) On the DFO usages you were able to pull off from whereever ( I cannot recall, nor is it really necessary to revisit there) I had learned that a transfer of fuel from one company owned site to another was not required to be annotated in the fuel usage. So if MWGEN took many barrels of DFO from the Eola site and transferred them to another Peaker site. It would show up as a huge usage for Eola when that's was not the actual case. Now maybe they do note the transfer somewhere, but it was not required on the reports you based your claim on. I have also mentioned to you that I live in the general area of those Peakers, and used to patrol that area too. (rural also has lived in the area for a long time) I can personally attest that I have rarely seen those peakers in operation.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 16, 2008 8:35:41 GMT -5
Whose document/research and comments were they - arch's and mine or a member of the SB's ? Sorry , the proof lies with the generator. Bruce saw fit to put all that time and effort in the last time - to ensure the vote they wanted - where is that piece of work this time if it was so important then ? Repeating myself for the upmteenth time: That number was with reference to NO 3'rd HS vs BB, as evidenced in the postings on the IPSD site. What I am challenging is the use of that number as lost savings by choosing AME, and to date, no one has said squat in response. The District did NOT say that they would lose 9% by moving to AME, you did! Prove it.
|
|