Pam Hill is running for school board, I have exposed her as an unethical person and potential ethics law-breaker…
This has not played well with her fans.
While she has refused to respond, they have went on the attack. Their weapons of choice?
- Pathetic personal attacks
Amanda Downs Gentle Another last minute shakedown of a candidate. Seems to be a pattern.
Amanda Downs GentleThe way you try to take people out who run for public office, while you sit behind a microphone and talk crap about them all day is what’s pathetic. You should run for public office one day. This happens with you every election. This time it just happens to be against two people running for office.
- Demands that I offer a tit-for-tat even if their isn’t one. (This is why the media ignore these stories)
Linda Lindberg What have you got on her opponent you’d like to share?
Jared N. Bentley why dont you dig up some dirt on all the candidates..not just one?
- Terrible lawyering
Amanda Downs Gentle So does she until it is proven otherwise, by something other than he said she said speech. If she said it, produce the recording, otherwise, your statement of what she said proves nothing.
David Simpson What exact words were used for the threat? You are dangerously close to slander. But I guess we should hold talk show hosts to lower standards than the rest of us are expected to live by
Amanda Downs Gentle Produce the comment about her retirement on recording or its hearsay
Your word against hers. Only the good lord knows who telling the truth. As for the others, it’s a stretch. People do this all the time. Another attempt to shakedown an opponent in favors of yours, and because she stood up to you on the radio.
- She’s not smart enough to respond
Jennifer Johnson It’s not about Hill. It’s about conducting a dialogue supported by truth and having some journalistic integrity. In that blog entry, you mention a 2012 e-mail from Clayton (not Hill), but you didn’t post it in that blog entry (or link to it – if it’s around elsewhere on your blog, I’d suggest doing so.) And the cover letter (again) has nothing you could conclusively call a threat. You’re reading that cover letter with a confirmation bias because you trust your friend.
I imagine Hill isn’t defending herself because she’s not nearly as intelligent as you are, and she knows it. She knows the narrative is yours to control. Maybe that’s exacerbated by her actually being guilty of making threats, I honestly don’t know. But I do know that whatever the truth may be, you’d absolutely dominate her in any kind of public discourse. It undermines your strength to lean on hyperbole and bias to control a narrative, I think, at least among those of us who possess a measure of scrutiny.
Again, why defend someone who will NOT defend themselves?
Filed under: Uncategorized |