Saturday, December 30, 2006

To Post or Not To Post

Dick, How come your affraid to comment on the dumb comments Vinny Seeley made in the Daily Mail in refrence to the lawsuit that has rocked the village and it's dissfuntional fire dept.? Looks like Vinny has screwed himself and every taxpayer in this town! His lawyer should buy him a roll of duct tape to help stop him from sinking himself and his convict friends!

The foregoing message is an example of what we hesitate to accept for posting in Seeing Greene’s Comments section. It also is an example of what fortifies our inclination to reject all anonymous comments. But as I write this I’m leaning in favor of posting. And one of the lines of argument is that the case is suitable for sharing thoughts about words and contexts, and hence about deciding what comments deserve to be posted.

Against posting is apprehension that ‘publication’ could be construed as endorsement or concurrence, and that it would give the comment an otherwise-unavailable boost in credibility. A na├»ve reader could be prompted to infer, from the fact of posting (by somebody other than its author) along with its substance, that key statements in this comment express what is common knowledge. In addition, the naive reader could be prompted to believe that the commentator’s value judgments are truth-valuable statements, are in keeping with reality, and express common sentiments. Those errors could be encouraged not only by the fact of 'publication' (even in a blog site) but also, oddly enough, by the absence of attempts to substantiate. When a speaker indulges freely in sliming people and in tendentious versions of events, we normally expect the speaker to take up the task of substantiation. If he does not bother to do that, we may infer charitably that what the speaker says, however scurrilous, is so widely and rightly accepted that substantiation would be idle. Consequently, that kind of reader would put some stock in the propositions that Seeing Greene's keeper has been silent on a cited topic and has been silent because he’s afraid to address it; that Vincent Seeley made statements to The Daily Mail and that they are self-screwing; that the village has been rocked (that being a figure of speech whose literal sense is so well known as to require no translation); that the fire department is dysfunctional; and that included in Mr Seeley’s friends are several convicts. Two of those propositions are readily verifiable; they are that Mr Seeley talked to The Daily Mail and that Seeing Greene has not commented on his words. They are true and trivial. The other propositions are far from being self-evident or substantiated. They are far from being common knowledge. Accordingly, the author is guilty of indulging in irresponsible sneering and smearing. But that status does not clinch the case for refusing to post the comment.

In favor of posting are several considerations: (1) Our basic policy is in favor of posting. The presumption then is against blocking. And we feel especially obligated to post comments that find fault with Seeing Greene. Moreover, this comment is no more vile than others that have been accepted. It falls short of being plainly, thoroughly scurrilous. It is not in the same league with some gross slanders (adulterer! thief! liar!) that are void of substantiation.

(2) For many readers the cited comment, with its mutilations of the English language, its casual smears and gratuitous assumptions, along with its craven anonymity, must be self-discrediting. And when a commentator's own words discredit his own position, readers should know about it.

(3) The cited comment may qualify as an instructive example of the casual responsibility-dodging smear. Thus: --DODGING *Vinnie Seeley’s comments in The Daily Mail are “dumb” (versus identifying what one deems dumb, and explaining). *Vinnie “has screwed himself” (versus identifying how his words are self-damaging). --GRATUITOUS ACCUSATORY EXPLANATION *Lack of comment on Seeley’s statements betokens fear (versus canvassing alternative explanations and eliminating them, or saying what is to be feared). --GRATUITOUS FACTUAL CLAIMS *The lawsuit has “rocked the village and its dissfuntional fire dept” (versus citing observed reactions to the lawsuit). *Mr Seeley’s friends, or a substantial number of them and particularly close ones, are convicts (versus identifying those people, the crimes for which they were convicted, their prison sentences).

The latter analysis, however, can be provided only if posting is accompanied by lengthy discourse about discourse.


Anonymous said...

In regards to a previous entry... it is Jodi Pickens formerly Jodi Parker formerly Jodi Craigie who was sentenced to prison. I think the Catskill School Board should feel vindicated for letting her go when they did. I just feel bad for her 5 yo daughter who now has no mother (jail) or father (absent).

Anonymous said...

Mr. May,

In regards to the entry made I have to agree.

Any village official who goes on the record and speaks with out a lawyers approval is not to bright. In Seeleys statement he admits to half the stuff he's accussed of i.e. the shantz claim to have been labled "disgruntled" and seeley said "they are just disgruntled". Almost everything Seeley stated in his 2 page article makes him look more than guilty.

Thats not what I would expect from a village official, I guess in Catskill you have to expect the unexpected!

Anonymous said...

Wasn't the Catskill Village sued several years ago for the EXACT same thing?

I believe that it was a Catskill Fire Chief that time and if I'm not mistaken a NY State Trooper borrowed his phone and called a sex line.

Then the board suspended him with out giving him a chance to defend himself!

If my memory is correct it was Garafalos son Chico, and he won the case.

If that is all correct and he did win I woulds say to stick it to them because otherwise they will never learn. Sometimes you have to hit them where it hurts (figuratively, not like the assault)

Anonymous said...

Dick, I just wanted to pass on that once again Ladder Truck 3-15 responded to a call and once again it could not function!

Realisticly, how many times is this truck going to break down before someone dies because the truck could not perform?

Secons count and this truck has continuacly failed to perform! Its time to do an emergency purchase for a new ladder truck!.

The longer we wait we only prolong the agony , and cost, and risk someones death because we keep hiding the problem!

Anonymous said...

Broken down again? This has got to be 20 or more times. No wonder they didn't take that truck to the structure fire on Cauterskill!

Anonymous said...


Do you have any info on the village kicking 50 something firemen out of the dept. this week?

I heard they kicked anyone out who was not a member of former hose 1 using medical reasons as an excuse!

how many firemen does Catskill have responding? Sounds like they have kicked everyone out!


Anonymous said...

Dick, I couldn,t help but comment on a recent photo I saw in the Catskill Daily Mail. I find it ironic that the individual on page 5 of the Dec 30th issue is a Catskill Fire Men. He use to be an employee here but had retired on a medical disability because he could not pass his DOD physical. Yet, Catskill has him as an employee driving their fire trucks! If driving one of our trucks was to dangerous, why is driving an emergency vehicle when your adrenylyn is running high ok?

If he has an accident who is responsible? Doesn't this open the entire village to an incredible liability suit? I could see if he was just Fire Police.

Go figure!

Anonymous said...


looks like sherlock has uncovered another major scandal of the catskill village board and Catskill fire company.Check it out at

Anonymous said...




Anonymous said...

Everyone in Greene County knows that Catskill's Ladder truck can't be trusted either for its pump or its aerial device. Everyone also knows that it's just a matter of time before the fire company sticks it to the taxpayers by requesting emergency funding for 3-15's replacement which will be at least $750,000.

What's funny is that I was driving south through Coxsackie this weekend and saw the ladder truck Catskill used to operate extended at their school parking lot. They must have been training with it. I don't know the length of it but it seems a lot longer than the one Catskill decided to keep!

Anonymous said...

What I find completely ironic is that the Hose One boys have labeled there peers as disgruntled and problem children!

Anyone around the fire department know that they (Hose One) have been plotting and minipulating events ever since Collins begged the prior Village Board not to kick Hose One out completely.

All said and done, they ( the Hose One Die Hards) are the ones who are disgruntled and have harassed and attacked the other two fire companys! Same ol same ol!

If the Village Baord had controlled things and not shyed away this would have never happened!

Any one who asks why didn't the fire fighters walk away and quit and can't understand why they stood their ground have never seen the movie North Country! They are demanding fairness and equality for all instead of constant priviliages for a undeserving few! They probally have a problem understanding justice and loalty or the need to stand up to injustice!

I find it really sad that these same individuals who condemn the victims determination to stand there ground don't even question why the Village and Fire Company Boards lack being ethical or moraly correct.

Anonymous said...

The only way to change the village boards plans is for as many village and town memebers as we can find must go to the meeting and stand up to their injustice. The more that show up the better off the result will be. Round up as many people and get down to the "west side fire station" tonight 7pm get there early to get a seat.
Why should the fire dept. get a retirement plan it is only VOULENTEER as Mr.Seeley pointed out. Can't the firemen already go over to the firemans home in Hudson if they need a nursing home? Why should we pay for them to get a retirement plan, then wouldn't every community volunteer organization be entitled to a retirement plan? Not saying the firemen shouldn't get something for their effort and hard work but if it is a Village Fire Dept. then why not give them a property tax break in the Village? Wouldn't that help with a couple of issues i.e. keeping members in the district of the department, not directly effecting tax dollars. If it need be then have guidelines 5 years of active duty and the property being within the fire district. There can be a better plan out there if the people in charge weren't too busy trying to cover there asses.

Anonymous said...

Jack my real complaint is not the fact that the Village is considering providing a retirement inentive plan to fire fighters. It is the fact that they are trying to minipulate it so that only Hose 1 members get it.

Of anyone, that company is the most undeserving ones of all!

they continually harass and intimidate individuals to quit!
And are the least incentive tonew comers that I have ever seen!

Anonymous said...

vin seeley is just mad hes getting sued and is mad that he might lose everything he owns so hes trying to attack you guys!

Anonymous said...

Mr. May why does the Catskill firehouse continue to serve alcohal with out a liquer license?
Isn't that illegal!

Anonymous said...

Dick I wish you were at the Village Board Meeting lastr night!

Apparently the Village Board and the fire company board are in colusion together and have past a Village Law to minimize the number of fire fighters while simultaneously kicking out active members in favor of Hose 1.

Andrea Macko from the Daily Mail missed the largest heated arguement of the night!

Please look into this matter and report the truth about the scheme to attack and kick out non hose 1 members.

No trial, no hearing = large payouts!

Anonymous said...

Dick, How could the Catskill Daily MAil miss reporting the HUGE story that the Village of Catskill cut their Volunteer Fire Fighter List by two thirds?

Intentionally and knowingly cutting the active number list down to 60 firefighters with 52 remaining on the list?

Of that list a good 10 or more will be eligible to retire cutting man power down even more!

What does the town think about contracting out $150,000.00 for less man power than before?

Infact did the Town of Catskill know about the reduction?

Hows this affect the District Contract?

Anonymous said...

Will insurance rates go up now that we have a smaller ff list?

How does GreeneLand feel about cutting their emergency services by over two thirds just to allow a group of unfaithfull Hose one renegades receive a retirement plan that they can take after one year in the program?

3/4 of the Village Board are fire fighters.

Think that this might not be a sell out?

Anonymous said...

Hey Dick,

I tried to take Vinney up on his offer to look at his receipts for the Thermaweld Pipe!

I know where the pipe came from and any receipt would be a forgery!

What Company provided him with this specialty pipe?

Was the Village ever reembursed for their expenses? He states yes to all and we can see the receipts, so lets see them!

Could you inquire into this matter and perhaps Vinney can produce the receipt for some $50,000.00 in cost that he stated in Vinneys Turn last year. Or one of his responding comments!

Maybe he would be willing to even place it on the Village Web Site to prove his innocense!

I know the complete story on the pipe and Vinney did not pay for it!
Ask Cotten and he will even disclose that Vinney did things that were initially unknown to the Village Board!

This will make a great story since it is true and deserves to be reveiled completely!

Thanks Concerned tax payer!

Anonymous said...


What do you know about 2 village Trustees or as I like to say "untrustees" filing for bankrupcy last year? How can they manage taxpayers money if they can't balance their own check books?