The following is a transcript of an exchange from the Cambridge Town Hall page on Facebook. This Facebook page was created in an attempt to get a forum for free, open and responsible discussion.
As I have mentioned, the fake neighborhood association which is now key in fighting for so many outrages on the Charles River runs an email exchange which is notable for censorship of responsible comments, particularly those objecting to the outrages supported by the group which runs the email exchange. They do a lot of praising for irresponsible behavior and support their position by hiding the irresponsible stuff they support.
This outrageous behavior would appear to be at least part of the reason for creating the Cambridge Town Hall page.
The following exchange was part of a discussion of votes in the Massachusetts House of Representative to open up debate in the that legislative chamber to comport with progressive wishes. I quote the comment to which I was responding. From then on, there were no comments in this sequence except for mine and those of RW. I am using initials to minimize personal identification without being total about it. There are at least three obvious typos in my analysis which I have retained for accuracy.
One of RW’s comments have since been deleted, so only a summary is provided. I do not know if the deletion were because of my complaint to Facebook, because RW realized how self-destructive the comment was, or because the moderator behaved responsibly. I posted my final comment being unaware of this comment from RW.
RW is an activist who has been involved as a very active part of the bad guys for decades. He runs probably the most visible webpage on Cambridge Politics. He is notable for nastiness. MD is a current state representative and a former Cambridge City Councilor who was very much in the middle of the first round of attacks on the Charles River and its animals.
Sitting City Councilors have participated in Cambridge Town Hall discussions in the past. They have been less visible in recent weeks. I have passed on condensations of several of my posts on this Blog while trying to avoid dominating the posts on this Facebook page.
* * * * *
Strange MD voted no. She is my Rep. and her voters are very progressive. There are no excuses for this.
To understand MD, you need to understand her REAL RECORD on women's rights.
As a city councillor, she was part of the most reprehensible Women's Rights outrage in recent history - Robert Healy's destruction of the life of the Black Cape Cape Verdian Female department head, Malvina Montiero, because she worked for equal rights as a woman as a part of her employment.
Condemned by three levels of Court.
Appeals Court panel refused to honor Cambridge's appeal, funded by MD's City Council with an opinion.
The Court effort ran more than 10 million in Court counting the award and other costs.
In addition to actual damages, the jury awarded MORE than triple PENAL DAMAGES to show its contempt for Healy's behavior,
Healy was not fired, and NO CITY COUNCILLORS proposed to fire him.
The City Council showed where it stood by naming the police station for Healy, although MD may have been gone by then, promoted and claiming to be pro women's rights to get promoted.
She yells at the other guy. Is that not enough?
Please keep your character assassination to yourself. I may have disagreed with MD at times in the past, but to suggest that she is anything other than a consistent positive force for the interests of women is patently absurd.
I live in reality.
The Monteiro reality is one that Healy took that woman's likelihood from her because she wanted equal pay for equal work.
Nine members of the City Council including MD had no use for reality. It is highly unusual to have a meaningful test where it counts on women's rights, a key issue for 50% + of the population. MD was one of nine councillors who ignored the jury and the trial judge's very clear message.
But then the Trial Judge's very strong message including pages of quotes from Healy is overwhelming.
How dare anybody look at the judge's opinion when looking at reality results in such a strong personal attack.
Or the Appeals Court panel's non-opinion opinion which refused to dignify the appeal funded by nine city councillors with an opinion.
These are professionals safe from the nastiness which is so normal in Cambridge politics.
The experts dared to look at reality.
Yelling at the other guy is highly insufficient when the experts are yelling at the Cambridge pols.
And a personal attack characterizing a highly respected judicial record as a personal attack shows way too much about the true level of Cambridge politics.
[Response by RW which was subsequently deleted suggested I consider suicide]
Was she on the City Council when the City Council UNANIMOUSLY named the Police Station after THAT PERSON?