I never misquoted any statement from the planning board meeting, you do not have a transcript nor sufficient memory to make that claim. Is there any reason you did not extend the courtesy to follow my request that I finish my post before you responded? I believe I have at least two, and if I am correct would you suit me for my opinion, even if it turned out to be plausible, or even fact?:
First Regina you posted:
Those are not facts. They are your subjective, biased opinions, which you are entitled to, but do not try to pass them off as FACTS.
A real fact is that CSPNJ is not responsible for ALL that you say. I was at the last meeting. I know what the testimony was. I am not
Clearly you do not like them, but that doesn't mean you can make up things and post it publicly. People have gotten sued for less than what you've posted.
Moreover I will not resort to inflamed emotional responses, accusations, and baseless contradictions.
Emotional, accusatory and baseless - that about sums up your post.
And then Regina immediately posted (Because she remembered (hardly anything) everything that was said at the planning board meeting, yet after months here and forty posts "forgot" there is a "modify" option.):
^ I accidentally deleted part of my post
I am not taking sides. I just know some of what you've posted was not what was said at the Planning Board meeting. And I find it offensive that you berate and degrade people who are trying to better themselves and get help along with the program that is helping them.
Regina,
Not all of these people are really trying to better themselves, and not all of them are safe or should be brought into Hackensack by a company that doesw not screen them and has no criteria for their token Indians. The more clients the more grant money, and less for qualified facilities.
I do admit that my sentences though accurately constructed may be difficult to read due to their complex structure. Though they may appear flawed from a liturgically educated perspective, they are quite descriptive. Regina, if you have trouble writing your own posts how can you comprehend and critique mine? You haven't even taken the time to read them. You are posting only negative responses and looking for flaws, yet you state you are not taking sides. How can you not take sides when you are obviously taking it personal.
I do apologize if you have some kind of difficulty, or are offended to the point of being unable to think clearly, but these posts are not meant for you alone to read and interpret.
So, why do you claim what I and I stated that others said at the meeting was not what was said? You do not have a transcript, yet I am willing to get one. I had already called because I often have to back up my memory with recorded fact from a third party. Comparison of my piosts to yours is indicative that my intellect, and therefore my memory, is far superior to yours.
The answers are: That you are emotionally charged by this subject which caused you make a mistake, and contrary to your statement you are taking sides. Because, you are "For" the CSP-NJ application. Do you recall an unsolicited statement you made to me after you overheard me speaking to a different party present about my being against their application? Well I do. I am sure you have forgotten what you said, not simply as a matter of convenience but you lack the mnemonic capability.
For a person who has been a member of this forum, for quite a few months, and has made over 40 posts, you should be familiar with the "Modify" option, so why did you not simply modify the one post and append it, with or without an explicative footnote to explain the modification that would appear?
I'll try to answer that as well. It is because you not only failed to carefully read and consider my posts, but you are not in possession of sufficient faculties to make certain distinctions. Superior or even an above avg memory would have served you, if you had one. I not only recall my questions and the answers given to them by Irene Sanborn, inclusive of those by Peter Tucci; I recall the questions between Peter Tucci Jr. and Irene Sanborn, what Each Board member asked, the responses by Mr. Mecca, and even what was said by Peter Tuicci Sr. Kathleen Salvo and Lenny Nix.
My memory is medically documented by a branch and service of the United States Government, and even by an Army-trained medical professional up until 2006.
You do not have a transcript of the hearing. And it should apparent to anyone, that by your degree of writing, that I am more capable of recalling not only what was said at the meeting, but what I have seen with regard to the conditions of Hackensack over the past 57 years.
Please exercise emotional control, patience, and reading and comprehension of my posts before you try and discredit me to serve yourself.
You never stated your name at the Planning Board Meeting because you did not get up to speak or properly introduce yourself to me. You did state that you were for the application, and I know why you are are stating you are not for or against. Yes I did recall a young woman who spoke to me but I did not know your name until this forum. You sat at the seat furthest on the left (appropriately) five rows back. You seemed upset when you overheard my telling another person present that I was against the application. I did not know your name was Regina, and it was you who approached me as you got up and moved your seat with your opinion. You avoided eye contact and seemed disorganized with your speech pattern. Were you nervous?
I have not blamed "this" organization for everything wrong with Main Street, but it is apparent Main Street will never be right unless this organization employs standard practise required of State and County facilities along with disqualifications to refer potentially dangerous mental patients, criminal offenders, and unmonitored substance abusers into their program. Instead they invite bthem here to Hackensack and leave them "On Their Own".