The Messenger Club is
under attack for purportedly throwing Barbara Cornish out of a meeting , this
came about because she and her husband refused to sign in despite repeated
requests to do so.
What is not being said is why they refused to sign the guest
sheet in the first place. Is it such a big deal ? Besides The club didn't throw
anyone out. They were politely asked to either sign in or leave, when they
refused to do either. Ed Grossman talked to Eva Rachesky and a few minutes
later they left.
Now the Reporter is publishing a letter giving
her side of the story and Eva Rachesky is doing the same. Under all the
hyperbole is the underlying issue where Barbara Cornish started a disruption
for no good reason, then carried on complaining and continues to do so,
evidenced by her letter published in the paper.
What's the big deal? Why not just sign in like they were asked? Is it just another attempt to get rid of The messenger Club as they are seen as a thorn in the side of the people who run the village?
Eva Rachesky claims that there were others in attendance who didn't sign in either, as though that's got anything to do with anything. Everyone was asked repeatedly to make sure they signed in, if anyone managed to avoid putting their name on the guest list it's unfortunate but not intentional, and really it's no big deal.
The messengers have frequently been accused of causing disruption at meetings. Whether that's true or not is beside the point. The point is that we have a member of the executive causing a disturbance for no good reason, and we have the village newspaper supporting her action by publishing her side of the story in the paper under a letter entitled " Shame on the Messenger club" It should be entitled " Shame on Barbara Cornish" for creating a tempest in the teapot in the first place.
Barbara Cornish is welcome to come to any of the club meetings, but she should sign in , that would be the right thing to do.
Neil Moore
If the Cornish's want to take over the Messenger Club, they should start their own club They were invited as guests as was everyone else that attended. This does not give them the right of ownership. And it certainly does give them the right to demand. All they could do, if they are unhappy with that they see and hear is to leave. And I say good by and good riddance.
ReplyDeleteI'm so very curious. Why is it necessary to have to sign in when attending a Messenger Club meeting? Is it for a raffle? Are they going to ask you for a donation? By signing in, are you joining a club? If the president of the Messenger says it's necessary to sign in, then he has that obligation to explain why, and it has to be convincing.
ReplyDeleteI see no reason to HAVE to sign in to any club. Why is yours so special that you need the names of all those that attend?
ReplyDeleteOkay, Good question, Now let me ask you one. Why is it necessary to sign as anonymous or as Just Curious??
DeleteFunny you should eliminate comments not to your liking.
ReplyDeleteWhat is funny about it?
DeleteI only delete those comments that are nonsensical.
DeleteThe only thing we haven't heard is just why Barbara Cornish refused to sign in. Wouldn't you think she should have a reason for refusing?
ReplyDeleteAll I can think of is that she is part of a conspiracy or she is obstructionist.
DeleteThat's a nonsensical comment!
DeleteWhat is nonsensical is your disruptive atitude
DeleteYour friend
How about : Barbara Cornish tells why she refused to sign in and the messenger club tells her why they refused to let her in unless she did. ?
ReplyDelete