John Zeger - Council Candidate

[fluffy]

Please let my position on the issues be the deciding factor in who gets your vote and not the sick views of the hate mongers on the Castanet forum.

Mr. Zeger, your ethics have been called into question here on this forum and you refuse to address those issues. That, to me at least, says a lot more than a bunch of hastily concocted campaign promises. I trust the electorate will use all the information at their disposal when deciding how to cast their vote, including your responses (or lack thereof) to the sick views of Castanet members.

Read for yourself:
http://saveparadise.proboards26.com/ind ... 148&page=4

[fluffy]

To Fluffy (the Penticton resident to whom I referred) -- I would like the person who called my ethics into question to state his full real name and the specifics of his accusation as his accusation is defamatory and as such is very serious. If he or she refuses to do that then readers should ingore that malicious lie and eveything else they say. (And why don't you post the entirety of my previous post here on the Castanet forum instead of just part of it.) This is the last that you'll be hearing from me, Fluffy, as I have better things to do than to play your games. I'm sorry for you if you don't).

Please refer to my posts of November 09/08 - 9:50 PM and November 10/08 - 9:02 AM where background information on "Citizens for a Livable Downtown" active membership numbers and directorship was requested to substantiate the strength and validity of the candidacy endorsement appearing on your blog.

Internet anonymity is a time-tested and readily accepted form of personal protection. I most certainly will not be supplying any personal information on my sources to you. Any defamation perceived is more than likely a result of your avoidance of the question.

[fluffy]

Internet anonymity allows for the writer to make any kind of remark whether it be true or not without taking any responsibility for those remarks and, as such, only protects the writer and not the object of their defamation. It is cowardly and so are you.

It also protects the author from any possible retribution by emotionally unbalanced individuals, not to say that you fall into this group Mr. Zeger, but we both know that there are bad people out there.

This whole thing wouldn't be an issue at all if you would simply address the question. Perhaps these concerns are unfounded, but they are legitimate concerns nonetheless.

[fluffy]

Fluffy -- "we both know that there are bad people out there."

Yes, and you are one of them.

Let's try to keep this civil please John.

It has been suggested that "Citizens for a Livable Downtown" has very few active members and that you yourself hold a position of considerable authority within that organization. If this were true then the candidate endorsement appearing on your blog would be of limited substance, despite its appearance to the contrary, and could be construed as an attempt to deceive the voting public. How do you respond to this?

[fluffy]

Fluffy -- "This whole thing wouldn't be an issue at all if you would simply address the question."

This isn't a court of law and you aren't a judge but rather some person who has too much time on his hands. If someone wants to accuse me of unethical behaviour let them state their full name and I will answer those accusations in a court of law.

You really don't want to answer the question do you, John? Isn't "transparency" one of your platform planks?

http://saveparadise.proboards26.com/ind ... 148&page=4

[fluffy]

As I said, they're just a bunch of cowards, and clearly acting prepubescent to boot. It's evident that every criticism aimed at you is really about them instead.

In the face of all of that, thanks for having the courage to run for council and face the public scrutiny, John. Your willingness to tackle the hard issues that everyone else wants to avoid is exemplary.

None of those Castanitwits would ever have the guts to do what you're doing.

Oh my God, there's two of them.

Excuse me, am I missing something, or isn't Mr. Zeger's obvious reluctance to face the public and tackle the hard questions precisely what is under discussion here?

[fluffy]

Fluffy, as a resident of Penticton why do you care so much about my candidacy for city council in Kelowna?

A direct question deserves a direct answer. Back in the day when your membership at Castanet was still active we butted heads on more than one occasion. It became evident to me at that point that you were given to highly emotional responses to many situations, especially when someone held an opinion that differed from yours. Your willingness to listen to views contrary to your own was conspicuously absent. You were, and still are as is evidenced by recent posts on your site, comfortable with using intimidation and personal insult to support your position. These are not qualities that would be a positive addition to town council. As to my residing outside Kelowna, that is a valid point, but I do have family members residing there, and I feel it is important that they, along with the rest of the Kelowna voting public, know who they are voting for.

As I said before, I see you as a useless individual who has too much time on his hands.

It's a safe bet that you will never make it on to my Christmas card list either John, but I'm not seeking public office, so my usefullness is not really an issue here. More important to the electorate would be your penchant for personal insult.

Why don't you use that time constructively to do some volunteer work and be of some use to society?

You know squat about my private life John. See above.

[fluffy]

Now, Mr. Zeger, if it's not too much trouble, can you supply the requested background information on "Citizens for a Livable Downtown" so we can put that pesky little matter to rest?

[fluffy]

Fluffy -- Citizens for a Livable Downtown presently has 65 members and a steering committee of 8. Maggie Getz is the acting head of the group because I am a candidate for city councillor, and it was she who issued the news release to the media about our endorsements. The endorsements were made by the steering committee. We have always made that information available to the media. (remainder of message omitted due to irrelevance to subject at hand)

Thank-you John. That should answer the concerns that have been voiced. If you had been a little more forthcoming with that information we could have saved a lot of time and effort.

[fluffy]

Hey John, if nothing else, our little dialogue here has sparked interest in your CRCP site to its highest level in months. Think of all the exposure you're getting.

[damngrumpy]

Do you support the Agricultural Land Reserve?

[John Zeger]

Unequivocally. If I could add to it, I would.

[fluffy]

Welcome back John. All our previous differences aside, I like your stance on the ALR. A lot.

[Jo]

I like your stance on the ALR. A lot.

I agree, very much so.

[usquebaugh]

I am interested in Mr. Zeger's postgraduate studies at U of A, actually. Kind of irrelevant, I know... I am just interested how these contribute to his background.

Mr. Zeger mentions being awarded a BA, but as for his studies at the University of Alberta, was a degree not conferred upon Mr. Zeger? Does that mean he wasn't able to finish his studies?