|
Post by Anonymous on Aug 5, 2015 9:34:33 GMT -6
He finally mellows and you want to agitate. Seriously? Re-read all 190 pages in THIS topic alone. If you think he will mellow, you are not up to speed on his "blog". He has no problem taking people to task over and over and over again on what others say.
|
|
|
Post by helencrump on Aug 5, 2015 9:55:15 GMT -6
The title of this thread, until not long ago, was the SO cesspool. It's 109 PAGES long. Do you really think he's mellowed, in one post?? Lol.
|
|
|
Post by antamaleen on Aug 5, 2015 10:03:29 GMT -6
Oooooo..... I get it now! Silly me! The goal is to "poke the bear". Here I thought it was to converse back and forth. Agreeing and disagreeing. Agitate until they're irate is the goal. Makes soooo much more sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Aug 5, 2015 10:07:50 GMT -6
Oooooo..... I get it now! Silly me! The goal is to "poke the bear". Here I thought it was to converse back and forth. Agreeing and disagreeing. Agitate until they're irate is the goal. Makes soooo much more sense to me. Seriously? Please go back and re-read the "back and forth" conversations that have gone on in this thread. Are YOU trying to infringe upon our Constitutional rights that Kyle talks about so much on here? I find it odd that Kyle can attack our City about being "convicted" of this or that (his words) yet when he "convicts" someone of leaving a gaping hole in a downtown building that you think we can't call him on it? Please go back and re-read the entire 190 pages on here and see that there has been a LOT of conversation. This is not an attempt to "poke the bear" or "agitate". What's good for the goose, is good for gander.
|
|
|
Post by helencrump on Aug 5, 2015 10:48:22 GMT -6
Oooooo..... I get it now! Silly me! The goal is to "poke the bear". Here I thought it was to converse back and forth. Agreeing and disagreeing. Agitate until they're irate is the goal. Makes soooo much more sense to me. Converse back n forth, agree and disagree? Like Kyle saying numerous times this spring that he stood upstairs at his place looking into the hole in the roof of the majestic, and now someone going back to those comments? Wouldn't that fall under both, back n forth AND agreeing/disagreeing? Seems your post falls more under poking a bear.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Aug 5, 2015 16:30:22 GMT -6
I went to the showing this morning. The inside wasn't in near as bad of shape as I thought it would be, from what I had heard I had heard about a section of roof being blown off and from looking across the street from my building, it really did look like there was a big hole in the roof, where water would run down through the projection booth and them the mezzanine level hallway, restrooms and then the lobby, but I was wrong.The roof does need some repairs, but it certainly doesn't need a whole new roof. Cracks around the edges need some patching and where the roof meets the south wall, the rubber valley has separated from the upper roof and the wall It does need a new roof hatch cover too. So, basically you are admitting that what you said before wasn't true and that what you thought you saw from your building wasn't accurate? Interesting.Funny thing is that I just ran into Katie yesterday when she was bringing her family to a show at my place of employment in Ottawa. I was going to ask her about the projectors, but she seemed visibly upset when I told her that I could see the section of roof missing from above the projection room and how sad it was to see so much water pouring through the place over the past few days, since Tim didn't seem to even bother having any of his local supporters try to cover it (maybe he should have called you, since you seem to like trying to cover his a$$). It even got her husband's attention, who was clearly trying to just ignore me. I backed off on asking about the projectors or saying much more because I really didn't want to make her start crying in the lobby. I had already suspected that maybe Katie was still working on getting back into the place, but now after seeing how upset she was and concerned her husband was of the news that the place is being flooded, I am even more convinced that was the case. Obviously there will be considerable extra expense added to that now. and now just leaves a huge hole in the roof so the weather can destroy the place With the large hole in the roof over the projection room, I would bet there could be code violations. It was sad last night to see it pour knowing that a lot of water is just washing through the theatre further destroying it. Pot, meet Kettle.That's fine go ahead and poke away. I have always said that I was not afraid to admit when I am wrong and correct myself. Too bad that our City leaders can't do the same, don't you think? If they would have come out and admitted that my family was never illegal as they publicly declared, you probably wouldn't have to keep hearing about it over and over again. If they would have admitted that they were wrong about their ridiculous requirement that stopped a business here but can't be justified by our laws, you probably wouldn't have to keep hearing about that over and over again. Unlike our government, I don't have the power to convict and there is not a Constitutional Amendment that requires me to provide proof before I talk about anything, is there? Everybody makes mistakes, don't they? Being able to admit that you are wrong and correct it, I think makes a big difference. I am very sorry that I was wrong about there being a big hole in the roof. I was not wrong about there being a lot of water washing through it though. From being inside and seeing the rotted out ceiling all along the south wall, it seems that the water has been running through the place for years and years. It is a shame that the "Big Money" people from Pennsylvania story that Katie went along with wasn't true, so that the many problems with the building would have been taken care of, or that they would have at least maintained the theatre.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Aug 5, 2015 16:43:24 GMT -6
Well, saw in the paper that there was/were two people interested in the theatre. That is a positive. Actually there were three interested parties at the showing. Katie had a box of masks to offer up for people because of the mold, but they were only dust masks and she didn't even bother wearing one. I told her that I know that the mold masks do cost more, but that sometimes putting on a good show does cost more money. I was going to ask for one on the way out as a souvenir though. Katie had the keys to it, but before we could go in, the bank assets officer asked who everyone was and tried to make sure that it was only interested buyers and not any media members. Obviously from the newspaper article, the media was allowed in to take a photo of some mold. Was someone wanting the public to see a show too?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Aug 5, 2015 16:44:49 GMT -6
It appears that Katie is trying to undermine my livelihood. She contacted my employer inquiring about my employment with him. When he asked why, she told him that I was at the showing with the people from the Pontiac theatre and that she thinks I am going to work for them.
That reminds me of when they asked me to leave the Majestic and rather than create a huge battle to end up with the place being boarded over and gut all of my theatre furnishings out of the place, I just walked away as they wanted, only to find out that other theatre owners and film studios had been told that I abandon and thrashed the place.
How was it that troll described the Troccoli's? Snakes in the grass? I can see how that could be fitting.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 5, 2015 20:01:55 GMT -6
It appears that Katie is trying to undermine my livelihood. She contacted my employer inquiring about my employment with him. When he asked why, she told him that I was at the showing with the people from the Pontiac theatre and that she thinks I am going to work for them. I guess now it is safe to a$$ume that the out of town people interested in the Majestic are the same people who own the theater in Pontiac. I know it is your Constitutional right to say whatever you want, but why didnt you honor their request to remain anonymous? I have been to that theater a few times, and was happy with the experience. I hope they would get it instead of Katie.
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Aug 5, 2015 20:40:38 GMT -6
It appears that Katie is trying to undermine my livelihood. She contacted my employer inquiring about my employment with him. When he asked why, she told him that I was at the showing with the people from the Pontiac theatre and that she thinks I am going to work for them. I guess now it is safe to a$$ume that the out of town people interested in the Majestic are the same people who own the theater in Pontiac. I know it is your Constitutional right to say whatever you want, but why didnt you honor their request to remain anonymous? I have been to that theater a few times, and was happy with the experience. I hope they would get it instead of Katie. Gee dog, no one there told me that they wanted to remain anonymous. Do you think I was in on the conversations the reporter had with others to know who gave what quote? Did you miss where I said that there were three interested parties there? How do you feel it is so safe for you to a$$ume anything about anyone there?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 5, 2015 21:17:27 GMT -6
I guess now it is safe to a$$ume that the out of town people interested in the Majestic are the same people who own the theater in Pontiac. I know it is your Constitutional right to say whatever you want, but why didnt you honor their request to remain anonymous? I have been to that theater a few times, and was happy with the experience. I hope they would get it instead of Katie. Gee dog, no one there told me that they wanted to remain anonymous. Do you think I was in on the conversations the reporter had with others to know who gave what quote? Did you miss where I said that there were three interested parties there? How do you feel it is so safe for you to a$$ume anything about anyone there? Well I just figured since it was said in the first sentence of the article on the front page of the paper, hours before you posted, you would have read it in the paper, and honored the request. I am pretty sure you read the paper dont you? The paper said two prospective buyers were there. One was identified as Katie, and the other was an anonymous out of towner. I can a$$ume anything I want, without having any required "proof" right? Shouldnt I trust the paper as a respected source of information? You seem to take their words as Gospel most of the time. So if there was a third prospective buyer, were you that party, or just being nosy? If the paper said it was an out of towner, and you said Katie called your boss telling him that you were there with the owners of the Pontiac theater, am I wrong in saying that one of the prospective buyers is associated with the Pontiac theater?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Aug 5, 2015 21:34:35 GMT -6
Gee dog, no one there told me that they wanted to remain anonymous. Do you think I was in on the conversations the reporter had with others to know who gave what quote? Did you miss where I said that there were three interested parties there? How do you feel it is so safe for you to a$$ume anything about anyone there? Well I just figured since it was said in the first sentence of the article on the front page of the paper, hours before you posted, you would have read it in the paper, and honored the request. I am pretty sure you read the paper dont you? The paper said two prospective buyers were there. One was identified as Katie, and the other was an anonymous out of towner. I can a$$ume anything I want, without having any required "proof" right? Shouldnt I trust the paper as a respected source of information? You seem to take their words as Gospel most of the time. So if there was a third prospective buyer, were you that party, or just being nosy? If the paper said it was an out of towner, and you said Katie called your boss telling him that you were there with the owners of the Pontiac theater, am I wrong in saying that one of the prospective buyers is associated with the Pontiac theater? Gee dog I didn't say you couldn't a$$ume anything you wanted. I was just wondering what made you feel it was so safe to do so. Sorry for asking though. A$$ume away!
|
|
|
Post by dog on Aug 5, 2015 21:39:44 GMT -6
Well I just figured since it was said in the first sentence of the article on the front page of the paper, hours before you posted, you would have read it in the paper, and honored the request. I am pretty sure you read the paper dont you? The paper said two prospective buyers were there. One was identified as Katie, and the other was an anonymous out of towner. I can a$$ume anything I want, without having any required "proof" right? Shouldnt I trust the paper as a respected source of information? You seem to take their words as Gospel most of the time. So if there was a third prospective buyer, were you that party, or just being nosy? If the paper said it was an out of towner, and you said Katie called your boss telling him that you were there with the owners of the Pontiac theater, am I wrong in saying that one of the prospective buyers is associated with the Pontiac theater? Gee dog I didn't say you couldn't a$$ume anything you wanted. I was just wondering what made you feel it was so safe to do so. Sorry for asking though. A$$ume away! So was I correct in my a$$umption? Did I interpret what the paper said and what you posted accurately?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Aug 5, 2015 21:41:49 GMT -6
Gee dog I didn't say you couldn't a$$ume anything you wanted. I was just wondering what made you feel it was so safe to do so. Sorry for asking though. A$$ume away! So was I correct in my a$$umption? A$$ume Away! Won't it be interesting to see what does end up happening there?
|
|
|
Post by Kyle Mitchell on Aug 6, 2015 22:47:03 GMT -6
So was I correct in my a$$umption? Did I interpret what the paper said and what you posted accurately? A$$ume away dog! You do really seem to enjoy it. Personally, because it tends to be less risky, I prefer to pose a$$umptive questions. Roman would probably refer to it as weasel wording it. Considering that the "news"paper didn't even mention the donated digital projection equipment or the new $500,000.00 online public donation campaign, what does that make you a$$ume? The GoFundMe page, as well as Katie's email and social media campaigns say among many other things, “To reopen a person will need to upgrade the electric service, and probably put in a sprinkler system.” When I attended the pre-auction showing this week, I saw no evidence of problems with the existing electric service. The only “electric” wires I saw hanging were from the removed surround speakers Katie opened the place for several concerts after the theatre had been boarded over for well over a decade and saw that I opened it in 2007 (and knew about it being inspected by the City then) without being required to put in sprinklers. What would make her even think that it even might be required to have sprinklers now? I know that she is friends with Mayor Lansford, she said that he was a friend of her father's and refers to him as “Doc” Lansford. Before she set her “take” from the generous people of Streator as high as half a million to “probably” include an expensive fire sprinkler system, would you a$$ume that the real estate professional would at least have checked with her friend “Doc” to see if these things would be required or not? Should we a$$ume our Mayor or anyone else at the City had told her that fire sprinklers would “probably” be required? I would ask or Mayor, but he doesn't like to answer my questions and typically doesn't, so I wouldn't bother wasting his time or mine. It is a very important consideration in the matter though not something that can be a$$umed, in my opinion. In order to put together any type of responsible offer, any interested party would need to know as soon as possible whether or not the City will require fire sprinklers or upgraded electric service for the Majestic. I called City Hall to find out, but did not receive a response yet.
|
|