Yikes. I don’t think I’ve ever heard such narcissism.
—————————————
Sir, I assure you it’s worse than that. Go to one of those, meetings and listen to all (Deleted by Editor.)
#3 I don’t think I could. Thirty minutes complaining that a geography bee wasn’t covered in a free local on-line newspaper is more than I could handle.
The woman who complained about this is the same woman who bashed gay people, then complained that she’s being attacked as a result of her words (when no one ever was or is attacking her). She also badmouthed another board member to the local online press. She needs to go
The person who says she’s being attacked because her son’s 2nd place title in a local Geography Bee wasn’t featured in the free online paper is also the person who called another board member a nasty ***** in said free online paper. She is the same person who put her gay bashing into words on Facebook and doubled down on those words in the (you guessed it) same free online paper. Her name is Antoinette Raucci Aumack.
#’s 4 & 5
———————————–
What a pair of cowards you two are, attacking a woman, safely hiding behind your anonymity. I guess that little thingy about freedom of speech (1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights) in the Constitution doesn’t mean anything to you. Stalin would be proud of both of you.
Me thinks she may confusing the word ‘attacked’ with the word ‘ignored’. Because unfortunately for some people in today’s self obsessed society, being ignored is the same am being attacked.
Well it’s good to see that the BOE has time to tackle a pressing issue like the editorial decisions of free online newspapers.
#6 as usual, it’s getting a little exhausting, you have zero grasp on that little thingy, the 1st amendment. First of all, the irony of you accusing others of violating someone’s right to free speech by attacking their speech is almost too hypocritical for words. But besides that- the first amendment protecting speech DOES NOT, NOR HAS IT EVER, protected anyone from the social or professional consequences of their speech. Just ask Howard Cosell, Paula Dean, or Billy Bush (all fired by their employer, none had their 1st amendment rights violated. Hell, Billy Bush didn’t even technically say anything). Anyone can express their opinion about anyone. But the 1st amendment (in the Bill of Rights in the US constitution) DOES NOT protect them from being ridiculed, or criticized, or fired for things they say. It protects them from legal prosecution. In simple terms: Yes, she has the right to express her opinion about gay people. And YES, (this is the part of free speech you don’t like) others have the right to criticize her opinion about gay people. She was NOT arrested for expressing her opinion, so her first amendment rights WERE NOT violated. I’ve said before on this blog, and I’ll say it again: it is staggering how many people in this great country don’t understand how it works.
If you had it your way, no one would be allowed to criticize the things people say. And private companies wouldn’t have the right to fire people who violate their conduct clause. Now THAT would make Stalin proud.
Thank you #6, but I think Mr. Dilberger won’t understand. He’s too caught up in agreement with Antoinette’s statements to think objectively.
BTW – As a board member, Antoinette’s gay bashing statements are discriminatory. (“It’s a sin, it’s a sin” was her TapInto response to the question “As a board member do you stand by your Facebook statement”). (Sentences deleted by Editor.)
Forget about the geography bee and *** ******** ***……The miffed board member wants the school to ban a certain media outlet because they didn’t promote her local business!! How unethical is that?! (Asterisks are mine, Editor.)
#12 A) I didn’t go to college B) point out anything in my comment that is untrue. I’ll wait. Patiently.
Your invoking the first amendment in this instance is inaccurate. I can see that you are the type of person that really hates to be wrong. All I ask is that you learn a little bit about certain things before trying to use them in an argument. That’s all.
Additionally, Mr. I Know The Constitution, nearly all of the founding fathers were ‘college boys’ and the constitution itself is a collection of ‘high sounding words’.
#13
———————–
Sir, It’s all just about words to your sort of person. To me it means, and always has meant action on words. That’s why I took an oath to the Constitution you say I don’t understand, and you didn’t. “Clever” only gets you so far in life sir.
#14 taking an oath to the constitution while admirable, is not an excuse for not understanding it.
Again, point out anything in my comment that is incorrect. No, you’re not going to do that. Because rather than admit that you are wrong, you hide behind a sense of superiority. That too will only get you so far in life. Sir
In that oath where did it say that Mrs. Raucci couldn’t express her personal opinion? Mrs. Raucci never said she hated gays. She shared what the Bible says. What her religion says. She has the freedom of religion. In Comment #10 it says *** ******** ***. I have a good guess about what that means. Don’t go at someone’s son. Would you be proud of your children’s achievements in life? Especially if the school wanted your child to be in special education? I would be proud. I’ve met and talked to Mrs. Raucci in person about this whole situation. She is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. She would give anyone the shirt off her back and the first to help you when struggling. And don’t get me started on what she’s done for the children of this community. When COVID was winding down she fought every day for those children to have activities to do around town and to get the children off the video games and to get them playing in the parks like they should at their age. She has a great heart and cares about each and every kid. All she was doing was expressing her opinion which we all do on a daily basis.
#15 – “Superiority”
————————————
Sir, I can’t help if you feel inferior to people. I advise you to put your name on your posts. Maybe that will help you get rid of your feelings of inferiority sir.
#17 nice try. It is not I who thinks you’re superior, it is you. I’ll ask again (for the THIRD time), point out anything in my original comment that is incorrect. For a self proclaimed ‘man of action’ you certainly are good at avoiding stuff.
#16 you too seem to have a difficult time grasping this. Neither her first amendment right to free speech NOR her first amendment right to religious expression were violated. She is still sitting on the school board. Criticizing someone for what they said is not violating free speech. Why on earth is this so hard for people to understand? NO ONE is saying she can’t express her opinion. But we are ALL allowed to criticize her opinion. That’s how this works. (Several sentences deleted by Editor. Please, involving children in this discussion is not allowed on my Blog.)
And while I appreciate your defense of her charitable activities. I would like to point out that old adage, true charity is anonymous. There are plenty of people in this town doing all sorts of wonderful things for others, with quiet dignity. What I see on that video is rather selfish person with a pretty fragile ego and a rather odd vendetta against a free local newspaper.
#16 Try to imagine being gay, and you have to deal with the representative of a public institution who believes you are a sinner simply because you exist. I think that would be a pretty big bummer. Hell, I’m straight and I’m embarrassed by it.
When a private citizen makes claims like that, it’s not really a big deal. Lots of people have antiquated opinions about other people. But when you represent a public institution, one that has a mandate to treat ALL people as equals, well then it becomes a problem. Frankly, I couldn’t care less what she thinks. But I do care, a great deal, about what my representatives think.
And for the record, believing that all gay people are sinners is the same as implying that being gay is a choice. Haven’t we evolved enough to finally accept that being gay is not a ‘lifestyle choice’? I mean seriously.
“Criticizing someone for what they said is not violating free speech.”
—————————————-
Nope, you didn’t violate her rights, but you did show yourself to be a coward hiding behind a screen of anonymity criticizing her.
At least, the lady stood tall and said what she believed.
———————————–
#18 – I can’t help you with your inferiority complex. Maybe if you used your correct, name you’d feel a little less inferior.
#21 we’ll at least you seem to partially understand the first amendment. Going from accusing 4 and 5 of violating her first amendment to admitting that they didn’t. I assume that’s as close as we’ll get to admitting you were wrong. Baby steps.
“At least, the lady stood tall and said what she believed”
-I believe it was a social media post so it was likely made sitting down.
Also, your admiration for those who stand tall and say what they believe seems to be solely reserved for those who say things you happen to agree with. Everyone else is a *****. That’s called hypocrisy.
As for staying anonymous, that is also a right. The right to privacy. Pretty selective with your rights too it seems.
Sir, you have to try to bring yourself up from your inferiority complex. The first thing you should do as a man is go and apologize to that lady (who is superior to you) on the BOE you insulted behind your cloak of anonymity. Then put your name up on your posts. Those two ideas will go a long way in making you feel a bit better about yourself.
#23 haha. Ok, Sigmund Freud.
How about a cure for your sanctimonious attitude. Apologize to all the minority groups you falsely believe you are better than (you can paint in on your sandwich board), read a couple books about the founding fathers, and take some time to learn how the constitution works.
I’m not going to apologize for pointing out bigotry. Whether it’s someone pretending to be the founder of the KKK in a letter to the editor (sound familiar, Mr Cloak of Anonymity?) or someone who thinks people are sinners for being in love.
The two of you can stew in your hatred together, I want no part.
“Standing tall” is a metaphor, like keeping a stiff upper lip, or keeping your p….. up. In other words, be bold while having a stiff spine: stand up for what you believe. Ms. Aumack is brave. She seems not to care about all that woke crappola. Good for her. Mother hen cares for her chicks. How’s that for a metaphor.
#26 I don’t believe there is anything brave about bigotry.
I do believe, however, that being openly gay in a society that has marginalized you for centuries, is brave. I believe that being openly gay in a town that (partially anyway) celebrates a person who believes you are an abomination, is brave.
The struggles that gay folks have been through, since literally the dawn of time, require a courage, a stiff spine, and a boldness that people that Ms Aumack can’t even begin to comprehend.
Relying on nonsense buzzwords carefully fed to you by your right wing celebrity TV stars is not a valid argument. This is selective bigotry and unbridled selfishness on display at a public meeting. I too care for my children. I never once whined or complained if one of their accomplishments didn’t make the local news. Doing that, is what I call ‘woke crapola’.
There is an article about this meeting in Tap Into the I hope is posted on this blog.
I’m no fan of Matt Doherty, but I must say that watching this sad little public tiff play out is kinda fun.
(I changed what I think was a typo. You can communicate with me in a comment if that is not correct.)
#27 I agree. I just implied/claimed that she is brave for stating her position. Woke crappola and what it consists of is another discussion that is not relevant to this thread.
#26 How is it brave to whine about not being honored in the free online local yokel paper? Complaining that her kids and herself should get mentioned sounds like another right wing word that’s bandied about: snowflake.
OK, you all. It is acceptable for adults to censor someone, but not for kids to bully each other. After all, that is what many on the country’s left are doing to conservatives.
#34 this seems very hard for some people to understand. I can’t quite figure out why. She is not being ‘censored’, she is not being ‘cancelled’, she is not having her rights violated. Period. She still sits on the BOE and she is still free to complain and rant.
She IS being held accountable. Are we not allowed to hold people accountable anymore?
That’s all this is. It’s not political, it’s not left, it’s not right, it’s not woke, it’s not censorship, it’s not bullying. It is holding someone to account. If I go on social media and say something monumentally stupid, I would expect to be held to account by my peers or my employer, or both.
And, incidentally, going back to the original story in the news, she called a fellow board member a nasty b*%#*. Without provocation and apparently without reason. To me, that is the dictionary definition of a bully. She literally violated the schools anti bullying rules passed by the very board she sits on. Haha. Wow, that just occurred to me. It’s kinda funny. She’s behaving in a manner that we would not accept from children. Classic
How this person is still representing the school is a mystery I’ll never solve.
She is becoming a distraction. The board should vote whether to keep tapinto or not. She’ll have to live with the decision. It can’t keep going on like this.
#36 some were votes of confidence, some ignorance, and others laziness.
The candidate in question still has plenty of fans despite her antiquated views about gay people and her self serving demands. Don’t ask me why.
Yikes. I don’t think I’ve ever heard such narcissism. It’s as disturbing as it is impressive.
Yikes. I don’t think I’ve ever heard such narcissism.
—————————————
Sir, I assure you it’s worse than that. Go to one of those, meetings and listen to all (Deleted by Editor.)
#3 I don’t think I could. Thirty minutes complaining that a geography bee wasn’t covered in a free local on-line newspaper is more than I could handle.
The woman who complained about this is the same woman who bashed gay people, then complained that she’s being attacked as a result of her words (when no one ever was or is attacking her). She also badmouthed another board member to the local online press. She needs to go
The person who says she’s being attacked because her son’s 2nd place title in a local Geography Bee wasn’t featured in the free online paper is also the person who called another board member a nasty ***** in said free online paper. She is the same person who put her gay bashing into words on Facebook and doubled down on those words in the (you guessed it) same free online paper. Her name is Antoinette Raucci Aumack.
#’s 4 & 5
———————————–
What a pair of cowards you two are, attacking a woman, safely hiding behind your anonymity. I guess that little thingy about freedom of speech (1st Amendment in the Bill of Rights) in the Constitution doesn’t mean anything to you. Stalin would be proud of both of you.
Me thinks she may confusing the word ‘attacked’ with the word ‘ignored’. Because unfortunately for some people in today’s self obsessed society, being ignored is the same am being attacked.
Well it’s good to see that the BOE has time to tackle a pressing issue like the editorial decisions of free online newspapers.
#6 as usual, it’s getting a little exhausting, you have zero grasp on that little thingy, the 1st amendment. First of all, the irony of you accusing others of violating someone’s right to free speech by attacking their speech is almost too hypocritical for words. But besides that- the first amendment protecting speech DOES NOT, NOR HAS IT EVER, protected anyone from the social or professional consequences of their speech. Just ask Howard Cosell, Paula Dean, or Billy Bush (all fired by their employer, none had their 1st amendment rights violated. Hell, Billy Bush didn’t even technically say anything). Anyone can express their opinion about anyone. But the 1st amendment (in the Bill of Rights in the US constitution) DOES NOT protect them from being ridiculed, or criticized, or fired for things they say. It protects them from legal prosecution. In simple terms: Yes, she has the right to express her opinion about gay people. And YES, (this is the part of free speech you don’t like) others have the right to criticize her opinion about gay people. She was NOT arrested for expressing her opinion, so her first amendment rights WERE NOT violated. I’ve said before on this blog, and I’ll say it again: it is staggering how many people in this great country don’t understand how it works.
If you had it your way, no one would be allowed to criticize the things people say. And private companies wouldn’t have the right to fire people who violate their conduct clause. Now THAT would make Stalin proud.
Thank you #6, but I think Mr. Dilberger won’t understand. He’s too caught up in agreement with Antoinette’s statements to think objectively.
BTW – As a board member, Antoinette’s gay bashing statements are discriminatory. (“It’s a sin, it’s a sin” was her TapInto response to the question “As a board member do you stand by your Facebook statement”). (Sentences deleted by Editor.)
How ironic!
Forget about the geography bee and *** ******** ***……The miffed board member wants the school to ban a certain media outlet because they didn’t promote her local business!! How unethical is that?!
(Asterisks are mine, Editor.)
hahaha. Dilberger is against her in his #2 post, then realizing she hates gays, defends her in his #6 post.
Freedom of speech – it goes both ways Dilberger.
Ah well. Just keep walking with the sandwich boards and not voting. It’s all good.
#8 – Just more college boy gibberish cloaked by a blizzard of high-sounding words.
#12 A) I didn’t go to college B) point out anything in my comment that is untrue. I’ll wait. Patiently.
Your invoking the first amendment in this instance is inaccurate. I can see that you are the type of person that really hates to be wrong. All I ask is that you learn a little bit about certain things before trying to use them in an argument. That’s all.
Additionally, Mr. I Know The Constitution, nearly all of the founding fathers were ‘college boys’ and the constitution itself is a collection of ‘high sounding words’.
Lastly, if ignorance is bliss, why so angry?
#13
———————–
Sir, It’s all just about words to your sort of person. To me it means, and always has meant action on words. That’s why I took an oath to the Constitution you say I don’t understand, and you didn’t. “Clever” only gets you so far in life sir.
#14 taking an oath to the constitution while admirable, is not an excuse for not understanding it.
Again, point out anything in my comment that is incorrect. No, you’re not going to do that. Because rather than admit that you are wrong, you hide behind a sense of superiority. That too will only get you so far in life. Sir
In that oath where did it say that Mrs. Raucci couldn’t express her personal opinion? Mrs. Raucci never said she hated gays. She shared what the Bible says. What her religion says. She has the freedom of religion. In Comment #10 it says *** ******** ***. I have a good guess about what that means. Don’t go at someone’s son. Would you be proud of your children’s achievements in life? Especially if the school wanted your child to be in special education? I would be proud. I’ve met and talked to Mrs. Raucci in person about this whole situation. She is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. She would give anyone the shirt off her back and the first to help you when struggling. And don’t get me started on what she’s done for the children of this community. When COVID was winding down she fought every day for those children to have activities to do around town and to get the children off the video games and to get them playing in the parks like they should at their age. She has a great heart and cares about each and every kid. All she was doing was expressing her opinion which we all do on a daily basis.
#15 – “Superiority”
————————————
Sir, I can’t help if you feel inferior to people. I advise you to put your name on your posts. Maybe that will help you get rid of your feelings of inferiority sir.
#17 nice try. It is not I who thinks you’re superior, it is you. I’ll ask again (for the THIRD time), point out anything in my original comment that is incorrect. For a self proclaimed ‘man of action’ you certainly are good at avoiding stuff.
#16 you too seem to have a difficult time grasping this. Neither her first amendment right to free speech NOR her first amendment right to religious expression were violated. She is still sitting on the school board. Criticizing someone for what they said is not violating free speech. Why on earth is this so hard for people to understand? NO ONE is saying she can’t express her opinion. But we are ALL allowed to criticize her opinion. That’s how this works.
(Several sentences deleted by Editor. Please, involving children in this discussion is not allowed on my Blog.)
And while I appreciate your defense of her charitable activities. I would like to point out that old adage, true charity is anonymous. There are plenty of people in this town doing all sorts of wonderful things for others, with quiet dignity. What I see on that video is rather selfish person with a pretty fragile ego and a rather odd vendetta against a free local newspaper.
Apologies, Editor. I will paraphrase for content.
#16 Try to imagine being gay, and you have to deal with the representative of a public institution who believes you are a sinner simply because you exist. I think that would be a pretty big bummer. Hell, I’m straight and I’m embarrassed by it.
When a private citizen makes claims like that, it’s not really a big deal. Lots of people have antiquated opinions about other people. But when you represent a public institution, one that has a mandate to treat ALL people as equals, well then it becomes a problem. Frankly, I couldn’t care less what she thinks. But I do care, a great deal, about what my representatives think.
And for the record, believing that all gay people are sinners is the same as implying that being gay is a choice. Haven’t we evolved enough to finally accept that being gay is not a ‘lifestyle choice’? I mean seriously.
“Criticizing someone for what they said is not violating free speech.”
—————————————-
Nope, you didn’t violate her rights, but you did show yourself to be a coward hiding behind a screen of anonymity criticizing her.
At least, the lady stood tall and said what she believed.
———————————–
#18 – I can’t help you with your inferiority complex. Maybe if you used your correct, name you’d feel a little less inferior.
#21 we’ll at least you seem to partially understand the first amendment. Going from accusing 4 and 5 of violating her first amendment to admitting that they didn’t. I assume that’s as close as we’ll get to admitting you were wrong. Baby steps.
“At least, the lady stood tall and said what she believed”
-I believe it was a social media post so it was likely made sitting down.
Also, your admiration for those who stand tall and say what they believe seems to be solely reserved for those who say things you happen to agree with. Everyone else is a *****. That’s called hypocrisy.
As for staying anonymous, that is also a right. The right to privacy. Pretty selective with your rights too it seems.
(Asterisks are mine, Editor.)
Sir, you have to try to bring yourself up from your inferiority complex. The first thing you should do as a man is go and apologize to that lady (who is superior to you) on the BOE you insulted behind your cloak of anonymity. Then put your name up on your posts. Those two ideas will go a long way in making you feel a bit better about yourself.
#23 haha. Ok, Sigmund Freud.
How about a cure for your sanctimonious attitude. Apologize to all the minority groups you falsely believe you are better than (you can paint in on your sandwich board), read a couple books about the founding fathers, and take some time to learn how the constitution works.
I’m not going to apologize for pointing out bigotry. Whether it’s someone pretending to be the founder of the KKK in a letter to the editor (sound familiar, Mr Cloak of Anonymity?) or someone who thinks people are sinners for being in love.
The two of you can stew in your hatred together, I want no part.
Again, Not Too Late, Schooled, School’s Out,
Thank you!!
“Standing tall” is a metaphor, like keeping a stiff upper lip, or keeping your p….. up. In other words, be bold while having a stiff spine: stand up for what you believe. Ms. Aumack is brave. She seems not to care about all that woke crappola. Good for her. Mother hen cares for her chicks. How’s that for a metaphor.
#26 I don’t believe there is anything brave about bigotry.
I do believe, however, that being openly gay in a society that has marginalized you for centuries, is brave. I believe that being openly gay in a town that (partially anyway) celebrates a person who believes you are an abomination, is brave.
The struggles that gay folks have been through, since literally the dawn of time, require a courage, a stiff spine, and a boldness that people that Ms Aumack can’t even begin to comprehend.
Relying on nonsense buzzwords carefully fed to you by your right wing celebrity TV stars is not a valid argument. This is selective bigotry and unbridled selfishness on display at a public meeting. I too care for my children. I never once whined or complained if one of their accomplishments didn’t make the local news. Doing that, is what I call ‘woke crapola’.
There is an article about this meeting in Tap Into the I hope is posted on this blog.
I’m no fan of Matt Doherty, but I must say that watching this sad little public tiff play out is kinda fun.
(I changed what I think was a typo. You can communicate with me in a comment if that is not correct.)
#27 I agree. I just implied/claimed that she is brave for stating her position. Woke crappola and what it consists of is another discussion that is not relevant to this thread.
#26 How is it brave to whine about not being honored in the free online local yokel paper? Complaining that her kids and herself should get mentioned sounds like another right wing word that’s bandied about: snowflake.
A brave board member will ask themselves before speaking: is this for the good of all the students?
#28 if wokeism isn’t relevant why did you say it? I’m so tired of this stuff. Fight fair folks.
#27 As for Matt Doherty, in his situation it’s understandable that he wouldn’t give Mrs. Aumack or her children any space on his blog.
It doesn’t take bravery to go after folks that have always been discriminated against. It only takes ignorance.
Where bravery enters the picture, is when an apology is given to (Deleted by Editor). We shall see. I won’t hold my breath.
Btw, I couldn’t find any coverage of the geography bee in ‘the Patch’. Are they ‘attacking her’ too, or is it just difficult to find?
OK, you all. It is acceptable for adults to censor someone, but not for kids to bully each other. After all, that is what many on the country’s left are doing to conservatives.
#34 this seems very hard for some people to understand. I can’t quite figure out why. She is not being ‘censored’, she is not being ‘cancelled’, she is not having her rights violated. Period. She still sits on the BOE and she is still free to complain and rant.
She IS being held accountable. Are we not allowed to hold people accountable anymore?
That’s all this is. It’s not political, it’s not left, it’s not right, it’s not woke, it’s not censorship, it’s not bullying. It is holding someone to account. If I go on social media and say something monumentally stupid, I would expect to be held to account by my peers or my employer, or both.
And, incidentally, going back to the original story in the news, she called a fellow board member a nasty b*%#*. Without provocation and apparently without reason. To me, that is the dictionary definition of a bully. She literally violated the schools anti bullying rules passed by the very board she sits on. Haha. Wow, that just occurred to me. It’s kinda funny. She’s behaving in a manner that we would not accept from children. Classic
How this person is still representing the school is a mystery I’ll never solve.
i didn’t vote for any BOE candidate this past November … all 3 seats were uncontested.
Why the Belmar electorate pushed buttons or filled paper ballot ovals is beyond me … were they votes of confidence?
She is becoming a distraction. The board should vote whether to keep tapinto or not. She’ll have to live with the decision. It can’t keep going on like this.
#’s 33-34-35 – all gibberish.
#36 some were votes of confidence, some ignorance, and others laziness.
The candidate in question still has plenty of fans despite her antiquated views about gay people and her self serving demands. Don’t ask me why.
#38 says the undisputed champ of gibberish.
#38, that Assigned at birth female tries to push her way around all over Belmar. I, I, I, appears to be the anthem call, hiccup!