"This incorrect analysis has been parroted already by at least one local blogger, so it would be good to shut it down quickly. Hartzman makes much of his skill at reading financal documents, but any such abilities are not on display here."
My reply posted on his blog:
"When I was made aware of it I corrected it and noted doing so. You, on the other hand, continue to ignore evidence that proves Barber has not been straight up with the voters including his promise to:
"When a complete and comprehensive report is provided to Council and the public, and then it is tabled for 2 weeks to further vet, question and discuss the details. All reasonable questions should have an answer, and the final product should be clearly defined. This should be council policy."
He never even brought it up, not one word but who gave his "non profit" $100,000? That would be Wyndham. As usual, you continue to parrot what the status quo wants you to parrot."
While Ed was the first person to publicly admit I was correct in saying that East Greensboro has been treated unfairly, Ed lost all credibility when he supported Robbie Perkins and efforts to build the Greensboro Performing Arts Center while saying there was also need for change in East Greensboro for he knew just as I knew that a PAC would only push back any efforts at helping the least fortunate among us. City Council has passed a resolution to build the PAC and a new park next door but no one has even proposed solutions for East Greensboro.
Oh, and Ed, who writes and edits for a business publication, misspelled financial.
Update: In the comments to the same post Ed wrote:
"George on the other hand, according to Barber's email linked above, is cozy enough with him to receive special treatment for behavior that might have landed another person in jail. Clearly a conspiracy!"
My reply:
"You left out 3 very important points: 1. Your e-mail was wasn't sent to several other bloggers as was mine (Was it?) (Barber was responding to my e-mail under the assumption that Hartzman was spearheading the effort-- he wasn't) and 2 your e-mail didn't generate a blog post by the editor of a weekly print publication (did it?) and 3. Barber replied to no less than 6 bloggers in what was an obvious attempt to defame George Hartzman.
So while you waste your time trying to take down George I remain standing with even more dirt on Barber I've yet to disclose. My game, my rules, I suggest you go back to the sandbox."
Ed Cone likes to spin stories on behalf of the local status quo. Problem is: to spin a story you have to actually know the story. Ed Cone doesn't know the story but tried to spin anyway. Big mistake.
Update 2: Another comment I posted to Ed's blog:
Ed Cone is also in the habit of cherry picking mistakes as a means of attempting the defame those with which he disagrees. For example: while Ed writes of George's "lies" in the post Ed linked to and complains that George didn't note his eventual corrections, Eddie boy fails to note or take on the fact that Mike Barber's "charity" pays less that 7% of what it takes in towards the actual "cause.
Typical Ed Cone establishment practices. Ed?"
Ed used to do that to me, now I do it to Ed Cone. What, you thought I wouldn't learn from your repeated thrashings? Keep wasting your time on George, I'll ruin you from behind. Or take me on face to face and fall like a man. Either way, I don't care.
Update 3: Ed Cone responds:
"RTFP, Billy. Thanks."
I never learned text messaging but I believe that means, read the fine print. My reply:
"Ed, I assume you're referring to this:
"It does look like our local chapter of The First Tee spends an awfully high percentage of the money it raises on salaries. Maybe the value the organization delivers justfies the expense ratio; Barber says as much here."
I had that e-mail 24 hours before you saw it, I've had plenty of time to read it repeatedly. Neither Barber nor yourself have addressed the 7% issue in any way shape or form.
But keep fetching his water and perhaps he'll return your e-mails someday."
Ed appears to be reading things into Mike's e-mail that simply aren't there. Or perhaps Ed is hoping you and I will read things that aren't there. My belief has always been that Ed stopped blogging last year because I proved his credibility to be non existent and that he only returned to blogging because Greensboro's elites have been unable to find anyone else fool enough to stick their necks out on their behalf. And being that Ed Cone lacks any credibility anyway, why not him?
But hey, that's just my opinion, you can believe anything you wish including Ed's story about having other things to do that no one ever saw him doing.
Update 4: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 UNCG Professor Andrew Brod takes on the question Ed fears to take:
"I'll address it, at the risk of being accused again of defending someone in whose success I have no actual stake.
I don't think you're reading the 990 correctly. The expense breakdown notes that a total of $308,179 was spent in 2012, and $168,579 of that was for programs. That looks like 55%, not 7%, and the fact that most of that went to salaries doesn't change anything.
However, I do get that you really, really don't like it."
As usual, Professor Brod brings a knife to a gun fight. Brave man but not very wise. My reply:
"Actually Andrew, you're not defending anyone. In fact you just helped to make my case. For you see, Mike Barber's salary is twice that of the previous director so most of that 55% goes straight into Mike's pockets.
As always, Thanks for your help."
One should always know all the facts before one attempts to spin a story. After all, I have been known to bait a few traps.
