Albero comments today from the post of September 5th.
Quote from Albero
"Spending $90.00 per sticker as a joke is simply out of the question for someone on a City salary.
No matter what is said, everyone knows what really was going on here. Sure, a select few might want to argue for the City's sake but we all know the reality here.
In the past, (before Blogs) there was only the Daily Times, (print wise) and they would never run a story like this and you know what, to this day they still haven't! It tells you why, (convincingly) everyone calls it the Tilghman Times.
They were snagged, the stickers are gone and no one will ever pull that kind of crap again. End of story."
You are absolutely right Albero. Ninety dollars for a practical joke is simply out of the question. That’s why I am convinced it was removed from another vehicle and placed on the city truck. Just as “inside looking out,” pointed out, if the stickers are one over another they all come off with ease. You need to look at some of the trucks that use the beach year after year. Many of the stickers are stacked several deep. The same is true with the annual stickers for license plates. After a while they get so thick you can easily peel off several years at a time.
So what if you are 45 years old. Is that a magic age that makes you more knowledgeable about these things than anyone else? Does this imply you are worldlier than the rest of us by virtue of your epochal humanoid accomplishment?
At what age would one reach an acme of luminosity? More importantly, at what age do you expect one would start to digress from the analytical process of reasoning and common sense? I only ask because I am somewhat older than you and I am intensely curious to know exactly when I fell from the realm of learning and application of non-convoluted reasoning, thereby being compelled to heed the irrational and multifarious opinionated rants of an oracle such as yourself.
Yes Albero—I am forced to agree with you. No one spent $90 on a practical joke.
The joke is on you for believing the city actually bought a permit for a truckload of sand for horseshoe pits, when in reality easier and more economical options exist. You yourself have accused the city of being cheap and looking for ways to conserve funds. Look at your recent post concerning the zoo and the advertisement for a zookeeper. Do you not chastise the city for offering a lower salary for the position and requiring lesser education that what was once mandated? (so you say—no proof is offered to the contrary) With all these supposedly cuts in position and salary, you would actually have us believe the city foolishly spent $90 on a beach permit when a trip to Wal-Mart for less than $25 could have accomplished the same thing? Maybe you should apply your great forensic investigative skill to this as you have done the accident involving the Hebron Fire Department Vehicle. Possibly then you will find a more logical adjudication to the matter.
Snagged? Pull the barbs out of your own pelt Albero. Even if a little piece of your atrocious accusation is true, what makes you think it is so newsworthy that the Daily Times would stop the presses in order to take the City to task over such an issue? Granted, the Times is far from Pulitzer proficient, but a simple practical joke in Smallsbury is not an event to alter the NYSE on any given day.
Yes, the stickers are gone. And the harmless fun will come to an end thanks to your inference of malfeasance with a photo that proves absolutely nothing. Would a Second Amendment sticker on a city vehicle prove a Salisbury City membership to the National Rifle Association?
Show us a financial report or receipt of some kind that proves beyond a doubt the city did indeed purchase this permit.
Do that and I will recant this entire dialog? Until then---This is the end of the story