Apologies Owed to Mr. Valois

I owe Rick Valois an apology. As was pointed out in a snotty comment, which I will get to in a moment, I wrote a piece referring Mr. Valois that, on second reading, did not portray him in a very positive light.

You see, Mr. Valois offered to pay the $400.00 to put on this debate in exchange for changes in the format. I spoke with Mr. Valois and (I think) politely declined his offer. The next day I made this statement: "With all due respect to Mr. Valois, the format is not for sale." Mr. Valois, please accept my apology. You didn't try to buy the format, and I know from talking to you that your intentions were good. Sometimes I write things because they sound appropriate for my 'story line,' and forget to critically consider what they mean.

As to the comment, I must confess that I remain unimpressed by the opposition to this debate. This individual "wants this democratic and open to all. Not merely those who pay." Well, newsflash, partner, the venue isn't free. Granted, Mr. Valois agreed to pay the $400.00, but I didn't accept his terms. He is, I think, going to organize his own forum on those terms and his is an undertaking that I support.

"I am not for someone else deciding the questions or which constitutes the best form of the question."

Well, who decides the questions? Or are there no limits? Any person in the audience can ask any question of any candidate at any time with no time limits? Your false priggishness about my red meat comment aside, what you propose is not "democracy," it is, if recent City Commission meetings are any indication, a tinderbox.

The individual does have the right to question. You can question the candidates on the street or on the telephone. Or, perhaps more to the point, you can start your own blog or set up your own debate and question them however you want. Hell, I'll even attend. Be sure, RN, to let us all know the date, time and place of your debate.

Oh wait, I'm wrong. You would "prefer to stick to" a town hall meeting. Feel free.

Not us. We're having a debate. (By the way, thank you for your condescending definition of a debate. As a trial lawyer who has practiced for nearly 20 years, I had no idea.)

Please do not attack the format until you know what it is, ok? And then if you think that there is a better way to determine the candidates' positions, you can choose a different format at your event.

Finally, please accept my apologies, RN, for the tone of this post. I have grown accustomed to potshots and anonymous criticism about the debate and other topics. I do not, however, think I need to be lectured about my motives, intentions or plans.

Especially when you don't know jack about any of 'em.