Cigars and Stripes?

[berwyn senator]

Thank you Ronnie! you've given a few something to write about,time to promote something else!!

[The Jackal]

In any event, it's not the city's and police department's "fault" that any of these things happened---Ronnie Lottz installed the mirror to hold women up to ridicule, not the city and police department. But the point, to me, isn't whether the city or police department are liable for any of those things---I don't think you can sue them for it.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere....we all agree that the police department is not responsible nor is there anything they could have done before, during or after the fact. Correct?

If so, then how do you explain this:

FWIW, I think the BPD needs to own some of this too. What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?

What exactly is it that the BPD "needs to own"?

What "action" did you expect/want the BPD to take?

I'm all ears....

Exactly what I said---the BPD needs to send a message that sexual exploitation and surveillance are unacceptable. I don't think the BPD can be sued for anything, but I think their response was plainly subpar. Taking a look-see and saying everything is a-OK because there are no cameras and wires was weak, similar to the way women's claims of stalking and harassment are often dismissed because "there's no hard evidence of anything going on."

Creating an environment where women have the potential to be exploited is not OK. I think the BPD failed to send that message to the public in general and Ronnie Lottz in particular. It's like I said: "What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?"

How exactly was their response subpar?

What additional action were you expecting?

The BPD is in the business of enforcing existing laws and statutes.

There were NO crimes committed or laws violated.

What else did you want them to do?

I just answered those questions. Would you like me to type my previous reply again?

No, you didnt answer ANY of my questions.

1) What was subpar about their response?

2) What additional action were you expecting?

Simple questions.

Should elicit simple responses.

You can even number the responses accordingly.

And no, help Marge Paul draft an ordinance isn't an answer. The Berwyn PD isnt qualified to draft ordinances, nor is it their function.

Now back again to the two questions posed, because you really took Berwyn PD to task initially, then backpedalled some, and now are indirectly going on the offensive again.

[The Jackal]

I don't think Jackal is being actively mean-spirited in needling me with his questions. But it's important to note that his "no laws were broken!" line plays right into the hands of misogynists and abusers. It gives them license to continue their bad behavior so long as they don't do something illegal---and the laws regarding harassment and stalking can be weak and forbidding to women who are suffering through it.

Point is, Ronnie Lottz is creating an environment where people can act badly toward women. I do hope he can be compelled to stop creating that environment.

Ah NO, WRONG...AGAIN.

My response that no law was broken didnt go to the propriety of Mr. Lottz's action(s), it went to the propriety of the Berwyn P.D.'s response to the situation, for that is what you initially attacked, undeservedly so.

I've asked you numerous times what was inappropriate and/or insufficient about the Berwyn P.D. response, and still no answer.

[markberwyn]

In any event, it's not the city's and police department's "fault" that any of these things happened---Ronnie Lottz installed the mirror to hold women up to ridicule, not the city and police department. But the point, to me, isn't whether the city or police department are liable for any of those things---I don't think you can sue them for it.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere....we all agree that the police department is not responsible nor is there anything they could have done before, during or after the fact. Correct?

If so, then how do you explain this:

FWIW, I think the BPD needs to own some of this too. What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?

What exactly is it that the BPD "needs to own"?

What "action" did you expect/want the BPD to take?

I'm all ears....

Exactly what I said---the BPD needs to send a message that sexual exploitation and surveillance are unacceptable. I don't think the BPD can be sued for anything, but I think their response was plainly subpar. Taking a look-see and saying everything is a-OK because there are no cameras and wires was weak, similar to the way women's claims of stalking and harassment are often dismissed because "there's no hard evidence of anything going on."

Creating an environment where women have the potential to be exploited is not OK. I think the BPD failed to send that message to the public in general and Ronnie Lottz in particular. It's like I said: "What message does it send to women in Berwyn who are sexually harrassed that the police have looked at this situation and decided it doesn't merit action?"

How exactly was their response subpar?

What additional action were you expecting?

The BPD is in the business of enforcing existing laws and statutes.

There were NO crimes committed or laws violated.

What else did you want them to do?

I just answered those questions. Would you like me to type my previous reply again?

No, you didnt answer ANY of my questions.

1) What was subpar about their response?

2) What additional action were you expecting?

Simple questions.

Should elicit simple responses.

You can even number the responses accordingly.

And no, help Marge Paul draft an ordinance isn't an answer. The Berwyn D isnt qualified to draft ordinances, nor is it their function.

Now back again to the two questions posed, because you really took Berwyn PD to task initially, then backpedalled some, and now are indirectly going on the offensive again.

You seem upset.

There are questions I've asked you directly that you've chosen to ignore (http://www.berwyntalk.com/smf/index.php?topic=13630.msg221132#msg221132), so I think you're just going to have to be disappointed in me not responding to your questions three times over.

You say you spoke with Ronnie Lottz about his taking down the mirror. Did he give you a timeline for when that might be happening? Or is your feeling now that he was playing you? Perhaps you're easily fooled by Ronnie Lottz.

[The Jackal]

Mark, I didn't attack anybody (like you did), nor can anything I've posted be reasonably construed as me being upset...at all. Nice try at moving the goalposts, especially after you concede you're actively avoiding my two questions regarding Berwyn PD.

You slammed the Berwyn PD yet can not give one example of how their work on the issue was inappropriate and/or what you were expecting in response. Your prerogative.....I guess.

[The Jackal]

For the sake of this thread though, lets recap...

1) You slammed the Berwyn PD for their "subpar" response....yet can't articulate what exactly was subpar about it. I'm guessing thats because amidst your blind fury you realized that no law was broken and hence no response possible.

2) You bashed the Berwyn PD for not taking further action, yet can't articulate what further action could have been taken or what further action you were expecting. Unless of course youre talking about helping Marge Paul draft ordinances...except that Berwyn PD is unqualified to draft ordinances and it isnt within their function to do so. Minor details, I know, but nonetheless probably important and relevant.

3) You criticize "Berwyn" for not doing anything about this issue as well. When asked "What should Berwyn do?", you claim, amongst other things, not grant Lottz any TIF money or city permits. Well, since this story broke, exactly what TIF funds/city permits has Mr. Lottz applied for and/or received from the City?   

4) You hammer the City for its apparent inactivity since this story broke yet applaud Ald. Paul for placing a proposed amendment on the council agenda. Which is fine and dandy, we all commend Ald. Paul for her proactive stance, but wouldn't that also mean that Ald. Paul should be criticized for not having the foresight to address this issue BEFORE the incident with the comedienne occurred/this story broke? Or is it only the seven remaining aldermen (and mayor) who should be criticized for not having the foresight to anticipate that a local bar owner would install a two way mirror in the womens restroom in his bar? I mean, this IS an everyday occurrence that can be easily anticipated by any reasonable person, isn't it?

5) You pound "old time" Berwynites, yet when confronted with attestations (from Ted and others) that its the "old time" Berwynites who are most upset with Mr. Lotzz, you conveniently disregard and/or change the subject.

In fact, in your blind fury you've waylayed just about everyone and everything....the overwhelming majority without any reasonable cause.

Take OPS's advice...BREATHE, collect yourself, and focus one the one individual who IS responsible for your ire...Mr. Lottz.

I'm guessing that you would get a lot more support for your position, and responses to your posts, if you would heed that advice. Just a guess.

[markberwyn]

For the sake of this thread though, lets recap...

1) You slammed the Berwyn PD for their "subpar" response....yet can't articulate what exactly was subpar about it. I'm guessing thats because amidst your blind fury you realized that no law was broken and hence no response possible.

2) You bashed the Berwyn PD for not taking further action, yet can't articulate what further action could have been taken or what further action you were expecting. Unless of course youre talking about helping Marge Paul draft ordinances...except that Berwyn PD is unqualified to draft ordinances and it isnt within their function to do so. Minor details, I know, but nonetheless probably important and relevant.

3) You criticize "Berwyn" for not doing anything about this issue as well. When asked "What should Berwyn do?", you claim, amongst other things, not grant Lottz any TIF money. Well, since this story broke, exactly what TIF funds has Mr. Lottz applied for and/or received from the City?   

4) You hammer the City for its apparent inactivity since this story broke yet applaud Ald. Paul for placing a proposed amendment on the council agenda. Which is fine and dandy, we all commend Ald. Paul for her proactive stance, but wouldn't that also mean that Ald. Paul should be criticized for not having the foresight to address this issue BEFORE the incident with the comedienne occurred/this story broke? Or is it only the seven remaining aldermen (and mayor) who should be criticized for not having the foresight to anticipate that a local bar owner would install a two way mirror in the womens restroom in his bar? I mean, this IS an everyday occurrence that can be easily anticipated by any reasonable person, isn't it?

5) You pound "old time" Berwynites, yet when confronted with attestations (from Ted and others) that its the "old time" Berwynites who are most upset with Mr. Lotzz, you conveniently disregard and/or change the subject.

In fact, in your blind fury you've waylayed just about everyone and everything....the overwhelming majority without any reasonable cause.

Take OPS's advice...BREATHE, collect yourself, and focus one the one individual who IS responsible for your ire...Mr. Lottz.

I'm guessing that you would get a lot more support for your position, and responses to your posts, if you would heed that advice. Just a guess.

You said Ronnie Lottz told you he was going to take the mirror down. Did you think to ask him when that might be happening?

[The Jackal]

For the sake of this thread though, lets recap...

1) You slammed the Berwyn PD for their "subpar" response....yet can't articulate what exactly was subpar about it. I'm guessing thats because amidst your blind fury you realized that no law was broken and hence no response possible.

2) You bashed the Berwyn PD for not taking further action, yet can't articulate what further action could have been taken or what further action you were expecting. Unless of course youre talking about helping Marge Paul draft ordinances...except that Berwyn PD is unqualified to draft ordinances and it isnt within their function to do so. Minor details, I know, but nonetheless probably important and relevant.

3) You criticize "Berwyn" for not doing anything about this issue as well. When asked "What should Berwyn do?", you claim, amongst other things, not grant Lottz any TIF money. Well, since this story broke, exactly what TIF funds has Mr. Lottz applied for and/or received from the City?   

4) You hammer the City for its apparent inactivity since this story broke yet applaud Ald. Paul for placing a proposed amendment on the council agenda. Which is fine and dandy, we all commend Ald. Paul for her proactive stance, but wouldn't that also mean that Ald. Paul should be criticized for not having the foresight to address this issue BEFORE the incident with the comedienne occurred/this story broke? Or is it only the seven remaining aldermen (and mayor) who should be criticized for not having the foresight to anticipate that a local bar owner would install a two way mirror in the womens restroom in his bar? I mean, this IS an everyday occurrence that can be easily anticipated by any reasonable person, isn't it?

5) You pound "old time" Berwynites, yet when confronted with attestations (from Ted and others) that its the "old time" Berwynites who are most upset with Mr. Lotzz, you conveniently disregard and/or change the subject.

In fact, in your blind fury you've waylayed just about everyone and everything....the overwhelming majority without any reasonable cause.

Take OPS's advice...BREATHE, collect yourself, and focus one the one individual who IS responsible for your ire...Mr. Lottz.

I'm guessing that you would get a lot more support for your position, and responses to your posts, if you would heed that advice. Just a guess.

You said Ronnie Lottz told you he was going to take the mirror down. Did you think to ask him when that might be happening?

You can call and ask yourself....Cigars and Stripes number is listed.

My guess though is that once the proposed ordinance is passed he will have no choice BUT to bring down the mirror.

No?

[markberwyn]

For the sake of this thread though, lets recap...

1) You slammed the Berwyn PD for their "subpar" response....yet can't articulate what exactly was subpar about it. I'm guessing thats because amidst your blind fury you realized that no law was broken and hence no response possible.

2) You bashed the Berwyn PD for not taking further action, yet can't articulate what further action could have been taken or what further action you were expecting. Unless of course youre talking about helping Marge Paul draft ordinances...except that Berwyn PD is unqualified to draft ordinances and it isnt within their function to do so. Minor details, I know, but nonetheless probably important and relevant.

3) You criticize "Berwyn" for not doing anything about this issue as well. When asked "What should Berwyn do?", you claim, amongst other things, not grant Lottz any TIF money. Well, since this story broke, exactly what TIF funds has Mr. Lottz applied for and/or received from the City?   

4) You hammer the City for its apparent inactivity since this story broke yet applaud Ald. Paul for placing a proposed amendment on the council agenda. Which is fine and dandy, we all commend Ald. Paul for her proactive stance, but wouldn't that also mean that Ald. Paul should be criticized for not having the foresight to address this issue BEFORE the incident with the comedienne occurred/this story broke? Or is it only the seven remaining aldermen (and mayor) who should be criticized for not having the foresight to anticipate that a local bar owner would install a two way mirror in the womens restroom in his bar? I mean, this IS an everyday occurrence that can be easily anticipated by any reasonable person, isn't it?

5) You pound "old time" Berwynites, yet when confronted with attestations (from Ted and others) that its the "old time" Berwynites who are most upset with Mr. Lotzz, you conveniently disregard and/or change the subject.

In fact, in your blind fury you've waylayed just about everyone and everything....the overwhelming majority without any reasonable cause.

Take OPS's advice...BREATHE, collect yourself, and focus one the one individual who IS responsible for your ire...Mr. Lottz.

I'm guessing that you would get a lot more support for your position, and responses to your posts, if you would heed that advice. Just a guess.

You said Ronnie Lottz told you he was going to take the mirror down. Did you think to ask him when that might be happening?

You can call and ask yourself....Cigars and Stripes number is listed.

You didn't think to ask. Got it.

My guess though is that once the proposed ordinance is passed he will have no choice BUT to bring down the mirror.

No?

It'd be better if he acquired a conscience, took the mirror down now, and apologized for his misogynistic rhetoric. No?

[The Jackal]

For the sake of this thread though, lets recap...

1) You slammed the Berwyn PD for their "subpar" response....yet can't articulate what exactly was subpar about it. I'm guessing thats because amidst your blind fury you realized that no law was broken and hence no response possible.

2) You bashed the Berwyn PD for not taking further action, yet can't articulate what further action could have been taken or what further action you were expecting. Unless of course youre talking about helping Marge Paul draft ordinances...except that Berwyn PD is unqualified to draft ordinances and it isnt within their function to do so. Minor details, I know, but nonetheless probably important and relevant.

3) You criticize "Berwyn" for not doing anything about this issue as well. When asked "What should Berwyn do?", you claim, amongst other things, not grant Lottz any TIF money. Well, since this story broke, exactly what TIF funds has Mr. Lottz applied for and/or received from the City?   

4) You hammer the City for its apparent inactivity since this story broke yet applaud Ald. Paul for placing a proposed amendment on the council agenda. Which is fine and dandy, we all commend Ald. Paul for her proactive stance, but wouldn't that also mean that Ald. Paul should be criticized for not having the foresight to address this issue BEFORE the incident with the comedienne occurred/this story broke? Or is it only the seven remaining aldermen (and mayor) who should be criticized for not having the foresight to anticipate that a local bar owner would install a two way mirror in the womens restroom in his bar? I mean, this IS an everyday occurrence that can be easily anticipated by any reasonable person, isn't it?

5) You pound "old time" Berwynites, yet when confronted with attestations (from Ted and others) that its the "old time" Berwynites who are most upset with Mr. Lotzz, you conveniently disregard and/or change the subject.

In fact, in your blind fury you've waylayed just about everyone and everything....the overwhelming majority without any reasonable cause.

Take OPS's advice...BREATHE, collect yourself, and focus one the one individual who IS responsible for your ire...Mr. Lottz.

I'm guessing that you would get a lot more support for your position, and responses to your posts, if you would heed that advice. Just a guess.

You said Ronnie Lottz told you he was going to take the mirror down. Did you think to ask him when that might be happening?

You can call and ask yourself....Cigars and Stripes number is listed.

You didn't think to ask. Got it.

Thats not what I said, thats what YOU say.

In any event, thats not the issue, nor the question(s).


The question(s) remain:


1) What was subpar about Berwyn PD's response?

2) What additional action were you expecting from the Berwyn PD?

[The Jackal]

It'd be better if he acquired a conscience, took the mirror down now, and apologized for his misogynistic rhetoric. No?

Might be...

Could be...

But that's neither the issue nor the question.

The question(s) are:

1) What was subpar about Berwyn PD's response?

2) What additional action were you expecting from the Berwyn PD? 

[markberwyn]

It'd be better if he acquired a conscience, took the mirror down now, and apologized for his misogynistic rhetoric. No?

Might be...

Could be...

But that's neither the issue nor the question.

The question(s) are:

1) What was subpar about Berwyn PD's response?

2) What additional action were you expecting from the Berwyn PD? 

I'm taking your advice and keeping the focus on Ronnie Lottz's unprofessional, misogynistic conduct. Given your consistently playing the apologist for Lottz on this thread, I can only conclude that your repeatedly bringing up the police department is meant to change the subject.

Let's keep the focus on Lottz, everyone, shall we?

[The Jackal]

NO.

Let's focus on the PD.

The PD, and to a lesser extent the City, has been the entire focus of my posts.

And I ask you the SAME two questions over and over again.....

1) How was their response subpar?

2) What additional action were you expecting?


This is only the fifth or sixth time I'm asking these two questions.

Feel free to respond.

After all, the questions are ENTIRELY and SQUARELY focused on the Berwyn PD.

[berwyn senator]

Enough is enough,does the bar have under age patrons,deal in dope,constant fights,all that's wrong is the mirror.This whole issue is to promote free advertisement no one seems to understand that.The owner is a promoter and is fully aware how far he can go.

[The Jackal]

Ah, no Senator, wrong.

But let's focus on Berwyn PD first and then we'll get to Mr Lotzz and his establishment.

[berwyn senator]

We all have choices,don't like the mirror,don't go in the bar! The police have enough crime to deal with,without worrying about a silly mirror!!!!

[markberwyn]

"Ronnie doesnt use the term c@#$t because he dislikes women, he uses it because he wants to offend a woman." ---Jackal

[The Jackal]

Mark,

Let's focus on the Berwyn PD first, shall we?

That's what you wanted after all, isn't it?

I mean, it's ironic that you claim I'm attempting to shift the focus from the PD to Ronnie at the same time you continuously highlight Mr. Lottz, isn't it?

I promise you, we will get to Mr. Lottz.

In due time.

First, please answer the two questions posed regarding the Berwyn PD which you've repeatedly bashed on this thread with respect to how they've handled the situation.

But I suspect you never will because by this time the lightbulb has went on upstairs with respect to what type of corner you've painted yourself in.

[markberwyn]

We all have choices,don't like the mirror,don't go in the bar! The police have enough crime to deal with,without worrying about a silly mirror!!!!

I don't disagree, but there's no reason why there can't be a discussion of an ordinance against Ronnie Lottz's bad behavior. The moral discussion about this has been interesting. Some people here believe that the morality of the mirror is a function of women patrons---as if the mirror were more "OK" because women come in for drinks. Some, like Jackal, see morals as an economic proposition---the more money Ronnie Lottz makes, the more "OK" the mirror is. Some here have complained about the length of this thread, but there's been surprisingly little discussion of Lottz's moral error, and some absurd defenses of it instead.

[markberwyn]

"I believe its best to let Mr. Lottz's cash register tell him if Berwyn 'accepts' his behavior or not." ---Jackal, moral relativist