Walter: My reading comprehension is great. A) It was fun tweaking you; B) I was not going to guess whether the issue was rust, poor driving, etc. Let's just all agree that two years is a rather short test period. Get back to us at year 13.
And lighten up your negative mood! I think the rain has everyone extra-dour these days.
Mark SweetwoodManaging Editor
June 25, 2015 at 6:15 p.m.
My favorite takeaway from this is that someone's son had to drive a Cruze for three weeks while the Fusion was in the shop...
Anyway, Consumer Reports requires a subscription. This, however, was free:
In any case, many people are excited about the new generation of the car that is built here in our local plant. The need to attack the car or to denigrate the hard work it takes to build it or even maintain that plant here when hundreds of other communities would sell their collective souls to have such a place of employment and commerce boggles my mind.
As for "junk which is typical of GM for the last 30 years or so" my wife just traded in her 2002 Cavalier that ran flawlessly for 13 years and had more than 100,000 miles. She now drives her mom's 2001 Cavalier that has 17,000 miles and looks like it just drove off the floor.
Just another viewpoint, but it is noteworthy that we bought the Cavaliers before we moved here and realized that they were made in Lordstown.
June 25, 2015 at 2:57 p.m.
NoBS: It's usually because that person has violated terms of service that you agree to when you sign up to post at Vindy.com. If you violate our terms - curse, spam, libel, etc. - you get your privileges revoked. Often these folks still type away like they are still being viewed, though they are not. After 11 years of this this site, there are a few of those folks out there. Despite the conspiracy theories, there is no overlord weighing every post. Sorry. We do have some filters that watch for spam posters - those folks hawking copycat watches, for instance - and sometimes they take out normal people as collateral damage. When they inform us, they are restored.
March 23, 2015 at 8:09 a.m.
Janey: If you see spam, just push that button underneath it to flag it for removal. Thanks.
March 23, 2015 at 7:58 a.m.
Let's accept for the moment that "realquestions" is not Mike Sciortino. Let's also accept that this is a person who is unaware that that county commissioners told all of the elected leaders to give out no raises beyond negotiated contracts. Let's further accept that "realquestions" made a tactical argumentative error by calling the on-the-way-out-the-door raises and, as it turns out, bonuses, merely "unfortunate." Let's further accept that "realquestions" is an honest person who strives more than the average person to see only the good in people, regardless of perception. And, just for the heck of it, I think it's also fair to accept that "realquestions" was frozen in a iceberg for the past 100 years and knows little about the state of Mahoning County politics.
There. Now that post seems less odd.
March 4, 2015 at 6:31 p.m.
You wrote: "The Catholic church is not unique when they refuse to publicly comment on employee personnel matters."
A public school might not be excited about commenting about personnel, but the disclosure process would be far more open in the case of a fired principal. Since there are far more public schools than private ones in the area, the Mooney situation is a little more unique than you may have considered. That was the parallel.
January 20, 2015 at 11:59 a.m.
To be fair, if this was a principal in a public school, the media and the public could file a request under the Freedom Of Information Act to see that person's personnel file to read relevant information. Also, any meeting in which the public board took the action to fire a principal would have been open to the public. So, the parallels are not exactly the same in the case of a private school.
January 20, 2015 at 10:39 a.m.
Many people would think it redundant to repeat something on Sunday that was taken care of on Friday:
January 11, 2015 at 12:41 p.m.
The Vindicator has taken several looks at the costs associated with Oakhill. Here's one from 2013:
However, this current case is not about whether the purchase of the former hospital was a good or bad deal. It's about the behind-the-scenes machinations and whether they were legal.
January 9, 2015 at 12:45 p.m.
Harley and Question:
The Vindicator and WFMJ led with our coverage of this and sources tell us it would have likely been swept away if not for front-page stories and editorials. It just stuns me to read such ridiculous tripe about our coverage. You do yourselves a disservice with such misinformed posts.
December 23, 2014 at 3:27 p.m.