Hopeful that Sheriff Greening will have opposition in next election

I would have run if I knew anything about how to be a Sheriff. Probably should have now. Apparently you don't need to know sh*t when it comes to being Sheriff. What the hell, Write me in. I know how to cut logs. I am a nice guy. There is a disconnect between the Sheriff Dept and the public. All we need is less politics and more service. Write me in.

You people are such a hoot. Y'all know everything about everyone. So if Greening has falsified papers, why are you airing this crap here? Apparently this is the legal route to prosecute someone. Go for it Ralph Jr. I get the feeling Stegall is a pretty clueless dude. Should be fun seeing what shakes outta his past. So far he has been a pretty good poser stealin Wurtinger sign design and now ideas.

Oh it's true. The list for that year is accurate. It was already verified.

I for one don't think he is going to lie, he did lie. Maybe you are on to something. We should have the media do a fact finding inquiry on what they printed in regards to the interview and see what they come up with. Good luck with your rubber nose and funny shoes, I hope they fit you!

That is probably why the newspaper did not state that he was a 1982 graduate, instead, it said he graduated WITH the class of 1982.

Besides, this is piddly and stupid ! If this is all you have, good luck with it! And here I thought MAYBE for ONCE, there could be a decent debate and information on here without all the BS, I guess I should have known better.

Once again, not a single bit a proof has been shown that Stegall purposely lied about graduating. Someone made an assumption and is offering an opinion as to what actually was said at the interview with the newspaper.

Stop making assumptions. Were you at that interview? Did you witness the interview? If not, don't make it seem as though this is a fact, when it's not!

You have a wonderful way of passively/aggressively putting me down.
First, I do not know who works in dispatch so as you hide behind your submission, you feel brave enough to call someone else out. How about you be brave enough to leave your initials as well? It also seems you have a dislike for this individual and feel this was your way of bashing them. Was that really necessary?
Since I do not know of the post you referred to, did this person say specifically they supported Mr. Wurtinger? Or are you just assuming that is who they were backing? Were these post on here? If so, how were they able to "pull them down?" If the posts were not on here, than please keep your references to just this blog.
In order to answer your question, (edited) My initials happen to be S.J.and I am a female.
Second, I apparently was not clear enough on what I was referring to. The rash of conversation was since the high school graduation debate. And I use that term very loosely. Bashing would be much more accurate.
There seemed to be a bunch of bashing toward the accusation that Mr. Stegall lied when supplying information to the newspaper for the article on him. And toward whom everyone assumed brought this to light.
And since you have been reading right along, you will note that on 8/22 at 7:47 pm another person referred to the posts as vicious attacks. A post on 8/21 at 9:44 am also referred to a respondent at vulgar.
I don't view calling someone a "clown or a joke" as polite disagreement. That is an attack on a person. Just like "how does dishonest taste" or "how does stupid taste."
I welcomed Mr. Stegall or his entourage in getting on here and explaining why this bashing was going on toward Mr. Wurtinger. What "thing" had he done to them to warrant attacks on him? I was looking for clarity.
My attempt was to get people to take a look at what they were writing and maybe think twice before tearing another person down. I gave an observation of what I saw happening during the primary, why beat down the person who lost and has gone on with his life?
This would be the perfect time and place for Mr. Stegall to let those who support him know that this is not how he wants to be perceived.
Third, I never said I was Republican or Democrat, but between the two candidates, Mr. Stegall was not coming off in a good light. I do not consider myself to be tied to a particular party, but more so I DO vote my conscience. I hold the right to vote in very high regard and do not take that privilege lightly.
Fourth, I take it you are not familiar with Mr. Stegall, since you refer to him in a formal manner and said you are not affiliated with him. But yet why do you feel comfortable enough to talk for him? You must be a friend of Mr. Wurtinger as you refer to him on a personal level, something you would do with a friend. So you are also able to speak for him? Could you please explain how you feel so comfortable talking for both?
Personally I do not know either and wouldn't feel I could speak for them either. I'm just tired of the trash talking. Is no one able to voice their opinion or thoughts without feeling the need to tear down an individual who doesn't agree with you?
Anonymous, you can have a different opinion than I, and gladly do so without attacking me as a person. Or feel the need to patronize.