Comments by jpatrick
Posted on October 31 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem is that your question is in the form of a public accusation.
Posted on October 31 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We don't like to delete comments, but we will for a number of reasons including: if they make unsubstantiated charges, if they're untrue, if they aim to insult another commenter, if they violate copyright laws, if they're not germane and if the tone is degrading and uncivil.
Posted on October 23 at 7:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I removed the post above because of copyright concerns, not because of the point Schenectady Scott was making. The comment cut and pasted too much of a Business Review article for it to be considered fair use.
Posted on October 19 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just to be clear: The debate is tonight (Wednesday).
Posted on October 11 at 12:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The link to the maps has been added.
Posted on July 8 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There are plenty of people in town who probably know for sure if there was a 1968 show, but we couldn't find any reference to it in our own archives.
We saw the Web references to a 1968 poster as well, but there are also some online reports that the poster - which doesn't have a year printed on it - was from the 1970 show. The month-and-day date on that poster, June 26, is the same date of the 1970 concert.
From: The rockin' Aerodrome
Posted on June 27 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The first paragraph refers to Mac-Haydn but the details about the theater were in a separate information box in the print version. We try to include similar boxes online but that didn't happen in this case.
Posted on May 23 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The editorial writer did make two errors. We'll run a correction in Tuesday's paper, but for the record...
"Our May 21 editorial about police disciplinary hearings in Schenectady contained two errors.
First, Kevin Luibrand is not the union’s lawyer. He represents Eric Peters, an officer the city is trying to discipline.
Second, the binding arbitration process does not require the city and union to choose a hearing officer together. That requirement applies only
to choosing an arbitrator, the final step in the process if the union appeals the hearing officer’s decision. But when the city proposed having
the same hearing officer, Jeffrey Selchick, hear all the disciplinary cases, the union did not object."
Posted on April 27 at 5:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The headline originally mistakenly referred to Niskayuna. I've fixed it now.
Posted on March 11 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with EH3 and apologize for not removing the comment sooner. Comments need to be civil. Name-calling and personal insults don't add to the discussion.