Taping one for the Lynbrook team

I believe that your article is very misleading since it fails to point out that the New Vision Party attempted to get an injunction against the debate and that the judge threw the case out stating that the residents of Lynbrook had a right to hear the candidates positions as they requested. Both the New Vision and Lynbrook Reform Parties knew about the debate, the time, and the location. New Vision candidates had time to go to court but not time to participate in the debate.

Mr. Murphy,
You should be ashamed of yourself for not printing all the facts about this event. The people of Lynbrook deserved to hear about the platforms of all parties in a direct debate. It would be unfair for the other parties to have equal time with prepared remarks. They would then have an opportunity to devise a strategy and bring in additional resources to help with their prepared remarks. Since a debate is "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides", it would be extremely unfair to have equal time on TV that is backed up by days of research and then a revised and edited version of a formal statement. Debates are meant to be face to face, in real time.
The New Vision and Lynbrook Reform Party's objection to the moderator is ridiculous, since the agreed upon format would only have the moderator read questions which they themselves had submitted. There is no way for a moderator to influence what the candidates say.

The fact of the matter seems to be that the New Vision and Lynbrook reform Party candidates were afraid to participate in a fair and open discussion of the issues facing our community.

Mr. Murphy,
You should be ashamed of yourself for not printing all the facts about this event. The people of Lynbrook deserved to hear about the platforms of all parties in a diret debate. It would be unfair for the other parties to have equal time with prepared remarks. They would then have an opportunity to devise a strategy and bring in additional resources to help with their prepared remarks. Since a debate is "a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides", it would be extremely unfair to have equal time on TV that is backed up by days of research and then a revised and edited version of a formal statement. debates are meant to be face to face, in real time.
The New Vision and Lynbrook Reform Party's objection to the moderator is ridiculous, since the agreed upon format would only have the moderator read questions which they themselves had submitted. There is no way for a moderator to influence what the candidates say.

The fact of the matetr seems to be that the New Vision and Lynbrook reform Party candidates were afraid to participate in a fair and open discussion of the issues facing our community.

Your article grossly misrepresents the totality of this situation.

The debate has been known about for almost a month. How come the other canidates did not show? What do they have to hide?

Newsday has two verions of this story. There are more comments here: http://www.topix.net/forum/source/newsday/TS4...

Those who didn't show up should be ashamed