Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Story Tools

Email this story | Print this story

Indexes

November 20th, 2008
November 19th, 2008
November 18th, 2008
November 17th, 2008
November 15th, 2008
November 14th, 2008
November 13th, 2008
ADVERTISEMENT

Health is more important than money

Updated: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:30 AM PDT

I read the article regarding Mokelumne River School with a heart full of sadness.

All four of my children attended and graduated from MRS. Our family was greatly blessed by their educational experience. Although yearly tuition, especially for four children, was a financial drain on our family budget, we always felt the sacrifice was well worth it.

My husband and I knew our children's teachers prayed for them daily; our personal values were reinforced by the curriculum and teaching methods; and staff realized the importance of teaching about, and modeling, Godly lives. I have nothing but the utmost respect for the school's teachers and principal, Mrs. Zerbe. They are individuals who are "called" to teach — motivated only by love for children and the Lord.

I also believe the board members have only the children's best interests as their impetus in calling for Clifford Goehring's resignation. I am personally acquainted with some of the board members and their integrity is unquestionable; they are people who would take such an action only after prayer and careful consideration.

Asbestos exposure is not a problem to take lightly. There is no question that asbestos causes cancer, even when the level of exposure may appear minimal. The health of the MRS children, teachers and staff should take precedence over costs of remediation, the perceived importance of running the school without interruption, and the burdens of having to follow specific regulations and laws because asbestos is involved. I am confident that the teachers, board members and Mrs. Zerbe have the correct priorities.

I offer our family's support and prayers to them.

Julie Cantrell
Lodi

Reader Feedback

Lodian wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:13 PM:

" ...sounds painful too. "

Lodian wrote on Mar 24, 2008 3:13 PM:

" Robb 7:02 AM: That could be the sign of a serious medical issue. What does the doc say about those monkeys? ;-)
"

Robb wrote on Mar 24, 2008 7:02 AM:

" Yea, whatever,... monkeys are flying out of my Butt..... "

Lodian wrote on Mar 23, 2008 9:47 PM:

" Did Mr. Goehring not make these statements himself, regarding the MRS money? "

danielh wrote on Mar 23, 2008 1:37 AM:

" What kind of person would take the word of a moron over a friendship that has existed for years?
"

Leonard wrote on Mar 20, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Daniel, I am sure that the revelations regarding the Goehring's loans in today's Record have come as quite a shock to you.

My sympathies go out to you. You have been betrayed, as have the other people who put their faith in that schools officers. "

danielh wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:47 PM:

" Disrespect is OK. "

danielh wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:22 PM:

" Leonard: In spite of your esteemed support for my presentations, you are still welcome to make a public statement outside of your anonymity, and I can't help it if your unwillingness to do so, and your persistent changing of the subject makes it look like you are operating in deep, regressed fear. We all know that couldn't possibly be true. You may remind me not to recognize the esteemed position that you hold in the playground of the comment columns. "

danielh wrote on Mar 20, 2008 2:18 PM:

" Leonard: I sincerely appreciate the time you have taken to inform me of how much respect you have for me, and how much justification you have found in my presentations.

If you ever feel a need to inform me of more of your opinions, you are welcome.
"

Leonard wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:37 AM:

" Danni: Its not that I disrespect you its just that I don't have any respect for you. Simply put, you have not earned my respect.

Your constant M.O. is to make baseless accusations without any evidence or support. Who could respect an individual who operated in that fashion? "

danielh wrote on Mar 20, 2008 12:26 AM:

" Leonard: Again, I remind you that your ranting and raving does not distract from the fact that you disrespect people, and refer to them in a derogatory manner, while you are hiding behind your anonymity.

If you have such a strong opinion, and you think you are so much correct, then publish. Otherwise, you are no different than a kid on a playground.
"

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:50 PM:

" Leonard: Noone is watching. It's just you and me. In Danielese, I'll respond to any challenges that are worthy of being published in the newspaper. "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 7:48 PM:

" Leonard: Apparently, I must have struck a nerve. If your ranting and ravings contain any assertions, real or implied, I deny them. "

Leonard wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:55 PM:

" danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:26 PM:
" Leonard: You stated, "If you make a claim, it is up to you to back that claim up with facts," and your very own words are "Goehring Cabal."

Where are your facts? "


Danni: Again, my point was not that you are actually a part of a "cabal". My point was that this is exactly the same sort of baseless accusation that you make all the time supported by exactly the same sort non existent evidence that you supply all the time.

My post was a parody of your posts. "

Leonard wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:53 PM:

" danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:25 PM:
" Leonard: I think I basically called you a coward for making negative and derogatory statements about people while you hide behind your anonymity.


As the recent fiasco with Real Facts has so graphically illustrated, only a fool opens themselves up to the threat of violence by using their real identity on line.

The threats made against Lodian were of a serious nature and it is only her anonymity that saved her from a deranged stalker. "

Leonard wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:51 PM:

" danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:22 PM:

Leonard: ... actually. I don't have time to waste with you on this topic


For you folks who are not fluent in "Danielese" this is DH's way of admitting that he cannot support his position. "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:26 PM:

" Leonard: You stated, "If you make a claim, it is up to you to back that claim up with facts," and your very own words are "Goehring Cabal."

Where are your facts? "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:25 PM:

" Leonard: I think I basically called you a coward for making negative and derogatory statements about people while you hide behind your anonymity.

You have an opportunity to publish your opinion and justify your opinion if you can, in a public newspaper, with your full name on it. "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:23 PM:

" Leonard: ...amendment: I'll make it easier for you. If you can show that "negative averment" is not admissible in COMMERCE, I'd be happy to learn. "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:22 PM:

" Leonard: ... actually. I don't have time to waste with you on this topic, so I suggest you find where in the law that "negative averment" is not admissible in a court of law.

If you can find such a thing, let me know.

It would sure be news to me.

I'd be happy to talk with someone that has ears and a brain, and also uses them. "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:19 PM:

" Leonard: I'm going to get you to drop the subject of negative averment, because when you see that I know something more than you, you either pretend that my statement does not exist or you change the subject to something else.

You are very WRONG in your statement, "The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the affirmative. If you make a claim, it is up to you to back that claim up with facts."

continued... "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 5:15 PM:

" MK: Whether they are Birchers or not is not an issue. At-issue is Leonard making derogatory remarks about "birchers," without his knowledge of what they stand for, and while he is hiding behind his anonymity.

MK: You have not said anything negative about these people, who in my opinion, have made very positive contributions to Lodi.
"

Leonard wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:13 PM:

" The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the affirmative. If you make a claim, it is up to you to back that claim up with facts. "

Leonard wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:11 PM:

" Daniel: The idea that anything you say is true unless someone can prove otherwise is, on the face of it, patently absurd. "

Leonard wrote on Mar 19, 2008 3:09 PM:

" Daniel: My point isn't that you are involved in a conspiracy, my point is that you make ridiculous accusations like these against others all the time without any more proof than I have provided here.

When will you learn that what is good for the goose is good for the gander? "

MK wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:39 PM:

" danielh: I know for a fact that Cliff & Greg Goehring were Birchers because they were at the Birch meetings every week. The same meetings I sat in for several years. There is no possible way they can deny it. I haven't been to a Birch meeting in a few years now, so maybe they have quit going since I was there but I know for sure they use to be Birchers "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:19 PM:

" Leonard: The Birchers, the Goehrings, and I are all willing to expose ourselves to public scrutiny, which includes all people like you.

If you can only say that the Goehrings and I are Birchers, without having any factual counterpoints (not your opinion, but facts), then the statements of the Birchers, the Goehrings, and mine stand as true facts. "

danielh wrote on Mar 19, 2008 2:16 PM:

" Leonard: Every single party that you are accusing is public, except yourself, and it looks like you are asking the LNS to do your public work for you.

If you think your opinion is a legitimate story, again, I suggest you put your statement onto the public side, without hiding your remarks behind your own anonymity, in the comments, where there are only 19 comments.
"

Leonard wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:11 AM:

" I think the LNS should do an article about the possible (probable?) conspiracy of the Birchunists and the Goehrings "

danielh wrote on Mar 18, 2008 10:05 AM:

" JH: I appreciate how you clearly presented your opinion as being an opinion.
"

JH wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:58 AM:

" danielh I obviously touched on something sensative.
I have had past personal dealings with the G's and have also recently done significant internet research on their business's. I came to the opposite conclusion as you. I have no trust or respect for C&G Goehring. That is not to say I don't respect others in the Goehring family. As for sharing more than my initials, I am certainly not going to share personal information on a blog. "

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:44 PM:

" JH: No. The Goehrings' do not even know that I am in this comment column. "

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:43 PM:

" Again, I repeat:

What kind of people will offer a contract (to resign) and then dishonor their own contract without offering a remedy for their failure to perform?

Are these the kind of people that we want as administrators at our school?

The whole world operates in commerce, and I think commerce predates the Roman Empire.

In order to teach our children to survive and be productive in this world, we have got to teach them how to survive in commerce, and it would be best to live by setting an example. "

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:40 PM:

" JH: As for your sneaky suspicion, I repeat that I have respect for every single one of the Goehrings'; but, I think I deserve a little more identification than initials, before I would respond any further to your intuition.

Most people in these comments know that I am not a Goehring, but as for my possible closeness, I will say that I have eyes and ears. "

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:30 PM:

" JH: You must be judging from the specific details that are posted on the first item below, and because of my sensitivity for Leonard slandering somebody.

I am not a Goehring, but I have the highest respect for them. I know that they do incredible service for the community, at not just at the MRS.

I know that people are sensitive to the asbestos issue. Mr. Goehring has admitted that he didn't handle the problem as well as he should, and I forgive him for that.

"

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:21 PM:

" ricardo: The reason I was asking for a definition is because Leonard was using the word "cabal", and I don't think that Leonard could use his own definition to explain what he is talking about.
"

JH wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:32 PM:

" danielh I have a sneaky suspicion we have a goehring among us. "

JH wrote on Mar 17, 2008 7:26 PM:

" danielh I have a sneaky suspicion that we have a goehring among us. "

ricardo wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:50 PM:

" danielh: here is your definition of cabal: the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united to bring about an overturn or usurpation especially in public affairs "

Leonard wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:41 PM:

" danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:19 PM:
" Leonard: If you are going to say someone is a cabal, you should be prepared to substantiate yourself, and also know what the word is.


I hate to disappoint you but I really don't have a horse in this race. I do think that any accusations of criminal wrong doing should be investigated and, if substantiated, prosecuted, but beyond that, if Fundamentalists want to send their kids to this sort of Madras, who am I to stand in their way? "

Leonard wrote on Mar 17, 2008 5:38 PM:

" danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:19 PM:
" Leonard: If you are going to say someone is a cabal, you should be prepared to substantiate yourself, and also know what the word is.


Why?

Everyone here knows that you make statements like that all the time and never provide a shred of proof to back up your ludicrous accusations.

Are you saying that there should be one standard for the Birchunists and their co-conspirators and another standard for the rest of us? "

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:19 PM:

" Leonard: If you are going to say someone is a cabal, you should be prepared to substantiate yourself, and also know what the word is. "

Lynn wrote on Mar 17, 2008 4:18 PM:

" Julie, I appreciated your letter! "

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 3:43 PM:

" Leonard: If someone sees that you are opposed to this, it's in their favor. "

Leonard wrote on Mar 17, 2008 12:28 PM:

" It appears that the Birchunists are involved in a conspiracy to support the Goehring Cabal. "

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:58 AM:

" Julie Cantrell: Your most eloquent letter is an attack on Mr. Goehring.

Did Christianity teach you how to write so well while you are attacking somebody? "

danielh wrote on Mar 17, 2008 8:56 AM:

" Julie Cantrell: You wrote, "the board members and their integrity is unquestionable."

I question their integrity, because they are currently in violation of their own contract, and their own words no longer have any meaning.

At the board meeting, they said that if Mr. Goehring doesn't resign within 48 hours, then they are going to leave. Their word is their bond.

Mr. Goehring said he's not leaving, and the board members are still there.

Now, the proverbial "bond" of these board members is depleted, and they can no longer be taken for their word.

"

Comments on this story are now closed.