At least JM can READ a calendar. He notes in this blog entry that Greg Lettieq of Help Save Manassas has done a last-minute scheduling of a candidate forum in eastern Prince William for Monday, October 22nd.
Greg of course knew this was a PWCRC meeting nght, because he received the call to meeting a couple of weeks ago like the rest of us. Also, we meet the 3rd monday of every month. (CORRECTION: As it says on the PWCGOP web site, the 4th monday of each month).
Now, I won't accuse Greg of doing this because the Woodbridge HSM candidate forum is the one for the race where the Republican is the lawyer of the firm suing him for libel, the race in which he just endorsed the Democrat in violation of his PWCRC oath (a good reason for Greg to skip the meeting). My guess is, being the last minute, this was the only night Greg could find a big enough room AND get enough of his membership free to have the meeting.
But for some reason, Marks is unaware or ignorant how time works. See, time moves forward. On Tuesday, you don't really know what someone is going to do on Wednesday. So most sane people, when there is an event schedule, and later another group schedules an event for the same time, would know that it's the SECOND scheduler who has double-booked the day.
But that wouldn't make for a false, illogical blog entry, and therefore wouldn't be up to GBFaisal standards. So instead, Marks says:
PWCRC schedules "Call To Meeting" on top of Help Save Manassas' "Candidates Night".
Having postulated time travel, he proceeds to illogically suggest that the PWC chair was trying to stop people from attending the HSM forum by scheduling a regular meeting for our regular night when HSM had NO FORUM ON THE CALENDAR.
Maybe JM should ask why Greg seems to not want the members of the PWCRC to come to his candidate forum in Woodbridge, home of his endorsed Democrat candidate.
Meanwhile, HSM should ask the more pertinent question -- why is Greg Letiecq, president of an organization wanting to crack down on illegals, endorsing a candidate who says that existing laws are fine and we shouldn't do anything else?
It might be fun if Paul Nichols shows up, just to ask him if he is with Sharon Pandak in opposition to the HSM-supported PWC illegal immigrant resolution. Because if he did oppose the resolution, it would be fun to watch Greg's head explode from the logical contradiction of endorsing the candidate who opposes his organization's signature issues.
But Greg's already showed his colors by making a bizarre attack on his nemesis for being "too hard" on illegals, wanting to push the federal and state government to crack down "more than current law allows", if I understand the 3rd-party discussions.
Update: JM has posted this correction to his blog, in this thread. I see where he got confused, because Tom over at Citizen Tom posted the letter just a couple of days ago, without a date on it, and obviously JM isn't getting the official notice of the PWCRC meeting. I don't post the meeting notices, since everybody gets them, and they are on the web site, under "upcoming events".