Share This Page

Greensburg Laurels & Lances

| Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012, 9:03 p.m.

Laurel: To taking all threats seriously. Before the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., a Hempfield Area High School student in her social media postings reportedly threatened to kill unspecified people. The student, a hunter with access to guns, now faces criminal charges and possible expulsion. At a time when sick individuals don't need a “reason” to go on a rampage, there's no such thing as an idle threat.

Laurel: To North Huntingdon commissioners. Township leaders met their 2013 budget goal to cut taxes (by 1 mill), pay down debt and provide an additional $400,000 toward North Huntingdon's road program. And that signals the commitment of township leaders to do more than maintain the status quo. Here's to seeing the same “signals” from other Westmoreland municipal leaders in the new year.

On the “Watch List”: The Bovard decision. An anticipated Hempfield Area School Board vote expected Jan. 14 on the fate of Bovard Elementary School is sure to draw a crowd. We trust board members will base their decision on issues specific to Bovard and its place in the district. Otherwise, the school board is in for a hot time at the high school.

Laurel: To area firefighters: Their skills and training were put to the test during a fire at E.H.C. Industries Inc., a Hempfield fabricating plant that contained chemicals and propane tanks. Those dangers, combined with bitter cold and gusting winds, made for an especially challenging fire call — one that was answered without a single injury.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.