Share This Page

Greensburg Tuesday takes

| Monday, Jan. 7, 2013, 9:08 p.m.

Unintentional?: An internal investigation into damaged wetlands at a Hempfield park, for which the township has budgeted $150,000 for remediation, faults Public Works Director Mike Volpe for what's described as “unintentional” work. Unintentional? The debris dredged from a stream and dumped into wetlands created a mound reportedly 200 feet long and 10 feet wide. That's some “oops.”

Not a Kodak moment: Two Greensburg Salem middle-schoolers will be charged with a summary offense, instead of a felony, under the state's new “sexting” law, which acknowledges that some kids simply do stupid things without regard for the consequences — such as sending via their cellphones nude photos of themselves, which very easily can end up on the Internet. Indeed, the challenges of parenting today extend from the reasonable to the bizarre — sexting being just one of them. More's the pity, however, when government steps into the role of parents.

Senior scammers: With the second-oldest population of seniors nationwide, Western Pennsylvania is prime territory for scammers looking to separate older residents from their money, according to the area's Better Business Bureau. Whether a caller promises prize money for a “transfer fee” or tries to collect on a bogus debt, seniors should report to police any unfamiliar calls seeking cash. If enough local seniors do so, scammers will get the message.

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.