ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Supports Griglak

| Friday, Dec. 19, 2003

Dear Editor:

I have been disturbed about these personal attacks on Mr. Martin Griglak and now there have been accusations about the health center. Stirring up controversy is a tactic we are familiar with in Fayette County for people looking for attention. Someone said to me today that they wish that this person would stop being a sore loser, grow up and act their age.

My original reason for writing this letter was that I want those people who do not know Martin Griglak, not to get a malicious, distorted insinuation of him. The comments about the health center recently in the newspaper are only the result of a temper tantrum and another attempt to lash out at Mr. Griglak due to his association with the health center. Many people have already expressed to me how tired they are of these childish games.

I have worked with Mr. Griglak for approximately three years. People, who know me, know I do not get involved in Fayette County politics. I work equally with everyone to the best of my ability for the benefit of our county and its future generations.

I am very active in the community, and on a professional level, I have found Mr. Griglak to be a person of very high integrity. He is strongly against corruption and very protective of public funding. I have found him to be very inquisitive, but he never asked a question to anyone that I thought was inappropriate. At 77 years of age, Martin Griglak is the recipient of many governmental, international awards and a World War II veteran of South Pacific. All the work he contributes to the organizations he is involved with is voluntary and at his own expense. He is conscientiously looking out for all county residents and our tax dollars.

Daniel T. Visnauskas,

Point Marion

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.

click me