True Pittsburghers

I’m not going to address lies that have been spoken about me this afternoon. You guys know me. You know how I’ve operated over the last five years. You KNOW ME and my heart.

I don’t care if anyone out there on Grant Street is besmirching my name. Do it. Brand me any way you want. My reputation only truly means something to me when it comes to what my husband and my family and friends (that’s you!) think of me. I don’t care, because I know the truth. All I care about is this:

Amy spoke with Doug Shields. They’re working together to move forward (!) in a positive way. Here’s her post. And here’s the closing of her email to me:

Thank you again!  And thanks to all your readers!!  All y’all got this project back on the table quickly!!!

You all can stand down for now. Amy will keep us posted and you can be sure I’ll keep you posted.

I love you all for showing what being a Pittsburgher is all about.

Tomorrow, back to frivolity!





57 Comments


  1. stephanie
    May 27, 2010 11:32 pm

    i find it fascinating that chris potter will publish a comment from doug shields about how shields wasn’t consulted when ginny posted about the treehouse yesterday, yet it seems that neither ginny nor amy were consulted for chris potter’s post.

    also, if doug shields isn’t aware of the plans for frick park then he isn’t doing his freaking job. vote him out.



  2. Chris Potter
    May 28, 2010 8:19 am

    “i find it fascinating that chris potter will publish a comment from doug shields about how shields wasn’t consulted when ginny posted about the treehouse yesterday, yet it seems that neither ginny nor amy were consulted for chris potter’s post. ”

    >>> Well, for one thing, by the time I wrote that post, Ms. Montanez had already tweeted that she didn’t want to be contacted by reporters:

    “Attention media. Do not ask me for comment re: #kateandpeter. You want to speak to Doug Shields and Amy. I am merely the bullhorn.”

    Besides, Ms. Ambrusko and Ms. Montanez’s perspectives on the issue were already documented all over the internet. It was Shields who no one had heard from. I thought people should hear him speak. It doesn’t mean I endorse his point of view — just that I thought it was worth hearing.



  3. Chris Potter
    May 28, 2010 8:20 am

    Ha. I just entered the wrong Web site on my signature there. Oy.



  4. donk
    May 28, 2010 10:18 am

    [i]I, for one, am interested in seeing the people who, for some unfathomable reason, have a problem with the Treehouse stand up in front of everyone at the meeting and explain what their effing problem is.

    I’m glad the project is back on the table, but I am still murderously furious at these horrible, insensitive excuses for people who had a problem with a mom honoring her children.[/i]

    It’s too bad that the people who seem to feel most strongly about this seem to be those who can’t look at it objectively.



  5. cmcmcl
    May 28, 2010 2:29 pm

    article in today’s PG
    Internet erupts in defense of plan for memorial playground
    Friday, May 28, 2010
    By Anya Sostek,
    This article convinces me, after trying to sort out the allegations against and the support for Shields, the neighbors, the Conservancy, that the one thing that is very clear is that whoever the woman was in Shield’s office who made the insensitive and cruel remarks to Amy REPRESENTS Doug Shields.
    HE claims, in this article that HE had not be knowledgeable of the details of the situation regarding the park plans and places blame elsewhere for that ignorance – but IF that IS actually the case, then why did his representative not simply say “Doug doesn’t have enough information about this at this time, Ms Ambrusko, but i’ll (he’ll) be glad to talk with you very soon, after he has taken action toward gathering what he needs to know.”
    Instead she said terribly hurtful things to a grieving mother — will this man allow this employee to remain in her position as a spokesperson for his office? Either she speaks for him or she doesn’t. There’s reference to an apology being offered for her remarks – but in this case, I don’t see how a person capable of saying these things can be expected to work collaboratively with both sides OR how in the future, she or her words could be trusted.
    Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10148/1061334-53.stm#ixzz0pFWW6aQ3

    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10148/1061334-53.stm



  6. Wishing It Was Over Doesn't Make It So
    May 28, 2010 2:35 pm

    OMG(!)

    That! Is!! FRICKIN’!!! A W E S O M E !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    But you ain’t gettin’ off the hook that easily, girlfriend.



  7. jmarinara
    May 29, 2010 12:23 am

    I don’t have a position on the treehouse. The truth is I don’t really care one way or the other. If I lived near the thing I’d feel the same way. If it makes you feel better and you want to do it, great. If it never happened, I don’t really care.

    This isn’t to say that my heart doesn’t go out to Amy. It really truly does. It’s just to say that I’d rather be honest up front than feign interest in a community project that’s A) not in my community and B) doesn’t effect me in the least.

    All of that said, my point is this:

    Why is it every time a group of people who are interested in seeing something happen in their community, and decide to petition their elected officials to see that their will is done, that it’s ridiculed and mocked because it happened online, or in a blog?

    I find this to be ridiculous. Look, elected officials, it’s like this. . . Do what we tell you to do. And shut up. When you have two groups of people telling you two different things, use your best judgment based on common sense. Some of us might be disappointed, but we’ll all respect the effort. But no matter what, in the end, shut up.

    You serve us. We could care less about what you think about our meeting place where we decide to tell you what to do. Be it a coffee shop, town hall, or blog.

    Learn your place. Do what you’re told. Shut up.

    Got it?