To “surmise” is to “to think or infer without certain or strong evidence; conjecture; guess.”

You had been adamant that Janet “clearly” had a conflict of interest. Now you’re admitting it’s just conjecture on your part.

And yes Matt, now that Trung has lost again and Janet is in power for four years you are most definitely shilling for her.

You really are a lunático. Like I said before, “shilling” in your fantasy world simply means disagreeing with your assessment of a politician. I can’t help if you are pushing a very weak case held together with wishful thinking.

It is not unreasonable to surmise that Nguyen voted against the restaurant ratings in order to prevent her husband’s restaurant and those belonging to many of her contributors from ending up with “B” or “C” ratings. In so doing Nguyen failed to look after the public good. Instead she engaged in the same kind of cronyism that Van Tran has been up to for years.

And yes Matt, now that Trung has lost again and Janet is in power for four years you are most definitely shilling for her. Why can’t you just admit that? You are one of the few people trying to explain her actions – and cover for them. That speaks for itself.

We are stuck with Janet for four years but rest assured that I will be keeping a close eye on her every vote. I have a feeling this won’t be the last time she acts against the public good.

Too much! At least OJ as good to laugh at.

Not too long ago, Art would get angry and accuse me of picking on Janet. Now I am “shilling and spinning” for her! I decline the honor. Besides, no one could ever match Art’s Oscar-winning performance in Janet-shilling.

Even so, I’m not surprised to read Art reaching for that worn out lawn dart. It’s indicative of a weak argument.

In Art’s mind, anyone who disagrees with him about a politician cannot be anything other than a shill for that politician.

Regardless of why Art is doing this what he is reporting is the truth, is it not?

That’s certainly a convenient standard. Art routinely impugns other people’s motives.

But now, Art’s motives are suddenly irrelevant.

As for truth, what Art has done is presents a collection of facts — donation amounts.

Fact and truth are different things. A person can write something factual without being truthful, this post being a good example of that.

Even with the Register is a death spiral, they do post restaurant warnings weekly. It’s always a contest at our house to call off those we know and have eaten at (and probably won’t ever again which speak to why there is some importance to all this).

I’d be curious as far as trends. Are more of these places, over time, in the 1st District than others? Seems the Register’s list don’t often tag them in Irvine.

Yes – we all got screwed when Janet voted against the proposed restaurant rating system. Now it is very clear, despite Jubal’s shilling and spinning, that Janet voted in that manner to protect all of her donors who run shoddy, unsafe and unsanitary restaurants. How many of them would be rated “C” restaurants in Los Angeles?

And of course she was trying to cover for her husband and chief of staff, whose restaurant also has received numerous violations from the County Health department.

It appears that Janet is as corrupt as the Trannies who oppose her.

Jubal,

My answer to this comment is “so what”.

Regardless of why Art is doing this what he is reporting is the truth, is it not?

While what Janet did may not have been illegal, it certainly raises questions about her integrity and lack of ethical standards.

How convenient! Now I can look up Campbell’s records and Norby’s too and see how much money they took from restaurants with violations…