Many of you know of the album by Frank Zappa’s “Mothers of Invention” called “Weasels Ripped My Flesh,” with an illustration of a guy using a weasel as a shaver (with bloody results.) This is the magazine cover — Man’s Life magazine, Sept. 1956 — that inspired those words. Now you may wonder: why is it the illustration for this post?
1. Anonymity
If there’s one thing that you should have learned over the past couple of years, especially since the Snowden leaks, it’s that you are not reliably anonymous. You may be anonymous a good deal of the time, from at least most people, but you can generally be found out — most likely from either the government or from the people who are economically or ideologically motivated to do it.
We — and by that I mean at least Vern and I — try to protect your anonymity here, but please understand: there are limits to what we can do while at the same time producing a working blog open to many contributors from all over (and off) the political spectrum. Part of that has involved allowing those who post more stories greater freedom to the “back rooms” of the site. It was a good system so long as it wasn’t abused — but opportunity leads to temptation and bad judgment. So Vern will rework the permissions.
Here’s one tip in the meantime: if you’re writing under a pseudonym and you really want a chance of preserving your anonymity — then you can use a fake e-mail address. The “pros” — the ones who show up with a new and unused IP address, like an untraceable gun that can be dropped at a murder scene — do it that way. We prefer if you choose something benign, like charleysaunt@excite.com, but if you want to put down your address as suckmy@balls.info (and we know that some of you do), you can do that and we’ll brush it off. It’s part of the cost of doing business.
One problem with anonymity or pseudonymity is that it is disinhibiting. You may feel free to say things that you wouldn’t — aggressive insults, not merely controversial statements — if you wrote under your own name. Later on, when your identity becomes known (say, by some former friend or associate), you may regret that someone finally knows that that was you.
One other problem with anonymity in a political context is that it can be used to trick and to terrorize. Ten anonymous commenters may in fact be only one, using various IP addresses, to make it seem like lots of people agree with a position. (When I, writing under my own name, was routinely getting my teeth kicked in over at Bushala’s blog for most of 2012, I was often comforted by people telling me that it was really no more than ten people. Ironically, some of these are now my political partners in Anaheim politics. Shadoosh!)
I can’t prove it — well, I could hire people who could prove it but I have neither the money or the inclination — but I strongly suspect that the posts and consonant comments in Matt Cunningham’s blog are fueled by as few people as … one. If you want to assess the worth of a blog’s comments section, one good way is to see what proportion of it comments are nasty and insulting ones from anonymous users. I’m proud that we here tend to be more witty than viciously insulting, and that few of our vicious insults come from anonymous posters. (Short-termers, that’s a different story — but we generally choose not to edit them out.)
So, we’re really sorry that things unfolded as they did over the past day or so. We’re taking steps and we hope that it does not leave the blog in too-great disrepair. I believe that if you want your identity-revealing e-mail address changed even retroactively, we can do so in bulk.
2. Assholery
This section of the post gets deep into the weeks of OC blogosphere meta-talk, but some of you may enjoy it. The rest of you — get out while you can!
As an attorney, I’m supposed to refuse to acknowledge anything to be true if the other side can’t prove, no matter how obviously true it is. So are my opponents in cases. Being un hombre sincero, as the song says, this is one of my least favorite parts of the profession. (By the way, in the civil law system of much of the world where the judge is an investigator, this wouldn’t be true.) I love pointing out that someone is pulling this sort of maneuver, with regard to blog posts, because to me it’s more likely to be a sign of guilt than of sincere concern for one’s privacy. (Sometimes it’s the latter; my sense is that one can usually tell. Could be wrong.)
Matt Cunningham, rightly or not, is famed for using anonymity as a tool of assholery. So we had a discussion today that I decided belongs in a post of its own, because I believe in public shaming and anyway we can all use a pick-me-up during a contentious weekend.
Matt writes some, or all, of the Anaheim Blog. I can’t tell which it is. He implies that a second writer’s name (and maybe more names beyond that) represents writing from someone else, but he could just mean that it’s another persona of his — one that he demands be addressed separately, like an imaginary friend. (My guess is that this is what he uses to reprocess possibly baseless tips from other people in the Pringle Ring into stories, thus pretending that they’re important inside scoops. It hardly matters, except as an irritant.)
Now, when you go to individual stories on the Anaheim Blog, which you generally shouldn’t bother doing, you will see “Anaheim Insider” credited sometimes — but usually you see no one credited, not even the classic “Admin.” For example”, this:
Do you see an author listed there? No, you do not. On the few occasions that I go to Matt’s blog, generally following a link sent by some helpful e-mailer, that’s what I see. The only name I ever see is Anaheim Insider — and when I don’t see it I don’t notice its absence, because to me it all sounds like Matt.
Turns out that those uncredited stories — seven out of the last nine, for example — are actually from Matt Cunningham under his own name — which you’d never know unless you went to the front page and ready the very small type:
“So, to the mysterious “Anaheim Insider”: I think that you’re wrong about what happens at the meetings.”
Anaheim Insider didn’t write that post, Greg. I did. it says so right there on Anaheim Blog. Get with program. Attention to detail, Perry Mason.
My understanding is that you are the mysterious “Anaheim Insider,” and no matter who or what wrote that post — you’re still wrong about what happens at the meetings.
Since your here: has anyone in the majority, or Pringle, or Ament, or Nocella, or whoever you’re in touch with talked to Michael Houston about what is and isn’t permissible speech during public comments, what the governing law is, and what consequences ensue if you are wrong?
Let me guess: you don’t know.
“It was my understanding….”
Whenever Greg Diamond writes that, it is generally followed by some misstatement of fact or fairy tale conspiracy theory.
Whenever Matt Cunningham writes anything at all, it is generally a lie. (Hey, this making unfalsifiable general assertions rather than arguing over specific factual allegations is more fun than I thought!)
Matt hid his financing for the blog and routinely hides its authors. I make no apology for trying to figure it out as best I can from context and others’ suggestions.
If Matt wants to hide his political saboteurs under masks, it’s not because — like Occupiers or various political revolutionaries, including our own Founding Fathers — he fears political or economic reprisals. He’s on the side of the rich and powerful; the worst he faces from others are rickly earned sneers. Maybe it’s sadism; maybe it’s just a nod to the grand political tradition of attacks by people with their features concealed.
He’s really good at one thing, though: not answering questions posed to him. See above.
Blah, blah, blah. Useless as ever.
Or should I say: bloviate, bloviate, bloviate.
Wow — Matt quotes Gustavo! Hey, Matt — what does Gustavo say about your outing sex abuse victims?
(For the record: Matt. Cannot. Answer. Legitimate. Questions.)
Gustavo twists the truth about that incident, you pipsqueak.
“Gustavo twists the truth about that incident, you pipsqueak.”
Pipsqueak???
Call us a “venomous, grandiose and self-imporant gaggle of ankle-biters” and you may get immortalized on our masthead … but call my associate a pipsqueak, and brace for blowback!
What does Gustavo twist? He (and the whole damn county) says that you “outed sex-abuse victims.” Is this true, or not?
Apparently, in your eagerness to defend Monsignor Urell, a protector of pedophile priests whom practically everyone here now finds loathsome, you uploaded, onto your blog, a document that included the identities and contact info of the victims in the suit.
You claimed you did this mistakenly, and quickly took it down. Charitable people like myself grant that maybe that was so. Less charitable people like Gustavo and Nipsey think you did it on purpose. Maybe only God and you know. But long story short, it wouldn’t-a happened if you weren’t so fired up to defend a pedophile-priest protector.
NOW you hide under the definition of the neologism-verb “out” which – I checked the dictionaries – means “to INTENTIONALLY expose.” So you got the dictionary on your side, and Gustavo has occasionally been modifying his charge. Still i think that’s a half-assed definition, and purposefully or not, you outed the identities of sex-abuse victims in your zeal for defending the perpetrators.
It feels, to many of us, to be “all of a piece” with what you’re doing nowadays…
As I’ve already told you and Vern: you can’t crap on people and then expect they’ll answer your questions.
-
Greg DiamondPosted October 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM
Hated to visit your site again, but I checked: no author is credited at all. It’s your blog, so in the absence of a byline I credit you with it.
I’ll also credit you with the other one posted today about Tait’s response.
His dopey blog …. what it is is he hasn’t figured out how to include a writer’s name on the story itself… but if you are there on the home page, the author’s name is written.
He never fails to make fun of any of us critics for us not knowing who wrote the story … as though he hadn’t created the space for these pro-Chamber voices to have their devious say.
And as though us not being sure whether it’s Matt or Anonymous Friend of Matt writing somehow throws our own arguments into the crapper.
Kinda lame for the undisputed godfather of the OC Blogosphere.
The author byline is there on the blog. The bylines disappear when one clicks on the headlines. It’s a design function of the template that I can’t fix, even though I’d like to.
You could, of course, put “by Matt’s Sockpuppet” or whatever right in the text of the story — if you wanted to. Is the ACoC really to badly out of money that they can’t afford a better template?
I have no idea whether this is what you actually think. In fact, I doubt that you have any idea of what it is you actually think. What you present as your thoughts is determined by what you consider useful to you and your clients.
If you say you think that I’m “sloppy” — and your lack of examples for me to slam back over the net hard enough to lodge in your face suggests that you’re just bullshitting as usual — then all we know from that is that you think it’s useful to plant a seed in people’s minds that I’m “sloppy” so as to serve yourself and your clients. That’s all we know because that’s the only “analysis” you had to do before deciding to write it. “Is it true” plays no evident role in your decision over what to write; “is it useful” — largely involving “can I get people to believe it” is all.
The sad thing is that someone with your take on life, as an opportunity to make money off of “marks,” tends to think that this is how other people operate as well. Outside of your circle, it’s generally not. I have my disagreements with people here, but few of them strike me as stating facts and expressing opinions simply for personal gain — such as that they’re getting paid to do it. It’s sad; it leads to soul-sickness. But it’s a choice you apparently made long ago; it’s the skill that you can market to a depressing clientele.
So, you contemptible smudge of a semi-man, you want to talk about sloppiness and abandon, you had better come armed with specifics. I’m sure that I make some mistakes, but most of them are small and what we in the legal trade call “immaterial” — ones to which one can answer “yeah, but so what?”
I don’t have the time to check every last detail because unlike you I am NOT paid to blog; I do it in my spare time (and too often lately in time I shouldn’t spare.) I wish that I had your resources to fund my writing, but people who want justice in the world don’t have the same reason to spend money on writers as do those who hope that their investment in the likes of you will pay off in hundreds of million dollars that rightly belong to the public. No wonder they try to cover up that they pay you, but association with you is just a cost of doing business.
What really bothers you about my writing is that my analysis often pins you and your wealthy patrons to the wall — and that’s what you can’t stand. What you patrons don’t get is that the more they send your contemptible lying ass onto the trail, the more people come out of the peanut gallery to wonder why this guy is on the case and start to fight back. And the beautiful thing is that everything stupid thing that they say, and that you say on their behalf, leaves a record that can ultimately be used to tell the story of the siphoning of public assets for personal gain.
Thank God that you’re so transparent. Thank God that you’re so clumsy. Thank God that you’re so arrogant as to excuse your lack of ability and that your patrons are stupid enough to trust in you. All of this will come in useful someday. (Your patrons won’t be able to say that no one tried to warn them about you.)
So, back to the topic at hand: you identify what you want to complain about and prepare for your answer — or man up and admit that you basically have nothing except a desire to convince people, once again, of something that would be nice for you if it were true, but isn’t.
And people of Anaheim — are you really HAPPY that your tax money is being funneled from the Council majority through the deeply indebted Anaheim Chamber of Commerce to pay for this weasel?
That was fun. Oh, well, back to work. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, folks!
I was going to write an essay (I never thought to call it that, but maybe I write more essays than I thought…still learning the rules for correct writing)…about social media, anonymity and the rise of rudeness in our society. I’m still mulling that around because I am still researching…wondering if there is a correlation to that and violence. I believe that verbal violence leads to physical…I have witnessed it too many times… hateful words tend to escalate a situation not de-escalate it.
Just a thought about Matt…could he have multiple personalities and is not aware that they all contribute to his blog???
Cunningham does not have multiple personalities. He holds an extreme and dogmatic political vision. Inclusive and pragmatic dissenters are aggressively attacked if his pro-corporatist agenda is questioned. Being paid by the the Chamber of Commerce aggravates the already questionable reputation of this organization.
it was a joke Ricardo
I see, and you may be right after all….We tend to lose our sense of humor…
I miss the intent of a comment all the time on social media. We can’t see facial expressions..
and really, “dogma” and “extreme” don’t describe the guy accurately, Ricardo. Any kind of conservative dogma goes out the window for Matt when a hundred dollar bill gets waved. I have more respect for dogmatic extremists, although I’ll argue them all day and try to keep them out of power.
every dogma has its day 😉
Great last point, Inge! lol!
Greg, pls check your inbox -tnx.
Got it — but a little busy at the moment!
Two pieces of breaking news:
(1) When Brandman-Solorio Party member Dan C gets absurd, our Big Box puts him in his place. Check out the comment.
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2013/10/07/anaheim-city-council-republicans-slow-to-condemn-hate-speech/
(2) GSR did a really good story on this: http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/10/william_fitzgerald_anaheim.php My response to him is below.
There’s also an Open Letter that some of you may have seen — but nothing about that from me for now.
I believe in my heart, (and I think Vern and Claudio would certainly concur) rudeness and anonymity have been one of my pet peeves for years. (I know it’s two things)
As was posted to CW’s Facebook today and I fully agree with, “What we have really lost in this country is the ability to support our government while being able to civilly voice our opinions. … We’ve lost respect for each other and the right to have our own opinion without someone going on a rant as if they are the only intelligent being on Earth.” I responded with, “Respect for others Rights, not just our own, is a huge step toward continuing self rule, imho.”
It is sadly missing in most online discussions and something I go way out of my way to try to see and actualize in my own life. You may not see or feel that sometimes, if it’s you I am asking questions of or throwing logic bombs at you, but I try not to simply say what I think if it’s not going to be respectful or on topic. I believe everyone has a right to their opinion! (even if I think it’s wrong)
I’m not perfect, I say things wrong or sometimes says cutting things I shouldn’t, but it’s rare. (I throw a butt load of text out! I view it as therapeutic in both my chemo-brain and venting steam, either way it helps me and hurts no one as long as I don’t hit post.)
I try very hard to be as honorable in my life as can be, even when it hurts me. It is simply the way I am. Both outing someone publicly or limiting their ability to express their opinions by deleting posts or comments, are not within my normal behaviors, period. We all deserve to have our Rights upheld, even those I don’t like or agree with.
If all of us really felt that way I bet we would have a lot less heated discussions.
I have never personally poked somebody in the nose because of a verbal argument. I have received a few and seen many, none of them ended productively for anyone. I try to minimize those type of outcomes in my life as I get older and my health has declined, but I still know how. 😉 I think making comments behind a veil takes a lot less thought than having to live publicly with what you say. I can also understand why someone might use a pen name, but I really don’t like it. I do respect the Right however.
—-
As for Permissions and things behind the curtain… I had more control and privileges before I talked to Vern about coming back! I still don’t know why but I can’t do much of anything behind the scenes, even edit my own comments, since they got changed. I can’t see e-mail or ip addresses, like I used to be able to, when I was “gone” 😉
Seems that Sarah had somehow done the IDDQD* to my privileges before and they had never been changed. I never used or abused them, even when nobody knew I had them and there were many issues going on behind the scenes, that will remain there.
““What we have really lost in this country is the ability to support our government…”
What do you expect, when you’ve got radicals running around characterizing the government as the “enemy.”
I think all parties see each other as the enemy these days. I also think they are a reflection of our society as a whole. Someone called us the United States of Hysteria because everything is a crisis. We are upset about our government being shut down, meanwhile last month 1,000 Iraqis died in terrorist bombings…its about perspective…they would trade problems with us in a second.
So the GMO/Monsanto/intolerance/economic/environmental and political problems we experience ….The debt links you post are …hysteria….
actually its the real debt clock Ricardo.
I’m sorry Inge, but “all parties” do not view each other, and government, as the enemy. That’s simply another of your overstatements. By and large, it’s radicals on the right that view government as the enemy.
“I think all parties see each other as the enemy these days”
Now that’s funny.
In the last campaign I managed for City Council I had three candidates. Two were Republicans, one was a DTS. Their campaign manager was a Progressive/Liberal. One was a Mormon, one Christian, One Born Again, and the campaign manager was a guy who argued against “in God We Trust” being on the City Council wall.
The guy that runs letsfixlosal is a VERY devout Christian (and my guess is he’s very GOP) . I’m his “backup” (a non-thiest). And the guy that sued the City with me also a very religious Christian and hard-line GOP’r (I don’t think he has ever voted for a Democrat in his life).
It too freaking easy to label things and make broad statements. But the trust is that when you throw away the labels you can actually see clearly. What the three candidates put at the top of their list of items to identify themselves was “Truth and Transparency”. Because those were in the top 3 of my list I was happy to work to help get them elected (#3 for me was “honesty in government” and that was #3 for them as well… then we start to diverge a bit).
When ever you use the word “all” you have fallen into what I call “the mass trap”. That the “masses” with this label believe [something]. One of the key things I do when I develop a candidates campaign is work to eliminate that kind of thinking in the candidate. It’s that kind of thinking that costs elections. It’s that kind of thinking that leads to a rigid and set belief system that doesn’t allow people to find working alternatives.
Ask yourself this question. Do you believe that there should be a law on the books that allows commercial real estate to change hands, yet doesn’t require that the commercial real estate be reassessed? Of course you don’t. You don’t want a separate class of citizens that have a separate set of rules. You want everyone to play by the same rules. That is a common trait by most people. We want one rule, and we all play by it. So, if you don’t want this special class of people, then you don’t want Prop-13 as it stands because it creates a special class of people that can change the ownership of a property and that property is not reassessed (1).
So, “All people want Prop-13″ only stands when “all” people are unaware that there are loopholes in it that allow some property owners to play by a different set of rules (and play by them now for over 30 years). That is the problem of “all”.
All Democrats and All Republicans do NOT see each other as enemies. All members of these two parties do not ALL march in lockstep. People are not driods (“these are not the droids you are looking for”). And when given all the facts and data, people generally can and will use their brains as was intended to reason out their opinion (generally I hope they do so based on facts rather than propaganda, but for too many watch Faux News).
(1) An LLC [or any corporation] that owns a commercial property can sell 100% of its stock to someone, basically transferring the ownership of the property and the property is not reaccessed. That is ONE of the current loopholes in Prop 13
[/rant on “all”]
Humans seem to be tribal by nature and political parties are no exception. We have a 2 party system and members of those parties like things the way they are. Maybe the Tea Party will shake things up. Would we be as upset if it were the Occupy Party? They don’t like government either. Americans who align themselves with a party seem to support them, no matter what… they vote their part line. If I had a dollar every time I was told, “we have to vote for the lesser evil, or the one who will do the least harm”… is that a way to vote for a candidate?
3rd party candidates are always shut out and its not by coincidence.
Read this essay by Amy Goodman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/democracy-now/post_3962_b_1939572.html
On another note, doesn’t anyone find it interesting how the media is playing up Hillary as the presidential candidate for 2016? Can’t we live in the present and deal with the problems we have today?
And yes, the news constantly creates hysteria over things that don’t warrant it, so someone watching from another country could believe that we are all like that. Our t.v. shows are full of so-called reality shows that focus on drama when its really is something called “everyday life”, but is blown out of proportion. Do we really care about the Kardashians? Or the problems the millionaires over at Duck Dynasty are having? Congress seems to be getting in on the action.
Meanwhile people are still out of work and we won’t know the job numbers for September because “somebody” won’t release them:
OPA News Release: [10/03/2013]
Contact Name: Steve Barr
Phone Number: (202) 693-4676
Email: G.Stephen.Barr@dol.gov
Release Number: 13-2030-NAT
Statement on release of September employment numbers
WASHINGTON — The Department of Labor issued the following statement about the September 2013 Employment Situation report:
“Due to the lapse in funding, the Employment Situation release which provides data on employment during the month of September, compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, will not be issued as scheduled on Friday, October 4, 2013. An alternative release date has not been scheduled. The Employment Situation release includes the unemployment rate (from the household survey) and payroll employment (from the business establishment survey).”
Any thoughts about this article in the “Times”?
http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/04/shutdown-highlights-basic-fact-most-of-government-is-non-essential/
And I think no one in Congress, including the president, should get a paycheck until they learn to play together, and no back pay either.
Fed offices are still open…http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/federal-agencies-taking-hit-shutdown-20467918
It is largely inaccurate to say that Occupy folks “don’t like government.” That is an overstatement. In general, they don’t like government that is too under the influence of corporate interests. Not liking THAT is not the same thing as thinking that the government is the “enemy.”
Anon, you obviously didn’t hang around a local Occupy meeting. They were suspicious of any other groups, like Move On. They refused to work with other groups and were against voting. Definitely anti government because they saw gov. as the ones who got us in the Wall Street mess. I can’t argue that point. Still no one in WS in trouble for that.
It was started by anarchists and the last time I checked they don’t like government.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/11/1063939/-The-Way-Forward-for-the-Occupy-Movement#
I don’t remember, as both OJ toastmaster and original OC Occupier, a relationship between our “anon” and that movement. Unlike demagogue, a bonafide Irvine occupier, who has now jumped the shark and abandoned us. Abandoned-face emoticon.
Occupy had a mix of people of different ideologies ranging from anarchist to what ought to be liberal reform. (I, for example, like government when it’s beneficial.) But, in OC, it was naturally more libertarian (and even had some John Birch flavoring) than elsewhere.
“If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.”
Thomas Jefferson –
“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint. ”
– Alexander Hamilton
In the next paragraph:
“In addition to all this, there is in the nature of sovereign power an impatience of control, that disposes those who are invested with the exercise of it, to look with an evil eye upon all external attempts to restrain or direct its operations.”
Alexander Hamilton –
You make my point for me, Skally. Many of the Founders had conflicting impulses about the reach of the Federal government, and the debate between Founders on that subject was intense. It still is. I hope you aren’t quoting Jefferson as if it’s a proof that all the Founders felt the same way on that issue.
anon
Posted October 6, 2013 at 12:08 PM
“You make my point for me skally ..”
No, I did not “make your point”. That wasn’t related to the point of your comment. Read your original comment and then explain to me how “I made your point” in my subsequent comment – not related at all DF.
My original comment wasn’t the point. It’s the road you went down (which I knew you would) that allowed me to then make my point.
agreed. It has gotten worse since social media, reality shows, etc. We are one big endless Jerry Springer show.
I co-author on a local politics blog using my full name. I author another politics blog, using Admin. When I comment off those two blogs, on all other blogs, I use a common handle (the same handle I use on technical forums and even Patch). People who don’t like me have “exposed” my identity on many of these places (Patch was a “big one”) thinking that they are hurting me in doing so. [Yawn]
At one point Vern asked me if I would write here, and Art Pedroza has allowed me to write on his blog (cross posts from oc4us.com).
Being anon (as Met00) isn’t all that anon. And I can live with that. But the one thing that pisses me off as a blog author is someone who spams their blog with BS comments using anons. And those should be exposed, not to hurt anon authors, but to make sure that people that do “author” blogs do so in ways that are legit.
Also, I should note that on a blog I run, I really want authors to use ONE anon. Debating yourself is not only nuts, it’s frowned upon.
[end meta – thoughts]
Before Art went full tilt FITH he gave me author privilege -May still be there -don’t know – don’t care.
If that were the case, you would be able to put up videos properly. If not for true native dumbness.
come on vern – not a very good put-down, you can do better than that …
PLUS, you could have shut down: Junior and Seamus, perhaps the biggest ???????? in the blogesphere.
Here’s to missed chances (raise of the glass).
I am FREAKING out, Diamond is using Zappa references in his post about anonymity. This clearly is a threat aimed at breaking me down, setting off DEEP-SEEDED thoughts from the canyons of my mind (Billy the Mountain reference).
OR
Maybe he and I are more alike than I imagined.
Freakin out? Paul McCartney was very sensitive to all of Frank Zappa’s teasing. Before Sgt Pepper, he told some critic “this will be the Beatles’ Freak Out.” The guy didn’t even know what he was talking about. But good for Paul. That was before he DIED…. (Paul AND Frank)
Nahh. Aimed at breaking you down.
I would like to change my screen name to “suck my balls”… or is it already taken?
if so, just add II (roman numeral) after it!
Already taken.
Greg: get a life man!
Greg’s life is his business. His public life participating in the civic affairs is open to scrutiny. He is overall straightforward and transparent as to what he advocates and represents. What about you?
Well, that doesn’t sound strained and desperate at all….
FWIW,
The picture of Noberto, on the VOC AD above rivals the apron picture!
Funny how the 100 plus recent comments there, are anonymous???? (excluding Stan).
“The picture of Noberto, on the VOC AD above rivals the apron picture!” made me laugh!
I miss Dema’s humor , and Ryan’s views. Come on guys, shake hands and put the gloves on…
Talking about Stan, he may put Greg in his “proletariat” camp as Greg can not afford copies of the OC Register….he picks them up from coffee tables…
Not the ones with spills on them! (OK, sometimes.)
OK. It’s been long enough to let this tip out of the bag>
The easiest way to get online access to the OCR for free is to use the elderly neighbors subscription. typically they don’t have phones much less use computers (this is increasingly changing). I would NEVER condone doing this without someones permission that would be stealing.
However, the register provides DOZENS of subscriptions to “rest homes” including a large one in Fullerton (which is only “1/3 of a mile away” from a popular blogger) each of these carry online access. few have been activated.
Not cheating, just gaming the system. Kinda like moving to West Floral Park right before an election and claiming you are part of the community!
At least now you admit that he moved.
I suspect that the subscriptions are non-transferable, right? If those are the rules they set out, I’m going to try to follow them. It’s a matter of pride.
I never questioned his move. You have me confused with other volatile blog persons. Not, that I disagree.
Yeah, I thin (too) if you want the OCR that bad you should pay for it. Personally, I don’t. I just know that this is the #1 method of bypassing the gate. They (the OCR) kept this underwraps in the early days, but, it now an open secret. he fact that they have TJ SImers posting now is enough to make me never read the paper again. but, I am not that much an absolutists.
Veering further off track, would it be appropriate to post the YOUTUBE video of FZ testifying before congress on the “free speech” Jordan should be quarterhorsed thread. It is after all, great American history (modern of course).
On the video, go ahead.
It may be an open secret, but I’ve never heard of it. Some “citizen journalist” I am.
Vern: I have NEVER backed down from the evil that Matty did. He outed sex-abuse victims, plain and simple, and only he and his idiots will ever deny that. Everyone else with a brain, especially with those of us who sided with the sex-abuse victims (as opposed to Matty, who, while never defending pedo-priests per se, sure defended the defenders) when it actually happened.
Bloviator: Anaheim Insider is a different person. Matty isn’t clever enough to write under a different persona while at the same time write under his own. Back in the OC Blog days, he only wrote under Jubal; once you know someone’s writing style, it carries over. For example: if you tried to write under a different name, your bloviations would still muck everything up.
Gustavo: How do you know that Anaheim Insider is a different person? Don’t say who it is, say from whom you found out.
You may be right about writing style. Even after you’re dead, hopefully sometime many years from now, I expect that you’ll still be possessing living people’s spirits to write and comment promoting your public persona and engaging in false equivalencies. You’ll no longer be doing so to facilitate your making money off of books and speaking engagements, but simply because old nasty habits die really hard.
Anyway, we both have bigger fish than this to fry today, so let’s not spend too much time romping around over this, cabrón.
Can I be a pallbearer?
No, but you can cast a pall.
Bloviator: Are you my bank? How do you know how I make my money? Why even bring that up? That’s right: because you have no life other than your bloviations.
I “have no life”? Are you my assigned agent at the NSA? Etc.
Some day, Gustavo, a gigantic wave of self-awareness is going to hit you — and it’s going to hurt like seventeen shades of technicolor hell.
I’d just seen you PHRASE it differently a couple of times recently. You were avoiding the word “outed.” Maybe you were just .. shaking things up a bit.
I saw Gustavo “outed” Skallywag elsewhere this afternoon.
I wonder where that falls under the “anonymity and assholes” rule book.
For the record, this anonymous poster has been walking around humming “The Orange County Lumber Truck” all day thanks to GD.
Both Vern and Diamond are well aware of my view on this issue – it gives me no heartburn.
Don’t Know that tune – anything like Monty Python’s “He’s a Lumberjack, He’s OK”?
This ‘un, big box?
No, Big Box. This one.
Yup, that’s the one!…All together,now, “He’s a Councilman, he’s OK….”
Thanks for the “new” track! (For me, anyway!) Didn’t see the 10:37 till halfway through – was it on DJ’s favorite list so they could step out and burn one, eh?
Not wishing to further a blog war among two “Anonymous Assholes”, I think this statement from Skally (Taken from Santa Ana Planning Commissioner, Phil Baccerra’s FB page) regarding the issuance of a lisence for an Applebee’s in Santa Ana:
“Mike Tardif: Can’t hardly wait for Applebee’s to open – great place!
September 24 at 10:37am”
This speaks volumes about the sophistication of Junior!
“A man’s character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.”
Mark Twain