Pages

Monday, September 29, 2008

Oh, I Forgot To Add . . . .

When I posted the previous entry about the sort-of-settlement between the LOCSD and Whittaker Construction on the start-up/stand-down costs owed when the sewer project at Tri-W was stopped, I forgot to mention that the $1.3 million was the maximum the arbitrator would allow to be claimed, the the real amount has yet to be figured out.

But whatever it is, people need to remember that none of it would have been owed if the previous recalled CSD board majority (Stan Gustafson, Richard LeGros and Gordon Hensley) hadn't unnecessarily started construction before the recall vote could be held.

At the time, in my September 14, 05 Bay News Can(n)on,"Bleep You AND The Horse You Rode In On," I wrote:

"CSD Director Tacker emailed CSD President Gustafson to ask for an emergency public meeting and Board vote regarding cutting the trees down before the recall election, before the citizens could even weigh in with their votes. NO! All kinds of citzens marched and held vigils and called the CSD office asking for a postponement of the cutting [of the huge trees on the Tri-W site] until after the election, a scant three weeks away. NO! Countless community members urged the CSD Board majority to hold off on doing anything irrevocable until their votes were cast on the 27th. NO! No, nope, nuh-huh, not interested, talk to the hand, not listening, don't care, go away, shut up, Bleep you and the horse you rode in on.

"Instead of good public policy and a piece of smart politics, what I saw in the great tree fall was a hissy-fit of pique by three directors enraged that enough members of their community (over 20% certified by the elections office )[recall initiative petition signatures & etc.] disagreed with their governance to get a recall as well as a Sewer Initiative on the ballot. Instead of taking a deep breath and pausing until the whole community could be heard from, they appeared hell-bent on a deliberate process of pounding as much State Loan Money into the ground as quickly as possible, doing as much irrevocable damage as possible, inflicting as much lasting physical and financial damage as posible so that they could turn around and blandly argue that voters shouldn't bother voting since it would be a shame to waste all that money and anyway, the trees are already dead, so bleep you, bleep your horse. The tin-eared message couldn't get any clearer than that.

"Sadly, no matter the election's outcome, the actions of the Board majority in the simple mattter of the trees has turned it into a Pyrrhic victory, evil and bitter, unforgivable and entirely unnecessary. That is the tragedy of what this Board majority has done and is still doing."

Lest folks who read the Septmber 26th partial, quasi "settlement" agreement and want to know who to thank for now owing maybe $1.3 million smackaroonies, there's your answer. Stan moved out of state, but Richard and "Coastkeeper" Gordon are still in town. And I'm sure Gordon, maybe even Richard, will be in the audience (or at their lawyer's table??) in the courtroom showing support for their and Taxpayers Watch's personal lawsuit against the current CSD members.

And thus, my children, does this twisted Medean history continue to play out in the present. (Oh, yes, that lawsuit is also costing the taxpayers as well. Deja vu.)

116 comments:

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Of course I will be in court on Wednesday; as I am sure many others will too, including you. Like others, I am curious to see history unfold.

Sorry that you did not like the prior board majority decision to continue with a project that had contractual obligations going back to 2002. We played our part in the history of the Los Osos WWTP....as did the recall board later.

In short, the pre-recall board honored its' legal commitments; commitments that the recall board tried (and failed) to negate. Hence the damage.

-R

*PG-13 said...

No, Richard. The recalled board scheduled the recall election at the very last moment it could be legally scheduled. It could have been scheduled much earlier. It could have been scheduled before so many draconian actions were taken. It could have been scheduled in consideration of the intent and purposes of a legally mandated election. Not in spite of that election. Simply put, Ann's got this one right. The recalled board did everything it (read: you) could do to poison the well.

And one more thing. I've noticed how often we have to wordsmith around the phrasing and nomenclature of the pre-recall board, the recall board and the post-recall board. It's a subtle piece of semantics perhaps but I think we should call those who were recalled from their official positions on the board the recalled board so as not to confuse them in any way with those who were elected to replace them. All to often we refer to the newly elected board as the recall board. While that may be chronologically correct I question whether it linguistically precisely correct. (I'll leave that to Ann to decide ;-) I know this isn't a big issue. And I know nobody has ever been confused by this minor little thing. That's kinda like confusing black with white. And is akin to rearranging deck chairs. Or counting votes in Florida. Still, I think we should be aware and precise about who was recalled and why they were recalled.

Mike said...

You again attempt to mislead, are you one of the post recall Board...???

Anyway, the ones who poured salt in the well were the ones who halted the very legally permitted project... We should indeed be aware of just who halted the legal process and then stole tax dollars to pay their cronies and continue to spend tax dollars to defend those illegal actions...

*PG-13 said...

Please note, I did not try to absolve the post-recall board from their many failures. I have regularly acknowledged the post-recall board screwed up too. I'm not sure how to measure the degrees of failure between the various CSD's, the county, the county alphabet agencies, the many lawyers and all the other dirty fingers in the pie. After the first few truckloads of salt down the well whats another bag or two or ten? I do take issue when somebody tries to whitewash their role in driving this train off the cliff. Richard being the biggest whitewasher of all. He and I have danced around this issue before. (See many comments in innumerable blogs past.) He claims sainthood. I refuse to grant it. He claims his sainthood often. Darn near in every one of his posts. I question his sainthood much less often. But I will continue to question it as long as he campaigns to be absolved of all of his sins by blaming others. That's just not the way to get a halo.

Mike said...

There are at least 2 sides to this sewer war... It just seems that, at least on this blog, the only side being held up to some form of judgement is the pre-recall folks... I would like to see more balance in Ann's commentary... but as she is a signature party to the PZLDF lawsuit, we all know she won't address the serious wrongs committed by the post recall folks...

Since the CSD won't discuss the bankruptcy, and indeed they are a lame-duck Board at this time, we won't hear anything until a "less sewer discussing" Board is elected... I wonder just how bad the finanaces of the District really are, but guess we'll never hear anything unless Richard publishes some financial data...

Richard LeGros said...

pg-13,

Think whatever you wish. Erstwhile is nowhere.

In a few weeks a 'real judge' will rule regarding the actions of the recall board. History in the making, folks.

-R

franc4 said...

Mike sez;
" I would like to see more balance in Ann's commentary... "

Ah....ya mean "balanced" as your "comentary" is, perhaps?

You just can't stop accusing others of you faults, can you?

franc4 said...

Mike whines;

"You again attempt to mislead, are you one of the post recall Board...???"

....probably not but, you certainly are one of the pre recalled board.

*PG-13 said...

Richard said > In a few weeks a 'real judge' will rule regarding the actions of the recall board.

Yes. That is correct. But that judgment will have nothing to do with your role on the board, your board, your decisions and/or your poison. So please don't suggest or imply otherwise. As you have noted so many times before, this is all about the post-recall CSD and their actions. I won't defend those actions. Many of them were boneheaded if not outright dumb. And maybe illegal (tbd). Still, you (and your board) played a very calculated role in their (now our) situation. To continue to deny that just isn't right. I do believe you and your board crossed your t's and dotted your i's a lot better. Good for you. But you were still recalled. And, as noted in this blog, you played a dirty game. How can you possibly claim not to have gamed the works? With citizens like you who needs enemies?

Please also note I am commenting on your role while sitting on the board and representing the citizens of Los Osos. Your role with Taxpayers Watch is a separate thing. Related but separate. And I honor that you continue to show your face and provide meaningful content to the discussion. I don't deny you add value. I even agree with you sometimes. It just sticks in my craw when you claim sainthood. You ain't no saint!

Richard also said > Think whatever you wish. Erstwhile is nowhere.

And yes. I agree with you there too. I will continue to think what I do because I believe it is more correct than whatever it is you're selling. Your indiscretions are in the past. With little to no chance of ever being reviewed. Still, that don't make you no saint! It just means you got away with it. So please just quit already. Quit claiming that everything about our current situation is somebody else's fault. That you and your board was perfect and did no wrong. Dude, your sh** stinks just like everybody else's. 'cept mine of course ;-) Smell the roses?

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"... people need to remember that none of it would have been owed if the previous recalled CSD board majority (Stan Gustafson, Richard LeGros and Gordon Hensley) hadn't unnecessarily started construction before the recall vote could be held.

And, it's at this point of the story, that I have to chime in, like PG-13*, that Richard, Gordon and Stan deliberately set the recall election date at one of the latest possible dates, and that bought them the extra month they needed to waste all of that money ripping up the ESHA at Tri-W.

I first wrote all about that at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/californias-recall-elections-code.html

... where I asked SLO County Clerk-Recorder, Julie Rodewald, this question:

"If it had been your decision to make, would you have set the recall election date at one of the earliest possible dates, or one of the latest?"

She told me, "I would have set it at one of the earliest possible dates."

Which means, if SLO County's TOP election official had set that election date, instead of the three Directors up for recall, the trees would still be standing at the Tri-W site, all of that ESHA would NOT have been ripped up, and Los Osos wouldn't be on the hook for the millions of dollars that were completely wasted by prematurely ripping up all of that ESHA... all due solely to setting the election date at one of the latest possible dates, after listening to a 10-to-1 ratio of public commenters telling them to set it at one of the earliest possible dates.

I mean it... Richard, Gordon, Pandora, and Stan, make for such great, interesting stories. Unfortunately for Los Osos, their stories always hurt people.... always.

PG wrote:

"It just means you (Ricahrd) got away with it."

So far.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Richard and the others were pretty good about following the rules when they made their choices. Little of the mud that has been thrown seems to stick.

As PG points out, this doesn't make their actions right. For one, I would argue that if the date of the election had been earlier, they wouldn't have been voted out of office. (Heck, had not the recall campaign lied about their $100/month plan the the recall would have failed too.)

Let's contrast this to the post-recall board. No criticism of this board from Ron or Ann and yet the couldn't tie their own shoes without Dan Blesky helping them out by nailing one lace to the floor while Julie Biggs helps by tying the other lace to a septic pumping truck.

It would seem that our recent choice has been a leadership team who is willing to make tough and unpopular choices in a divided community even in the face of public criticism and great opposition but didn't get us fined or sued for gazillions and who made progress toward the goal of legal discharges ... or a leadership team who makes tough and unpopular choices in a divided community even in the face of public criticism and great opposition but who also gets us fined for gazillions and allows pollution to continue.

It boils down to a choice between the competent and the inept as well as whether you like the TriW location or not.

I do wonder one thing ... why are the only competent folks ... the ones who seem to be able to understand the laws ... on one side ... and the ones who seem to keep getting into difficulty by not even being able to balance their books ... on the other?

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
*PG-13 said...

And you still stink.

-- ted

Mike said...

Again franc, you are so funny that you deserve a response this time...

"....probably not but, you certainly are one of the pre recalled board."

Sorry franc, but I'm just one of the many, many, post recalled board's pre post critics...

After the trial I'll be right here paying my property taxes... Just which county will you be paying...Orange or Riverside...???

Mike said...

gee ted... you are so eloquent...and wrong as usual....must have studied diplomacy with Pelosi....

*PG-13 said...

Mike said > .... but I'm just one of the many, many, post recalled board's pre post critics...

Funny. I like it. There is still hope for you ;-)

Richard LeGros said...

Ted,

Whatever you believe I should or could have done is just idle speculation. Only reality...what actually DID HAPPEN, matters. The only use for speculation about past events is to help one make future decisions.

If you have been reading this blog long enough you know that I have opined about what if I did this or that. We all question ourselves. I concur that IF the recall was set earlier that I MIGHT still be in office; that staying in office MIGHT have resulted in the sewer being built by now; etc.

Upon leaving office my responsibility to you and the property owners ended. When I departed, the CSD was in good financial shape, with a $139M loan in place to build the WWTP, with anticipation of a steady revenue stream upon completetion of the WWTP to pay back the loan and provide a needed service for the community. All actions afterwards were made by others complelely outside of my control. We all know what happened; and continues to happen.

-R

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

What "steady revenue stream" was that?

*PG-13 said...

Oh my gawd. It's happening again. You're talking yourself into another delusional state right in front of us! Richard, get a grip.

I have been reading this blog long enough to remember seeing this happen before. We've seen you selectively parse history to fit your own delusions. How if only ..... things might have turned out so differently. How if only .... you might have saved us all. How if only .... how did it all go so wrong? Well, none of its MY FAULT. I'm sinless. I had nothing to do with any of the bad stuff. I'm a hero. Everything bad is because of all the others poor saps. If they had only followed the plan I left for them .... none of this would have happened.

(sigh)

In your own words > Only reality...what actually DID HAPPEN, matters.

And look what happened? You created a mess. OK, not just you. Lots of people all got together to create a total mess. But you can't dissociate yourself from this mess. You were - and still are - part of a terrible, terrible mess. Own up to that. Nobody is placing all the blame on you. Nobody is saying its all your fault. I'm just reminding you you played a role. A not insignificant role. A real center-stage speaking role. A hero in a tragedy is just a tragic hero. Get use to it. Is it really so hard to admit to even a small part in this disaster? Are you so disconnected from reality to not see your role in the play?

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

Not an OCHS, but sure would like to know what your revenue stream was. Can you be exact please? I'd really like to know.

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

Why did Jon Seitz say a 218 was needed? I've personally seen a copy of Jon's reply to the State Water Board when they asked him about it.

Why would Jon Seitz answer the State Water Board in that way? Why would he lie to the State?

I understand that you don't want to discuss this because a judge would have to rule, but I've heard that someone may bring that 218 lawsuit back to life.

I don't live in the CSD water area, but didn't they have to have somewhat of a 218 protest process to raise rates for the upgrade on the water system?

Richard, if TW would happen to win against the CSD board members (good chance with the courts here) then wouldn't that open YOU and the other two recalled board members up for a waste of public funds, and/or the County BOS?

Seems to me that would open up a whole can of worms!

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

The protest process over water rates is very different than a 218 vote.

Interestingly enuf, we did not see LOTA there complaining about the lack of a 218 vote before water rates were raised.

Richard LeGros said...

Getrealosos,

Your just plain wrong about the need for a 218 vote to secure the SRF loan. Period. Talk to Jon Seitz or Darren Polhemus at the SWRCB to set you straight.

The CSD did not have to hold a 218 election to secure the State loan for the water system upgrades. They fund that project through user rates....which were raised to pay for the loan. And yes, they did have a rate protest period, but that is not a 218 vote. By the way, my board started that project too.

I have no fear that any lawsuits will ever be filed against the recall board. Why?

1. Because nothing illegal transpired (lawsuits filed without a basis in law get thrown out).

2. The time to file such a lawsuit(statute of limitations) has expired.

-R

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

What is the statute of limitations (time wise) since you seem to know?

You didn't answer about opening up a can of worms as far as suing the BOS individually for public waste if you were to win the TW lawsuit.


SharkInlet,

I'm plain done with you (for now) -- too time consuming to keep up with your blogging.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

It is awfully curious that about the time that I start to keep track of your off the wall (and probably chock-full-o-crap) statements is the time that you say that you are too busy to keep up with my comments.

I also note with interest that in these last two comment sections you have out-posted me ... 18 comments by you and (now, including this one) only 13 by me.

It sounds like you are too busy to keep up with your own words, to me.



In terms of statements you've made which need to be justified or explained:
1 - the claim that the fees for a sewer for Monarch residents will not include interest payments
2 - the claim that the Kitts study of e-coli in Morro Bay is a "phony pollution" study.
3 - your claim that Maria and Gordon are from the same town in Oregon.

We're still waiting for justification or clarification or retraction of these.

I will be happy to add more to this list as time permits ... because after all, we want to be sure that GetReal has the opportunity to explain his comments more fully to those who might be likely to think he is making stuff up.


ps - because you are so concerned with my life, I want you to know I added this comment while eating lunch and the comments last night were after the kids went to bed.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

I took the information Richard sent and am offering the following summary the LOCSD spending during the 11 months following the recall.

Willdan: The LOCSD cut them checks for about $200k and owes them another $90k as part of the bankruptcy.

BWS: The LOCSD cut them checks for about $740k and owes them another $630k as part of the bankruptcy.

Ripley: The LOCSD cut checks for about $280 and owes the them another $100k as part of the bankruptcy.

If the LOCSD was in such bad shape financially (due to poison pill actions of Richard and others), there is no justification for such spending practices ... unless there is money to cover these bills.

BWS claims some $420k in unpaid services in less than 11 months time (remember, they had already been paid almost three quarters of a million dollars by the LOCSD during this same timeframe).

With nearly $300k charged by Willdan, you've got to wonder what services they provided. Blesky was quite often unable to answer simple questions like about how much money was in each account and whether there was enough left to pay for fire protection services.


As some would say, these costs were necessary because of Richard and his friends. I'll disagree. Even if Richard and Co. tried to make it hard for the recall board to change horses midstream, the post-recall actions of the board made the situation far worse than it needed to be.

As I've long argued, the post-recall board could have called up the SWRCB and said "hey, Darrin, we've got a problem down here ... Measure B seems to say that we can't build at TriW ... how about you give us permission to stop work and we'll work with those behind Measure B to get a court ruling on whether TriW is forbidden or not? But while that is going on, how about we sit down and discuss the idea of putting the treatment plant elsewhere? Just in case. Of course, we'll continue work on the collection system which is something Measure B does not address at all." Now that strategy would have allowed the LOCSD to avoid the RWQCB fine ($6.6M) and the SRF money would have continued to roll in, allowing for time to hire Ripley and demonstrate that out-of-town wasn't really much different, cost-wise. If Measure B was really rock-solid as some claim, this strategy would have gotten the treatment plant out of town with far less hassle and far fewer lawsuits.

Oh yeah ... BWS wouldn't have needed to be paid off either.

Somehow I suspect that BWS was behind the whole strategy and that they advocated a stupid plan because it would help them line their pockets. I doubt that Julie Biggs really cares about Los Osos or our sewer. I think that she just told the board what they wanted to hear so that her checks just kept coming in.

Of course, we'll see if that is what the Real Judge (TM) rules when the issue comes before the bench.

Sewertoons said...

Not to be nit-picky here, but let's not forget the $159,903 paid to WRA, and the $103,785 paid to McClendon.

To address a Board that is currently finger wagging over double digit expenses, these elephant-in-the-room expenses should not be be left out of our appraisal of their spending history.

GetRealOsos said...

Okay, Shark, calm down.

1 - the claim that the fees for a sewer for Monarch residents will not include interest payments

I ASSUMED SINCE YOU ARE NOT IN THE PZ'S ASSESSMENT/BOUNDARY LINE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A FEE TO HOOK-UP IF AND WHEN MONARCH DECIDES TO JOIN IN, AND THOUGHT A FEE WOULDN'T HAVE INTEREST ADDED LIKE THE SRF LOAN WOULD. SO WHAT!

2 - the claim that the Kitts study of e-coli in Morro Bay is a "phony pollution" study.

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE E-COLI STUDY. WHEN YOU TOLD ME TO GO POUND SAND (AND I KNOW YOU'VE WORKED WITH KITTS PREVIOUSLY) I SAID TAKE HIM WITH YOU TO GO POUND SAND. AND GO AHEAD AND MAKE UP A PHONY STUDY. SO WHAT?

3 - your claim that Maria and Gordon are from the same town in Oregon.

I'VE TOLD YOU BEFORE, I'M ASKING QUESTIONS. I'M ASKING ABOUT THE COINCIDENCE OF THEM BOTH BEING FROM THE SAME AREA. DID THEY KNOW EACH OTHER THERE? I STILL DON'T KNOW, AND NEITHER DO YOU. HOW ODD THAT AS SOON AS MARIA ARRIVED SHE ATTACHED HERSELF WITH RICHARD AND GORDON? WHY?

Now Shark, this is too time consuming, and I have other things to do. You have much more time on your hands than I do, but feel free to keep throwing shit at me. I'll answer sooner or later.

Mike said...

Yes getreal, you will answer... you will make up any answer you feel justified to make...

You really don't know a damn thing about either Maria or Gordon or you wouldn't continue to make such an ass of yourself...

I will repeat, YOU are a vile rumor monger and a liar...!!!! You know it and even Ann knows it...!!!!

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

Thanks for addressing these issues to some extent.

Now, let's talk.

On the first matter, you made an incorrect assumption and then stated it as a fact. So what? So, it shows that you have a tendency to make assumptions and not check them out before using those assumptions to make conclusions.

On the 2nd matter, you now are saying that you know I've worked with Kitts before. In the sense that we both work on the Poly Campus, yes. In the sense that we've worked on a common project, you are wrong yet again. I would also argue that in the context where you write about a phony study, your words implied that the Kitts study was made up. Even so, let's just chalk this one up to a misstatement on your part and a willingness to make stuff up now.

On the third matter, you did not originally write about them being from the same "area" but from the same "town". Even so, no reasonable person would view Corvallis and Newport as in the same "area". Strike three. Again, you write misinformation as if it were the truth.

Do we even least agree that the truth is important?

Now I've got a fourth entry on the list:

4 - the County can just ask the State and Feds for funding (for a sewer project) and it is the law that such funding automatically be granted.

Perhaps you would address this matter by telling us which law says this.


I don't care if you find it too time consuming to get you to justify your wild claims ... if you make the claims and they appear incorrect at face value, you should take the time to explain why a reasonable person should agree with you. If you choose not to, people will tend to view you as a random shouter who offers up information that lacks credibility. If you are willing to put in the time and if your logic is sound, people will learn to view you as a reasonable person to be trusted.

It takes time and effort to build up credibility. The choice is yours.

GetRealOsos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GetRealOsos said...

Blogger GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

You are a monster.

As far as the governmental agencies having to pay for benefit - I've explained this to you before.

As far as Maria and Gordon - we don't know if they knew each other in Oregon or not. Was Gordon only in Newport - did his youth group travel to Maria's area? I'm still checking into this. I'll keep you posted.

You have absolutely no credibility with me. All your time and effort to build up any credibility hasn't worked. In my opinion, you are just doing your job (stifle dissent and defend Tri-W). That's clear.

P.S. I don't believe there is interest on fees and charges. Is there interest on your electric bill? Maybe if you're late...

Mike said...

getrealosos... you have proved you have zero credibility as your lies continue to compound....

I happen to know Shark and unless you can somehow prove he has horns or a tail or eats eyeballs freshly plucked from Cal Poly co-ed', then you will have added one more, let's call it an "exageration" this time... but in all, everyone on this blog is now fully aware of what a complete LIAR you really are...!!!

So why don't you take a time out and go sit in a corner where you can suck your thumb while the big kids play... or maybe go ask the CSD if you can audit their books....???

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Blogger Shark Inlet said ...

getrealossos,

You like to eat muenster.

As far as the governmental agencies having to pay for benefit - you've not given us any coherent explanation at all.

As far as Maria and Gordon - we do know that you've told us that they were from the same town and now you are saying you don't know. You appear to have been shooting fast and loose instead of being careful. Please keep us posted if you're going to be more careful with the facts.

I don't care if I have any credibility with you. What matters here is whether you have any credibility at all. If you're going to put in the time and effort to get your facts straight and to be logical you will earn respect around here.

ps - while you don't believe what John Waddell told me in person, you certainly have not offered us any evidence for your affirmative statement that I won't have to pay for the interest on the bond should Monarch choose to tie in to the community system. Again, like with your comment about Maria and Gordon being from the same town, you either made something up or heard it somewhere or assumed something and then told us as if it were a fact. After further scrutiny, it appears that you were wrong. Just admit it. Admitting you were wrong is an adult way of dealing with errors. Pretending you don't make mistakes or trying to justify your errors makes one look childish and/or narcissistic.


Finally ... your comment "you are a monster" is entirely unjustified because all I am asking you to do is to explain the logic behind some of your over the top claims that appear to be wrong. If you think that asking people to explain themselves is out of line, you clearly aren't up for public debate or any reasoned discussion. Folks who don't want to be questioned ... heck, people who don't invite questions ... are bullies who want to push others around and are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged.

I'm not going to ask you to self identify, but I am going to say that if you persist in being rude instead of being willing to have a reasonable discussion, you should expect others to treat you with the sort of disrespect you've shown them.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Ummmm ... County biscuits ... tasty, ah!!$$SS

Why are you so interested that you'd talk to John, or Paavo or any of these guys about the sewer when it doesn't affect you? After all, you're in Monarch Grove and have your sewer. Why do you feel so compelled to blog 24/7 about a sewer that doesn't affect you?

Ummm ... County biscuits ... tasty!$!$!$

Same goes for you, too, Shark. Respect is earned, not badgered, and you've earned only the respect of a few badgers on one side of the dam. You don't want or care to see that you only offer one view, the most expensive view -- and one that has yet to be proven right, though it HAS been proven WRONG (NWRI). You are the one standing on the outside looking in, tap-dancing on a record of failures and crying "Success!"

You represent the County, Taxpayers Watch and the Recalled Board -- and the only success you can point to is a coerced 218 to scare the people into the corral. If the County had offered the FACTS, had told the people they would be taxed out of their homes, that the CDOs were just a scare tactic, the homeowner vote would have been closer to 50-50 (than the County's fabricated mythical 80-20) that never was.

Do you really like communicating with me? You want me to keep posting! Or is it only that you HAVE to get the last word (because it's your job)?$?$?$

I don't know if Maria knew Gordon in Oregon and you don't either. I heard they were from the same town, but it might be considered the same area. Why did she stick like glue to Gordon and Richard from day one? Doesn't make any sense, Shark! Why don't you tell us about that since you know everything.

Maria writes here and she never denied or confirmed it.

I've asked Maria if she thought it was fair for the County to profit from the sewer project (the more they spend, the more they make) -- she never responded to that either. Why don't YOU comment on that one? Do you think it's fair or right for the County to profit?$?$

Your "act" is to try to sound reasonable, but the fact is that you police the blogs to squash the opposition and quietly defend Tri-W and Recalled Board (who is now Maria and Marshall). That's a phony action too.

That's what you are, a phony. People know it now.

Knowing this about you and your two friends here, why would I ever seek or care to seek "respect around here"? I already have plenty of that. Seeking respect is your need, not mine. I don't want to ride the Cal Poly gravy train to intellectual bankruptcy. I don't want the approval of the misinformed, the uniformed and ghoulish greedygrabbers who only care about stuffing their pockets with community money ... while the community dies around them.

You are living proof that one doesn't need a heart to survive, only a mirror. Teach your children well, Sharky. Teach them that having one skill, i.e. like adding and subtracting numbers incorrectly, does not mean you get a free pass as an "expert" on something or another just because you think it or say so. I've seen or heard nothing of real interest from you, certainly nothing that is based on fact or law. You are a basically a revisionist historian for a failed dictatorship. Got you a few County-fed cheerleaders, but not much credability "around here."

Ummmm, County biscuits ... with Cal Poly gravy. Tasty!$!$

Prefix528 said...

GetrealLosOsos

You've connected Gordon and Maria because they both spent time in Oregon. This then apparently connects Maria to the Tri-W site. Marshall is aligned with Maria so he gets added to the mix. Its even possible he's visited Oregon.

The thing that you haven't explained at all is the "Cal Poly gravy train". How does Cal Poly stand to profit (or has been profiting) from events in Los Osos?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

Again, you speak as if you know things but you appear to be connecting dots which are unrelated. If you take one of those kid-games and connect all the prime numbers and then connect all those ending with 8 together you'll get a wacky picture. That appears to be what you are doing now.

To address the key points you raise which may cause confusion on the part of others ...

The reason I would talk with John or Paavo seems obvious in light of our past discussions ... the Monarch folks want to know how we'll be able to tie into the community plan.

You also say I blog 24/7. You are wrong. I participate when I have time which would appear to some to be at odd times. Perhaps you've never had kids and don't understand.

You say that the sewer won't affect me, but you are saying this even though I've told you our neighborhood intends to tie into the sewer. Clearly you can't read, can't remember or you are acting rather ungracious by not taking my word at face value. Please remember that I don't mind if you choose to (yet again) make false statements, but please realize that it makes you look small and petty and it will continue to degrade the way your opinion here is held. Again, the choice about how you act is yours.

You suggest that I have to get the last word in. Admittedly, that is my tendency. When I see false statements, a lack of logic, unjustified criticisms or the blind support of things which I think are flawed, I tend to react. Thus, if you post some random crap here, I feel the need to make sure that such statements don't go unchallenged.

I would suggest you take your own words to heart ... if you want me to post here less often, stop writing so many things which need to be corrected. It would seem as if your primary goal in life is to misunderstand and to criticize others based on your own lack of understanding. That is not something you should be proud of. Please listen carefully ... think before you post next time. Don't just react, spend some time making sure that your thoughts make sense.


On the question of the County profiting, I would rather them not profit.

Sewertoons said...

getreal, suppose for a minute you could believe there was pollution. How would you address it - cheaply, of course.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

One more question ... perhaps it will redirect our discussion to a more profitable region instead of the snarkier comments of late.

You say that you support STEP and that you're in favor the lease expensive approach.

What about STEP makes you say that it is cheaper in the long run than gravity? Following up on that, what did the TAC report say on the same topic? Following that, do you have specific technical criticisms of the TAC report on this topic? Lastly, did Karen (she is on the TAC, isn't she) agree with the TAC report on this issue, and if not, why not?

Osos Change said...

Shark,

I looked at the list of those who were assessed. You weren't on that list, your address was not on that list -- so you're definitely not telling the truth. So why are you lying? Why are you lying so persistently and with such verbosity?

It boggles the mind and it undercuts everything you have said thus far.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

OsosChange,

First off, I have never said that I was assessed. In fact, when GetReal asked about this issue I explained that my neighborhood was not included in the 218 vote and even explained the County's position about why we were not included.

For you to now to write as if I told a fib shows that either you're not paying attention or that you are willing to put a false statement out there just to get people to doubt me.

I'll assume that you are not one of those "ends justify the means" sort of political creatures who would do anything to win even if it meant selling his or her soul.

So then, why might you be confused? If you've been paying less attention you might have gotten confused over the issue what the PZ means and what an assessment means. Some of the properties inside the PZ participated in the 218 vote to assess themselves and some did not.

As for your claim that I am lying persistently, you've got to do better than that. Surely, your own confusion doesn't count as a lie on my part. Perhaps if you had an example of a real lie, your words would be less empty.

By the way, weren't you the one who said that you would reveal your name if I revealed mine? Not that it matters, but if people are gonna fuss over my anonymity all of a sudden know who I am, it would seem that they would be willing to reveal their own names.

Osos Change said...

Actually, bud, you haven't revealed your name, seeing that you still refer to yourself as "stiv neener."

There's no "Stiv Neener" on the assessment list so I had no luck there. I had a small hunch that "Stiv" isn't your real name so I went for your real name.

Do you think the word "stupid" is written on my forehead? You said previously that you were assessed and now you're saying, "I have never said that I was assessed."

Actually, if you didn't participate in the 218 assessment vote, there would be a blank box where the Y and N should be, but your address wasn't even on the list itself.

Let's test your claim that you're not a blogger who posts 24/7. I'm going to read off the times you posted on SanLuisObispo.com:

12:35 AM
1:14 AM
2:22 AM
3:31 AM
4:55 AM
5:13 AM
6:19 AM
7:26 AM
8:02 AM
9:30 AM
10:12 AM
11:16 AM
12:42 PM

You posted in every hour of the day. Factor in time you've spent responding to everyone as if you're in a "rapid response team" for the County. There's your 24/7.

One could make an argument that you've been neglecting your children. Remind me to buy you a "Father of the Year" Hallmark card. It seems like you love the County more than your own kids. Maria Kelly does the same thing. You two should be friends.

You are a habitual liar and I think Los Osos is tired of your psychobabble.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi All,


Below is a nrews release from the State regarding the Reclamator

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FRAUD ALERT


California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Coast Region
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, California 93401-7906
Phone (805) 549-3147 FAX (805) 543-0397

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast


CONTACT: Roger Briggs
September 30, 2008 Phone: (805) 549-3140


CENTRAL COAST WATER BOARD HAS NOT APPROVED THE RECLAMATOR AND NO LAWS REQUIRE THAT LOS OSOS RESIDENTS PAY FOR RECLAMATOR SERVICE

SAN LUIS OBISPO-It has come to the attention of the Central Coast Water Board that AES, Inc., the company that markets the Reclamator sewage treatment device, has mailed a packet of documents to many residents within the Los Osos prohibition zone. The packet includes an official-looking document that appears to indicate that the Central Coast Water Board will fine residents who don't pay for Reclamator service within 60 days.


This document is not a government document. The Water Board has not approved the Reclamator as a part of, or replacement for responsible wastewater management in Los Osos. Any resident of the Los Osos prohibition zone who purchases a Reclamator is still liable for the county wastewater assessment and will still be required to hook up to the sewer system when it becomes available.


State Water Resources Control Board Office of Public Affairs Phone: 916.341.5254 Fax: 916.341.5252

Email: info@waterboards.ca.gov
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-R

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

OsosChange ...

Find a place where I claim that I voted in the recent 218 vote or that I was even given the chance to vote or that I have been assessed by the County for their project. Unless you can do so, we'll just have to believe that you're not exactly telling the truth.

On the 24/7 thing. Sure, if you're gonna look at my postings over the last 3 years, you will find some times that I was up late or got up early. Why this is an issue to you or anyone is beyond me. "News Flash: some people stay up late to finish up work and then check a discussion site before going to bed."

As for my family life, I find it funny that you folks (you and GetReal, you two seem to have a lot in common these days) think that a person cannot participate in an internet discussion and have a family life. Trust me, I spend waaay more time with my kids than most dads in town. If you only knew me, you would know that what you are saying is just plain insulting BS.

Even so, I hardly think it is reasonable to say that a person cannot participate in a discussion of the future of their community if they have kids. I don't see you complaining about Julie Tacker's situation which would certainly have to be even more extreme than the way you are characterizing me.

If you're gonna criticize people for the way they spend their time, at least dish it out evenly and not just at the folks you disagree with ... that's just intellectually dishonest.

Mike said...

I'm not tired of Sharks intelligent and well thoughtout commentary... I think Richard is another of those making intelligent and informative postings...

The truely disgusting, insulting, habitual LIARS posting are "osos change" and "getrealosos"...

Maybe Ann could run a poll... However nothing on this blog appears to influence anyone except maybe Lisa, who apparently is reduced to tears when faced with reality... and this is October, do you know where your lawyer is...???

Osos Change said...

The timestamps were recorded during a one-week period on SanLuisObispo.com. Quite frankly, that kind of blogging activity is not normal.

Herein lies the problem. I've only mentioned things that you said... repeatedly. You said you were assessed for the recent 218 vote on a few occassions. Now I'm doubting that you even voted on the assessment conducted by the recalled CSD board.

It's not my job to dig out your inconsistencies. If you can't remember what you're saying and you can't keep your lies straight, then sir, that's being intellectually dishonest -- and not only that, it shows diminished mental capacity. That's inexcusably embarrassing.

Don't lecture me on intellectual dishonesty. You have no standing to lecture.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Okay,

If you want to make an issue over the times of that one week, fine. I'll bet that such a pattern isn't found across other weeks. If you find it, let me know. If not, I bet you found the one week with the most unusual pattern available just to try to make me look bad in your mind. If you don't get back to us with other weeks with this pattern, we'll know you are trying to inject bias.

I still contend that if you're going to make an issue of the timestamps instead of dealing with the real issues before our town you are focusing on the wrong thing. But if you want to major in minutiae, that is your right.

On the 218/assessment, even though you are sure, I claim you are incorrect. If you really believed what you are saying, you would take the time to dig up evidence that I claimed to have been assessed. Again, if you don't we'll know that you don't have the facts on your side. It should not be my job to prove you are wrong in your affirmative statement ... it is your job to prove you are right.

Asking you to demostrate your claims is not intellectually dishonest. Your refusal to do so is.

That being said, the gauntlet has been thrown and if you choose not to follow up and provide evidence of what you claim as factual, we'll know you've got nothingg.

Sewertoons said...

This tactic osos change uses on Shark is the same tactic used many times by the "new" board. Make a big stinking deal out of something irrelevant to distract, while something huge and shady is busy devouring a corner of the community.

Sewertoons said...

If anyone is interested, Friday, October 17, the RWQCB (meeting in Santa Barbara) will discuss in closed session:

3. Los Osos Community Services District v. Central Coast Water Board (ACL Order R3-2005-0137) (San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No. CV 060633);

4. Central Coast Water Board v. Los Osos Community Services District (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV-051074);

5. Los Osos CSD v. Central Coast Regional Board (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV 060146 (TSO 00-131);

6. Los Osos Community Services District (Bankruptcy), Central District of California Case No. ND 06-10548-RR;

Mike Green said...

For a lighter time, Travel update.
click on my name, then where away

AKA Greek mine

Mike Green said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike said...

October 8, 2008: TW Attorneys will be in court to hear the final action by Judge LaBarbera on the CSD5 request for Summary Judgment to dismiss the TW lawsuit.

TW Attorneys will also be before Judge LaBarbera to oppose a subpoena by the CSD5 seeking documents from TW and the Contractors that are unrelated to the TW lawsuit.

October 27, 2008: Trial date for the Waste of Taxpayer Funds case against the CSD5.

September/October 2008: Draft Final Environmental Impact Report for County Project.

January 2009: County Wastewater Assessment payments begin.

2009: Final design work for County project (projected).

Spring 2010: Construction Begins (projected).

Osos Change said...

Shark,

I owe you nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Why should I give you reminders of things you've already said? Are you that mentally bankrupt?

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

Just to clarify your last post, Judge LaBarbara will render a tentative ruling (based upon documents already submitted)on the merits of the CSD5's Motion for Summary Judgement by this coming Friday (October 3); to be discussed in court on October 8. TW expects that the judge will DENY the Summary Judgement as there are serious matters of law in the TW lawsuit that must be argued in a trial.

-R

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

OsosChange,

Your refusal to demonstrate your claim here reveals that you are at the very least not trustworthy and possibly someone who is willing to lie to win an argument.

If you would like to demonstrate to others that you are more than a lying sack of weasel dung, you will go and find quotes from me that say I was assessed in the recent 218 vote.

On a more personal note, I think that your tactic of tossing out an inflamatory claims that later you refuse to defend is ... um ... indefensible. Simply put, if you don't show us that you are right, your unwillingness will likely haunt you. People will know that you aren't honest enough to back up your words.

No, you don't owe me anything but an apology for lying about me ... but you others the truth.

So ... are you gonna actually dredge up evidence of your claim or are you gonna turn tail and run away like last time someone confronted you on your crap?

Sewertoons said...

Let's see if ososchange will pull a "ron" here and remain silent.

Mike said...

Bye Ososchange...or should we say... bye bye Joey....????

Osos Change said...

Shark,

You lied, sir. You lied. You can't deny the undeniable.

And Lynette, let the grown-ups talk, alright?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

OsosChange,

Your unwillingness to provide verification for your claim just shows that either you don't know for sure that I lied or that you know you are wrong and you are unable to admit the truth.

This is getting tired, your refusal.

Either provide proof or admit that you were mistaken and we can move on to more relevant topics. To do otherwise to to stall our conversation on a topic which is 100% irrelevant ... hmmmm ... maybe that is your point.

Mike said...

...once again ososchange drinks deeply from the bottom of Keith's septic tank...

...yup Joey, you don't ever let a little thing like a fact stand in the way of big lie...!!!! You've lied all your life...

GetRealOsos said...

Change,

Have you ever seen a Shark that spins for its supper?

He said to YOU, "By the way, weren't you the one who said that you would reveal your name if I revealed mine..."

Uh, problem here is that HE NEVER REVEALED HIS NAME. He was outed. So Shark is careful. See how he spins. He is hinting that since he revealed his name maybe you should. He spends a lot of time thinking how to spin it and you and everybody.

Spin is not truth, far from it, truth requires no spin. So, Shark has produced no truth here, just hollow spin that you need to step over to get to the truth, which Shark was destined not to know.

Shark plays the disciplinarian of the blogs, but he is the actually the two-faced hypocrite accusing people of doing exactly what he does himself, making sure everyone pays a toll to blog any message contrary to his roundly rejected Tri-W dogma.

So, realize you DON'T have the pay the toll. Ignore the Shark. Get your Shark repellent in the water and maybe we'll clean up the bay overnight.

He thinks people (YOU) are too dumb to see his con. He's nothing but a big phony (all the while pimping for the County, the Dreamers, and the new to-be- recalled board, Maria and Marshall). Very tricky that Shark!

Did you notice only Mike and Sewertoons ganged up to defend this rat?

P.S. I thought Shark said he had been assessed and that he had been assessed in 2001 too? He's tap-dancing like a madman with his hair on fire.

Sewertoons said...

Who is lining up to defend you getreal?

GetRealOsos said...

Sewertoons,

I don't need any defense, I've never said anything that wasn't based on the truth.

The NWRI agrees with me. They are experts in the field, Shark is a low level academic numbers guy, not in the field (except in the field of BS).

I don't need anyone coming to my rescue for putting out twisted information to justify a sewer system that will force out hundreds upon hundreds of people. But I guess you don't have a family. But you do have a big screen TV you can see from the street.

Hmmmmm, County Biscuits. Good for a few, rotten to everyone else.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Let's now check on our list.
In terms of statements you've made which need to be justified or explained:

1 - the claim that the fees for a sewer for Monarch residents will not include interest payments

Based on what you've said so far on this matter, we can conclude that you made an assumption that you didn't check out. On the matter of Trustworthiness, that's strike one.

2 - the claim that the Kitts study of e-coli in Morro Bay is a "phony pollution" study.

On this matter you nicely explained what you meant. However you added another questionable statement, that I work with Chris Kitts. On this false statement you've offered no evidence. Strike two.

3 - your claim that Maria and Gordon are from the same town in Oregon.

Yet again, another false statement. In your attempt to justify this earlier claim, you resorted to saying that your original claim was that they were from the same area. Strikes three and four. Three because you changed your original wording an four because you are still wrong.

4 - the County can just ask the State and Feds for funding (for a sewer project) and it is the law that such funding automatically be granted.

No answer to this one other than when you write "I've explained this to you before." This gets you strikes five and six. Five because you didn't answer at all and six because you've now added the claim that you have.

All this from someone who wrote "I've never said anything that wasn't based on the truth.".

Perhaps the problem here is that GetReal and OsosChange actually believe what you write but that you are so sure of yourselves that you don't actually go and verify before writing. Considering the flak I was given over my mistake of saying that Lisa said in her deposition that Karen helped her remove boxes of documents from the LOCSD office (which is true with the exception of the emboldened portion), you might want to be more careful.

So then, do you wanna go back and try again to justify your statements. Just like OsosChange should try to get a quote from me saying that I had been assessed recently or that I had participated in the recent 218 vote if he or she wants us to trust him or her, you should at least try. To refuse to do so is funny.




Lastly, I tried to give you an opening to discuss real issues here when I wrote "What about STEP makes you say that it is cheaper in the long run than gravity? Following up on that, what did the TAC report say on the same topic? Following that, do you have specific technical criticisms of the TAC report on this topic? Lastly, did Karen (she is on the TAC, isn't she) agree with the TAC report on this issue, and if not, why not?" I appreciate that you say you're in favor of a system that won't force people out of town. How will STEP be cheaper than gravity? The NWRI report didn't exactly address that issue, did they?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

OsosChange and GetReal,

I think I found the source of your confusion.

Just about a week ago when GetReal claimed that I didn't live in the PZ, the subject came up. I was asked whether I received an assessment ballot and how much I was assessed. The answers were yes, I received a ballot but I was not assessed because the amount on the ballot was zero. (Recall that this was a ballot where the count would be weighted by the amount of "benefit" and the County determined that Monarch would get zero assessment because they didn't want folks to fuss that Monarch had biased the results.)

I cannot comment on how the County may have reported the results of this non-vote vote for those of us with zero assessment. Perhaps they didn't even put our address on the list (as OsosChange suggests ... by the way, why do you have a copy of this list? Does the County send it out to all who ask?).

Whether I had mailed in the ballot or not wouldn't matter, the weight given to my vote would be zero.

So ... just to make it clear, I did not claim that I've been assessed in the most recent 218. If either of you can find information that shows otherwise, I am sure that you will trot it out.

If you don't, you should perhaps consider apologizing for calling me a liar over this issue.

Osos Change said...

Why should I apologize for being right?

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

More BS from you. You're acting pretty dense.

You want people to explain over and over what you can't/won't grasp because you're biased? You want people to go look back at past posts to prove that you tell the truth, when you have only given us your "truth," which, like half truths in general, are lies of omission, whether by ignorance or intentional neglect. You got both covered like a blanket.

Are you saying you never worked with Kitts? Yes, you did. You want me to prove that, too? I don't think you do.

You did say you had been assessed and you stated you were assessed in 2001 - were you or not? I assume you can't be clear because you have personal reasons for sowing confusion.

You are not in the PZ's "Assessment District" and you MAY have a charge -- big deal! Lucky Shark!

Why don't you give us proof that the charge you may or may not have will have interest charges added?

My (original) point was that you don't have a lien, can't have your home taken away (if you own it at all), won't have your street torn up, and won't have a blank check -- none of this for you!

What do you rather chose to focus on? A little nibble of the big
picture - interest or no interest on a small charge (if you have one
or not)? Quite a diversion from the real issues impacting MOST of the community. But that's your job, minimizing the Real Impacts and maximizing the Big Lie so the truth is never known.

Why don't you address what you presented to "ososchange"? You never gave up your identity -- you were outed! Don't care to bring that up, huh?! A little stretch there, too, Sharky? In fact, everything you say is a stretch ... unless your head is comfortably up your ass and it's no stretch at all for you.

Nope, you're the rat, you're the liar, the phony, the Tri-W pimp, and you're the head spinmaster working for the County and Tri-W for your dog biscuits.

No doubt in anyone's mind about that now! (Not that there ever was
any doubt who you're working for.)
Why don't you just admit it. You might get a little respect "around here" for saying something
honest, for a change. Just go "WOOF!" We'll know what you mean.

P.S.
According to the 218, Governmental Agencies are not exempt when they
benefit. Obviously, you don't talk to attorneys, only County punks,
because that's who pays for your biscuit addiction.

P.P.S. Take the needle out, Sharky. See what you're missing. Then you can comment here on the real issues with a clear eye, free from the blinders of prejudice, and maybe you can contribute something useful and informative. Until then I'm afraid you are nothing more than a dumb echo of fraudulent Taxpayers Watch mythology, which, like you, exists only to split the community for the benefit of a few.

Mike said...

hmmmm....You, getrealosos and osos change make lot's lumps out of little bits of nothing... Why are you not taking the big picture view to see what this CSD has done (spend where and why) these past 3 years...??? Are you afraid of the truth...??? I don't think you can handle the truth....!!!! ...and that's where TW comes in... they have the resources to bring the CSD5 into a court of law to finally explain where they spent the tax dollars and why they chose to violate laws to spend our tax dollars on what ever they felt like... You're chasing the wrong person, you really should have been chasing the CSD5 for honest answers...not that you or anyone has been able to get honest answers...

It really is funny to watch you stumble around trying to trip up Shark....you really should get a life... it's obvious you only know part of the story, but are willing to create lies to support your false sense of truth...it's either that or you just like making up lies and spinning tales...

October is going to be a very good month for exposing the CSD5's mismanagement and tax funds theft....!!!

GetRealOsos said...

Crapkiller:

I trust Gordon's Taxpayers Watch with my money about as much as I trust Gordon with my kids.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

OsosChange,

You shouldn't apologize when you are right. However, in this case, you are not and you should have the decency to either admit that you were wrong or the ability to demonstrate that you were right (which you have not yet done).


GetReal,

On issues that we haven't already discussed to death ...

As for working with Kitts, I am thinking that either you are confused about what constitutes "working with" a person in an academic context or that you are mistaken. "Working with" someone means having a common research project. If Chris and I both happened to be on a committee together at some time it would not constitute "working with". So then, are you gonna stand behind your off-the-wall and completely irrelevant claim that I work with Kitts and offer proof or are you gonna admit being mistaken?

Then, on the most important issue you mention, you claimed some time back that folks in Monarch won't have to pay for any of the interest on the bond for constructing a sewer and treatment plant. I note with interest that you've not offered us any evidence which would suggest this at all. Even so, you seem to be telling us now that it is my responsibility to provide proof that I would. I already told you what John Waddell told us. Perhaps it is time for you to either provide evidence of your claim or to admit that you made it up or that you were confused or something.

I would not feel good about myself if I didn't yet again warn you about your vitriolic-sounding rhetoric. It probably turns off those who haven't already made up their minds on these topics. Give it a rest and let's have a better discussion.

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ron said...

OC wrote:

"Let's test your claim that you (Guppy Inlet) are not a blogger who posts 24/7. I'm going to read off the times you posted on SanLuisObispo.com:

12:35 AM
1:14 AM
2:22 AM
3:31 AM
4:55 AM
5:13 AM
6:19 AM
7:26 AM
8:02 AM
9:30 AM
10:12 AM
11:16 AM
12:42 PM"


Is that true? And that doesn't even include their posts on my or Ann's blog?

Oh lord, that's creepy. (Ann, are we safe?)

I mean it, if I was Maria Kelly, I wouldn't be able to distance myself from those guys far or fast enough. I just can't see how that kind of over-the-top creepiness is good for her campaign.

I'm positive that... whatever they are... are costing Maria votes. I mean think about it, would YOU vote for the person that this supports?

12:35 AM
1:14 AM
2:22 AM
3:31 AM
4:55 AM
5:13 AM
6:19 AM
7:26 AM
8:02 AM
9:30 AM
10:12 AM
11:16 AM
12:42 PM

Gup, the law of diminishing returns, Holmes. The law of diminishing returns. (Of course, that would mean that you had something of value to offer in the first place, so, I guess, the law of diminishing returns wouldn't apply here.)

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

I love how Ron takes issues with my one week of working really odd hours and thus adding comments during really odd hours

...

but seems to not care a bit about whether the recall board ... which he supported ... lied during their campaigning.

Even worse, Ron seems to not care about whether the TW lawsuit has any factual basis. After all, if he's gonna complain about a $40k bill (spread across the whole county that's less than $0.16 per person), shouldn't he care about the misuse of some $2M of money that was essentially disappeared (when spread across the citizens of the LOCSD, that's about $130 each).

In terms of dollars per person, Ron cares deeply about something that is about one tenth of one percent as expensive as the TW lawsuit which he refuses to address.

Lastly, Ron you are bright enough to realize that one should not assume the the most extreme cases are not representative. For you to promote the sort of faulty logic promoted by OsosChange shows a lack of integrity ... but if you wanna play that game, why have you not yet apologized to Maria for mischaracterizing her position on dissolution of the LOCSD? It is not enough to say that you were just quoting someone else because after others pointed you to evidence to show that document was incorrect, you did not stop. Do you want us to presume that all your writing is as factual as when you incorrectly told us that Maria supported dissolution?

Considering you can't have it both ways, it seems that either you owe me or Maria an apology. A man of integrity would probably apologize to both of us.

Frank said...

here is something downright comical!!

'Two streets upwind' circa 2000 to 2001 ish

2002 nothing new
2003 nothing new
2004 nothing new
2005 nothing new
2006 nothing new
2007 nothing new
2008 nothing new

replies from Monowitz to meaningless leading questons circa 2005

2006 nothing new
2007 nothing new
2008 nothing new

kinda like reading a Tribune article over and over again

Sewertoons said...

ron isn't man enough to either apologize or admit he was ever wrong. He is however, King of Spin and Emperor of Denial!

Churadogs said...

Osos Change sez of Inlet:"Let's test your claim that you're not a blogger who posts 24/7. I'm going to read off the times you posted on SanLuisObispo.com:

12:35 AM
1:14 AM
2:22 AM
3:31 AM
4:55 AM
5:13 AM
6:19 AM
7:26 AM
8:02 AM
9:30 AM
10:12 AM
11:16 AM
12:42 PM

You posted in every hour of the day. Factor in time you've spent responding to everyone as if you're in a "rapid response team" for the County. There's your 24/7."

Holey Moley! I've told some of you guys to get a life. Yikes. This is absoolutely fascinating. Also fascinating, I've posted lots of controversial topics, national politics, state level controversies, county-wide silliness, heck I even toss in a few poems that should generate all kinds of interesting chat and what? Nothing. Sewer quibbling 24/7. Amazing. How do you spell: Addiction? OCD, perhaps? Sewer quibble 24/7 on blogs all over town, like plainsong, la la la, makes jake a dull boy.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

I take it you have the luxury of never needing to adjust your work and sleep schedule.

I also note that the only reason I follow your blog is the sewer and LOCSD related focus but this doesn't mean that I have no other interests.

Your comment is very uncharitable ... especially in light of my earlier comments on the issue.

Richard LeGros said...

Shartkinlet,

Shartkinlet,

Ann, Ron, Osos Change and others have yet again shown that they will stoop to any silly, inconsequential 'issue' (specializing in personal attacks) in their attempt to discredit those folks they disagree with (in this case a honorable, credible and sincere man.)

‘Poisoning the community well’ is Ann's and crews modus operandi.

-R

Realistic1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GetRealOsos said...

Ann,

My point is, and always was, that SharkInlet not only blogs 24/7, HE has NO sewer that he has to contend with or that would affect him!

Now, put that in perspective by contrasting the huge amount of time he spends posting one-side BS alongside his actual investment in the sewer! That's when you realize that Shark is a volume propagandist and gets paid by the letter!!!

Why would someone do that? Dr. Stiv has nothing else to do??? Hardly. He's doing it all for "County Biscuits"!

SharkInlet not only blogs continuosly but defends the recalled board, Tri-W and now Maria and Marshall. And, although Maria and Marshall have hidden it -- until now, exposed at the CSD meeting -- their true positions are Tri-W, Taxpayers Watch and "Blank Check" County.

SharkInlet critcizes people and scolds them as if this were HIS BLOG. It's his full-time job.

He harps on little things, distracts, diverts, changes the subject, never responds to the facts ... only to the fantasy in his cracked shut-in's head. He couldn't see the Big Picture if it fell on him, which it has.

How about with Lisa? Shark totally got it wrong. Lisa cleared up everything explaining she (and Karen) had xeroxed Public Records and nothing more.

Where's Shark's apology? You'll find it in the same place as his credibility -- in the toilet where it came from. SharkInlet should say "I'm Sorry, Lisa" and then get off the blogs, go back to his young family, quit the KKK, and get a life ...

P.S. Shark won't read and study the 218 to see that government agencies are NOT exempt from the 218 assessment. It just isn't a big deal to him that the state and federal government are supposed to (by law) help homeowners pay for the most expensive wastewater project (per capita) in US history. No, that's not a biggie for Shark, Maria, Richard, Pandora or Gordon ... just put in the worst project possible and pocket the blood money!!

Realistic1 said...

Ann,

Here's a thought.

Stop writing commentary on the sewer. Inform, don't opine.

Post notices of meetings, available reports, etc, relative to the topic, so your readers can locate the resources needed to inform themselves, and don't allow comments on these notices. Delete any comments made about the sewer subject if the players hijack the comment section of a piece about national politics, poetry or any of the other interesting stuff you write about.

You crack wise about addiction, obsession and OCD relative to the sewer wars. Here's a heads up:

Your posters are not the only ones with that problem....

Mike said...

getrealosos... Lisa is flat out LYING on a number of issues...!!!!

Where's Lisa's receipt for "copying" the thousands of pages she "supposedly" copied...??? BS...!!!!

Lisa did NOT copy (she had staff copy some and never re-embursed the District for that time or paper!!!)...rather than copy all, she simply hauled the rest of the thousands of pages to Gail's house...!!!

Lisa has been lying all the way through these past 3 years...!!!! Try to ask her any questions and she is so full of bitterness, vindictiveness and quilt, that she first blames everyone else, then cries, then has to leave because she has made herself sick....!!!!

Don't forget thet Lisa wha on the pre-recall Board, but she was so full of anger that she never was open minded... Gail had pumped Lisa so full of Gail's own vindictiveness aganst the Water Boards and Lisa was such a weak individual that she believed Gail... Lisa has never come to grips with the laws governing legal requirements and WWTF systems that she actually believed she could make her own laws and do what ever she damn well felt like doing...like taking tax dollars to pay her own personal lawyers... She knew the Tri-W facility was not flawed and was completely legal, but she didn't like the location... Lisa has no concept of compromise, she knows the Tri-W site and design would have worked and yet she had no alternative Plan... Instead she led a recall built on lies and deceit...!!!!

Personally, I want to see her incoherent answers when she has to answer to a court of law...real laws, not some figment of her phoney CSD monarchy...!!! She failed, YES, Lisa failed because she lied to this community, she's lied to her friends and she lied to herself...!!!!!

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

I'm a gonna ignore your personal attacks as they are entirely without merit. After all, you've not really demonstrated an awful lot of the things you've claimed, so it is easy to ignore the personal stuff.

As to your 24/7 claim, I'll put it out there one more time (you may have not have read my other replies on this exact topic). If you're gonna harp on one week of unusual behavior and pretend it is typical, you're doing exactly as Richard claims ... trying to get people to ignore the real issues by finding the most extreme data possible to demonstrate a point. Any 10 year old could see thru that argument ... if I listed the incomes of the 10 wealthiest sewer opponents and said "see, that proves that folks who oppose the sewer are elitists" it would be no different.

You also act as if your earlier claim that the sewer doesn't impact me as if it were true. I've already explained several times, if the costs go up, it is bad for me and so I am advocating for the lowest cost solution. Presumably you say this is STEP and you seem to feel strongly on this point and yet, you've presented no evidence to back up your feelings.

No matter ... the key reason for my reply is that you say that Lisa has cleared up the whole doc-u-gate matter. When was this? When did she tell us that she did not move documents from the LOCSD office? After all, even if was just for upright purposes, these documents are not to leave the LOCSD offices. Did Lisa tell the GM and staff in advance that she was going to be doing this? Did she get approval. Who can demonstrate that all the documents were returned.

When I see Lisa's explanation, I will apologize if appropriate. Where can I find it?

As to the 218 study you refer to and want me to read. Have you told us yet where we can read this study? Please let us know.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Blah, blah, blah -- same old song and dance from you...

Regarding Lisa, why don't you watch the last CSD meeting? I mean, pay attention.

Go ahead and read up on the 218. Read it all, Shark. You'd be pretty stupid if you can't find it. Then talk to some municipal law attorneys (but of course you don't want to educate yourself on the truth). Don't be so lazy. You've obviously got the time.

But those County biscuits... Hmmmm, good. No need to open your eyes.

Cal Poly biscuits... hummmm, good. No need to find out for yourself what you believe the County already knows.

I don't think I was being personal, just objective. Maybe you don't see how you come across to everyone here but the Cal Poly apple polishers who are no smarter than you. That seems to be much of the problem.

P.S. You never revealed your identity, you were outed, yet you want "ososchange" to reveal his or her identity because you say you "revealed" yours, which never happened. Yet another example of you deceptive behavior which renders you useless.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

So ... are you saying that at the last CSD meeting, Lisa admitted to breaking the law by removing documents from the LOCSD offices for the purpose of making copies?

Are you saying that Lisa denied removing documents in any way?

On the 218 thing ... yes, I understand that entities who will get a benefit will have to pay. Perhaps if you make clear what you mean when you refer to "218". There are at least two or three 218 issues which have been brought up here. Which do you mean? And ... why are you so reluctant to tell us the article you refer to? There is little chance that we'll read exactly the one thing you refer to unless you tell us what it is.

As for identities ... you partially outed me (and yet haven't apologized for the factual error on your part which led to that event) ... but you misunderstood my question to OsosChange. I asked whether he (or she) had offered to reveal his (or her) identity once mine had been revealed. He (or she) didn't answer. If he (or she) had answered in the affirmative, I would have put my name up here just to find out who he (or she) was.

Same deal goes for you, GetReal. If you are willing to tell us who you are, I will make my name known to any who would be interested.

Actually, it does beg a question ... how did OsosChange figure out who I was? Did, OsosChange figure out who I am? Did you tell him (or her)?


On the other issues, I'll remain silent because your comments are largely personal and not objective. If they were objective, you would be able to offer evidence to back up your point of view ... but you seem unable to do that on even the "easy" issues like Maria and Gordon living in the same town in Oregon and Monarch not having to pay as much as Vista de Oro because Monarch won't be charged interest.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

I don't know a thing about what OsosChange knows or doesn't know about you.

Why don't you put your real name up here for Lisa?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

As you know, I would prefer to be anonymous because anonymity allows for a person's words to stand (or fail as in your case) on their own merit. As you also know, your misunderstanding about whether Monarch was in the PZ caused you to partially out me. I am not the one who has made my name known here ... but your actions are what has caused my identity to be known. Don't act all innocent ... had you been solid on your facts, you would have known I lived in the PZ.

Moving forward ... why would Lisa care about who I am? The truth is the truth and false statements are false statements. If she did take documents out of the LOCSD office or not, my identity makes no difference. The only way which I erred was attributing to her deposition the statement that she removed documents. If I had mentioned that she said these thing at a LOCSD meeting, would the importance of my identity be changed? Clearly my identity is not the issue but her actions are.

That being said, I note with interest that you've not yet addressed the issue of how Lisa explained away all of the doc-u-gate actions. Simply speaking, even if she was removing the documents to make copies ... if it was without advance notification and permission (and possibly not even then) it was an inappropriate action. Karen would probably want to explain how and why she participated just to make clear to voters whether she supports Lisa's agenda.

That being said ... why don't you put your real name up here? If it is important ... in any way ... for me to make my identity known ... the same arguments could be made for you revealing your own identity. So, who are you?

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Who am I? I am Batman, and I'm fighting to keep "The Penguin" out of our Gotham. We've had enough corruption and it's got to end here.

You are part and parcel of that corruption.

Oh, I can save you the trouble of revealing your name. I'll do it for ya, Doc! And then you can find out why Lisa wants your name. Something about slander, lies, and defamation that you've made here that you need to be held accountable for. Lisa exposed you as a liar, and now everybody knows.

Karen and the public documents is a non-issue and she has nothing to explain herself for, not to you or anyone else. If you had watched what happened when Sewertoons brought it up at the last meeting you would understand that only an idiot would bring it up again! You are not paying attention!

Of course we know that you brought up Karen as a diversion to cover up Maria's Tri-W/Broderson agenda, her cloning with Gordon, Richard and Pandora and their shady ties to Montgomery Watson Harza (talk about files being removed with the phony break-in!) WOW!

When the public is better informed over the next month as to Maria's agenda they will let her know how they feel about her candidacy.

Again, you have proven yourself to be a weak advocate for your cause and have only done Maria and Marshall harm by helping to out their Tri-W agendas.

P.S. Lying on one's resume is usually grounds for disqualification. See you at the debate.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

I do think that at this last meeting it became clear that the folks criticizing Maria during public comment are exactly the same folks who supported the recall and the (braindead) actions of the post-recall board.

Even though Lisa tells us that she and Julie are not running, when I see the exact same folks supporting Karen as who supported Lisa and the mess, I have to wonder.

This is much like Biden asking Palin for the way a McCain administration would be different from another Bush term. I would hope that Karen could make clear the way that she would be different from Chuck and Lisa.

Presumably that is also the reason that some people are so critical of Maria. They are afraid that she would be similar to Gordon.

How about this ... what if we all vote for Marshall and Dave just to avoid the whole Kelley/Venditti issue.

And about doc-u-gate one more time. Lisa has told us a story about how some 13 copies of one file were required by the RWQCB. How many pages are in this file? Unless the file is over 2000-3000 pages, it shouldn't take "boxes" and three people to move it. Sure, Lisa can finger Faith Watkins as untrustworthy ... but I am still concerned that we have yet to hear Karen address this issue at all. Does she stand behind Lisa's story that it was only copies and only 13 at that which were removed ... or does she agree with Lisa's earlier tale that Lisa ordered Gail to take the LOCSD documents home for safe keeping.

Lastly ... unless Lisa is going to give a sworn declaration (as did Faith) that she didn't remove any original documents from the LOCSD offices, I would have to say that the one person willing to offer a sworn statement would get my trust. Simply put ... will Lisa deny this action in any place where there is a penalty of perjury for fibbing? An impassioned display at a CSD meeting hardly counts as any sort of evidence.

Moving forward to more profitable issues, you seem to feel quite comfortable branding Maria as a TriW supporter, but her LOCSD comment made it clear that she doesn't but was instead supporting a side-by-side analysis. If you're a gonna tell us that Lisa's statement puts to rest doc-u-gate, why aren't you willing to extend to Maria the same grace you want extended to Lisa?

Logical consistency, my friend ... try it!

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

One has nothing to do with the other.

Maria has left a long trail of pro Tri-W comments that she can't disown simply because you want to wave of wand of what you call grace.

Maria and Gordon are the same person. Maria has shown no independent thinking or offers any kind of a plan for coming out of bankruptcy. So, not only is she a clone of Gordon and Richard and Pandora but she's unfit and unqualified. What more is there to say?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

It seems that we have yet another claim to add to our list.

If this tail of pro TriW comments is so long, I am sure that you can hunt them down and offer them up here (with a bit of context) for us to see if you are, indeed, correct ... or ... not.

Sewertoons said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sewertoons said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sewertoons said...

When Lisa was first confronted on the box removal, maybe 19 or 20 months ago, she did not defend it with, "They are only copies." She said "…the boxes were removed on my orders." She came up with that "copies" line Thursday night. Why was she moving out boxes when the office was locked instead of when staff was around? Her problem was and is - in getting caught.

getreal, your lack of fairness and logic makes your support of Karen a REAL detriment to her campaign. You might want to back away if you really want to help her get elected. (Although her association with Gail AND Lisa will probably tank her anyway.)

Churadogs said...

Realistic 1 sez:" Here's a thought.

Stop writing commentary on the sewer. Inform, don't opine."

A hint, UNRealistic. I write an OPINION column, this blog site, called Calhoun's Can(n)on is an OPINION blogsite. If YOU want an fact-only referal-link blog I suggest you start one yourself.

Inlet cries:"Your comment is very uncharitable ... especially in light of my earlier comments on the issue"

Let me repeat, again, Inlet, my POINT: "Also fascinating, I've posted lots of controversial topics, national politics, state level controversies, county-wide silliness, heck I even toss in a few poems that should generate all kinds of interesting chat and what? Nothing. Sewer quibbling 24/7. Amazing. How do you spell: Addiction? OCD, perhaps? Sewer quibble 24/7 on blogs all over town, like plainsong, la la la, makes jake a dull boy."

There are a handful of folks who are bosessed with neener-neenering. It's amazing. If you counted up posting time and words, I'd bet some of you guys spend more time on this blog than I do, and it's my blog. La La La La. Amazing.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

You are right about one thing ... you spend far less time commenting that do some others.

I don't believe it is fair to characterize those who participate more actively as bosessed with neener-neenering ... at least not all of us.

Myself, I participate largely because every so often you or Ron and of late and quite a bit, GetReal or OsosChange adds a comment which seems just plain wrong or seems worth exploring a bit more. Case in point ... GetReal recently added a discussion of events in Oregon and without carefully discussing the matter, it would be easy for readers here to think that there was some merit to the charge (phrased not unlike a push poll question).

If you view confronting a personal attack or a challenging a factually incorrect statement as neener neenering, I have the feeling that you need to become a bit more bossessed yourself.

Baby Bear said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Realistic1 said...

"I write an OPINION column, this blog site, called Calhoun's Can(n)on is an OPINION blogsite."

Ann,

I am aware you write an opinion column, but you were commenting on your posters obsession with all things sewer and asking why they don't comment on the other good stuff you write about.

I was simply offering a way for there to be a temporary moratorium on the endless sewer rhetoric that gets posted here by a small group of your readers.

Apparently your question was rhetorical....my bad for answering.

Osos Change said...

Since Shark is fond of statistics, I'm going to play with some numbers here.

The average (median) amount of time Sharkinlet spent replying to county-related issues is 42 minutes whereas it takes an average of 1 hour and 12 minutes to respond to people on personal issues. These statistics were sampled from the past week (7 days) on Calhoun's Cannon between the times 6:30 AM-12:35 AM.

There are two conclusions that one could make from this. Either he simply has too much time on his hands or he has a definite agenda.

54% of his posts were conducted during his Fall 2008 office hours at Cal Poly and has often failed to uphold the faculty code of ethics, broadcasting defamatory, libelous statements from campus; essentially demonstrating the lacking of scholarly competence.

Cal Poly's inaction on the issue could very well mean that they condone his behavior on campus, allowing Mr. Inlet to spread venom about Los Osos, which I personally find to be unacceptable and childish.

Cal Poly and Los Osos deserves to know how much of a tyrant you really are.

Mike said...

Instead of wasteing your talents on tracking blog behavior, why haven't you been tracking the post-recall CSD expenditures vs. income...??? and just what the expenditures were for....??? Bet you could tell us just how much the CSD paid the PZLDF and/or it's lawyers and/or Gail McP...

..and one item that has always been a bit troublesome, how much is Lisa's cell phone bill...??? How many minutes and dollars have been reimbursed by the CSD...??? Bet you have those figures on the tip of your keyboard finger... Did they ever consider another plan(cell phone this time)...????

You might even tell us about the amount of time spent on CSD business while also paid by CalTrans to our CalTrans team... but don't "tax" your mind too much on that one...

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

OsosChange,

It appears that you are unfamiliar with a variety of the terms you use. You also demonstrate that you aren't too good at statistics.

Let's tackle these issues in the order they come up in your comment.

I didn't bother checking your work on the time-to-reply analysis because that seemed just a bit too much work. Even so, assuming the time to reply was different as you say, it could have been just luck in the sampling process. Pearhaps if you had you sampled a different week, the results may have been different. Even if there was a trend as you suggest, it might the case that I check for comments between other activities and I take more time to deliberate over responses to personal issues. Statistics grade: C. [Technically, if this were a quiz for a stat-for-business majors or stat-for-engineers class, the grade would be no higher than a D, but you might have taken stat-for-journalism majors and so should be given some credit for at least calculating medians.]

On the issue of my "Fall 2008 office hours", perhaps you don't understand what "office hours" means in a university setting or perhaps you didn't really look at all the comments in the last week or perhaps you are just lying. We can't really be sure. However, I looked over my comments here during that timeframe and I got a grand total of 2 (about 5%) comments during my office hours and the only reason I even made those comments is because no students were there.

You seem to not understand terms like defamation and libel. It would be interesting if you were to offer us a definition for each of these terms and an example of a circumstance where you think I have done each. Again, if you are unable or unwilling to do this, most will conclude that you don't have any evidence.

Perhaps you haven't read the document you refer to thoroughly because it isn't even all that relevant to your point. There is another one you ought to read if you are concerned about my behavior, but you don't seem to have done this yet even though it is mentioned in the one you cite.

By the way, defamation and libel and the faculty code of ethics have little to do with scholarly competence.

Cal Poly's inaction could be because no one has complained, because someone (you?) has complained and the complaint was found to be without merit.

Oh yeah ... you seem to be unaware of the definitions of venom and tyrant because you don't seem to use these terms correctly. The venomous comments here have been mostly from GetReal and sometimes others like you and Mike and Franc. A tyrant is one who tries to control others, often via bullying. Please explain how your comment here could be interpreted as anything but an attempt to bully me into being quiet because you don't like what I write.

Sewertoons said...

osos change, your extreme interest in Shark is downright creepy. Rather than illustrating what you think is wrong with Shark, your posting illustrates what is wrong with you.

Mike said...

Yes Shark, I am venomous...maybe even worse... but I'm so damn tired of the Lisa/getrealosos/Joey/Kieth/Gail crap that has been so full of lies... Those who think they can just dump on the wonderful work of a great many folks and can lie and make up rumors, better think about an under current of folks like me who are more than willing to take them on... We really are tired of the sewer war, we are tired of the petty children trying to dominate and shout down our voices with threats and enuendo...

Don't ever tell me that Stan, Richard and Gordon ever deserved the shit dumped on them by a vocal minority who could only bankrupt the community...!!!! They wanted to be elected and then they destroyed the CSD, but not the community... We're tired of those nasty people who marched before the old board night after night with Gails que cards.... Things are changing, if you want to speak with civility and talk about issues fine, but when the only thing out of your mouths is lies about personalities, than don't be shocked when we fight back...and very loudly...!!!

The sewer war is over, this CSD lost, the County won... So why hasn't this CSD attempted to resolve the bankruptcy...???

Apparently they felt it was easier to turn the CSD into a political stump instead of a financial management team... Lisa, I am so glad you will not be back, you have totally failed this community as a manager. Now we need some honest management and less grandstanding...!!!!

Osos Change said...

It's not that I want you to stop posting. I love what you write because it's spin and it doesn't seem to stop. I'm just educating the people on who Shark Inlet really is.

It's interesting because you engage psychological warfare on Los Osos from the confines of your office at Cal Poly. I find that to be shameful. It speaks volumes about your character and judgment.

Don't tell me how to explain something. Go find yourself a dictionary and take some pills to slow down your Alzheimers because you need to educate yourself. Proof will never be served to you on a silver platter. You will get nothing from me but the truth.

I have no other goal than to educate. Because you've said so many defamatory things, the community of Los Osos deserves to know information about the tyrant who spins.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Yet again, when OsosChange throws some mud and is called on it, he or she refuses to address factual errors in his or her earlier comments ... and yet he or she claims to offer up only the truth.

He or she also made some charges about defamation ... yet cannot provide an example.

Let me help you out a bit. One definition reads In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. Here is an example. Suppose that someone were to write about me "54% of his posts were conducted during his Fall 2008 office hours". That statement is false. Suppose that this same statement was in the context of criticizing my behavior ... pretty clearly the goal of the false statement would be to give a negative image of me. That, OsosChange, is defamation.

Sort of ironic that in your comment accusing me of defamation you actually ended up defaming me. I got a chuckle over that one.


Let's get to the real issue here. I haven't defamed anyone. Had I done so you could dredge up an example. It seems that you simply disagree with me and for some reason, rather than actually discussing the issues, you are offering up to the readers here some irrelevant side issues designed to get people to somehow view me with suspicion. That's a lowlife thing to do.

If I am wrong in my assessment of your motives and actions, demonstrate it by backing up your claims. Trot out an example of defamation. Again, if you cannot do this or choose not to do this (and really, is there any difference?), we'll all know who is right.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

All of your complaining!

Regarding Maria and Gordon: First of all, I dropped the subject when Ann asked me to.

Okay they were not from the same town. But they were the distance from here to Paso -- not here to Monterey like you say.

You don't know they didn't know each other, afterall, around here friends take care of their friends big time - talkin' about the Dreamers.

It is odd that Maria hasn't said whether she knew Gordon in Oregon or not. She's had the opportunity to dispel this (maybe his church group traveled to her town and school, etc.)

Also odd that Gordon got her the legal job very soon after her arrival to Los Osos (especially when she had no prior real work experience at all).

Now she's attached to Gordon and Richard and refuses to be educated by anyone else but them. She travels their path 100%.

Then, of course, there's the whole Cal Poly "thing" - Maria's husband, Lynette's husband, you, etc.

...it all gets stranger every single day...

GetRealOsos said...

Realistic,

You write:
"Ann, I was simply offering a way for there to be a temporary moratorium on the endless sewer rhetoric that gets posted here..."

CAN YOU SPELL CENSORSHIP???

OR DOES REALISTIC WANT THIS "TEMPORARY MORATORIUM" TO LAST UNTIL THE ELECTION IS OVER???

WOW REALISTIC!

Mike said...

getrealosos... You are still lying by inferring something you know to false, but you still engage in enuendo by not addressing the truth... You continue that outrageous untrue rumor, created solely by an individual within Los Osos, and never in Oregon, about Mr Hensley... What you keep repeating never happened, it was strictly a smear made up as part of the recall campaign...it could even have been created about you... Ann has even told you it was a vicious lie and yet you continue to spread that rumor while knowing it is not even close to being true... That is why I find you to be one of the most vile people in the Los Osos area... You owe Mr.Hensley and this community a very serious apology...

Maria M. Kelly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maria M. Kelly said...

GRLO:
I got the legal job on my own when it was sent to students in the paralegal program I was in.

I have logged hundreds and hundreds of office hours and was more than qualified for that job. You have made a very lofty assumption about my prior work experiences.

Newport, Oregon is an hour + drive through the coast range down either hwy 34 or 20 on a 2 lane highway for the bulk of the drive. Not like the drive to Paso at all.

I met Gordon Hensley in December of 2005.

The end does not justify the means. The only result of your work efforts is to create innuendo and prop up the myth base. Your work efforts to challenge my ethics or my background is nothing more than "swift-boating" and distracts from the issues challenging this community.

The people that I socialize with and the other friends that I have - recall supporters and otherwise- are people I keep close to my chest because I am genuinely concerned about the next round of "hits" when people start prying into their lives. The people that I like to have coffee and dinner with and hang out in the backyard roasting marshmallows are people that I protect from the prying eyes of scrutiny and future fodder. This is the behavior that bothers me the most. The personal attacks and discrediting and stripping of who we are. This is a community and the issue of the sewer has made it hostile. In other communities, its something else.

I support the county process on this item alone because we need a chance to be a community and deal with tangible community issues. I like the event in December benefiting the homeless shelter, I like the work projects, I like Oktoberfest and so on. But the cloud that gets forced onto us as the Scarlett letter of the day gets posted undermines our abilities to be a stronger community. We could completely ignore GRLO but the reality is even they are a part of this community but it is fair to point out the impacts that our negativity and positiveness brings to our community culture.

GRLO:
If you are running out of things to track down about me here are more:
1. Graduated from NKHS in Poulsbo, WA
2. Spent 2 years in Ellensburg, WA at CWU
3. Worked at a summer camp in Gold Bar, WA for 5 years
4. Lived in Seattle from 1987-1989-Greenwood area
5. Moved to Corvallis in 1989
6. Graduated OSU-1991
7. Moved to Portland in 1991
8. Moved back to Corvallis in 1993
9. Moved to California in 2001

List of jobs:
Office, camp counselor, unit leader, arts and craft director, receptionist for care facility, CNA, skills trainer-MRDD, child care worker, restaurant- bread baker, line cook, office manager,
legal assistant, motherhood.

I was never fired from a job and most of them are hires and re-hires when I had finished something else. My employers were always disappointed to see me go and always said I could have a job if I chose to come back. I'm proud of that. So you see GRLO, I'm confident in who I am and what I have to offer and you can bully and insinuate all you want but my friends and my family and community members who can see these qualities in me will always be there for me. You can keep chipping away at me but I will continue to stand for those that don't speak. I will continue to stand for the sweet older women that I admire so much show up to whisper to me at the Farmer's Market or at the store that they are proud of me and appreciate what I am doing. You are one of many who have chipped away for the past 2 years and I have to tell you, I'm no closer to crumbling.