Pages

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Mr. Murphy, Meet Sheriff Hedges. Mr. Hedges, Mr. Murphy.

Spoke with a CDO recipient yesterday (One of The Los Osos 45. Yes, they’re still out there hanging in the wind, ignored by the rest of the community.) and was told they got a huge red/white/blue large document USPS envelope filled with a huge pile of official-looking papers from AES, Ind. (Tom Murphy,) titled Los Osos Sewer System Exemption Program, followed by pages of legal looking argle-bargle, including a page headed DEMAND FOR PAYMENT, and “YOU MUST COMPLETE THE PAPERWORK HERIN PROVIDED TO YOU WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEPIT OF THIS PACKET PER INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED OR BE SUJECT TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. A LIST OF ASSOCIATES TO ASSIST YOU IN COMPLETING YOUR PAPEROWRK IS PROVIDED. And so forth.

To an old, sick, confused, stressed, busy person, this thing could easily be mistaken for something actually official, thereby throwing people into a panic or – worse – causing them to actually fill it out and send Mr. Murphy some money.

When I got home, there was an email with the link to ksby warning of FRAUD. (http://www.ksby.com/Blogal/story.asp?S=9109428 ) “Fraud allegations against Los Osos Company that markets sewer treatment.”
The CDO recipients I spoke yesterday with had NOT been notified by the RWQCB of this scam, even though it was clear their personal info, (parcel #) had been obtained via FOI request to the Board, and equally clearly, the RWQCB had their email address – yet didn’t send them a press release or notice of any kind. Clearly, these poor folks, above all else, should have been contacted IMMEDIATELY by the RWQCB – a simple press release to the media just doesn’t cut it on this deal.

So,, Los Osos, be warned.

Thanks Taxpayers Watch, For Wasting More Tax Payers Money
Yesterday the Medean lawsuit brought against the CSD directors personally, not as a Board, saw the taxpayers dinged for even more lawyers fees when everyone trooped into Judge LaBarbera’s court for a possible summary judgment, which was postponed (Ching$$Ching$$) until next week, with a preliminary ruling posted on line sometime next week, maybe, and other motions to be heard Wed, Oct 8, a 9 a.m. in the SLO Vets Hall courtroom.

So, the question I asked a few postings ago, still pertains: Just what benefit does this lawsuit bring to the taxpayers, except the bills? I mean, Taxpayers Watch, whoever that is besides Gordon Hensley, claims they’re looking out for the Taxpayer. So, please ‘splain, just what and how does the Taxpayer benefit from this lawsuit, no matter which way it breaks? So far, nobody has ‘splained that.

47 comments:

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

Ann,

Here's your answer Ann;

The BENEFIT to the taxpayer /community will be the return to the LOCSD +/-$2,000,000 misappropriated (read robbed) by Tacker, Schicker, Cesena, Senet and Fouche. I assume you want your tax dollars returned, Ann. So do I.
So do thousands of other folks.

Think of it this way. By law, the CSD5 are obligated by their oath of office to SPECIFICALLY SPEND your property taxes collected to pay the Fire Fee and the Bond Assessment ONLY TO PAY THOSE DEBTS.....PERIOD! No grey area in the law here.

Instead, the CSD5 used your property taxes to pay attorneys, etc....leaving the CSD no choice but to drain its' reserves to pay the Fire Fee and Bond Payment; and obligate you to pay back those reserves (in essence, you are unnecessarily paying TWICE)

As for the argument that the CSD5were 'forced' to violate their oath of office and the law because 'Medean people' sued and hounded the CSD, that argument is only an EXCUSE for their illegal behavior. That argument is not a LEGAL DEFENSE that will exonerate the CSD5 from their obligation / oath to obey the law. It does not matter what you believe others or past boards did...what matters to the Courts is what THE CSD5 DID IN THE SITUATION THEY FACED.
The CSD5 had a CHOICE...pay the mandated debts as obligated by law....or violate the law by spending the property taxes on other debts. THEY CHOSE TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

So there is your answer.

-R

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"I mean, Taxpayers Watch, whoever that is besides Gordon Hensley..."

Speaking of which:

My Follow-Up to My Open Letter to Tribune Executive Editor, Sandra Duerr

Hot off the press at SewerWatch.

and;

"... claims they’re looking out for the Taxpayer. So, please ‘splain, just what and how does the Taxpayer benefit from this lawsuit, no matter which way it breaks? So far, nobody has ‘splained that."

The reason nobody's 'splained that, is because an answer to that question does not exist.

Richie wrote:

"the LOCSD +/-$2,000,000 misappropriated"

According to you.

Hey, Richard, where's Maria Singleton? After all, you shelled out nearly $600,000 of CSD dollars to her, and Pandor... errrrrrr... her "other assistants" for "a few spiffy newsletters."

Now go and read my letter to Duerr.

Mike said...

Brilliant Ron... Still living life in the distant past...!!!

If you think the past CSD's spend tax dollars illegally some years past (just when was that Ron...???), then there should have been a lawsuit or at least an up-roar years past... but of course, there was nothing illegal... but you being the voice of years gone by can only see thru your myopic view of the world... Why didn't you push for a State Audit or a Lawsuit or anything beyond sleeping thru all the wonderful work put together by a lot of very honest and dedicated pre-recall folks... sort of pre-Gail you might call that period of time...

Well Ron, it's getting on toward Fall, you must need a new blanket to keep you warm on your rocking chair as the world passes you by...

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

The correct URL for the Wrecklamator story id:

http://www.ksby.com/Global/story.asp?s=9109428

Mike Green said...

The only way Murphy will get in Hedges sight will be if he claims that the Reclamator effluent will grow the best pot.
The incompetent chasing the incorrigible.

*PG-13 said...

Really? Cool. And it makes my sewer bill cheaper too? I'm signing up today! Dang, it really is cheaper, faster, better. They were right all along!

Seems reasonable at twice the cost. And waaaay better than those soooo lame sewer-top wine bars.

I'm gonna name my first crop Tri-Wowie.

Don't 'cha just love living in California?

Thanks for your travel notes. I'm enjoying your trip vicariously. Can't wait to do it myself.

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"As for the argument that the CSD5were 'forced' to violate their oath of office and the law because 'Medean people' sued and hounded the CSD, that argument is only an EXCUSE for their illegal behavior. That argument is not a LEGAL DEFENSE that will exonerate the CSD5 from their obligation / oath to obey the law. It does not matter what you believe others or past boards did...what matters to the Courts is what THE CSD5 DID IN THE SITUATION THEY FACED."

Well, then it will be interesting to hear what Judge LaBarbera and "the law" say about due dilligence, due care, prudent choices, etc. as opposed to reckless action. (Like starting construction shortly before a recall election could be considered as negligently reckless, for example. And that involved millions of dollars as well.) So, we'll see what both "facts" are, and the complexity of the law is, and mitigating circumstances are & etc.

Still want to know Who/What TPW is/are? Is TPW Gordon Hensley? Or is TPW everyone who signed the disolution petitions? Who? Seems weird to have something called an organization, association, whatever TPW is calling themselves, when it's actually only one person pretending to be a group?

Mike said...

If I'm not mistaken, isn't the lawsuit against 5 individuals and not against the past LOCSD directors...???

Isn't this against illegal use of taxpayer funds and not about the past where "due dilligence, due care, prudent choices" would be clearly shown as actually having had a Plan which was developed, approved, legally permitted and construction begun...????

Isn't this about the lack of due diligence, lack of care for the community and unrealistic choices made by Lisa, Julie, Chuck, John and Steve....???

In short, isn't this about a small group of vocal activists, who when given their way, chose to ignore all laws and flew off in their own directions with no plan other than create the most confusion and costly sewer possible....???

I see no lawsuit against the past planners and elected Directors... I see no lawsuit against the legally approved WWTF... I see only a point of law being pressed to see if 5 individuals illegally spent taxpayer monies...

Your comments about TW are very childish... Has TW been making their payments to LAFFco...??? You know better than to call out Mr Hensley as being TW... Just more of your bias against any sewer progress in LO... Tell us about the lawsuit you signed onto... Tell us how much of the 75% that PZLDF was supposed to have paid your lawyers...??? You and I know that the LOCSD has been paying the entire 100% of the bill... and you lost...!!!! Well, I guess we taxpayers lost again to the illegal payouts of this CSD...!!!! What indignation Ann...??? The show us the accounting to show that the CSD only paid no more than 25% of an uncontrolled payout.....!!!!!!

Maybe Ron ought to get out of his rocking chair and do a modern era piece on where the money goes form this out of control CSD.....!!!!!

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

The TW lawsuit, and Judge LaBarbara's ruling thereto, is/will be based solely on the actions/policy decisions of the CSD5 as they responded the circumstances they found themselves in 2005-2006. Period.

How the CSD5 got into those circumstances is not relevant.

For the CSD5 to use said circumstances as a reason that 'forced' them to violate their oath of office and the law is only an 'excuse' and not a viable or winning defense.

The actions of past CSD boards or citizen groups are not on trial here; no matter how hard the CSD5 try to make it so.

The core question is this:

"CSD5, you had the property owner's property taxes in hand; so UPON WHAT LAW / LEGAL BASIS DID YOU JUSTIFY YOUR DECISION TO NOT SPEND THE PROPERTY TAXES ON THE CONTRACTURAL OBLIGATIONS THEY WERE COLLECTED FOR?"

Ann, if you can state a law that permits the CSD5 to violate the law, let's see it. I am sure the CSD5 would love to see that law too.

-R

Mike said...

The core question is this:

"CSD5, you had the property owner's property taxes in hand; so UPON WHAT LAW / LEGAL BASIS DID YOU JUSTIFY YOUR DECISION TO NOT SPEND THE PROPERTY TAXES ON THE CONTRACTURAL OBLIGATIONS THEY WERE COLLECTED FOR?"

The pertinent answers:

Chuck: Mr Judge, you are unduly persecuting us and I call for you to be cencured along with Al Barrow...!!!

Lisa: We don't have to listen to this crap, it's all the SWQCB, SLO County, USEPA, Cal Poly, Bakersfield and the past Directors and their illegally funded Plan that's at fault, they started the construction too early, so the contractors are at fault too...!!! And I want to change some wording in that stupid lawsuit, it's as fatally flawed as the last 2 dumb auditors we fired... and all this is really Gordons fault for not putting any expenses on the credit card, we searched every document over at Gail's house and never found a reciept...and besides, I'm not feeling well, I need to go home early...

Julie: There will be a sewer in Los Osos only over my dead body...I can derail this kangeroo court anytime I want... and, oh, are you married judge..oh well, that doesn't matter, are you free for lunch...???

John: Duh.....
Steve: Ditto what he said....


...and Ron reported on the Civil War....

Realistic1 said...

LOL, Mike.

Priceless!

*PG-13 said...

Funny. And delightfully insightful. I dare not tell you my most favorite part.

Sadly, what's probably gonna happen is yet another delay, postponement, or need for further discovery. Wanna bet? What about 'Only Lawyers Win' is not clear? AND lawyers on BOTH sides win. The game is perfectly rigged. There is little incentive that I can see for any quick, direct or sensible resolution. Unless the judge is scheduling his/her retirement party or has a sabbatical planned and needs to be clear of the courtroom so s/he can get out of town these things can and do carry on forever. Even longer than it has already.

Richard LeGros said...

pg-13

Ahhhh...such a pesimist (but with a sense of humor).

I agree that the CSD5 will try to delay the trial. TW is ready to go; and has been for months. As for the defendants, TW is still waiting to see their defense.

You may not be aware, but TW and the defendants are involved in court-ordered settlement proceedings. I cannot tell you what has transpired to date, but resolution is possible.

-R

Sewertoons said...

I continue to be amazed at those, like Ann, who are hostile to finding out the truth as to where the money went. They are fine with raising the cost of the sewer by their delay, saying that we don't need one, but to stand in the way of the TRUTH by saying THAT is too costly, is just too much. I guess if you are raising the cost of something yourself, it is OK.

It is indeed too bad that there is no oversight for what CSD's can wreak on a community - that should be addressed by legislation at the state level, or by LAFCo only granting the designation only to cemetery districts, or by making residents (and carpetbaggers) take sanity tests prior to there being granted a CSD.

If found guilty, the Directors will have the chance to make good on their impassioned words that they don't want the community to pay, by paying for the resulting costs themselves.

The Directors have had the chance all along to bargain in arbitration. It is always made out to be up to TW to stand down, and to not do so makes TW the Bag Guy. But what about the Directors taking responsibility themselves to make it go away? They have to realize that a lot of us are willing to takes steps in the direction of forgiveness if they will just admit that they DID SOMETHING WRONG. Do you really want to have that wrong-doing shoved in your face by a judge?

To quote what Richard LeGros said in an earlier posting of Ann's:

"Yes, a complete, transparent and honest account of the actions and the financial decisions made by the CSD5, with emphasis on the actions of Wildan and BW&S, that acknowledge the causes of action in the TW lawsuit would go a long long long long long way to making the TW lawsuit go away."
Lisa, I know you read these blogs, you said so on TV. Try stepping up to the plate. You and the other 4 can help the community yourselves, now.

Richard LeGros said...

Sewertoons,

Thanks for reposting my prior post. Maybe someone will take the hint.

-R

M said...

I wonder if there is any other group of recalled, or removed representatives in this country, that have gone on as much of a vindictive journey as what we have here. A figure Richard posted of what the CSD5 had cost those in the PZ from their acts of indescretion was less than two months worth of the sewer bill for the sewer they had brought us. I'm cool with that.
You all keep claiming the County has control of the sewer now, so the CSD should be more geared towards the bankruptcy and other issues. The trouble is though, everything I read or hear seems to go back to the old regime and Tri-W. That may be paranoid thinking, but there you are. People that had signs up against the recall, now have signs up for Maria and Marshal whatever his name is. I received a flyer from them. Why do I have to take them as a team?
I could almost guarantee that if the County took Tri-W off the plate in bold headlines, the community as a whole would embrace that and move forward.
Sincerely, M

Paul Revere said...

LOOK OUT!!! LOOK OUT!!! THE FORMER CSD IS COMING!!! THE FORMER CSD IS COMING!!! Maria said Tri-W was allright with her and you got to take Marshall Ochylski with her on the ballot. Add Joe Sparks and you have Tri-W again!!!

Maria M. Kelly said...

No you don't. The county is evaluating out of town. There is a 218 that will support the project and there is a community survey that will help determine location.

The advantage of Marshall and myself - we support the process to make that decision. No one group or even the CSD should determine location. This CSD is out of the wastewater business.

You can spread the misinformation that I only support the mid town site but you will be incorrect. I have stated I'm not afraid of the mid-town site and I'm not afraid of out of town.

I believe the community has a right to see the side by side comparison after all of the misinformation that is on the streets. It is one of the steps that can be taken to support the community in resolving the issues.

I suppose if you can't win on the issues you have to make up some lies - The end does not justify the means.

GetRealOsos said...

Maria,

Support the County "process," you say?!!

First put on your Ray Charles glasses...

How do you think the County profiting from the project is fair? The more they spend, the more they make? How can you justify and not question this?

How about the County refusing to have the State and Federal Government help out financially to pay when they are required under the law? How can you justify and not question this?

How can you support sole sourcing?

How can you support the trumped up numbers you and TAC did on the STEP system. It's a lie. NWRI doesn't like Tri-W, so why don't you "can" the site? "Not afraid of Tri-W" is your ambiguous endorsement of Tri-W to confuse the community. As in your mailer. Otherwise you would simply state your positions and stand by them. But with you, as you accuse others, the end does justify the means.

Your hypocrisy is now transparent to all. You would have been better off bragging, "I'm for Tri-W, Taxpayers Watch and a 'blank check' for the County!!" than faking it.

You think and act like Gordon, Richard and Paavo know more than the experts -- more than NWRI or any independent expert who has ever looked at Tri-W. Yet you mindlessly support a "floating" plant at Tri-W!!!

How can you support the County and Paavo when he says the Tri-W site acts as a "sponge"? That tells US how Paavo, the bean counter, lapsed CPA -- not an engineer -- is as biased as you are AND Tri-W is where you both are headed. That's why you MUST be defeated.

Nope, Maria! You support some very bad behavior and wrong, ignorant ideas. You are dishonest and insincere. You DO support Tri-W just like Gordon and Richard. Plain and simple. You can cry all you want, but most people see through you. It's really not that hard.

County biscuits for you, too, Maria? Just like Shark? Get in line for the Gravy Train. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions betray you loudly.

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

M,

Suppose that someone spends $130 of your money without proper permission. Why is asking for the money back "vindictive"?

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

GetReal,

Why do you say that everyone who disagrees with you is biased? Don't you think that a reasonable person could, in good faith, agree with the TAC or think that the recall was a stupid decision because it cost us money?

Can you name someone you disagree with on the whole sewer issue that you think is reasonable on the topic even if you don't like their position?

PG here strikes me as someone who is really thoughtful and who has good insights even if I disagree with him from time to time. Ann, while I disagree with her on Los Osos issues, is very reasonable most all of the time.

If you can't give us the name of someone who is pro TriW or pro TAC or pro Maria who you think of as reasonable, we will have to wonder about whether you are anything other than an extremist who has little healing to offer our community.

Frankly your criticisms of Maria seem far more extreme than anything that would appear justified by her record. It makes one wonder.

Let us know ...


By the way, does Karen say that the only thing that was done with the documents removed from the LOCSD offices (after hours, without knowledge of the staff) was photocopying? Has Karen verified that all the documents she removed have been returned? Karen should really take this opportunity to speak to the issue of her integrity. After all, even if she says that she did it because Lisa told her (and even if she had no moral qualms about removing documents after hours), she might want to brag on the issue so that those who still support the CCLO/recall agenda would vote for her. Why hasn't she come out and bragged that she participated?

Paul Revere said...

PG here strikes me as someone who is really thoughtful and who has good insights even if I disagree with him from time to time. Ann, while I disagree with her on Los Osos issues, is very reasonable most all of the time.

If you can't give us the name of someone who is pro TriW or pro TAC or pro Maria who you think of as reasonable, we will have to wonder about whether you are anything other than an extremist who has little healing to offer our community.

Frankly your criticisms of Maria seem far more extreme than anything that would appear justified by her record. It makes one wonder.

Let us know ...
from sharkinlet. Who exactly are you talking about?

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

Shark, do you realize how crazy you sound? You must really be off your rocker.

The ONLY people who support you here are Lynette, Maria and the Seven Faces of Richard Legros. You call ME an extremist?! LOL!

You hang with common criminals who have yet to meet justice. Maria has voluntarily joined this gang, and therefore is fair game. You are the company you keep. Same goes for you, Shark.

What you call "reasonable" is nothing more than corruption. The TAC is corrupt, not reasonable. Tri-W and Broderson are corrupt, not reasonable. A blank check to the County is corrupt, not reasonable.

It is only reasonable to believe that people have a right to stay in their homes. Therefore, it is only reasonable to believe that Maria is the rotten apple in the barrel since she wants to boot up to 70% of the people out of their homes under the banner of "fiscal responsibility."

Anyone who had the opportunity to catch Maria's eye-popping crash-and-burn at the last CSD meeting saw her true colors. Watch it on Channel 20. It's reasonable to say it would be best for all if she simply dropped out of the race now and spared herself and the community any further humiliation.

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

Newsflash ... GetReal calls anyone who disagrees with him a criminal.

Sounds like an extremist comment to me.

GetRealOsos said...

Newsflash: Your credibility is shot, County Man.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Newsflash! Lying doesn't make you right, it only makes you weak.

Woof! Jump a little higher and get another biscuit.

Mike said...

Shark is 100% correct...

Poor getrealosos is only making up lies to cover his tracks...and his latest DUI... If there is a criminal on this blog, it's you getrealosos...!!!!

I'm tired of your crap getrealosos... all you do is makeup lies to cover your own weakness as a person and an activist... You do not know what you are talking about, but we would all be interested in what the SLO County DA told you... you know, that part right after he said get out of his office...

GetRealOsos said...

Crapkiller,

You mean the same DA with the paper trail from San Diego? You mean that same DA with the big developer ties? You mean the same DA that wouldn't let Lisa in the door when she wanted to report that the recalled board had $2 million missing after the recall? That one?!

P.S. Still waiting for you to tell us all at least one lie I've told. You can't.

Mike said...

Let's just talk about YOUR lies...

How many arrests have you had...???

Mike said...

come on back getrealosos... don't you want to defend your honor...?? Well I guess you have none to defend anyway...

You have made up so many lies, you don't know what truth is any longer...

GetRealOsos said...

Crapkiller,

Come on Crapkiller, just name one lie -- just one! It shouldn't be so hard.

Mike said...

Sorry, but I'm not my friend CK... but you do waay to much guessing...

I guess someone who is a habitual liar has to guess about everything...

...seems you are so doped up again tonight, that you can't remember all your arrests...

GetRealOsos said...

Mike (Crapkiller),

What are you talking about? What lies? Are you nuts?

You want to label me as a liar so people would dismiss what I say -- anything I say. You are very afraid people might listen (and learn). I guess you have to call me a liar, don't you?!

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

GetReal,

As for lies ... if I were you I wouldn't be so quick to challenge people to point out a lie.

After all ... you've told us that ...

Maria and Gordon used to live in the same town in Oregon (I presume you meant Corvallis) even though this is incorrect

and

You've said that I worked with Chris Kitts but that is incorrect

and

You've said the should Monarch Grove want to tie into the County-led project, Monarch would not have to pay interest on the construction cost bond ... which you don't know to be the truth.

If nothing else ... you should either explain why your earlier statements (listed above) or apologize for giving incorrect information here.

Mike said...

Shark, you are being much too kind to him... his lies are too deep and vile....

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Maria and Gordon: I did say same town, that's what I heard. They are from nearby cities. You seem to know an awful lot about Gordon and Maria. How do you know they didn't know each other from Oregon? You can not know for a fact that they didn't know each other previously. I never stated this as a FACT anyway and you KNOW IT! I asked a question.

Monarch Grove: I've answered this too. You were not assessed as the rest of the PZ. I still question if you are in the PZ if you weren't in the "assessment" area and HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED AND MAY NEVER BE. Besides, so what if you have to pay interest. I'm still not convinced 1) if you own your home or rent it 2) if Monarch will even hook up 3) if you will have to pay interest (can you prove this, can the County put something in writing for you?)

You and Kitts: Okay, this is it. You worked on a study, "Testing Hemolytic Growth and Nutrient Levels Found Within Morro Bay CA" by Michale Walas and Dina Abate in 2001. Both you and Kitts were acknowledged.

I will post the study here, where it shows your (full) name if you're still not convinced. It's a very interesting study, a good read.

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

GetReal,

You now tell us that you "heard" that Maria and Gordon were from the same town ... but that now you know them to be from nearby Cities (nearby like Los Osos and Carmel are nearby ... whatever). However, in your original quote you wrote:

"I noticed after reviewing Maria's application for TAC that she just happens to be from the very same town in Oregon where Gordon was charged with child molestation."

Did you read Maria's application or did you just hear about it? Did you "hear about" charges or have you seen paperwork that shows there were charges?

For you to say that I owe Lisa an apology but for you to not offer one to Gordon is really just too much.

Let's move on to the real issue and why I brought it up. The problem wasn't your question but that you either made up the "same town" thing or that you passed it on as fact even though you didn't verify it as true.

Why should we trust you when you are wrong on simple little facts?


On the Monarch issue ... you claimed that should Monarch choose to tie into the County plan, we wouldn't have to pay for interset on the construction bond but only for our service fees. Again, it doesn't matter whether we'll tie in or not, but that you made this claim without having any evidence to back it up. I don't need a piece of paper to know you don't have one one that verifies your earlier claim. Again, a small issue, but your credibility is tied to it and you have no reason to believe what you earlier stated as fact. Why not tell us that you "heard" this and that you might have been wrong and that you should have checked before stating that as a fact.

On the work relationship between me and Kitts ... you're lack of understanding of what constitutes "working with" and "working on" is the only thing you're convincing us of with your example. For me to offer some help to two senior project students doesn't mean that I "worked on" their study and for me to be listed with another faculty member as having helped doesn't mean that we've "worked together". Your use of this senior project as if it were confirming your claim is like saying that Tom Cruise worked with Groucho Marx because they both met Lucille Ball at different times.

What is irritating is that I've already told you what constitutes academic collaboration and you ignored it. Either you were not careful in your reading or you were careless with your stated desire to not continue to further out me. So far, you've twice tried to prove that you know something about me and based on your error, you've claimed that you've needed to reveal additional details about my identity which I don't prefer.

Nope, you've pretty much fully outed me based on your misunderstandings and carelessness ... or was that the plan the whole time?

Perhaps you will consider making corrections to your factual misstatements and apologizing as necessary. It would be a nice first step towards building towards a productive conversation and rebuilding your reputation.

Sewertoons said...

getreal,
What personality disorder compels you to continually attempt to discredit people? Look at the discredit you have heaped upon yourself; work on that for a while. See what you can do about it. Come back when you have some results.

Mike said...

getrealosos, you truly are a disgusting creature for creating and promulgating lies and rumors just because others are more qualified than yourself and you can't stand to have your agenda questioned... Apparently you have no education and an extreme case of low self-esteem... The best that can be said of you is that you are a fraud and a liar...!!!!

GetRealOsos said...

Sewertoons,

You say, "Look at the discredit you have heaped upon yourself; work on that for a while...."

What in the heck are you talking about? Who am I trying to discredit? This is a "discussion board" and I'm questioning and voicing opinion. Sorry you don't like it.

I explained myself to Shark. I'm waiting for him to respond if he'd like me to post the report from 2001.


Mike,

Lies and rumors? What lies? I'm still waiting for you to tell me, but apparently you're having a problem with that. What agenda do you think I have? A fraud you say? Look who's talkin' there bud!

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

I'm sure both Shark and Mr Hensley will address your concerns...

Sewertoons said...

getreal,

To answer your question, you are attempting to discredit Maria and Marshall (and apparently rational thought) in your efforts to support Karen - which is your agenda. As I have said before, you and those like you, with your rants against them, are chalking up votes FOT THEM. So I guess I should really wish for you to continue, as you are sinking Karen's ship.