Oh, Lordy, the Arroyo Grande city manager/police/investigation/story just keeps getting sadder. (see my Sept 25 posting) City Manager Steve Adams has now resigned, written a long O/Ed piece
( http://www.newtimesslo.com ) declaring that on July 3 he and Community Development Director Teresa McClish always never didn't do anything wrong/illegal, that "nobody was at any time unclothed or partially clothed," but for the sake of the City he'll be heading out of Dodge to "pursue new opportunities elsewhere."
The independent investigation, however is still ongoing so this sad drama will continue to unfold and will likely end with a whimper and some sort of resolution and everyone will likely go home vindicated in some way, except for the two major players in this drama, who learned a bitter lesson the hard way: If you are a Public Servant in any position of real authority or in the public eye in a major way, do not drink enough alcohol that will require you to "sober up" enough to drive. Do not drink any amount of alcohol that will require "sobering up" in any fashion whatsoever. In fact, remove the words "sober up" from your vocabulary for the duration of your employment.
Being alone late at night in city hall, forgetting to call home after- hours so a worried spouse sends the police out looking for you, said police finding you looking "disheveled," all of that is survivable. But those two little words -- sober up --are what moved this "incident" from merely an "incident" into the realm of, "Oh, this ain't gonna end well."
And so it didn't.
Sigh.
Saturday, October 04, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
Like clockwork. Two of the stupider "annonymice" simply couldn't help themselves (they never can) and let their bile eat them alive here on this comment page. So I had to say bye-bye to their off-topic comments, but the comments were fascinating because they revealed so clearly just who they're obsessed with, and I can tell you, it ain't me, although they have conflated me with the person they're really hooked on. While my trollish Mice are my biggest FanBoys, they're really truly addicted to someone else. Which should come as no surprise to anyone who's followed some of the sicker and stupider Sewer Crazies' postings.
Dear Clockwork Anonymice. You need to start your own Julie Tacker Watch Blog. Seriously. Julie Tacker 24/7. You could post anything you'd like about Julie Tacker anytime you'd like, since that's your focus (obsession?) Think about it. You could get your Julie fix all day and wouldn't have to come on my blog or other people's blogs to hijack their comment sections on postings that have nothing to do with Julie Tacker since you'd have your very own Julie Tacker Blog.
And I promise, if you set up your Julie Tacker Blog, I'll never pay it a visit. Ever. Promise.
You're absolutely pathetic, Ann.
Here's what I don't understand. You write a blog, occasionally touch on some controversial subjects and open the blog to comments. You invite people to comment, and yet when there are comments you don't like or can't answer, you remove them. Then after you remove said comments, you scold people and then screen the comments so you can personally approve comments that appear.
Sure, some people are obsessed with Julie Tacker, but there's actual relevance here since she filed a joint grand jury complaint with Arroyo Grande resident Otis Page. She was one of the first people to issue a public records request and inquire into the "romantic rendezvous" involving the city manager and his subordinate. For many, this is ironic because of her well-established record of moral turpitude and mishandling of district finances.
You act like you know everything, but clearly you don't. You had to ask Stephanie Finucane for a simple detail about an article that was addressed in almost every article related to the July 3 incident. Yes, they did walk to city hall. The bar is literally across the street from city hall. You say Julie Tacker is off-topic when she's had a primary role in orchestrating the outrage.
You delete these comments because you're afraid to have a debate with anyone without resorting to granny-style repetition. You wouldn't survive a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on the facts with any of these anonymous commenters. You wouldn't even know what hit you. Delete this comment, and your relevance will be deleted.
Well said 9:58
Had Ron or Lynette written any of the comments that I see were deleted, those comments would still be here for all to read. This is a strange blog with some apparently strange rules.
Ann writes:
"Two of the stupider "annonymice" simply couldn't help themselves..."
Welp, since you and I are the two longest-running, and, hands-down, the best bloggers/on-line news-types in SLO County, you know as well as I, that the lowest form of life on earth isn't the Amoeba, it's anonymous blog comment loser.
And, as you also know, all it takes to rid your site of said anonymous blog comment losers is to simply click on the "No" button, after the "Allow anonymous comments?" question in your blog admin, just like I did a loooooooooooong time ago (thank god!).
Just sayin'
An anonaloser writes:
"Had Ron or Lynette written any of the comments that I see were deleted, those comments would still be here for all to read. "
Speaking of the person(s) posting as "Lynette Tornatzky:" They post thousands upon thousands of deliberately misleading Los Osos sewer-related comments over the years, here, and on my blog, slamming me and everything I report.
THEN, I expose, just a couple months back, how local politicians like Supervisor Gibson, along with other left-leaning members of the Board of Supervisors, pay some Karl Rove-type weasel named Tom Fulks (and his employees?) tens of thousands of dollars to sneak around behind-the-scenes, especially on the Internet and (at least attempt to) destroy anyone (especially media-types) that don't ALWAYS portray Tom's clients in a favorable light, and then POOF! "Lynette" immediately falls of the sewer comment radar.
I find that fact, and that time-line, VERRRRRY interesting, and very telling.
Anon sez: Delete this comment, and your relevance will be deleted.
9:58 AM, October 06, 2014
Delete"
See? Still relevant. You lose.
Anon 9:58 sez:" Then after you remove said comments, you scold people and then screen the comments so you can personally approve comments that appear."
Darned right! When Anonalosers go off the rails, they get dumped. They've been warned repeatedly, but they can't help themselves, so they get dumped. If you don't like that, let me say again: Get a blog of your own and have a ball.
Very democratic Ann, it's your way or the highway.
No putting up with opposing views. Seems to work in Congress these days, why not here.
Tom Ful... errrrrrrr... An anonaloser writes:
"I happen to know Tom Fulks, and I can tell you with absolute certainty, Ron, that he has no idea what you're talking about. "
So, let me see if I have this straight: According to some anonaloser, Tom "has no idea" that he's getting paid tens of thousands of dollars from local politicians like Bruce Gibson to do shady, behind-the-scenes, Karl-Rove-Type-Crap, as Bruce's little "evil genius in the back room?"
Uh, Tom doesn't know that?
Wow. He should REALLY read my blog. That'd get 'im up to speed in a hurry, and then, I guess, he can thank me after he checks his bank account.
Ann writes:
"Anon sez: Delete this comment, and your relevance will be deleted.
9:58 AM, October 06, 2014
Delete"
See? Still relevant. You lose."
Ann, you're funny.
The problem is that Ann removes comments that she doesn't like. Sometimes the anonymous post civil, meaningful (gasp!) comments, but when she's challenged, delete. I wish life was that easy.
I have to question the Sun Bulletin's hiring practices. No wonder why they went under.
Amazing, Get A Room 2, a tale of a woe, yet it merits not one, but two tawdry blog commentaries?
Even more unbelievable is that one of the main complainers of purported impropriety was one of Los Osos most promiscuous and yet this blog can condemn something in another town and never ever chastised the local.
Something is wrong, but it's not all in Arroyo Grande.
Anon sez:" Anonymous Anonymous said...
Very democratic Ann, it's your way or the highway.
No putting up with opposing views. Seems to work in Congress these days, why not here.
10:38 AM, October 07, 2014"
Oh, do stop whining, Anon 10:38. it makes you sound like a child. You seem to think my blog is some sort of "public institution" operating on "democratic, majority-rules" principles to which you are ENTITLED free entry and freedom to spout off anything you want. WRONG. I consider Anonymice posters guilty of being Trolls, unless they prove otherwise. Trolls are useful idiots on occasion, but when they go off into the weeds, or start ramping up into Stupid and pointlessly mean, I'll dump them without a qualm. So, stop whining. If you want a forum for your comments, go create your own blog page. I'm serious about this. Then you can focus your ire and grumps on anyone you wish. And, I say again, I promise to never visit your blog and will never comment on anything you have to say. Ever. See? Problem solved.
Anon, 10:35: You and the other commentors missed the point of both my blog entries on the AG matter. You think it was about canoodling, which sent all of you Mice off on a JulieTackerFest. I understand how that happened and why (some of you are seriously obsessed with Julie and all her works.) But my blog entries weren't about canoodling or Julie.
Anon 4:20 sez: "The problem is that Ann removes comments that she doesn't like. Sometimes the anonymous post civil, meaningful (gasp!) comments, but when she's challenged, delete. I wish life was that easy.
I have to question the Sun Bulletin's hiring practices. No wonder why they went under.
4:20 PM, October 07, 2014"
Incorrect, Anon 4:20. Life IS that easy. That's why God invented the Delete Button!
And if you're wondering about the Sun Bulletin's "hiring practices," am I correct in presuming that's your sly way of implying that my being asked to write a column for them somehow brought about their demise? Funny. I quit the SB years ago, yet the SB chugged on for years afterwards so their demise had nothing to do with me. When I left the SB, I wrote for the Bay News, also for many years in its many Phoenix-like iterations, and I quit them years ago and yet -- surprise! -- they're still happily in business. So, nice try, but no ceeegar, Anon. (Your attempt at a sly (incorrect) smear is Trollish 101 stuff. And why I consider Anonymice to be Trolls and treat them accordingly.
Actually, my comment about the Sun Bulletin was a joke, much like you.
No, your blog is not a public institution. What it is, however, is a faux open forum where people are misled into thinking that their comments won't be deleted because they don't adhere to the writer's narrow worldview.
You can say, "Create your own blog, and I won't comment on it," but that's just a childish cop-out of taking responsibility for your manipulative tactics. You talk about people obsessing about Julie Tacker, and that may be true, but you've allowed Ron Crawford to make libelous comments about many community members. He continues to do so.
Just to let you know, I'm not Tom Fulks. I don't know exactly what Tom has done to merit Ron stalking him. But therein lies the problem. Ann, you talk about anonymous being "stupid and pointlessly mean," but when the people you promote are "stupid and pointlessly mean" to people who don't even post on your blog.
At your age, it's mind-boggling how you desperately shy away from taking personal responsibility. I suppose it's easy to live with yourself when you ignore all the people you've hurt along the way.
Anon 3:41 sez:" No, your blog is not a public institution. What it is, however, is a faux open forum where people are misled into thinking that their comments won't be deleted because they don't adhere to the writer's narrow worldview."
Where on this blog does it say this blog is an open forum where anyone can comment without being deleted for being a nincompoop? Why would you assume such a thing? Heck, even the Tribune started dumping Trolls and "anonymous" folks. Interestingly, and when they did that, the quality and tone of the "discussion" improved greatly.
And now the question of the year for all you "anonnymice:" You dislike me, you dislike my blog, you think I'm a joke, you think the blog is a joke, you crank on endlessly with what I've written, you whine when you go into the weeds and I dump you, you spend endless hours chewing on other "Anonymices" ankles like you think this space is your own private Ultimate Fight Cage & Julie Tacker 24/7 CrankFest, then whine when I kick you and your scrapping pals out. Yet here you all are, like clockwork, returning to my blog again and again and again and again and again like you're addicted.
There's a whole bunch of blogs out there I don't care for, written by people I don't care for. I don't visit them to squabble and quarrel with the writer or the other visitors or complain about the blogger, then whine when I get dumped off. I consider that kind of behavior to be an absolute, utter waste of my time. Yet here you are. Why?
When I suggest you get a blog of your own, you claim I'm being "childish." I'm not. I'm serious. Clearly, you have a need that isn't being met by this blog. So why not start your own Ultimate Fight Cage forum for yourself and every "anonymous" out there? You could guarantee up front that nobody would be tossed off and no comment would be deleted. It would be perfect for you and all the other Anonymice. Plus, it's easy, it's free (just google Blogger and get started).
Ann writes:
"Heck, even the Tribune started dumping Trolls and "anonymous" folks. Interestingly, and when they did that, the quality and tone of the "discussion" improved greatly. "
I wouldn't use the word "interestingly," there. I would use, "Not surprisingly." ; -)
Uh, interestingly (and funny-ly), the person(s) posting as "Lynette Tornatzky" was actually "barred" from posting on Cal Coast News.
Karen Velie recently wrote to me, "Lynette was barred from commenting because she broke our comment guidelines multiple times after she received multiple warnings."
HIGHlarious.
An anonaloser writes:
"I don't know exactly what Tom has done to merit Ron stalking him. But therein lies the problem."
The "problem?"
Uh, you make it seem like me reporting (or, as you call it, "stalking") on Tom is a bad thing for him.
Heck, remember anonaloser, it was you that said that you know Tom, and that he has "no idea" that local politicians are paying him tens of thousands of dollars to be their Karl Rove-type weasel.
Well, if he has "no idea" that local politicians like Bruce Gibson are paying him tens of thousands of dollars, he should be SOOOOOO stoked for my reporting that shows local politicians do indeed pay soeone named Tom Fulks tens of thousands of dollars (laundered through their respective campaigns, of course) to skirt official PAC regulations, which, in turn allows him to sneak around, and do weasily Karl Rove-type crap.
I mean, after he reads my report, and then checks his bank account and discovers that he now has tens of thousands of dollars that he had "no idea" (according to some anonaloser) that he had?
Awww, c'mon: Dude's gotta LOVE me!
I'd be WAY stoked if I was him. Wouldn't you?
Uh, Tom? You're welcome!
Oh, Ann. You don't get it.
The fact that you allow comments at all from the public makes your blog an open forum. The Blogger service allows anyone to comment by default. If you're going to delete comments that you personally disagree with, then you might as well disable comments entirely. That way, you'd be more honest with yourself.
You know nothing about technology. The SanLuisObispo.com allowed Facebook-only comments. People have created anonymous Facebook accounts just to comment on that site, so no, they did not "dump" the trolls and anonymous. The trolls and anonymous will always be there.
Here's why I'm here, Ann. This may be a mystery to you, although I explained it many times before -- but you didn't listen, of course. It's like you have Crawford ear wax. Consider using a Q-Tip.
Your blog has been a source of community divisiveness for several years. You advocated for a lawsuit that cost residents thousands of dollars in legal expenses to fight; a lawsuit that was soundly rejected all the way through the Ninth Circuit. You've promoted obstructionism that created strong rifts in Los Osos. This was all happening while there were comments slandering community members.
"Go make a blog?" Sure, Ann. That's great. Again, you avoid personal responsibility. That's a very FOX NEWS thing to say. "If you don't like our station, create your own." People have every right to criticize you. It's a free country. You have every right to remove that criticism, but you should never be surprised that you will be criticized for doing so.
And Ron, don't drink while browsing the Internet. You might get hurt. Just ask Karen Velie.
Ann has the right to run her blog any way she sees fit. She can delete any comment without having to explain why to anyone. She can bare her fangs whenever she's feels like it.
Is this maddening and frustrating to most who stop to read here? Yes.
Ann has the right to feature anyone she wants on her blog, including Ron Crawford -- as sad as that is.
Is this maddening and frustrating to most who stop to read here? Yes.
Those readers who wish Ann would responsibly respond to their complaints and those who wish Ron would disappear altogether are obviously wasting their time and energy.
I agree with Ann that it's way past time for fed-up readers expecting anything other than what they've always gotten and are still getting to move along... to higher ground.
So sad to watch an old person's mind fading into dementia. Hope there is someone to help her.
Anon 7:21. Your Troll 101 comment is a perfect example of just why God invented the delete button.
Anon:4:20 sez:"Ann has the right to run her blog any way she sees fit. She can delete any comment without having to explain why to anyone. She can bare her fangs whenever she's feels like it."
Thank you. And, in case you haven't noticed, I also write lots of no-fangs "nice" as well, but "nice" apparently doesn't appeal to Trolls.
A different anonaloser writes:
"... it's way past time for fed-up readers expecting anything other than what they've always gotten and are still getting to move along..."
You'd think, huh? But as Ann points out, those "fed-up readers" keep coming back, and commenting, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again, year, after year, after year, after...
Darndest damn thing.
I mean, I've stopped by the person(s) posting as "Lynette Tornatzky's" 'blog,' like, maybe, twice?
And both times, it was such a snoozeville, that I haven't been back.
But, here's what I DON'T do: I DON'T show up there every day -- day after day after day -- and log on, and then comment, over and over and over and over again, on what a snoozeville her blog is.
Here's what I do: I don't read it, because it's not interesting.
Of course, Bruce Gibson isn't paying ME tens of thousands of dollars to sneak around on the Internet, and (at least attempt to) destroy media types that don't always portray him in a favorable light.
If he did, then I'd be more like "Lynette," and the anonaloser(s) [I added the "(s)," just in case it's more than one] -- posting thousands upon thousands of comments on any blog-thingee I could find, and gushing about Bruce, and slamming anyone that dares to report something that doesn't put Tom Fulks' clients in a favorable light.
THAT's what I'd do if Bruce was ALSO paying me tens of thousands of dollars to be his little "evil genius in the back room."
Another(?) anonaloser writes:
"And Ron, don't drink while browsing the Internet. You might get hurt. Just ask Karen Velie."
Speaking of drinking and the Internet.
Hey, Celebrate Los Osos, where the F was MY invitation to Bob Semonsen's Going Away Party?
Damn, anonalsers, who guys and gals know how to PARRRRR-TAY!
You guys were rockin' the alcohol QUAD-fecta: Bottled beer AND keg beer, wine, AND cocktails.
My kind of people!
Good thing Karen's cop wasn't staking out THAT party, eh, anonalosers?
[My favorite part about that party, is that there's about 50 people there (if that), and bottled beer, wine, and cocktails WASN'T enough. They had to ALSO mix in a keg. I'm tellin' ya: My... kind... of ...people!]
a-l writes:
"... those who wish Ron would disappear altogether are obviously wasting their time and energy."
AND Bruce's campaign contributor's money.
And could you please relay that take to Bruce, Pandora, and Tom?
It's not a question of whether or not Ann has control over her blog. It's about how she repeatedly dodges personal responsibility. It's an argument based on principle, not mere blog management.
But I do have an interesting tidbit to share about Ann. Google has flagged her blog for "hate speech" after more than four Los Osos residents filed complaints against Ann's blog, claiming she has refused to take down libelous content about them. Clearly she has not complied with Google's demands. Reps for the website state that they notified her in the past.
Also, a couple of residents informed Ann privately that she could be sued for hosting libelous comments on her site.
Accept responsibility, Ann.
Come on 10:23, do you really think anyone would sue a feeble, nasty, little old lady with dementia?
She'll never accept personal responsibility.
Interesting that I've never heard from Google. Not a peep. Hmmmmm.
O.K. kiddies, we're done here.
Post a Comment