Calhouns Can(n)ons

Thursday, December 06, 2007

BLACKOUT!

Ah, yes. Nothing like early morning emails, and this one's a doozie.

So, Poopsie, you say you have to work and can't make Friday's 1:30 pm. Regional Water Quality Control Board's hearing on the CDO status of The Los Osos 45 as well as everyone else in the PZ, a meeting that will cover discussion of the staff report that recommends that the The Los Osos 45 be left hanging in the wind -- no Christmas candy for them, just coal lumps in their shoes AND threatened CAO's for the rest of you homeowners hanging just a No Appeal/No "Trial" envelope-lick away.

And, because you have to work, you also won't be able to hear the County's presentation on the update of the election as well as updates on the progress of the wastewater project, so you think you can come home and watch it all on TV, since this is an important hearing, full of critical information concerning your home, concerning legal issues involving your home, critical county updates on this project, and you know the Tribune often misses or gets stuff wrong so you want to see the hearing for yourself?

ERRRRNNNKKK, sorry, Poopsie. Out of luck. As of this posting, the County refuses to pay AGP video to tape the hearing. The CSD's broke, so now AGP is asking if the citizens can pass the hat to pay them -- something the citizens have had to do in the past.

Yep, BLACKOUT OR PRIVITIZE! If citizens want to know what the RWQCBoard has to say about threats to their homes . . . pay up Poopsie.

But don't worry, instead of being able to hear what the Staff and Board members actually have to say, I'll be happy to take notes and fill you in. Of course, I may focus on one thing of interest to ME, that YOU might not find of interest, hence I might miss the one critical issue of concern to YOU.

Well, tough. As a citizen of the PZ whose home is at risk by actions already taken and being considered now by a regulatory agency, you have no right to know what's going on unless you PAY to find out what's going on.

Or you can take off work and attend the meeting yourself. PEG access TV and AGP's various contracts to keep the public informed of critical public meetings doesn't include YOU.

Bwa-hahahahah. Sucker!

Well, if you think this is unacceptable, you need to call your Superviso right now. After all, wasn't part of the County's outreach program designed to keep citizens in the loop at all times, to make sure meetings as critical as this one be available to people who can watch it unedited, un-filtered, gavel to gavel, so they can see for themselves what has transpired?

Oh, sure. Right.

25 comments:

TCG said...: I think the people out here have been spoiled by the unprecedented viewing access that the County has provided over the past year for almost every meeting related to the sewer project. We have also benefited from a unique standing time on their weekly agenda when we can be pretty certain when to attend or watch the item.

This is not the County's meeting on Friday, just like the CDO's are not the County's. I'm timed of hearing the Tuesday public comment group complaining to the County about the CDO relatd actions of the RWQCB and, with all due respect to you, Ann, who I really appreciate for facilitating good discussion about this issue and others on this blog, it is not the County's obligation to pay for the RWQCB meeting to be televised.

Maybe the same party whot recently funded the LA based propaganda piece on the internet can cover the cost of this "real" discussion.; 9:23 AM, December 06, 2007
TCG said...: (Sorry about the typos in the above post. In too much of a hurry this morning.); 9:26 AM, December 06, 2007
Ron said...: Wanna know the instant I realized something was terribly wrong at the RWQCB?

It was in 2005, shortly after Three Blocks was published, and I called RWQCB staff person, Sorrel Marks, to ask her a couple of questions -- just like I had dozens of times when I was compiling the original SewerWatch in The Bay Breeze during the late 90s, and researching my first New Times cover story, Problems With the Solution (which Marks loved) in 2000 -- and she said, "Ron, if you want public documents, you can get them at the front desk, but after your irresponsible journalism in New Times last September, I'm not going to answer anymore of your questions."

And then SHE HUNG UP ON ME! I haven't spoken with her since.

Hey, Sorrel, what's your definition of "irresponsible?" Everything I wrote in that piece was 100-percent accurate. Just ask county officials, because they just spent $2 million proving me right.

Here's the full e-mail exchange that I received in my inbox this morning:

- - -
ALERT!
Important information on the water board meeting on December 7, 2007 1:30 PM

RWQCB meeting---Black out!!!
In an effort to stave off more criticism over the blatant failure of the prosecution staff to follow the directives from the Water Board members to calendar a hearing in December to vacate enforcement orders, The Water board is not broadcasting the Los Bosoms enforcement discussion Friday December 7.

The water Board has a duty to promote justice in their proceedings. It is important that the a recording of this meeting is available to the community, and for viewing by the public who is unable to attend or participate.
The County was asked to cover this expense, since they are presenting information on the project status that affects compliance, but to date they have refused.Please contact your representatives. Many of the past hearings, and transcripts and had to be funded entirely by passing the hat for donations from individuals, just so a complete record was preserved.
The costs are in the email below:

Contact Nancy at AGP if you can help fund the broadcast. Any amount will help.

---- Original Message -----
From: Nancy Castle

Gail,
I have approached the County to fund our services at the CCWB meeting, and was turned down, so then approached the LOCSD, and just received word that decided not to fund due to financial issues. So, I'm letting you know. Our rate would be $675 for up to 3.5 hours of meeting (beginning at 1:30 with the LO issue). Overtime after 3.5 hours would be charged at $120 per hour, based on 15 minute increments, rounded up. We would probably stay to the end of the meeting, but if it isnít LO issues, we wouldnít charge for 'other item' time.

If your organizations/supporters can't fund this, I hope you will let the community know that AGP tried to find funding, but was not successful.

Let me know what you think,
Nancy
- - -

That RWQCB office is a mess. Ann's "What Ought to be a Law" idea needs to become a law today.; 9:40 AM, December 06, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: TCG,

I don't fully agree with you. I think that public agencies these days should consider streaming media and at least audio archives as part of their cost of doing business.

It is expensive, I know, but far less costly than the lost hours at work by those not needing to be in attendance but wanting the firsthand information.

You do have a good point of view, however, about PZLDF here. If PZLDF were to be willing to pay the cost, I am sure the meeting would be available via AGP. If PZLDF were to be willing to take a collection for this purpose, I would contribute $25.

Howzabout it Gail?; 10:07 AM, December 06, 2007
Unknown said...: I'll give you $30... where do I send it?; 11:16 AM, December 06, 2007
Ron said...: Real quick (or, now that I re-read, not so quick)... my post above reminded me of one of my favorite, all-time sewer moments -- one that I think of often, because the moment it happened, was also the exact moment that I became aware, as clear as day, that there was absolutely no rationale behind the Tri-W siting -- and it involves Sorrel Marks, too, and I think it's also an excellent example of how Nash-Karner was able to confuse everyone with her "behavior based marketing," including the staff of the RWQCB.

This precious sewer moment comes from late-summer, 2004, when I was researching Three Blocks, and I was on the phone with Marks discussing the Tri-W project and why it was being built at the mid-town location (this story is excellent... sometimes I think some of the best sewer stories are about reporting on the sewer story itself, like this one), and she was going on and on, just rolling along like she normally does (she's very bright), and we came to the subject of the park amenities in the LOCSD sewer project, and I asked why were there park amenities -- amenities that had to be "centrally located" so the community could easily access their sewer-park -- in the project to begin with, and that's when she uttered these fateful words: "Well, they're (the community of Los Osos) the ones with the 'strongly held community value' for a sewer park... "

I interrupted her right there, in mid-sentence, because I had recently read that phrase, "strongly held community value," in the Tri-W Project Report, and it struck me as odd. It didn't make any sense to me, because the Los Osos I knew, intimately, from my six years of reporting in the community, was far from having a "strongly held community value" for throwing their tax money at public recreation in Los Osos... anywhere in Los Osos, let alone in a sewer plant, as both Measures E-97 and D-97, among many other things, clearly show.

So, look what was happening there -- Sorrel was telling me, "Well, they're the ones with the 'strongly held community value' for a sewer park," yet, I had already read that quote in the project report, and I knew it didn't add up, so when she said it, it instantly caught my attention.

And that's when I interrupted her -- mid-sentence -- and asked my favorite question of all time (and sadly, and shockingly, I was the first person ever to ask it... three years after the certification of the EIR): "What's the source of that 'strongly held community value' "?

And Marks, said, and I quote, "Hu........................."

And then there was this really long, extremely awkward, five-second silence, before I finally jumped back in to say, "Sorrel, don't worry about it, I'll find it."

But, at that moment, during that five-second silence, I realized that source did not exist. In the middle of that five-second silence I internalized, "Oh my god. There IS NO source for the 'strongly held community value.' Oh, no!"

Nash-Karner was having everyone believe that because the project that she developed in 1998, that formed the LOCSD in the first place, AND got her elected as the #1-vote-getter on the initial board -- the "better, cheaper, faster," "maximum monthly payment of $38.75/month," "drop dead gorgeous" Solution Group ponding project that failed in late 2000 -- was slated for Tri-W -- a dead-on-arrival (before the election) project that won 87-percent of the vote -- that that 87-percent of Los Osos wanted a park in their sewer plant at Tri-W, no matter what the cost or technology!

Nash-Karner, as LOCSD vice-president, was able to twist and confuse everyone, including Marks (and Briggs, for that matter ["The (Tri-W) wastewater project is truly a community-based project."
-- Roger Briggs, Executive Officer, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, June 24, 2004]), with the "strongly held community value" for a sewer-park, when in reality, that 87-percent only had a "strongly held community value" for a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75/month," clearly.

[If you haven't already read-up on all of this, just go to SewerWatch and type in: "community value", and you'll find all kinds of fun stuff.]

It became clear to me, during that five second silence by Marks, that there was no rationale whatsoever behind the Tri-W siting. (What a moment. That's when I knew Three Blocks was going to rock. I did not write that story casually.)

The "strongly held community value" for a industrial sewer plant to also double as a "centrally located recreational asset" simply never existed. It was made up, by former LOCSD Director, and CURRENT SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner.

This quote: "Hu......................... ," from Marks, is in the top five of my all-time favorite sewer quotes.

Along with this one, when Coastal Commission staffer, Steve Monowitz, told me: "It was inappropriate of me to rely on Solution Group members to determine community values for Los Osos."

Nash-Karner fronted the Solution Group in 1997 - 98.

ai-yai-freaking-yai...

Wow. All that stuff is so interesting. I just might post this on my blog.; 11:20 AM, December 06, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

There is a huge difference between what our community values are and the documentation that would prove them for the CCC and others.

Are you saying that we didn't want a park downtown and that we didn't want a park where the WWTF was going to be?

If that is true, why did the 218 vote in 2001 pass so overwhelmingly? At that time, the plan was presented as sewer with park at the TriW site. It wasn't in the voting material, but it most definitely was the plan we were being presented.

Perhaps you are saying that if the plan had been for another site and without a park the 218 vote would have been even higher. I suspect so, but it seems to me that you've hammered on this issue long enough. If the LOCSD didn't document a community value doesn't mean that there isn't one. The pool vote doesn't reflect opinions about parks in general and you know that.; 11:41 AM, December 06, 2007
Bear EXCREMENT said...: SHARK!

SNAKE!!

Need for a sewer

State water quality regulators have for years been pressuring Los Osos to build a sewer system in the hope of mitigating pollution suspected of coming from residents’ septic tanks.

There have been several failed attempts to build a sewer, including one that broke ground in August 2005 at Tri-W butwas halted after a re-call election replaced a majority of services district board. Whether to proceed with a treatment plant at Tri-W was at the heart of the recall.

A plan brokered by Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, and approved by state lawmakers transferred responsibility for the sewer project to the county.

In late October, the town’s property owners overwhelmingly approved a $127 million assessment to pay for a sewer.

Tri-Wis still being considered as a possible site for a plant, among several that a county panel is examining.

Critics of the Tri-W parcel point out the site is next to the town’s library, across the street from its only park and community center and near a number of churches.

Supporters of the parcel say the central location makes it ideal because it would require less piping than an out-of-town site. They also note that the services district already owns the parcel and that it has obtained all needed permits.

County officials say state environmental laws require them to evaluate Tri-W as a potential site for a plant.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/211297.html

Looks like your going to get one in the middle of town. From the WaterBoard's lips to Sona's finger tips.

GRRReat..; 12:19 PM, December 06, 2007
Mike Green said...: Bear poo.
Nobody with any sense at all will take the Trivial as a source of information,especially about Los Osos.
I suggest reading the TAC fine screening report, in it you will find that the biggest critic of TriW is the county itself.

Another Triv. flub, THE PERMIT EXPIRED! seems that they have a little amnesia going on, poor Sona must be overworked.; 2:12 PM, December 06, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: It might have been early 2006, Julie was in a picture with Patricia Johanson in the Bay News I believe. She was touting Patricia's pond designs as fabulous and the way to go. However, in looking up a bit more about Johanson, I found that she had also created this:

"Endangered Garden", a linear park along San Francisco Bay was commissioned in 1987 by the San Francisco Arts Commission. As co-designer of the thirty million dollar "Sunnydale Facilities", a pump station and holding tank for water and sewage, Patricia Johanson's intent was to present this functional structure as a work of art and a productive landscape. Other goals included increasing food and habitat for wildlife, and providing maximum public access to San Francisco Bay. Tidal sculpture, butterfly meadow, habitat restoration, seating, and overlook are all incorporated into the image of the endangered San Francisco Garter Snake, as is a public access baywalk, thirty feet wide and one-third of a mile long that coincides with the roof of the new transport/storage sewer."

AND

"…both meadow and baywalk provide no clue that there is a functioning sewer below. Most people assume that this is a purely innocent garden."

http://www.patriciajohanson.com/villamedici/page1.html

So give me a break about the park/sewer thing as being nasty and horrible.

We should all be a bit more curious as to why Tri-W was slammed so hard AFTER THE VOTE PASSED - by WHOM and WHY. Ringleader Julie, (behind the scenes Jeff Edwards), Gail and others, might have another story to tell - or someone else might know what that is, too.

The way this whole anti-center of town thing has become religious fanaticism at its worst is very troubling. Bad enough it that stopping the project has cost us millions, but the mind-bending and lies to make it happen ($100-out of town, $154 out of town, "We have a plan," Blakeslee's picture and the County seal used without permission) is perhaps worse. The whole idea that started Los Osos control over its own sewer WAS a treatment pond on the SAME spot.; 4:16 PM, December 06, 2007
Churadogs said...: tcg sez:"Maybe the same party whot recently funded the LA based propaganda piece on the internet can cover the cost of this "real" discussion."

And what party would that be, pray tell?
tcg also sez:"it is not the County's obligation to pay for the RWQCB meeting to be televised."

The County's giving an update and a presentation on THEIR project. That's information Los Ososians should have. The RWQCB will likely get involved in a critical discussion about how it was the staff apparently heard different instructions that other people heard the Board give at the last meeting concerning CDOs and etc. That discussion is vital for Los Osos and is a responsibility of the RWQCB to see that this community gets direct, accurate info, especially when it concerns legal issues on their homes. The RWQCB cries poor, but add up in your heads all the money they've wasted on these Mad Hatter "trials."

No, sometimes the cheapest way costs a little more up front but saves gazillions later down the line. (How much time will the county spend answering questions because they didn't chip in to tape this hearing? Ditto staff time at the RWQCB & etc.)

AGP's address is 16500 Preson Lane, Morro Bay 93442. Send 'em a check. They're worth their weight in gold. Especially for people who want their info straight. Since some of you spend a lot of time chewing on my ankle for expressing MY opinion and MY views, stop chewing and whining send AGP some dough so you can get YOUR OWN INFO STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH. Then you can go chew on your own ankles.

And to Ron, "Hu . . . ." Yep. One of those golden light-bulb-over-the-head moments. And now, some of the most interesting things going on is the vast scampering CYA going on. There's so many fault lines in this mess, sooooo many unanswered questions . . . just those long silences . . . that deer-in-headlight stares . . . Hu . . . Huh. . . Uh . . . starting with those 1,100 some "extra" homes permitted by the RWQCB after passing 83-12 & 13So much 'splainin' to do, like please explain how a regulatory agency responsible for water quality would allow such permits for spetic tanks that would only lead to "degredation of the waters of the State of California."

Kinda like that scene in Chinatown when the coroner says to Jake, something like: Ain't that something?We're in the middle of a drought and the Water Commissioner drowns in a dry river bed.

O Looooooocy . . . . .; 8:04 AM, December 07, 2007
Churadogs said...: OOPS TYPE. AGP's address is 1600 Preston Lane. Sorry.; 8:05 AM, December 07, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

Thanks for the address.

I don't know that there will be cost savings in staff time answering questions for the RWQCB or County if they pay for video services ... I actually wonder whether a more informed public would end up asking more questions ... which would not be a bad thing at all.

The issue here is that these sorts of meetings are important and someone should foot the costs of making them available to the public. I believe that these days the most appropriate way of doing that would be via the internet.

I certainly hope that the LOCSD doesn't cut their funding of these services.

On the issue TCG raises of who paid for the PZLDFomercial (some would call it infauxmation) and the suggestion that such parties as would have the money to pull that off ... if they really cared about Los Osos ... would certainly be able to spring for $1000 to get this hearing on the air.

That TCG doesn't know the name doesn't mean that this person or group doesn't exist. We're still waiting for Murphy and others to clarify the extent to which this was Murphy stumbling onto an issue of civil rights and deciding to put it on the air without first researching both sides or the extent to which it was a show that was designed to promote Julie Biggs and/or PZLDF and their point of view. You can't say that PZLDF didn't get their plugs for donations into the show ... certainly they benefit.; 9:07 AM, December 07, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Finally an answer!

Just to make sure that we know whether the PZLDF episode of the Insider Exclusive show was tainted in some way, I e-mailed the producer, Steve Murphy to ask him a variety of questions about how the show came into being. He answered a few of the questions, but not the more direct recent question about whether BWS supports the show and therefore they could put a bug in Murphy's ear and essentially ask him to do a show on Los Osos as a favor. Presumably this would still allow Murphy to say "no one paid" for that show in particular, but it could still have been essentially a quid-pro-quo show.

So, I e-mailed Julie Biggs (and a few others) the same questions I had e-mailed Steve Murphy and Julie replied (thanks Julie!).

I asked "Julie,

It has been hypothesized that your law firm, BWS, essentially asked Steve Murphy to do the Insider Exclusive story on Los Osos.

If you would like me to make it clear that neither you nor your firm pushed, in any way, for this topic to be on the show, please let me know that no one at BWS did anything to suggest the topic or push for its inclusion (in short, let me know that no one did anything improper) and I'll forward the information appropriately.

...

Oh yeah ... one more thing. Did you know in advance the interview questions? If so, how were the questions determined?
"

Julie replied: "Ordinarily I do not respond to anonymous email. To dispel your totally false speculation, however, please know that no one at BWS had any contact or involvement with Steve Murphy or representatives of Insider Exclusive or anyone related to them in anyway prior to the taping. BWS did not fund or otherwise encourage the production of the video and we had no information as to what questions would be asked prior to the questions being asked at the taping."

So ... there you have it.

The only question I still have about this matter is whether Biggs was paid by the LOCSD for her time on the show.; 1:57 PM, December 07, 2007
Bear EXCREMENT said...: shark,

Too bad you do not use your Perry Mason talent where it will do the community the most benefit.

GRRRRubbing around the County/State is where the honey is!

Watch out for the snake(s)...shark

GRRR; 2:20 PM, December 07, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Thanks shark. The production still seemed very one-sided and un-researched, and felt like it was scripted by Gail.

So why wasn't Shaunna Sullivan interviewed? It is her case. Why was Mrs. Biggs interviewed? What was said to Mrs. Biggs by --well, it would HAVE to be Gail, regarding what she would be asked at her appearance? Maybe she didn't know exact questions, but she had to have know the topic!

How would we know if Mrs. Biggs billed the CSD? Are the items on her bill general enough that it could be slipped in? Could she bill Shaunna Sullivan for appearing on her behalf? Shaunna Sullivan was royally called onto the carpet at last night's CSD meeting for late and un-itemized bills.

Biggs says, "BWS did not fund or otherwise encourage the production of the video." THE VIDEO, she says. Has her firm ever given money to Steve Murphy or Insider Exclusive for any other reason?

Was Chuck paid to drive down to the San Fernando Valley to appear? Mileage? Meals?

None of this would be such compelling blog talk if it hadn't been an infomercial.; 3:11 PM, December 07, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Toons,

You are right. If it smells like b*llsh*t it probably is some kind of feces at least (the Los Osos version of "if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck...").

Murphy still hasn't told us how he stumbled onto the story and the whole "I was just looking around for civil rights issues and this is what I found" just sounds waaaaaay tooooooo unlikely.

Had even a "fair and balanced" amount of balance been presented it would not have seemed so questionable. There are far too many tendrils in this story for a clear presentation of the civil rights issues without touching on lots of other things ... like whether the delay is really really costly or whether Gail's claim of $154/month holds any water at all.

I am glad that Julie has told us point blank that she and BWS played no role. I am still hopeful that Murphy will tell us how he hit on this story in the first place.; 3:44 PM, December 07, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Thanks again shark - you are always the voice of reason.

On another topic, I have been trying all afternoon to view the Water Board hearing that the County & CSD has funded to broadcast. It is 4:30 Los Osos time and I have finally been able to connect. Gibson is speaking.

But that isn't where this sentence started. In scrolling down to various programs they offer, I noticed this:

Citizens for Clean Water
PZLSD Design Build Private Finance Program"

Interesting that Gail has this on Slo-Span. Interesting.; 4:36 PM, December 07, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Well, having seen what little I could of the Water Board hearing due to my dog insisting on his walk, it is clear even with my truncated viewing that the CDO's are not going away any time soon due to lawsuits and Julie Tacker's assertion that she will derail Tri-W if it is chosen by the County. Nobody shoots Los Osos in the foot better than the citizens of Los Osos. It is frustrating as always that a few ruin it for the rest of us.; 5:47 PM, December 07, 2007
Unknown said...: That was quite a show... the trained performers, homeless I'll derail the project Tacker, she should be embarassed Schicker, I am the PRESIDENT of the PZ Sullivan and I don't understand but I'm sueing you McPherson... My God these are our neighbors...???

Sue away folks, but do it on your dime, my money's on the courts to singe everyone of these community "leaders" and set in concrete the authority of the RWQCB to enforce actions as maybe necessary to bring this community into compliance and end these circus of local dissenters... not one of the same complainers has heard anything these past 3 years...!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the #$%^& law suits... you sued the old CSD Boards to tie up the only project ever begun in this community, now you are doing your best to derail the County..... While another page is just being turned, the community is fed up with your suits and whinning complaints... This is most certainly NOT about civil rights...it's about a bunch of activists with no outside life beyond fight for their personal rights to further delay any sewer project in Los Osos....!!!!; 6:10 PM, December 07, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: The RWQCB meeting summary:

If it hadn't been for the PZLDF lawsuit challenging everything under the sun (and not just the CDOs for only 45 randomly chosen individuals first) and Julie Tacker's public comments that she would derail TriW EVEN IF TriW is the the best according to the County and Los Osos citizens ... the CDOs against the Los Osos 45 would be over, gone, kaput by now. Of course, those who doubt Jeff Young will disagree loudly and strongly, but that is what he said.; 7:48 PM, December 07, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Wonder what the people who are funding grants to help us lower the cost---(like round 2 of Prop 50 - which Paavo, Bruce and Noel saved from the flames to get us to round 2) ---think of this? Or maybe I don't want to know.; 10:55 PM, December 07, 2007
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez:"So ... there you have it." concerning his question to Biggs re the Murphy program. There you have it? hahahahahah. Oh, Inlet, you jest. You know as well as I do, that a few more postings you'll be raising more questions about angels on pin heads, oh, like this question: "I am glad that Julie has told us point blank that she and BWS played no role. I am still hopeful that Murphy will tell us how he hit on this story in the first place." (Gee, are you implying that there is some OTHER reason than simply his putting together a series of 8 shows on contemporary civil rights cases? Like, dodododoeeeee dooooo dooo, some secret cabal or hidden agenda at work, ooooeeeeeee?) which means that some other Anonymouse can speculate about some OTHER rumor or possibility, like this one from Sewertoons: " Was Chuck paid to drive down to the San Fernando Valley to appear? Mileage? Meals?" (Gosh, did it never occurr to 'toons that maybe Chuck paid for his own gas and took the trip on his own dime? Like that possibility was so out of the realm of reality that it never occurred to 'toons?)who then goes on to state, as if it were a "fact" "None of this would be such compelling blog talk if it hadn't been an infomercial."

Infomercial? Oh, wait, I forgot, this thread isn't about facts, it's about keeping a rumor going. Psssst, well, I heard that Steve Murphy was really hired by Taxpayer Watch to make that "infomercial" which will then be secretly re-edited to Prove that Gail McPherson shot JFK on the grassy knoll while Chuck Cecena was paid $16 million dollars to spirit the rifle away. Psssst, Pass it on.

,; 7:53 AM, December 08, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

You know as well as I do that Murphy didn't present anything other than the PZLDF party line in his show. The show wasn't just about civil rights. At least half of the content was Gail and Robyn and Julie and Chuck telling us their slanted version of the history.

I have no problem with what the Moylans said and the portion of the program that focused on the CDOs.

You also know that in a few days you'll tell us yet again that cost comparisons aren't valid unless a real engineer does them and that a real engineer cannot provide cost comparisons without including all the "for $X you get eggroll but for $Y you get won ton" options because bwahahahaha that would not tell us all the options.

Face it, if the TriW site ends up looking best after the due diligence period you'll complain yet again about the only reason it looks good is a thumb on the scale and lawsuits by the former boardmembers and Paavo's infatuation with Snickers Bars.

If Murphy is really interested in the story, he'll do additional research and let us know in an update what he finds. If he doesn't, we'll know that he isn't really interested in doing what is right.; 8:17 AM, December 08, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Sure it occurred to me that Chuck may have paid his own way. That wasn't the question. Did he?

And more importantly, because of her much higher price tag, did Mrs. Biggs pay her own way?

Gee Ann, for someone who splits hairs the way you do and questions every nuance, I can't believe you are calling ME out on this! Hilarious! I'm sure I learned how to do this from -- none other than - YOU!

So. Why wasn't Shaunna Sullivan interviewed?; 9:06 AM, December 08, 2007

Pages

Thursday, December 06, 2007

25 comments: