Calhouns Can(n)ons

War of the Words

I was sent the following email, with permission to post, regarding comments made on the comment section of this blog by a not-so-anonymous poster. I’m leaving out the poster’s name (followers of this blog will know just who this email was sent to, plus the “Anonymous” poster herself asked the reader to go back to the May 29th “Field Trip” entry to read her June 2 entry, so she clearly wanted her comments to get a wider readership than just in that particular comment string) because this email points up important points that go beyond personalities and the usual ankle-chewing that goes on in the comment section of this blog.

I have said, repeatedly, that “anonymous” posters have NO credibility. So long as they don’t get too potty-mouthed, or stray too far into smack-out libel, I allow them to post until they have hanged themselves with their own rope. Their anonymous “voice” always comes through.

But, besides the ranters and blatherers, there’s another regular “voice” that appears here. I call them the Holy Supplicants. For these people, there’s a carefully crafted mantra of misinformation, wrong “facts,” misrepresented “facts,” and “facts that they just make up on the spot, then repeat over and over and over, like a true believer running their rosary beads. No amount of “setting the record straight” works. Other posters can chime in and state actual, true facts, but like swallows returning to Capistrano, the bead runners will return to the same false mantra. Talk about “staying on message.” Quite remarkable.

I have said before, to tell the real story of The Hideous Sewer Wars, you’d need a volume the size of an Encyclopedia, complete with a separate set of footnotes. For every “fact” you can have 38 sub-sets of “facts” ‘splaining even more “facts.” And that’s not counting alternative interpretations or nuancing of those “facts.”

Add onto that, all the basic tar-baby lies that have dogged this project from day one, the paranoia level engendered thereby, and the sheer complexity of the material, and it’s no wonder things get muddled. However, some of what transpires in the comment section of this blog, isn’t mere confusion or muddlement. For some regular posters, it’s clearly a case of deliberate misinformation. That becomes clear, as mentioned above, when a misstatement is corrected and a short time later, there it pops up again, by the same poster, the lie reappearing as if it had never been corrected.

In a way, it’s all very funny, this Orwellian writing and re-writing of history – Sewerville’s version of the parlor game, “Telephone,” with a hilariously muddled “story” coming out the other end. On the other hand, certain elements of this game aren’t funny at all since The Big Lie can result in real harm to a community – tell it long enough and skillfully enough and loud enough, and all manner of odd things can be pulled off and then buried out of sight, out of mind.

After all, Jake, it’s Chinatown. And The Hideous Sewer Wars have been big enough and lasted long enough to encompass several Chinatowns. Oh, and as for the “anonymous” poster’s final opinion concerning the SLO County Counsel’s report on the complaint about MWH's, uh, oddities, brought to the County by Lisa Schicker, I have said previously and will say again: The law may require officials look at or into something, but the law does NOT require that they see anything. “Seeing,” more often than not, is a matter of practical and/or political expediency. I'm just saying . . .

The email:


I was sent this blog comment that you wrote and posted on Ann's site. I don't read these regularly, and don't blog but I think most can see through your attempt to create a smoke-screen by attacking the messenger. I want you to know that the record exists on issues you continue to misrepresent and state as facts has been corrected publicly several times at this site. Further accusations have been addressed MANY times publicly in print and recorded on video.

Be aware that while free speech on blogs is somewhat protected, you do have some responsibility to avoid continued libelous harassment of me. You also have obligations to correct errors and omissions when you have made slanderous or libelous comments against a private citizen and they are found to be untrue, you must discontinue such comments.

In your posting you are either mistaken, based on your refusal to read and research, or simply a habitual liar.

If you wish information you might consider contacting me other others, read reports and research before you spout off. However, it appears your only goal is personal attacks, and embarrassing displays of your own ignorance of the subject matter in which you engage.

Response:

[“anonymous poster’s” comments in italics]

Another bizarro thing today at the Supes.
Gail McP - convicted of lying - who lost her job and license as a result - stands before the Board and tries to convince them that Paavo and MWH have done something illegal. Like they (or we) should give one moment of credibility to what she says? Did she think we'd forget? She says "laws need to be taken seriously!" Guess she forgot those words apply to herself as well.

I was never convicted of lying, charges against me were modified to NO MORAL TURPITUDE, and then completely dropped, and the DA statements and documentation exonerated me. I never lost my license. (in fact my grade 5 certification it is still active) I was not fired from my job. This is information readily available. I believe you are intentionally libeling/slandering me to assist in a cover up.

She is accusing them of civil and criminal violations that MUST be investigated thoroughly!
· I have a right to review documents supporting the complaint against Paavo, MWH and to provide my opinion in public. (have YOU read the reports and weighted the evidence?)

She - who still has not denied that she stole documents from the CSD office, she - who lied about candidates running for office,
· I have copies of public documents, as do may others including yourself. Every document was legally obtained and they were not stolen.


she - who conned the CSD into paying for her PZLDF suit –

The PZLDF is not my lawsuit. The parties are listed in the complaint. The LOCSD was a voluntary party and the RWQCB placed them as a party in 2006 because Mr Seitz defended the CSD in the ACL on the grounds Measure B shielded the CSD from TSO fines and the CDO was the only means of enforcement. Again, have you read anything at all?

she has the audacity to TELL the Supes what they MUST do.

· Elected representatives are exactly the one we are expected to tell what we-the people (yes, me too) think they must do. Did you go to school and sleep through basic civics classes?
·
If what she says is true - why didn't the Lisa Board file suit against MWH before they went into bankruptcy?
· Huh? ...now I know you haven't bothered to listen or read a thing. @ resolution were passed by the board to send information on the crime to the DA and the AG in 2006 –before the bankruptcy. Blind fools-read the report and other documents filed in 2005 and 2006 following the recall. Lisa reported the crime to law enforcement in 2004-05 when she found the backdated contracts. She has a legal obligation to report.

Goodness knows - they had those two guys upstairs going over contracts with magnifying glasses.

Read the reports the consultants made that support the false claims lawsuit against MWH which the current board majority is frantically working to settle so MWH can actually qualify for the RFP. (The RFP is stalled until this can be ironed out!). That is actually a form of bid rigging itself!

They had box loads of documents in Gail's living room!

Again---- I have copies of public documents, as do many others including yourself. Every document was legally obtained and they were not stolen. Quit lying.

Wanna bet that BWS told them that they didn't have a case?

Again—to the contrary, the DA said the crime occurred. BWS knew they had strong case, BWS was forced out by TW lawsuits for a reason. AB 2701 meant to bury that past contract issue. It would have until MWH became the favorite.

That the contract executed back in 1999 was valid and that it committed the Board to go ahead with it from that time forward?


Can you read….? Are you an expert in contracts? The DA said the contract was illegal. The subsequent one was not executed by backdating and signed illegally by Bruce Buel and Karen Vega.

They have nothing left - so I guess it's time to trot out those flimsy allegations as BWS isn't watching (or billing) to try and make something stick. I'm sure we will all know more when Warren Jensen's report is put on the LOWWP site on Monday. And that Gail and Lisa, in this vendetta, are going to look pretty foolish. 9:32 PM, June 02, 2009

Why are you afraid of an independent third party oversight of the project procurement process? ---do you even know what that is?


Gail McPherson