Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Good Advice From Oro Valley Neighbor Dave Berry

Dave Berry has the following letter in today's Explorer. We think it is worthwhile reading.

Don't let few chart course for the many

The election season is upon us once again here in Oro Valley, and we must decide if we are better off now than we were four years ago.

If the answer is "no," which most of us think, then we must take this election very seriously as it could have terrible ramifications for all of us, but especially for those of us living through these hard times on a fixed income or unemployed with no ability to further enrich our limited resources.

Once again I would ask that the people of Oro Valley pay close attention to the candidates that the special interests in this area like Tucson Association of Realtors and the Chamber of Commerce have endorsed to do their bidding for them if they are elected, and which candidates are running a "grass roots" campaign financing themselves and will not be obligated to kowtow to the special interests, but rather to you, the people of Oro Valley.

I am all for attracting new viable businesses to this area, but I feel that too often what is good for business is damaging to the people in general, and it is the primary responsibility of those in government to look out for the best interests of the people first and business second.

I would also ask that all candidates running in this election be required to immediately turn over all information regarding their campaign finances and who is contributing to their campaigns, with dollar amounts listed and published in The Explorer for all to see. This is a matter of public record and should be transparent to the public at large, especially if the money is coming from special interest groups.

Finally, and most importantly, let your voice be heard and please vote. Don't let the few chart the course for the many.

David Berry, Oro Valley


Victorian Cowgirl said...

Dave has summed up in 41 words what it has taken the rest of us on this blog to say in thousands of words...

"I feel that too often what is good for business is damaging to the people in general, and it is the primary responsibility of those in government to look out for the best interests of the people first and business second."

My sentiments exactly. Last time I checked, we had government for the people not government for the businesses. Well, that's the theory anyway.

Nombe Watanabe said...


I quote: "Last time I checked, we had government for the people not government for the businesses."

While your heart is in the right place, I am afraid your political theory is a bit outdated.

To Wit: Goldman Sachs, AIG, Bank of America etc.. etc..

Anyone that does not think that big Government and Big Business are not on the Vampire Squid gravy train should take time and reflect.


Oro Valley Mom said...


How true. I was shocked to read the following:

"For the first time in recent history, the lobbying, grassroots and advertising budget of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has surpassed the spending of BOTH the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee."

Oro Valley Mom said...

And public employee union endorsements aren't much better.

"Public-sector unionism is a very different animal from private-sector unionism. It is not adversarial but collusive. Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits -- and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund."

Victorian Cowgirl said...


You are correct. That's why I closed with the words, "Well, that's the theory anyway."

OinStarr said...

Would full disclosure also include the backing by the Democratic and Republican Parties? Money (hard to track)and/or party participation (i.e., coaching from committee headquarters, etc.) Why not open it all up?

OinStarr said...

Just one more thing. This local council election has gone off in the direction of something very sinister as highlighted on this blog.

The candidates entered this race for ONE or many reasons. Hopefully, the individuals with the right reasons will be elected.

It is easy for us to criticize these private citizens who have given up their life, their privacy and probably a good chunk of change from their savings to serve this town. That takes guts. How many here can say that?

OV Objective Thinker said...

Oin Starr....

I think you need to look no further than Mike Zinkin to find Pima County Democratic Party funds just as there were in the last election for Garner, Latas and Gillaspie.

So much for non-partisan elections.

OV Objective Thinker said...


What the hell is the "Vampire Squid gravy train"?

Also aren't business owners "people" too?

artmarth said...

Cox Why are you such a hypocrite?
(Rhetorical question)

You seem to forget that it was YOU & Kunisch that were the first to bring partisan politics into an election in 2006 when you both had the backing from the Republican Party.

You think others forget your past. Too bad for you, but that's not the case.

By the way, others may find it interesting to know that Mike Zinkin received a very cordial response recently while speaking to a large group, consisting primarily of Republicans.

Most people don't care one way or the other as to a candidate's party affiliation. They want candidates that are concerned about the citizens of Oro Valley. Those, such as Mike Zinkin (Democrat) and Dr. Don Emmons (Republican) that are fiscally responsible with NO endorsements from ANY Special Interest Group.

Much like Salette Latas (Democrat) & Bill Garner (Independent) who we supported in 2008 and who have done such a great job serving the overwhelming majority of their constituents.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Local business is fine, in fact they can leave the lights on all night as far as I am concerned. The Vampire Squid riff is from a very well researched and written article about Goldman Sachs, see below, and is offered to support my original thesis that Government is not for the people it is for big business (comment 2, this thread, supra)

"Wall Street's Naked Swindle" by Matt Taibbi.

Now to your comment regarding Democratic Party funding for this election and, indeed, past local elections:

If you look at the "war chest" of each candidate for mayor/council you will see that Mr. Zinkin is not flush with money. If he received party money, I must say that it was a modest amount. I doubt that the Democrats care who is elected in Oro "one horse" Valley.

If you have evidence of such funding, so be it, as of this point in time I do not believe it.


Just an average Joe said...

Hmmmm, not one word in these responses about the fine qualities of candidates Mike Zinkin and Don Emmons? What's going on here? I think we need one more, no....several more, articles that focus on Mike and Don. There have far too many articles written to promote the other candidates. Let's all stay focused on the primary topic of discussion in this blog, "How to find ways to promote Mike and Don", and not stray off onto these esoteric discussions. (cut to audio of a sarcastic laugh)

OV Objective Thinker said...

Art....Why are you such a spreader of untrue statements? That's not a "Rhetorical question". I (and many others in this community)would like an answer.

Al and I have never received any support from the Republican Party. You conveniently forget that it was a group of local Oro Valley residents who called themselves The Oro Valley Republican Club that endorsed our candidacy and even then they did not give us any financial support.

Unlike Latas/Garner/Gillaspie who DID received direct financial support from the Pima County Democratic Party.

Art, let's face it. You simply are incapable of posting accurate information with any consistency. And when you start doing that, I will no longer have a reason to post information correcting you.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Joe....I guess it's because it's is far more difficult to accomplish your goal than it is to talk about the positive qualities of some of the other candidates.

OV Objective Thinker said...

NW....The financial records of candidates are open to the public and can be reviewed at any time in Town Hall by simply filling out a request form.

Just an average Joe said...

Gosh darn it! I post my sarcastic comments about a discussion stream that was absent any more ad nauseum promotion of Mike and Don, without scrolling properly thru ALL of the comments and wouldn't you know it,...there at the bottom is a comment from ..let me guess, Art?..promoting who? So, even when there is an article posted that is not specifically promoting these two candidates, we have to catch another earful from William Randolph Artmarth. I need to do a Google search for a blog that is labled "LOVE A MAD MAN" (Let Oro Valley Excel, Absent Mike and Don Natterings)

Bill Garner said...

I would like to clarify a point that was posted by Mr. Don Cox "Objective Thinker" about me receiving money or assistance from the Pima County Democratic Party. I have never received any money or in-kind assistance from the democratic party. Mr. Cox in the future please check your facts prior to posting inaccurate statements about me.

OV Objective Thinker said...

If incorrect I will quickly correct my statement (unlike your ardent supporter Mr. Segal). However I do believe that your finance reports from the last election reflected a donation from the PCDP. I will check.

NW....The records are posted on the Town Web site if you do an archive search. This info was provided to me by a GOOD friend of Oro Valley!!!!!

artmarth said...

Bill-- Cox is totally incapable of saying he's wrong in spreading malicious rumors.

He blames everyone else for his shortcomings.

I, on the other hand will acknowledge that Cox & Kunisch didn't receive funds from the Republican Party."

They only brought partisan politics to the forefront from their good friends who called themselves, "The Oro Valley Rebublican Club."

Bottom line--- We need Mike Zinkin for Mayor & Dr. Don Emmons for Council.

Oro Valley Mom said...

Right. Cox posts his fabrications, and then he tells people to go check the facts. Hmm. Should be the other way around.

My point from earlier is this: the chamber of commerce is outspending both parties. What does that mean?

All I know is that locally, I have never seen the executive director of any political party speaking in front of the council, but I have seen representatives of both chambers and both employee unions do so on multiple occasions.

OV Objective Thinker said...

I do believe I said that I would check the facts and if incorrect I would so state. That's far better than most of the people who post innacuracies on this blog.

So OV Mom what really is your point? You make a point and then ask what does it mean? What do you think it means?

I just went to the story you were referencing and you are factually correct. But what I found interesting that in 2008, an election year the Republicans and Democrate spent a combined $546 million and the CofC only spent 91.7 million. So the real story is that the two major political parties historically spend far more which tells me that we need more campaign finance reform.

Oro Valley Mom said...

It means this:

Where's your retraction?

OV Objective Thinker said...

Maybe you didn't read the following:

"However I do believe that your finance reports from the last election reflected a donation from the PCDP. I will check."

And I will check.

artmarth said...

Cox notes that in 2008 the Republicans & Democrats spent a cumulative $546M in 2008.

Does anybody really believe that has ANY relevance to the Oro Valley 2010 election where the Tucson Chamber of Commerce endorses Loomis & the Northern Pima Chamber of Commerce endorses Hiremath.

Mike Zinkin did not receive ANY endorsements from ANY Special Interest Group.

Mike will be beholden to only the people of Oro Valley. Who will Loomis & Hiremath be beholden to?


Oro Valley really needs an INDEPENDENT MAYOR. Mike Zinkin is the only one!

OinStarr said...

By the way, "Mike received a cordial response while speaking to a large group consisting primarily of R's." That's because R's are cordial. Did you expect a hostile reception? There were other council candidates who accepted the invitation to speak to the group and even had the courtesy to arrive on time.

OV Objective Thinker said...


My comment had nothing to do with the Oro Valley election. I was only responding to the comment made by OV Mom. Based on your dribble, you must think her comment was not revelant also. I just wonder why you didn't question her.

AND there is good reason why Zinkin didn't get any of the endorsements he solicited. He isn't worthy of any. One of the greatest problems Zinkin has is being closely associated with this blog and it's management. I think is some circles it's referred to as an "albatross". According to Webster's that would be a "large web footed sea bird". What a coincidence.

Oro Valley Mom said...

So where's your retraction, Mr. Cox?

Victorian Cowgirl said...


Republicans are cordial?

May I refer you to the likes of Ann Coulter...Rush Limbaugh...and Oro Valley's very own Rick Cunnington.

Thanks for my laugh of the day.

OV Objective Thinker said...

I took the time today to once again review the campaign records of Bill Garner and there was not reporting of a contribution from the Democratic Party. Including him with Latas and Gillaspie was erroneous.

However, having said that, 2 out of 3 is still far more accurate than Segal's history.

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC....Truth hurts and therefore I can understand your interpretation of the three folks you mentioned.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

CORDIAL: Affable, diffusing warmth and friendliness.

Yeah, that sounds exactly like "the three folks I mentioned."

Nombe Watanabe said...

Vickie Cowgirl:

Rick Cunnington? You mean the wing nut who sends those wacky letters to the Explorer? He makes OV Thinker look like Mother Teresa. Oh, and what did Christopher Hitchens say about Mother Teresa? Yes, now I remember; "a misanthropic Albanian dwarf." Ha, take that, Ricky and Thinker. You guys are now in Vampire Squid company.....


Oro Valley Mom said...

So the Chamber of Commerce, Association of Realtors, etc., hand out endorsements based on who is or is not closely associated with this blog?

That makes their endorsements especially meaningless.

OV Objective Thinker said...

OV Mom....No OV Mom. I doubt they know of the LOVE blog. They base their endorsements of those individuals who will best support the community. Your comments are becoming more ridiculous with each posting. A few more and you can be in the running for the LOVE Blog "Mindless Posts" merit badge.

To All.....I think we need a new name for the blog. Somehow LOVE and Art seems a bit oxymoronic. Maybe a contest would come up with some lively new catchy title.

I am sure Nombe and Cowgirl can come up with an idea or two. Let's all chip in and give Art some new ideas.

travelling dancer said...

I remember when the Republican Club was NOT so nice to candidates who were running for office. Does anyone remember when Kathy Pastryck was running for office and came to the Oro Valley Republican Woman's lunch When she stood up to speak, a table full of Republican woman turned their chairs around so they would have their backs to her, excuse me have we lost our memory. This behavior was definitely inappropriate. But the all knowing Cox maybe was not there.

artmarth said...

Cox--If you don't learn to mind your manners, your comments will be deleted.

As it is, you add nothing whatsoever to this blog except to prove time and again what a simpleton you are.

OV Objective Thinker said...


As I have said many times, delete until your little heart is content. I will have a field day with that decision.


OV Objective Thinker said...

TD....You join the ranks of the severely uninformed. There is a merit badge for that also.

The Republican Woman's Club and the Oro Valley Republican Club are two separate groups.

Nombe Watanabe said...



Chamber of Commerce: Keep OV Light and Bright =

Vicky Cowgirl: Keep OV Dark = KOVD

Mayor Loomis: Keep OV in the Dark = KOVITD

Blog Master Art: Keep OV Grumpy = KOVG

Objective Thinker: Keep Blog Master Art Grumpy = KBMAG

Republican Girls Club: Keep OV Right = KOVR

Rick Cunnington: Keep OV far Right

It is not to late to enter the contest!!

OV Objective Thinker said...

TD....Part 2

Where was the meeting held where you witnessed this behavior?

Oro Valley Mom said...

Mr. Cox,

You said, in reference to a candidate, that there was a "good reason why [he] didn't get any of the endorsement...He isn't worthy of any. One of the greatest problems [he] has is being closely associated with this blog..."

In previous posts, it was disclosed that you were on the selection committee for several of these endorsing organizations, so it made sense that you were speaking from personal knowledge.

I'm not sure if you're still on these selection committees, or if the boards of these organizations have realized that you are too biased and negative to do a good job of representing their interests.

OV Objective Thinker said...

OV Mom.....

When it comes to doing what is right for Oro Valley I am very biased and not the least bit ashamed to say so. I do what I can to make this a better place. I am not consistently critical of everything which is must say is your mantra.

I was on one candidate interview committee this election cycle and
while I cannot share with you the results of our deliberations, I can tell you that the committee on which I served (7 participants) is not the decision making body. We only recommend. It is the Board of Directors who makes the final decision. I WILL share with you that they did not take the committees recommendation in all cases.

My "worthy" comment comes from my observations of Mike during his tenure on the DRB, his actions immediately following that service, his postings on this blog (which I have noticed have ceased which is a smart move on his part) and the 1.5 hour one-on-one discussion I had with him several weeks ago.

Mike is a nice man who has done far more for this Town than 99% of the people who post comments on this blog. I just don't think he is the right man for the job of Mayor at this time.

Anonymous said...

regarding the mayoral race-- it is time for a change. compare satish and mike on knowledge of the town operations and it is clear that Mike is the right candidate.

Now is not the time for an extensive ON THE JOB TRAINING program for our next mayor. Mike will hit the street running, Satish will not .

Lastly, I would like to see ALL bloggers begin to treat each other with respect. If we do not we run the risk of turning this BLOG into nothing but an avenue to address personal grievances. It can and should be much more.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Chuck....I am not going to comment on your choice for Mayor other than to say that I disagree. If it is experience you want then Loomis has to be your choice. Both of the other candidates will have a learning curve.

And I couldn't agree with you more on your second point. But as you WELL know there are some individuals posting on this blog and managing this blog who just don't give a damn about accuracy and are not open to discussion. It's their way or the highway.

artmarth said...

I recently did a posting that accurately pointed out TWENTY REASONS why Loomis is NOT WORTHY of being mayor beyond this term.

Most everyone that has had an interfacing with Mike Zinkin speaks very highly of him.

Cox turns on anyone I support. Even the casual reader of this blog realizes that.

In 2008 he went after Bill Garner & Salette Latas, our two outstanding choices for council.

Cox couldn't accept that for the first time in history, not one, but two candidates won the election in the primary.

Not satisfied, Cox continues to look for reasons to complain about Bill & Salette. A previous comment he made lied about Bill receiving any support from the Democratic Party. Cox was forced to retract that statement, but couldn't just say "I'm sorry." No! That wouldn't suffice. So, he once again attacked me.

That's fine, because the overwhelming majority of our readers knows who is on the right side, and who is consistently on the wrong side.

Now it is Mike Zinkin & Dr. Don Emmons that Cox goes after.

Hopefully, enough of our readers will understand we have nothing to gain by supporting outstanding candidates to serve the PEOPLE OF ORO VALLEY, other than the knowledge that we are making a positive impact.

I would ask all those that have not yet voted---whether you're putting it off, or you don't know who will best serve us, PLEASE understand---EVERY VOTE COUNTS.

Mike Zinkin & Dr. Don Emmons will work hard for us. They are NOT beholden to ANY Special Interest Group.


OV Objective Thinker said...

Art.... Have I told you recently that you have a quality about you that I really like? That is that you never fail to provide me with so much ammunition that I have to do so little work.

Here is your statement:

"Cox turns on anyone I support."

Now in order for this statement to be accurate (which is not your strong point) I must have been in favor of the individual(s)or at least neutral before you supported them. Otherwise, I couldn't "turn". I have never and would never support Salette "Oro Valley First" Latas or Bill Garner. They are both extremely poor representatives of this community and the foundation for the lack of civilty on the current Council. If you speak to 20 knowledgeable people in this community and ask them if this is the worst Town Council we have had in 20 years they will respond "Yes!" Even KC Carter and Paula Abbott who initially were ardent supporters of Latas and Garner both turned against them. It's not just me Art. It's the community and THEIR OWN PEERS.

I have not "gone after" Mike Zinkin or Dr. Don Emmons. And I didn't turn on them after your supported them. Art, there is so much I know about your shenanigans in this race that you really should just leave well enough alone. Both Zinkin and Emmons started out seeking the opposite office for which they qualiified. I am also aware of the influence exerted by a sitting council person to change their minds. But be that as it may, I just don't support their candidacy. The reason you use the term "goes after" is because you refuse to accept any point that is counter to yours. Reasonable people can differ and get on with their lives. You can't accept any opinion other than your own.

As Mr. Davis so aptly stated in his post, this blog could be so much better than it is. The greatest roadblock to it's success is your ego.

And as I have previously predicted, your house of cards will collapse.

On one point we will agree. If people have not voted please do. Don't allow just a few to rule as happened in the last election.


artmarth said...

And you Cox, speak for such a small minority.

The more you "rank out" Salette & Bill, the more votes you help "garner" for Mike & Dr. Don.

You're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

For the record, Mike Zinkin considered running for mayor or council.

What made Mike decide on running for mayor? Quite the contrary to your info, the reason Mike decided to "take on Loomis" was the despicable way that he (Loomis) orchestrated the termination of our Town Manager David Andrews.

Who joined Loomis is this egregious action?

Your good pal Kunisch, who did whatever the police union wanted, and they wanted David terminated because he (David) had the "audacity" to try and balance Oro Valley's budget.

Carter (nobody should vote for him) and Abbott (who resigned) were the other two.

Only Bill, Salette & Barry Gilaspie had the courage to stand tall while the others, I contend, colluded in terminating David.

As for Dr. Don Emmons, you are also sadly mistaken. Don contacted me right after David's termination and was so infuriated by those four, that he advised he would run for council, "with or without my help."

It was easy to stand up for Dr. Don Emmons who has something you are so lacking---class & integrity.

Keep commenting. We'll soon see how many others are swayed by your continuous misrepresentations.

OV Objective Thinker said...


Public records clearly indicate that Mike Zinkin originally was to run for Town Council. He later "decided" to switch. Dr. Don Emmons sat in front of me at a meeting he requested and stated that he was going to run for the Mayoral position because of what happened to David Andrews. He later "decided" to switch

One of you is not telling the truth. Based on my knowledge of both of you, I believe Dr. Emmons.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


I must respond to this statement:

"Even KC Carter and Paula Abbott who initially were ardent supporters of Latas and Garner both turned against them."

Yes, they did, but not for the reason you cite, which is:

"They are both extremely poor representatives of this community."

Paula turned against Salette when the council voted UNANIMOUSLY (minus Paula of course) to appoint Salette as the Arroyo Grande liaison. Paula wanted that position and was insulted that she had been on the council for years while Salette was relatively new on the council and yet the council chose Salette for this position instead. It was all about Paula's EGO. Then she proceeded to act like a petulant teenager, fighting Salette on everything, including animal welfare issues which Paula had previously championed. It was childish and I withdrew my support of Paula as a result.

Same for KC. He despised Loomis and supported Latas and Garner. Then he got mad when they didn't vote the way he wanted them to on something (can't remember what it was, but Art will probably remember). Then KC said that he would never vote for anything either of them wanted again. More EGO and more childishness. And it was at that point when Loomis used the divide and conquer technique to lure KC to HIS side. Next thing you know, KC is worshiping at the altar of Loomis, a man he once despised.

They stopped representing the people and began representing their own hyperinflated egos instead.

I don't need a bunch of soap opera bad guys and divas on the council, always plotting ways to destroy their adversaries. I want maturity, and that's why I still support Latas-Garner-Gillaspie.

OV Objective Thinker said...

VC....If you go back and read my post you will discover that I did not specify a reason for Carter and Abbott turning against Latas and Garner. I was simply emphasizing my point that the latter two are not good for Oro Valley and used the former two to empasize my point.

In my opinion, Latas and Garner are far more interested in making sure their little special interests are catered to rather than look for the greater good of this community. As an example, Latas is a champion of things animal. That is a noble cause. However, she doesn't appear to care that her plan for Oro Valley to assume the Pima County responsibility for animal control will end up costing the taxpayers of Oro Valley much more money.

The lack of civility we see on the Town Council today was not there before Garner and Latas showed up. Sure there was always differing opinions but it has turned nasty and embarassing.

If you don't want "soap opera bad guys and divas on the council" then you need to effect change two years from now. I don't need to remind you and others of the recent "soap opera" tales that circulated through this town. None of it was centered around Paula Abbott.

freedom fighters said...

Thinker - I beg to differ with your comment about soap opera drama & Paula Abbot. Paula was the center of numerous snarky council snafu's primarily involving her absences, lack of preparedness, rambling dialogues, etc. etc. Certain aggressive efforts to dislodge her by humiliating her publicly were thwarted when she was reelected in a razor thin vote a few years ago. It would have been interesting to see if Paula would have survived another such election. That, we shall never know. But I do know this: despite all Paula's faults as a councilperson, she valiently served as the only balancing element - for years- to a council hellbent on building empire in Oro Valley.

OV Objective Thinker said...

FF...I am not sure I understand your comment. Maybe if you defined, "Paula was the center of numerous snarky council snafu's primarily involving her absences, lack of preparedness, rambling dialogues, etc. etc.".

I know Paula's attendance record was very poor and she did ramble but I am having a difficult time relating that to the first few words of your sentence.

I don't agree with your characterization of her being a "balancing element". Voting no is not in itself a "balancing element". Some of her no votes contradicted previous yes votes.

And I can never remember her being in involved in any action that would be considered 'soap opera-ish'.

Everyone please take notice of the new Art rules on the blog. Open discussion is no longer allowed.

And so far one of my comments pointing out the new censorship has been deleted.

Oro Valley Mom said...


Great assessment.

Carter turned against Latas on March 4, 2009. The item under discussion was the reduction-in-force plan.

Latas made a motion to approve reducing the 27 non-police positions recommended by the town manger.

Carter then moved to amend the motion to include the six police officers positions for a total of 33 positions eliminated. That amendment failed, with Loomis, Abbott, Kunisch, and Latas opposed.

Out of spite, Carter then voted against the main motion, which failed 3-4 with Loomis, Carter, and Kunisch opposed.

After that, the police unions ran radio ads attacking Carter, Garner, Gillaspie, and Andrews.

On April 27, there was a discussion of police take-home vehicles.

Carter moved to take away all the cop cars. The motion failed due to lack of second. For some twisted reason, Carter blamed Garner for not seconding his motion.

Latas, seconded by Garner, moved to discontinue take home vehicles for all employees that reside greater than twenty miles from their regular work site with the exception of the K-9 vehicles.

Once again, out of spite, Carter voted against the compromise motion, and it failed, 3-4, with Loomis, Carter, Abbott, and Kunisch opposed.

Sometime after that, Carter must have decided that he needed the police union support to get re-elected. He did vote to fire David Andrews, possibly in exchange for their endorsement, which he subsequently received.

Remember that Carter, Loomis, Abbott and Kunisch are still under investigation by the Arizona Attorney General’s office for a possible open meeting law violation in connection with the termination.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


Your original thought began with the words, "They are both extremely poor representatives of this community..." and went on to include the words, "EVEN KC Carter and Paula Abbott...turned against them."

The use of the word EVEN would indicate that THIS was the reason Paula and KC turned against them. It wasn't.

The soap opera I refer to is the one that takes place DURING the council meetings. (I don't like you anymore so I'm going to vote against anything you want.)

The soap opera YOU refer to did not include anyone plotting to destroy their adversary. What people do in their private lives is of no concern to me as long as they're not breaking any laws.

artmarth said...

Cox writes:

"Everyone please take notice of the new Art rules on the blog. Open discussion is no longer allowed.

And so far one of my comments pointing out the new censorship has been deleted."

I tried to save Cox the embarrassment of another stupid comment about "censorship," but it's too difficult a chore.

There is NO censorship, unless you choose to call it that when you (Cox) make nasty, arrogant comments about others.

At that time, we will use our discretion on what it to be deleted.

Then again, you (Cox) can always start your own blog.I'll even help you with names.. We'll start off with OVDad, & OinStarr. (Sorry, I can't give their real names as they choose to be anonymous.)

Nombe Watanabe said...

OV Thinker would vote against the baby Jesus if Art supported him. If Art sez black Thinker will say white.

That is just the way it is folks. So, you must take EVERYTHING Thinker writes with a grain of salt.


OV Objective Thinker said...

Nombe....You can tell a lot about a person by the folks they hang around with.

Salt has been described by many as a "flavor enhancer". I like to think of my comments as such and appreciate your positive support.


John Martin said...

In response to his ongoing duel with Cox, Art writes: "There is NO censorship, unless you choose to call it that when you (Cox) make nasty, arrogant comments about others."

It cuts both ways, I've observed.

As a longtime blog reader (and a more recent commenter), I would not characterize many of its discussions as overly polite.

Art wrote earlier in this thread: "Cox Why are you such a hypocrite?
(Rhetorical question)". [I would call that a shot.]

And from Nombe: "Rick Cunnington? You mean the wing nut who sends those wacky letters to the Explorer? He makes OV Thinker look like Mother Teresa...You guys are now in Vampire Squid company....." [I would call that a shot, too].

In recounting an alleged spat between Paula Abbott and Salette Latas, V. Cowgirl wrote: "It was all about Paula's EGO. Then she proceeded to act like a petulant teenager." [The charge may be true, but the way in which it was leveled...quite harsh.]

Politicians should withstand our criticisms. So, too, should those who actively engage in politics, be it promoting candidates or espousing certain points of view in a vocal manner. Perhaps the blog crowd shouldn't be so thin-skinned. It is, after all, billed as a lively forum here.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

John Martin,

Point taken, however, I must point out a couple of things.

You can find Thinker's adjectives all over this blog. Cunnington's appear in the Explorer on nearly a weekly basis and always include terms like hateful, irrational, and radical lefties. He also referred to the elderly as geezers.

Compare these to my descriptions of Paula and KC...petulant teenager, hyperinflated ego, and I'm sure you'll agree that my comments are quite civil and tame by comparison.