Friday, March 26, 2010

Dr. Don Emmons Withdraws As A Candidate For Oro Valley Town Council

The following email was sent out previously to those on our mailing list. We are posting the email to advise those readers not on our mailing list.

Dear Friends & Neighbors,

After lengthy consideration and consultation with his wife, Dr. Don Emmons has determined it is in his and his family's best interest to withdraw his candidacy for Oro Valley Town Council.

Don confided in us some time ago that family issues may preclude him from continuing as a candidate. It was our position that Don should do what was best for him and his family.

This was not an impetuous decision on Don's part, but a decision that we understand and respect.

Don wanted us to thank the thousands of Oro Valley voters that thought enough of him to allow him to get through the primary vote, and allowed him to be one of the candidates seeking a council position.

We were proud to have supported Dr. Don, and would have preferred he remain in the race, but circumstances made that a difficult decision to make.

We wish Dr. Don Emmons the best. We appreciate that he stepped up and saw fit to be a candidate. His views were very much in line with ours, and with sadness, we accept his decision.

Hopefully, there will be no need for any further explanation, as we will respect Don and his family's privacy.

An official notification should be forthcoming shortly from the Oro Valley Town Clerk.



The Zee Man said...

We wish Dr. Don our best.

We ask all readers to please refrain some speculating regarding Don's very personal reasons for removing himself from seeking an Oro Valley Council seat.

Otherwise, your comments on this topic are welcome.

RC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Zee Man said...

I have removed the comment posted by RC on the basis that it speculates as to reasons he is no longer a candidate or alleges information regarding Dr. Don that is personally damaging.

I will continue to monitor all postings to insure that such are not published.

LOVE is not going to be a source of speculation or a vehicle to allege information regarding Dr. Don's situation.

It is what it is.

Please, let's move on.

Zev Cywan said...

In the past I have posted my 'queasiness' relative to Dr. Don Emmons as a viable candidate for a seat on Council; this was relative only to my reservations in that I simply could not digest that he had
the 'insight' as well as the applicable qualifications to serve the community in a capacity as needed. Dr. Emmons has always treated me with courtesy and respect; I wish him well.

Leopold B. Stoch said...

I wish Dr. Don the best.

Politics 101: Be sure to research your candidates before running them for office.

Eleanor said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
artmarth said...

Eleanor--- What did you not understand? If you can not follow OUR guidelines, you will not be permitted to comment here.

I hope you understand it is OUR blog and OUR rules.

Behave yourself or leave.

Eleanor said...

If by guideline you mean saying things you don't agree with, then I am guilty. Otherwise, which guideline did I break?

artmarth said...


You don't really need an explanation on why your comment was deleted. If you do not understand basic directions, that is too bad.

I will not have a dialog with you on the blog. If you wish, you can email me at

Leopold B. Stoch said...

This blog is not very inviting of dissenting views. Eleanor didn't say anything she doesn't have the right to say. I read it.

artmarth said...

Mr. Stoch--- When you & Eleanor do your own blog, you'll be welcome to determine what is, and what is not appropriate.

Perhaps you are not aware of our policies.

For your benefit and others that may need the same clarification; WE run the blog and WE determine what is appropriate.

To further clarify: We make the rules, not you or Eleanor.

Please---don't bother to tell us, it is censorship. What you consider her right, we consider her not following OUR rules. Dissent is welcome. Most of her comments are personal attacks. That is NOT welcome here.

John Martin said...

I would agree with "Leopold." Be careful with your endorsements as they often reflect more about your values than those of the candidate.

Eleanor said...

Artmarth - So is your strategy to make me mad and get me to leave?

That's a major miscalculation.

I'm not going anywhere. You mislead the public and frame people unfairly. Yet when people call you out on your own candidates, you delete their comments because you don't have a leg to stand on.

I said very nice things about Dr. Don Emmons. You took exception to my acknowledging your failure to do your homework. I called you on it and you don't like it. So you deleted my comment.

You started a blog - be ready to deal with the basic realities that come with that (i.e. people will openly disagree with you and challenge you when you are wrong).

Welcome to America.

OinStarr said...

I'm pretty upset that Don confided in you SOME TIME ago that he may not be able to continue in the race. Yet you and Don continued to lead voters astray. The Doctor did not spend any money, didn't have a website and now I suspect you knew all along he was not a serious candidate.

Further you wasted a lot of people's time, effort and energy promoting on behalf of this candidate. You should be ashamed of what you did to the voters of this town.

Conclusion: As an umpire would say "3 strikes you're out!

OVDad said...

It is terrifying to see how much what candidates are being favored by a commenter influences what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. When Mary Snider was disgracefully depicted as going around kissing other men, nothing happened although the claim was backed by only the view of the commenter and is completely unjustified. When what is on PUBLIC RECORD was being published about a candidate that was endorsed by this blog but put little to no effort into his campaign, the comment got deleted.

To the blog editors: On the blog it says:

LOVE: Let Oro Valley Excel
Giving you, the Oro Valley voter, an opportunity to discuss what we can do to "LET ORO VALLEY EXCEL".

Look hard at yourselves. Is this really what you are doing?

Leopold B. Stoch said...

This is really unacceptable. I will be supporting Hiremath for Mayor this time and encouraging my friends as well. I didn't vote for Rabb last time, certainly won't this time. As Oinstart points out, this blog hasn't played it straight with people.

Jay D said...

Of course Don Emmons should do what is best for himself and his family (and for the Town of Oro Valley). And of course, he is entitled to his privacy. Sadly, this is not really possible (and can not really be expected) when a person becomes a public figure.

This news did not surprise me in the least...I did not see Vote for Don signs in the community, did not see a website touting his qualifications (besides comments on this blog), and understand that personal issues kept him from attending the majority of the candidate forums.

Several red flags have been raised in my mind when Art states that "Don confided in us some time ago that family issues may preclude him from continuing as a candidate." How long ago was this? Some time ago implies prior to the recent primary election. What a shame that Don could not have made his move prior to this last election.

freedom fighters said...

Hey people - what's up here? If you don't like someones recommendation, don't follow it. Art's entitled to his opinion and he gave it. No one is obliged to follow his advice.
What I've been reading on this stream, and others, appears to be an effort to drive an INDEPENDENT blog into the drink & discredit INDEPENDENT opinion by using Saul Alinsky methods. It's one thing to give an opposing view, but immature taunts & incivility point to a certain sort of now popular behavior that is designed to defeat free speech.

Grow up.

Leopold B. Stoch said...

Freedom Fighter - When you refer to people conspiring to "defeat free speech" - does that include Artmarth and Zee Man deleting people's comments?

freedom fighters said...

FYI that's the way blogs are run. If you don't like the tone & theme of a blog, don't visit. If however, you are a grownup, you are invited to cast your opinion & discuss issues but NOT denigrate or insult other participants. All blogs have rules; I think Art has been pretty forgiving & patient - for the most part- in putting up with LOVE's participants.

Leopold B. Stoch said...

So you are for freedom of speech, but only when it is reviewed and approved by Artmarth...?

You lost me.

The Zee Man said...


Please note that the following bloggers have recently entered our conversations for the sole purpose of disrupting our long-time mostly cordial dialogue.

The are: Leopold, John Martin, Eleanor and Jay D. They all joined the blog either in February or this month.

They are working to get Hiremath, Hornat, and Waters elected.

Entering into dialogue with them is fruitless.

Their objective of disrupting our dialogue will not stand.

Their tactics will not work.

At some point, if they continue their belligerence, which I suspect they will, I will simply obliterate their postings.

Eleanor said...

Freedom Fighter - Who regulates Artmarth and Vicky Cowgirls comments? Shall I cut and paste from any number of comments by them that "denigrate or insult other participants"(your words)? There are at least 100 targeted at Cox alone.

Jay D said...

Zee Man, while it is true that I recently joined this blog, and it is also true that I support candidates not supported by this blog, I strongly object to the comments you made that included my name:

"recently entered our conversations for the sole purpose of disrupting our long-time mostly cordial dialogue."

What makes you think my intent is to disrupt your long-time, mostly cordial dialogue? I have followed this blog for years and while it can generally be cordial, that only seems to occur when the writers agree with each other. As soon as one of the writers disagrees with the opinion of the blog owners, problems develop.

I have attempted to comment constructively (which is more than many do, but they are still your friends). I have also tried to steer these conversations away from the attacks.

Obliteration (your word) should go both ways...Either wipe out all posts that attack others (like you did with a recent post by Art) or expect posters to "mature up" and stop acting like middle schoolers!

John Martin said...

Zee Man: I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I only try to engage others and, if you look over my history of posts, you will see that I've never personally attacked anyone.

And, so you know, I have not contributed time or money to any of three candidates you mentioned, nor did I even vote for all three. Just one, in fact. Others got my vote, including one candidate of whom you have spoken favorably on many occasions.

artmarth said...

I am not here to speak for my fellow blogmaster, The Zeeman, but I believe he may have inadvertently mentioned both John Martin & Jay D, where he may have meant two others.

I will acknowledge that both of these gentleman have at times agreed with me, and other times, not, but they certainly do not deserve to be lumped together with the other two.

As I said, Zee & I can each speak for ourselves, but on behalf of the blog, I will apologize to John & Jay and reaffirm their fairness when we agree and not.

Desert Voice said...

OV Dad,

Lawyers prefer witnesses who have "firsthand or personal knowledge of" situations as more persuasive testimony for their cases.

I have "firsthand knowledge of" Snider's kissing Loomis, Sharp, C Hicks. If these men are relatives, then TOV needs to discuss its policy on nepotism. There are others who witnessed this behavior.

However, there are other men, not relatives, who were recipients as well.

One is a male colleague, who described Snider's action as "being nice" or "naive". Poster asked him how many times any of the close female friends he has ever kissed him in the past 3 years. He blushed, he laughed, and couldn't remember a single kiss from his memory bank. Point made.Snider chose to act differently than many other local women.

Eleanore threw Snider in the mud by overreacting and referring to Snider as a "whore". "Despicably described" was your inflammatory exaggeration of a matter-of-fact comment.OVDad, you distort the facts.

Fact: Snider chose to kiss men during her campaign.

Fact:Poster commented on Snider's choice as demonstrating poor judgment, that voters needed to factor this even in her judgment when evaluating who Snider endorsed. Poster strongly applauded Snider's achievements for schools and suggested that her political insights may be uneven.

Fact: McNamara published facts Hiremath told him about his personal life: one divorce and child, three children with his live in companion who is 17 years younger. Hiremath's choices.

Fact: Voters/bloggers have opinions about Hiremath's choices which will influence how they/we vote.

Desert Voice said...

Emmons' supporters and Art,

With the recent tragedy of his brother's near fatal accident, his vet partner's medical issues in her family requiring Don to be constantly on call and Don's main MO in seeking election, ie to correct the injustice of Andrews' mysterious forced resignation by certain members of Council, we, the voters, come head on with how "life happens" forcing us a to revise our plans.

A member of the clergy shared this quote:
"If you want to see God laugh,
tell Him your plans."

Don, thanks for wanting change, being ready to take action and wish you a tranquil year. You have a very full plate.

artmarth said...

Desert Voice--- Thanks for putting things in perspective.

Eleanor said...

Dessert Voice - You are speculating as to why Emmons dropped out of the race. That is against the Zee Man's rules, you know... Unless you are throwing red herrings and they are willing to go along with it.

Just more rules that are selectively applied here.

And your "kissing" obsession with Mary Snider is really odd. You sound like a jealous woman...

Desert Voice said...


My field is squeaky sensitive about any inappropriate physical contact. There Snider would be censured for it in a heartbeat.

OinStarr said...

It is truly unfortunate that these circumstances have occurred to Don. However, he is not immune from life, nor are the others involved in the upcoming election. Now we see the human side of this. The attacks made here have to be just as hurtful to the other candidates, their spouses/significant others and their children. We have no right to judge.

Having said that, DV goes on to say that Don's main MO for entering the race was to right the terrible injustice of David Andrews' mysterious forced resignation. If that was the main reason he entered the race, it was for the wrong reason and he should have bowed out long before yesterday to attend to his family matters. There is more at stake for OV than the resignation of the town manager.

Desert Voice said...

Oin Starr,

We all feel the push of the proverbial last straw. LOVE detailed the final impetus for Emmons' entering the race. That does not mean he is oblivious to the Town's needs.

However, one may want to serve, "life" intervenes for some, derailing us when we'd rather have control. Sometimes we are confronted with "choices" and have to pursue our goals serially rather than simultaneously. We defer those choices.

The circumstances of the pulls on Emmons' energies were clearly presented at each Candidate Forum he missed. Voters heard that. To me that was his clarion call, that "life" had other plans for him. Circumstances kept sabotaging his candidacy. Inspite of that he made the finals.

Yes, objectively Emmons' stressors were very clear to me. Sometimes one has to walk around with stress before acknowledging it takes its toll. Zee Man, if my posting violates the code, I do apologize.

My intent is to empathize with all that is going on for Emmons.I applaud his ability to assess his time constraints and admit it's not the time in his life to seek office. Withdrawing takes just as much courage as running.

The Zee Man said...

Well, I would prefer that we do not speculate regarding Don's decision. It is what it is and it is none of our business.

And, I don't care who Mary Snider kissed and I don't care why she kissed them. I doubt she kissed the 6000 plus voters who voter her in. Is this really something we need to talk about?

See ya!

Victorian Cowgirl said...

The forced resignation of Dave Andrews was not the sole reason for Don's decision to enter the council race. It was just the straw that broke the camel's back, because it was yet another sign (in a long list of signs) that certain council members needed to be removed from office.

I applaud Don for entering the race and staying in the race for as long as he did, despite all the obstacles that were placed in front of him. Perhaps at this time (and I'm just guessing here) now that Abbott and Kunisch have resigned, and Carter and Loomis have been booted out, all the "bad seeds" are gone, so perhaps Don felt that it was now safe to withdraw from the race and devote his time to more pressing issues in his own life.

Eleanor said...

Vicky Cowgirl - That is more speculating as to why Emmons dropped out. That is against The Zee Man's blog rules (see above).

Again not enforced.

It appears the blog masters only delete comments when people post the truth about Emmons dropping out.

The Zee Man said...

Hello Eleanor,

Well.. It's hard for me to "blow every comment up."

I sense that you agree that it's time to move one.

We've got a great town to build!!!

travelling dancer said...

Sorry Nombe Watanabe, I stand corrected.

Eleanor is soo focused on Dr. Don Emmonds. It appears to be a vendetta. Does she have something against Vet's or only Dr. Don Emmonds. Is she worried that, maybe too many people now will vote for Matt Rabb? Sounds like a friend of OVOT that purports to be a very strong active Republican, who voted for Gabby Gifford. Who's the Rino now?

Is everyone forgetting that in Oro Valley, it is a nonpartison race. I have heard on the radio that Oro Valley had the reputation of the only city in the State that, those of the Republican persuasion voted like Democrats and the Democrats voted like Republicans. That was his impression. In other words this last Mayor loved to tax and spend.

Oh, by the way, there were signs up for Dr. Don Emmonds at four or five locations. Well. so much for the lack of sign theory

I give Dr. Don Emmonds kudos for having the conviction to do what he thought was best for our Town. I wish him the best.

Eleanor said...

Zee Man - I agree with you; this horse is dead, but some people can't can't stop beating on it (see Travelling Dancer).

I would love to move on and talk about the Zinkin radio interview - however you have disabled comments for that topic. Afraid of what people have to say?

Travelling Dancer - You just can't let the Emmons thing die. I have only very nice things to say about Dr. Emmons. My beef is not with him - but with this the managers of this blog. I really don't want to reiterate all the point already made by me and other about our objections - just read above. Emmons is out. Let's move on to the Mayors race.

And I don't think Rabb will be elected. Of those moving on, he was dead last with over 1000 votes between him and the next vote-getter still in the race. While he's a great ambitious kid, he has two significant problems 1) He's now Art Segal's marionette 2) He needs more experience before sitting on the Town Council. Most people I talk to have the same opinion. I think the vote supports that as well. I wish him well - but my advice is for him to distance himself from this blog.

Let's move on.

Victorian Cowgirl said...

Perhaps Zee Man didn't delete my comment because:

(1) It was civil.

(2) I clearly stated that I was guessing.

(3) The conclusion I drew was neither defamatory nor incendiary.

Eleanor said...

Vicky Cowgirl - you just outed yourself - I suspected you were also Travelling Dancer.


OV Objective Thinker said...

I will not speculate on the reasoning used by Dr. Emmons to withdraw from this race.

I DO KNOW it was an appropriate move for him and one that earns him my respect.

I also know that the LOVE blog was provided information on February 24that should have eliminated all support for Dr. Emmons. They chose to ignore the information.

The post by RC contained facts that are public information. They were not speculative. As Zeeman did say accurately, "It is what it is."

As you will note in some of my recent posts I have pushed Art to confirm his committment to Dr. Emmons. There was a reason for that. He did so as recently as last week KNOWING that Dr, Emmons should not have been supported.

If you put two and two together you will be able to figure why the sudden interest in Matt Rabb on Art's part. He knew there were problems and this was his response.

I have also said on numerous occasions that the house of cards would soon crumble. It has now done so.

I have copied this post and will continue to post it until it remains.

You deserve to know the truth.

artmarth said...

Cox--- If you were only half as smart as you think you are, you'd still have a big problem.

For one that thinks he knows everything, you come up way short.

Make copies of everything, but remember it is Zeeman & I that are in control of this blog.

That's another thing you have difficulty comprehending.

Desert Voice said...


How embarrassing it must be for Loomis and Hiremath, candidates endorsed by certain interest groups to have run second and third inspite of the money they received to Zinkin who had no, absolutely no, partisan support. Even with big bucks from organizations they ranked substantially behind Zinkin.


Five days ago you wrote the following:

of Zinkin"...the only candidate to take partisan money...Lots of money from the Dems..."

What and where is your documentation for that statement?You need to produce it on this blog asap.Be prepared, Eleanore, because I have documents sitting on my desk that say exactly the opposite. What you wrote is not only patently false, it is libelous.

Zinkin did not take any money from the Democratic Party. He incurred an expense with them in the amount of $100 on 1/12/2010.

You like research...are you aware that Webster describes the root of sarcasm as Greek 'sarcasmos' meaning to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer..." You dismiss your need for anger management by saying you use sarcasm. Do you not get it?

Jay D,

You described Eleanore as "honest". The facts say the opposite. Please show the blogsite your documentation of her "truth".

16 postings ago, you, Jay D, suggested getting back to discussing Hornat and Waters. Why have YOU not registered your reasons for supporting them? Is Travelling Dancer correct, you are waiting to answer until after the Chamber opens tomorrow?


You did not comment on Snider's sending one message to the Dems of Sun City and a different message to the larger gathering of SC's residents. I'm surprised you did not comment on that discrepancy in her representing her platform.

You stated you voted for Rabb...but did not state that you will also do so on May 18 and why you feel he earns your support?

Oin Starr,

You stated Hornat, Waters and Hiremath want what's best for Oro Valley, yet you have not elaborated on what "best for OV is", please share your thoughts.

Eleanore, Jay D, Oin Starr, your silence is DEAFENING.

The Zee Man said...

Eleanor and All,

I have enabled comments on the Zinkin interview. I had inadvertently closed commenting when I posted the notice. A simple oversight.

Please listen to the interview and provide your thoughts.

Desert Voice said...


We differ (not a surprise) on Rabb and the blog's endorsement.

Rabb was a sleeper in the primary...stayed loose...on his he reconnected to his town of origin...As people got to know him, his refreshing views, his lack of preexisting animosities, he grew by leaps and bounds in voters minds. Endorsing Rabb has nothing to do with Emmons' says more about voters knowing who and what Rabb stands for.

In suggesting that Matt's parents greased the wheels in DC to get their son his internship, undermines this young man's potential and accomplishments. You might want to meet and greet him personally. He is special.

Remember: before I met him, I, too, said, "he's too young."

Jay D said...

Desert Voice, you say:

"Is Travelling Dancer correct, you are waiting to answer until after the Chamber opens tomorrow?" and...
"Eleanore, Jay D, Oin Starr, your silence is DEAFENING."

This cracks me up! I have nothing to do with the Chamber, but believe it or not, I have a life...I have not been on this blog recently or had time to post an educated response. Rather than just throwing out opinion (this happens often here) without fact, I want to provide facts.

I will be back, but not today....And NO, I am not going to meet with the Chamber! Ridiculous!!!

OV Objective Thinker said...


Your heavy handed deletion activity is positive evidence that you control the blog. It is also evidence that you don't appreciate open, frank discussion.

For you to continue to endorse and support someone, knowing what you knew, is completely shameful and shows a total disrespect to the Town of Oro Valley and it's citizens. But that not new info.



I have met Matt and have listened to him speak. Unfortunately I cannot share that experience with others as it was under controlled circumstances.

He is not too young. He simply doesn't posses the base of knowledge he needs to do a reasonably good job as an Oro Valley Town Councilman at this time. I like the guy. I think he would be better served and could better serve us if he got a board or commission assignment under his belt and had a few more life experiences.

Desert Voice said...


Please elaborate on the particular knowledge base you see him/Rabb as lacking. You are writing generalities, not specifics.

In addition, you alleged that his parents facilitated his internship in Washington. Please cite your sources of how they did that.

Jay D,

Posters look forward to your reasons for backing your candidates. Please also provide proof of Eleanore's honesty.

OV Objective Thinker said...

Desert Voice...

What is it about "Unfortunately I cannot share that experience with others as it was under controlled circumstances." that you do not understand.

What I can tell you is that a series of questions were asked and he did not have the ability to answer even one with complete accurace. Most of he responses were that he has friends helping him gather information and he just hasn't had sufficient time to do his own research.

He also alluded to the fact that he is attempting to establish his own law practice within his fathers firm.

Your second inquiry is easily answered by words within your own question...."his parents".
His parents are heavy contributors to the Democratic party and well connected as a result. Parents will do what parents will do. Do you really suppose that sort of stuff (large contributions) is ignored?

Lastly, If I was Jay D I would tell you where to pound sand.
Where do you get off telling him/her to provide proof of anothers honesty? You are far too impressed with your own importance.

Victorian Cowgirl said...


You asked Desert Voice, "Where do you get off telling [Jay D] to provide proof of anothers honesty?"

Eleanor demands "proof" of everything from other bloggers but provides no proof of comments that she herself makes. Jay D defends Eleanor. Therefore, Desert Voice asked Jay D to provide proof of Eleanor's honesty.

It's a fair request.


Another infantile comment from you.

What's really hilarious is that you suspected and are now convinced that I am also Traveling Dancer. Where's your proof? (Your favorite word.)

While we agree on many things, Traveling Dancer is a Republican and I am a Democrat.

Desert Voice said...


Asking for documentation after unsubstantiated prejudical statements were written by Eleanore and supported by Jay D is warrants "telling you where to pound sand"?


If the documentation exists, both Eleanore and Jay D should present to readers. Proof. Facts.
As a reader I'm surprised you are not concerned about evidence of their statements.

Is it unreasonable to hold posters accountable for their statements?

Desert Voice said...


Your posting is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Seems that common sense rules apply to some but not all...

John Martin said...

Desert Voice: There were documents (government-generated records), but the blog administrators removed the posted links. Fair enough; the blog's own rules don't allow linking to outside sites without express permission of the administrators, who can do so at their discretion.

But Emmons is now out of the race. Perhaps we should begin discussion of the remaining candidates and the issues at hand. Zee man or Art? Maybe a new post to start that conversation?

Desert Voice said...


When you refer to "government generated documents" specifically what do you mean?

Mike Zinkin's campaign finances are part of public records.

Art & Zeeman,

Can you tell the blog if you've removed any public records from the blog or know to what records John Martin is referring to?

Nombe Watanabe said...

D. Voice:

I am very happy you called Eleanor on her claim of Democratic money going to candidate Zinkin. I expressed doubt about this claim long ago, when another blogger raised this claim, with no response. I maintain that no national party would be concerned with a small town election, it just does not make sense. In regard to Snider, since I have no interest in her, I do not wish to comment on her activities.

As for Rabb, I guess I will vote for him. I did in the past, so I don't see why I would not vote for him again. He earns my support because he is young, fresh and may need some encouragement to stay interested in public service. May not be much of a reason but there it is.

God knows Wing Nuts are thick on the ground here in Arizona. The state cannot budget and, for some reason, they have destroyed public education.

On another thread on this blog someone noted that we could close all the prisons and the state universities and STILL not be able to balance the state budget. I do not know if this claim is true, but one must wonder why our representatives in Phoenix, while the state sinks into red ink,
are working hard to let ANYONE carry a firearm WITHOUT proper training. After a few years in the Army, I can tell you that training is very important when guns are involved. Oh yes, god forbid we outlaw texting while driving, takes away our freedom to be stupid.

So Rabb could be a breath of fresh air if he decides to evolve from OV politics.

Desert Voice said...


Thank you for supporting Eleanore's need to prove her claim. Several posters heard you, but needed explicit documentation before responding.

I have a copy of Zinkin's financials submitted to the Town Clerk's office. Unequivocably
THERE ARE NO SUMS OF MONEY FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. There is a bill @100 from the Dems. Zinkin was charged for addresses. Nor are there "in kind" services which the D Party provided.

His donors by and large gave modest sums of money and appear listed individually.

Again, how humiliating it must be for Loomis and Hiremath who had substantial interest backers to see that Zinkin led the three candidates with modest donations of his supporters. "Money isn't everything."

John Martin said...

Desert Voice: I wrote in error, specifically to your question. Nothing was posted or removed, to my knowledge, relating to campaign finance documents. I apologize for conflating your comments with others related to Emmons' reasons for departing the race. The error was mine alone. I also apologize to the blog administrators (Art and Zee Man) for my mistake. Carry on.

artmarth said...

john Martin--- Once again you differentiate yourself from those very few that believe they never make a mistake and are quick to blame others for their shortcomings.

You have no need to apologize to Zeeman or me, but, your apology is accepted graciously.

OV Objective Thinker said...

It's too bad we can get Art to apologize for his inaccurate postings

Nombe Watanabe said...

Thinker, you need to clean up some of your statements also.

To Wit:

Women in disguise.

Democratic money in the local election.

Nicht War?

OV Objective Thinker said...


Ms. Ottobani was in disguise at the Mayor's state of the town address. I and several others saw her. Art writes it off as being dressed for a funeral. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :-)

I corrected my previous statements that Zinkin accepted money from the Democratic party. You must have missed that post.

I also asked him to vow that he would not. He refused.

He told me that if offered he will accept. That's nice, huh???

Money was donated last election cycle to Latas and Gillaspie from the Pima County Democratic Party. They are interested in local elections. It's where the indoctrination begins.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Thinker. Sorry I missed your post.
I withdraw my comment.

Desert Voice said...


Do you read the AZ Star? Watch KOLD for nighttime news?

As Art previously wrote to you,Lourdes Medrano who interviewed the three ladies on 9/29/09 and Geri Ottoboni was one, asked why all wore black, published who they were by name. You allegations are demonstrably false, OVOT. It was published in the Star a day or so later. They were also on KOLD 8/29 with Bud Foster reporting.

None of the ladies were "in cognito"...and why would they be?
What are you insinuating?

If you don't believe was is on the blog, call Medrano and Foster. How "in cognito" having one's name in the Star and on KOLD? Please let's move forward and over this.

Desert Voice said...

Eleanore and Jay D,




Jay D said...

Oh for crying out loud, Desert Voice. Why are you yelling at me???? I never said anything about Zinkin and contributions from the Democratic party!!!! Check your facts! While I realize that Zinkin's "financials" are a matter of public record, the fact that you have a copy of them (I can look at them online, but have no interest in printing a copy) implies that possibly you are his campaign manager. True?

Desert Voice said...

Jay D,

Have you ever noticed that when the listener doesn't hear the speaker, the speaker speaks louder as if it were a hearing problem?

Remember you praised Eleanore's honesty and truth? She is the one who stated Zinkin received large amounts of money from the Democratic Party. You supported Eleanore...therefore, where is your evidence?

Or are you separating yourself from this statement Eleanore made?

You also stated yesterday you wanted to research your answer.

Are you admitting that, indeed, after investigation you know Zinkin took no money from the Dems?
and that Eleanore "misspoke"?

OV Objective Thinker said...

DV....Chet, give it a break.

OV Objective Thinker said...

DV....Chet, give it a break.

Desert Voice said...


You are mistaken...DV is not Chet, nor Chet's representative. I AM YOUR CONSCIENCE. I like TRUTH, INTEGRITY,HONESTY.

Jay D,

Please review your blanket endorsement of all of Eleanore's postings as "honest", "truthful".

If you do not concur with her in everything, you can say so. You may want to exercise more care before blanketly describing Eleanore as honest.

Eleanore has libeled Zinkin's reputation, multiplied by the number of readers on this blog. I think that's a lot of legal "harm" to his reputation...And you, as the 'go, too, guy' seconded her statements by saying she's honest.

Evidence says otherwise.

Where do you stand?

OV Objective Thinker said...


All you want to do is argue.

Your statements are ridiculous and you make demands on folks when you have no right to do so.

The fact that Zinkin said that he would accept political party funds if offered is sufficient evidence that he would break the intent of the rules of the election process. That, in itself, should disqualify him from consideration. If he isn't willing to play by the rules then what does that say about his character?

It is very, very difficult to "lible" the reputation of a public figure. Statements are made every day about our politicians that may not be 100% accurate.

My suggestion is that you get over it and also get over your self-imposed importance.

Desert Voice said...


'me thinks you are waxing too long and strong over "libel"...that refers to Eleanore...

You are having a hard time allege blogmasters won't let you post.

You have reason to blur your real identity and post with a pen name...

What do you wear when you speak as Eleanore?

Have YOU consulted a lawyer who advised you "it is very hard to prove libel of a political figure"?

You have motive. You argue with the blogmasters continuously.

I am an observer to this. Not self-important..but I do have zero tolerance for duplicity and communicate directly.

You have intent. You want to undermine everything Art Segal and LOVE stands for. Reason:unknown.

You quickly reminded, if memory serves me right, Nombe Wantabe, that you did withdraw your allegations that Zinkin had received Dem funds...and now are anxious to let readers know "that if they/Dems offered Zinkin would accept"...You want him/Zinkin, to be punished for funds that have not been offered...BUT IF THEY WERE TO OFFER, HE Would ACCEPT...OVOT/Eleanore, isn't that a stretch? Sounds like lawyer-ese to me. To be sanctioned for something that has not happened while two other candidates did receive special interest endorsements? Pul-ease!

You distanced yourself from this topic as soon as I mentioned "libelous" and never reappeared on the Emmons thread as "Eleanore".


What might a discerning blogger infer from this?

Why does the Long Real Estate website describe you as, "a million dollar producer"?

Hmmm! Your loose tongue could cost you big bucks in court!

You might want to acknowelege your error to LOVE, or wait for legal action to begin.

False "unfounded statements...that damage...and redudce a person's reputation ...or professional earning capacity...or reuptation...

'''which also reflects on the integrity with which you pursue real estate sales...

OVOT, you have a lot to think about...

G'night OVOT...May tomorrow be a better day for all of us.

When you called Medrano and Foster what did they say about 9/29?

John Martin said...

As someone with specific professional experience in such matters (in a different life, seemingly so long ago), I must say all this talk about libel is misinformed.

People, of course, should strive for accuracy at all times. However, to suggest that one may have libeled Zinkin by incorrectly stating he received money from a particular political party doesn't even come close to meeting the legal standard for granting general damages (for emotional or physical harm) or for awarding special damages (in cases of harm to one's financial well-being, etc.)

Secondly, it's virtually impossible to libel a political candidate or elected official (especially in cases not involving specious claims of criminality).

And finally, proving libel in almost any case remains extraordinarily difficult. You must prove a person's malicious intent in smearing another. That requires real or actual evidence of malice (documentation or previously and publicly stated specific threats, etc.) In essence, you must prove a person's frame of mind to derive their intent.

So, I would say folks shouldn't play it fast and loose with facts. And they certainly shouldn't jump to vicious conclusions based on half-formed opinions. But to accuse one another of libel (when it involves published material; slander is something said on the street, for instance) risks taking things further onto flimsy ground.

Jay D said...

Desert Voice, I am really tired of reading the attacks you try to send my way. You YELL at me, for accusing others of things I did NOT do, yet you do not retract those comments. I asked if you were Zinkin's campaign manager, but you have not responded. Are you able to have an intelligent conversation and discuss issues on this blog or do you prefer to just attack others to distract people from the facts? I will no longer respond to you, because I can see it's useless. Was that your intent?

OV Objective Thinker said...

DV....You have convinced me that along with being full of crap you have an agenda that is warped.

Trust me, I have no need or desire to post under any other pen than OVOT because it clearly defines me. And in case you haven't caught on to it most everyone on this blog knows who I am.

I want to undermine the lies and inaccuracies posted on this blog by Art and others...including you. That's my primary focus and reason for being here, But I readily admit that it is quite amusing to watch Art gulp every bit of bait that's thrown out on the water, like a fat bass going after a tasty morsel. As I have previously stated, seldom does he disappoint.

As for the Zinkin contribution matter, you accurately pointed out that I corrected my inaccurate posting. That's an example of how much respect I have for accuracy. You should take a lesson from that. I also don't think it is a stretch to remind folks that if given the opportunity he would accept political party funds. As I said, that speaks to his character.
Chartacter me.

I don't believe I know anyone named Medrano or Foster and I don't have a clue about what took place on 9/29 but I will check my back calendar. Maybe you could let us all in on the news.

Desert Voice said...


Medrano is a journalist for the AZ Star who covered the "State of Oro Valley" luncheon that took place at EL Conquistador.

Bud Foster is a news reporter for KOLD TV who also covered the above on 9/29/09.

It is curious that you don't know who they are.

"Honesty, integrity, truth"

You labelled me as liking to argue. You don't seem to recognize anyone whose opinion differs from yours.There are valid statements of fact that you omit or don't recognize. My understanding of this blog is that this is the place for discussion.

Jay D,

No, I am not Zinkin's campaign manager. Where was I when you asked that question? Mike Zinkin has many friends. In my opinion,fair play, not utterly unfounded statements crafted to convey a very false impression, should guide political process.

OV Objective Thinker said...


I have never had a conversation, (verbal or electronic) with either person you mentioned. I may recognize Foster if I see him as I watch that channel for local news, but I wouldn't know Medrano if she passed me on the street. I seldom read the Star other than to scan headlines. Sorry to completely wreck your thought process.

I recognize and appreciate all points of view (as long as they are accurately stated) and your right to express them. It is this blog and Mr. Segal who completely disrespect the opinions of others...and some of the posters who float in and out.

If you want to discuss and express, I'll engage you. If you want to dictate and make demands, pound sand!!!

Nombe Watanabe said...


Don't be obtuse. The last few postings point to your disguise Jihad.

Just admit that you are wrong. The nice ladies in question were not disguised. They we in costume.


Desert Voice said...


Love your posting...thanks

Desert Voice said...


Love your posting to OVOT!

OV Objective Thinker said...


Was it a costume party? What was the need for a costume? Did the costume serve any purpose? did the costume add anything to the purpose?

Pardon me if I choose not to buy it!! You say potato, I say potato!!

The bottome line which folks wish to ignore, is that Ottobani is not a credible human being.

Nombe Watanabe said...

Any costume which would be designed to upset Loomis MUST have been a good thing.

If they were dressed as witches, I would direct you to Shakespere. MacBeth, Act one.