Thanks to Diane Peters for asking these questions in her letter to The Explorer. It deserves some answers.
Art
*************************************************************************************
OV mayor ought to get after willing sign code violators
I'd like to thank Bonnie Quinn for her defiant violation of the town sign code and for bragging about it at the Oro Valley Town Council meeting on July 21.
In doing so, she has provided me an opportunity to ask Mayor Hiremath if he plans on handling this deliberate violation with the same vigor he displayed, when, as candidate Hiremath, he relentlessly pursued his opposition's inadvertent violation of using the town logo on a campaign flier.
Immediately upon learning of the mistake, his opponent pulled the fliers and apologized for his error, but this wasn't good enough for Hiremath, who contacted the town attorney and demanded that his opponent be penalized under the law. Quinn, on the other hand, knowingly and willfully violated the town sign code and then proudly announced her flagrant violation to the mayor and council.
Will Mayor Hiremath do what candidate Hiremath did and file a formal complaint with the town attorney? Will Quinn receive a fine or reprimand of any sort?
Apparently, Ms. Quinn never considered that her deliberate violation of the sign code and subsequent announcing of it in a public forum could result in unintended consequences for Mayor Hiremath (the candidate whom she supported).
There is a huge difference between a willful violation and an unintentional one, and if Mayor Hiremath doesn't handle Quinn's willful violation in the same way that candidate Hiremath handled his opponent's unintentional one, then Quinn will have succeeded in placing Hiremath under the microscope of hypocrisy.
Diane Peters, Oro Valley
45 comments:
Hard to understand why the previous posts were deleted...Sometimes, there's such an arbitrary use of the delete button by the blog administrators. Yes, I know Art will tell me that it's his blog and he can "see fit" to do as he pleases...But to those who regularly read this blog, it's obvious that for the most part, comments must be in line with the beliefs of the blogmaster.
Posting Diane Peters' letter to the Explorer, while she is free to her opinion, is just opening up the same old argument this blog has had for months regarding a "willful violation" or an "unintentional one." The comments will just be a repeat of what's been argued back and forth on this blog.
Of course the blogmaster posts letters written by his "friends," not those who often disagree with him.
Let the games begin...again...
Jay D....
As you might expect one of the deleted posts was one of mine. So there is absolutely no opposing thoughts allowed.
I see that the first two comments have been deleted which means they were probably posted by Stinkerbell (aka Oro Valley Objective Thinker).
A half hour later, Jay D, also returns to the blog. See? They always disappear at the same time and they always return at the same time.
So, Jay D, since you're back, I'd like to remind you that you never answered a question I left for you on another post regarding the sign code topic. But I'm sure the fact that you didn't answer it was "inadvertent" and not "deliberate."
So here it is again...
Exactly how did Quinn "demonstrate" increased sales based on her usage of an A-frame sign?
I ask you this because although she produced NO concrete evidence and NO receipts for comparison, you said, "I see absolutely NO reason why this information has "zero credibility."
(1) Please tell us exactly how much credibility you think her story had (eg. 20% credibility, 50% credibility, 100% credibility).
(2) Please explain the rationale for your conclusion.
Jay & cox--- Hopefully, you both understand that I will judge what is appropriate and what is not. Both of your initial comments were deemed inappropriate.
As I mentioned on more than one occasion,we live in a democracy.
As such, I'll decide unilaterally what is posted and what is not worthy of being posted.
In the aforementioned democracy, you are free to leave at any time.
Inasmuch as cox stated publicly that our blog is "inconsequential,"
I would think he'd be happy to not partake.
It sounds like he speaks with a forked tongue.
VC- you are incredibly obnoxious, but I am pretty sure that the dirt you are throwing at people with other opinions will not stick. By the way, Obama is a Muslim, the evidence is overwhelming. I'm sure you believe that too.
Art- with your comment again, let me ask you once more to change the title of your blog because obviously you are not Giving you, the Oro Valley resident, an opportunity to discuss what we can do to "LET ORO VALLEY EXCEL" . Rather, you know what Oro Valley needs and give people with the same opinion the opportunity to chime in.
In regards to this topic, let me explain why the two acts are different:
The violation of the sign code can be considered an act of civil disobedience. It hurt noone (besides Art's and VC's and Palomino's - wait, are they the same person?? - precious and sensitive eyes), proved a point, and moved on.
Whether Zinkin unintentionally or deliberately did that, the act is illegal because it interferes with an election. As Art has already said, we live in a democracy, in which the use of the town logo is outlawed because it influences voters by deceptively claiming to be a government mailing.
The two acts are very different.
VC, you always want proof from the business owners that they increased sales. With 'your proof, proof, proof' agenda, why don't you start in your own backyard with Mr. Zinkin? No, you just take his word for it... seems a tiny bit hypocritical to me, no?
The next time I delete a comment from cox that I deem inappropriate, and he sees fit to re-post it---will be the last.
LAST WARNING!
art....I CAN ALWAYS TELL WHEN i AM GETTING UNDER YOUR SKIN!!!
cox--- you are so damn inconsequential and your comments are meaningless to most all our readers.
You will not be permitted to use our forum to denigrate others, and you're getting awfully close to finding that out.
In this time of change, oil in the water, blood on wall st, ash in the sky, one thing remains constant.
Cox and Art at each other's throats.
Up until this point, I have only been a reader of this blog (for informative albeit, entertaining purposes). However, these threads are becoming increasingly ridiculous and no longer provide warrant for my abstinence.
Zinkin's mishap was in clear violation of state statutes. How does this on any level require a similar response from Hiremath to an infraction of town ordinances? Publishing the town logo on campaign propaganda sends a strong and false message that the town advocated Zinkin's candidacy; this has much stronger consequences than the use of an inappropriate sign by a small business owner. As is my understanding, it was not just Hiremath who filed complaints against Zinkin, but several town residents.
On an entirely different note, I'd like to let the readers of this blog know that they create an incredibly hostile environment for new bloggers (like myself) to come in and participate in discussions. This blog is basically a constant battleground for JayD and OVDad vs. artmath and Victorian Cowgirl.
Lady Cardinal.....
For most of us it is not nearly as serious as it may appear. For others it is a serious threat to the system that allows blood to flow freely.
Hop in...the water is fine!! I am sure some folks will agree with what you have to say.
Lady Cardinal--- Obviously, you are stating a legal point in which you have a wealth of information!
Your opinion is meaningless. Mike Zinkin was totally exonerated for making an inadvertent error in which he apologized.
Once again, an anonymous blogger shows up and offers an opinion with no legal merit. At least you made cox happy.
I repeat my point that this blog is entirely hostile to new bloggers.
I never made any implication that Zinkin was not exonerated nor that he wasn't inadvertent.... I commented on the initial nature of his violation. Thank you. This hostility is why I am choosing to remain anonymous in the first place.
I just have a few comments/responses:
1. VC, I find you incredibly entertaining...What you don't know is that my comment was the first one removed by Art, posted at 8:26 a.m. I have no idea who posted the second one. You said, "A half hour later, Jay D, also returns to the blog. See? They always disappear at the same time and they always return at the same time." So again, this is incorrect, but it is pretty funny.
2. In terms of Art's democracy: In general, democracy is defined as "formal equality of rights and privileges." Obviously, the "Art democracy" is more of an autocracy, "unlimited authority, power, or influence of one person in any group." We should call LOVE what it is...
3. Lady Cardinal, you are right..."these threads are becoming increasingly ridiculous." There is also, as you say, a very hostile environment here. I have "disappeared" for periods of time, because it's often impossible to have a rational or semi-intelligent conversation with some of the posters. You said, "This blog is basically a constant battleground for JayD and OVDad vs. artmath and Victorian Cowgirl," which may be sad, but true. Personally, I find many of the topics here to be one sided opinions, without the opportunity for diversity, based on the often deleted comments by the blogmaster.
4. Finally, Art your comment to Lady Cardinal, "Your opinion is meaningless," is absurd, definitely hostile, and totally inappropriate. Even people who don't agree with your stance on your favorite people are entitled to state their opinions, whether the court, the town attorney, a judge, whatever has ruled one way or the other...
Jay,
Why do you care if this blog discusses "the same old argument?" Is it because you couldn't defend the argument the first time around so you certainly don't want to see it brought up again?
Rather than trying to create a diversion by claiming that this is an old argument and is therefore not worthy of discussion, why don't you use your time on this blog instead to prove that Ms. Peter's perception of Hiremath is wrong?
I disagree that it's an old argument since Quinn's violation is a recent event.
I saw Don Cox's letter in the Explorer where he refers to this blog as "inconsequential."
Don/OVOT -- if it's so inconsequential, why do you continue to post here?
You obviously think this blog has "legs" or you wouldn't waste your time reading it or responding to it.
Palomino, honestly I could care less if the blog discusses the same argument over and over and over again...My point, which somehow I must not have made clear, is that the same argument (Zinkin town seal violation/small business A-frame sign usage) has been made on several threads on this blog...The discussion goes in circles, those supporting Zinkin's "inadvertent" use of the town seal and condemning a local business owner for the use of the A-frame, and those on the opposite side of these arguments.
My point was that posting Peters' letter to the Explorer will just rehash the same argument as seen on other current threads...the argument to nowhere!
There is NO intent to create a diversion...
In addition, there is no point in trying to prove that Peters' perception of Hiremath is incorrect...I am pretty confident that nothing I would say could change her opinion.
Palomino,
Since you asked, I an answer a few hours ago and Art deleted it. But you deserve an answer.
Not always, but frequently, I post things on this blog with the sole purpose of getting under Art's skin. I have perfected this almost to an art form...no pun intended.
If this blog had legs, Zinkin, and Rabb would have been elected.
This blog was zero for five in the last election. Legs? Evidently not.
Insert "posted" between "I" and "an".
Thinkerbell,
You said you frequently post things on this blog with the "sole purpose" of getting under Art's skin.
When you dislike someone, you spell their name with lower case letters and do not use their title if they have one.
When you like someone, you capitalize their name and use their title if they have one.
When Art deletes one of your obnoxious posts, you re-post it...again and again and again.
Every one of those "antics" is something a 14-year old would do.
Is this really the way you want to be perceived by the other bloggers?
Thinkerbell,
On another post you said...
"art....I CAN ALWAYS TELL WHEN i AM GETTING UNDER YOUR SKIN!!!"
You "inadvertently" used a lower case "i" when referring to yourself! That's known as a Freudian slip, my friend, and it means that subconsciously even YOU know that YOU are "inconsequential."
Jay D,
(1) You STILL haven't offered any rationale for your belief that Quinn's story was credible.
(2) Your first post on this thread was at 8:26 AM, followed by Thinkerbell's first post at 9:25 AM, followed by your second post at 10:06 AM. So when I said that you and Thinkerbell always show up at the same time and disappear at the same time, I was correct.
You're always "laughing" at things that never happened, just like when you laughed because you THOUGHT that Art couldn't do math, when it was really YOU who couldn't add 2+2 (or 4-1 in this case!)
We have elected to return to monitored blogging because of the rancorous, mean spirited nature of some of the comments made by some bloggers.
You will no longer see your comment posted immediately since we have to review them first.
We base our decision on what to allow to be posted based on our "Terms of Use". Essentially, however, the baseline requirement is that the comment be respectful, on point to the topic, and free of "rumor mongering." That's not much to ask of our bloggers.
------
For those interested, cox refused to follow our simple credo.
Now he can scream his lungs out, but nobody will hear him---unless of course, The Explorer sees fit to print his "crap."
With apologies to all our friends.
We still welcome diverse CIVIL opinions.
Art
OV Dad,
(1) You said that I am "incredibly obnoxious" because you claim that I threw dirt at people who have other opinions. I have no idea what you're talking about. Specifics please. You do this all the time. You make generalized statements with nothing to back them up.
(2) You said, "By the way, Obama is a Muslim, the evidence is overwhelming. I'm sure you believe that too." Well, not only are you wrong about that, but you should know that one of your "buddies" on this blog ACTUALLY DOES believe that. He believes "Obama is a Muslim who is trying to destroy America from within." He believes this despite all the evidence to the contrary, yet he repeatedly claims that HIS thought-process is rational and I'm the one who's irrational and who believes in conspiracy theories! Ain't that a hoot!
(3) You claim that the two acts are different because one is civil disobedience and it hurt no one, while the other interfered with an election by deceptively claiming to be a government mailing.
The town attorney determined otherwise.
I maintain that the two acts are very different because one was deliberate and one was not.
I have already provided the proof (twice) that Zinkin's use of the logo was an honest mistake, but you have not proven that Quinn really doubled her revenue through her act of "civil disobedience."
Hopefully the real estate market will improve, then Mr. Cox. (OVOT) Will not have the time to upset Mr. Art on a daily basis.
I await the recovery; when the lamb and the lion are drinking out of the same water feature (I wonder what diseased real estate agent thought up THAT description) and there is peace in Oro Valley.
Hi All,
Please refrain from discussing national politics. It is not on point to our discussions and is not the purpose of the blog.
Thanks
--------
Zee Man,
When OV Dad brought up Obama, I don't think his intent was to discuss national politics. His intent was to attempt to ridicule me because he thought that I believed in this ridiculous conspiracy theory, which I do not.
As such, when I responded to his assertion, I pointed out that it was actually one of his "blog buddies" who DOES believe in that conspiracy theory.
I just want to make sure that OV Dad actually KNOWS who he's defending, although I remained civil and didn't actually mention the person's name. I think your readers are smart enough to figure out who it is.
OV Dad,
Now you say that using the logo..."influences voters by deceptively claiming to be a government mailing."
In other words, ENDORSEMENTS INFLUENCE VOTERS. People would see the town logo on the campaign flier and assume it meant that Zinkin was endorsed by the Town of Oro Valley and they would vote for him based on that endorsement.
But in a previous post you stated that the citizens are educated and do not blindly follow endorsements.
Allow me to refresh you memory on this point.
When Zinkin had a 52 point lead on Hiremath, I made the following comment:
“If you look at all factors, the race isn't as close as it seems...Hiremath had about twice the campaign money, endorsements from businesses and unions, firefighters and police...ran numerous newspaper ads and sent numerous mailers...With all of those political and monetary advantages, Hiremath should have won in a landslide. Instead, only a few votes separate the two.”
To which you responded:
“...you are denouncing at least parts of the citizens that voted for SH in arguing that they are not educated citizens, but rather subordinate followers of what advertisements and endorsements tell them...that your fellow citizens follow endorsements blindly.”
So, in May 2010 you claimed that the citizens are educated and are not influenced by endorsements, but then in August 2010 you claim that Zinkin’s use of the logo on campaign fliers would have influenced voters.
Do you see how you change the rules to suit whatever you need to believe at the time?
VC a.k.a. The Blog Police -
Do you keep a diary of the events on this blog?
Let me explain the difference to you: I don't think any of the organizations supporting Mayor Hiremath tried to claim they are a government entity. There is a large difference between having a private organization endorse you and pretending to be the government candidate. If you can't see that, you might want to change your prescription.
Actually, I want to make this even clearer for you, but this needs a digression to the national level. Why do such few congressmen lose their position? It's the incumbency effect. By claiming to be a government entity, you try to achieve such an effect. That's why the entire thing is outlawed to begin with. Private organizations, however, have to make it clear that they are NOT a gov't entity. One makes the recipient think it's an official government endorsement, the other one makes the recipient see that this candidate is endorsed by the police union, or the fire department. BIG difference.
Also, are you implying in your last post that voters blindly follow endorsements and that Zinkin profited from his 'inadvertent' mistake? Are you implying that he did have a reason to make such an 'inadvertent' mistake? Since you are playing word police all the time, you might want to chose your own more wisely.
OV Dad,
I am not the Blog Police. I am the Hypocrisy Police.
And now that you've been caught stating that endorsements don't matter followed by stating that endorsement do matter, you're changing the argument to "a government endorsement is different than a private organization endorsement."
Either endorsements work or they don't. Pick one.
Now you're trying to imply that a government endorsement carries more weight than a private endorsement. But Arizona is a RED STATE (anti-government, pro-business) so I fail to see how pretending to be part of the government would earn you any points in this neck of the woods.
I understand that few incumbents lose their re-election bids because of the "incumbency effect," but I don't believe that effect has anything to do with them being seen as part of the government. It has to do with name-recognition. I remember my grandmother, for example, always voting for the incumbent because, "he's been on the job for awhile so he knows what he's doing." She had an 8th grade education (common in her era) and never knew a thing about the issues.
Back to Arizona, I don't think anyone wins an election in this state by "claiming to be a government entity." What's that joke about the scariest words in the English language? "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
I still maintain that one act is graver than the other. I never said endorsements don't work. In the statement you cited, I said that they are not followed blindly. For you, the fact that the police force supports a candidate is a reason not to vote for them. For others, it is one reason (out of many) or - even - the only reason. The key is that you were generalizing in your post (as you are doing again with your grandma story) and that I fought the notion that some votes are worthier than others.
Anyways, since you like playing word police, I thought it would be funny if I did the same for once. And I don't even need to go back several months (to be frank, I don't remember what you said then, your opinions are not as important to me as mine seem to you). Let's have a look at your latest post, shall we?
OV Dad,
I am not the Blog Police. I am the Hypocrisy Police.
Solid joke to start of with.
And now that you've been caught stating that endorsements don't matter followed by stating that endorsement do matter, you're changing the argument to "a government endorsement is different than a private organization endorsement."
I don't need to change my opinion, as anyone with a sane mind would agree the two are different. Because logic fails you, however, you feel like you have 'caught me'. Back to the issue, there is a reason why one form of endorsements, called lobbying, is an intricate part of our democracy while the other one is outlawed, as your candidate had to find out.
Either endorsements work or they don't. Pick one.
Again, I don't really need to. Obviously, this blog's endorsements didn't pan out that well, did they?
Now you're trying to imply that a government endorsement carries more weight than a private endorsement.Correct, that's why it is outlawed to use the town logo. But Arizona is a RED STATE (anti-government, pro-business) so I fail to see how pretending to be part of the government would earn you any points in this neck of the woods.
So, Mike Zinkin's use of the logo is the reason he failed?The notion you imply that blue states are pro-government and anti-business is a Fox talking point and quite a frank assertion for someone like you. But I digress, simply explain to me why it is outlawed and not permitted then if it only has negative consequences.
I understand that few incumbents lose their re-election bids because of the "incumbency effect," but I don't believe that effect has anything to do with them being seen as part of the government.
So our former long, long, long congressman Kolbe was never seen as part of the government?
It has to do with name-recognition.
Certainly one of the factors.
I remember my grandmother, for example, always voting for the incumbent because, "he's been on the job for awhile so he knows what he's doing."She had an 8th grade education (common in her era) and never knew a thing about the issues.
That, actually, is a great example for my point. Your grandmother with her 8th grade education would have - and allow me to make these assumptions here - seen the mailing, thought he had done something official with the government before and thus "knows what he's doing" and voted for Mike Zinkin.
Back to Arizona, I don't think anyone wins an election in this state by "claiming to be a government entity."
Didn't you just say that your grandmother did just that?
What's that joke about the scariest words in the English language? "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Insert unnecessary (grandma?) joke here.
OV Dad,
I SAID: Back to Arizona, I don't think anyone wins an election in this state by "claiming to be a government entity."
YOU SAID: Didn't you just say that your grandmother did just that?
No I didn't. I said "Back to Arizona" because my grandmother was not from Arizona. She was from a BLUE state.
And no, she would not have voted for Zinkin because she saw the logo. She would have voted for Loomis in the primary because he was the incumbent. Then she would have voted for Hiremath in the general because he was endorsed by the former incumbent.
My whole point was that AZ is a pro-business, anti-government state so how would using a government logo get you elected in THIS STATE?
Hiremath sought out business endorsements because AZ is a pro-business state and he knew that those endorsements would help him get elected.
End of discussion.
Lady Cardinal stated that some of us have created a hostile environment on this site, so I'd like to point out that the hostile environment was created by bloggers such as Oro Valley Objective Thinker (OVOT), Jay D and OV Dad. (There were others, but I have chosen these three because Jay D and OV Dad arrived fairly recently and OVOT has been here since the inception of the blog in 2007. Many of the other hostile bloggers disappeared over the years.)
If you do a little research, you will see how each of us “introduced” ourselves to the blog. You will see who joined the blog with a civil demeanor and who joined the blog with an attitude.
With that in mind, here is my very first post (in other words, this is how I introduced myself to the blog) in March 2007. I was responding to a post left by OVOT who stated that “unique” stores meant stores that were unique to Oro Valley (rather than stores that sold unique merchandise) and that signing the Oro Valley First Pledge was “childish.”
__________
OV Objective Thinker believes that "unique" simply means that the store is unique to Oro Valley. But that's not what Vestar led us to believe. You can debate the meaning of the word "unique" if you like, but you cannot debate the meaning of the word "upscale" which Vestar also used when attempting to sell us their marketplace.
Also, signing pledges not to shop at OVM is not childish, it is effective. Chandler residents used this same tactic to prevent Vestar from building a Wal-Mart in their town and it worked!
__________
Did I resort to name-calling? Ridicule? Character-assassination? No. My response was civil and I offered a “fact” from a similar case in Chandler, AZ.
Please read on to compare how Jay D and OV Dad and OVOT introduced themselves to the blog.
HERE IS HOW OV DAD INTRODUCED HIMSELF TO THE BLOG IN FEBRUARY 2010.
He went after a blogger who commented that Hiremath was not married to the mother of his children. OV Dad took this personally and said, “This statement is nothing less than an insult and I demand an apology!”
The following day he went after the same blogger, this time saying, “Your views are absolutely ancient and completely absurd. It is the views of ignorant residents like you that will keep young families out of Oro Valley.”
Notice how he went straight for ridicule and name-calling with words like absurd and ignorant.
HERE IS HOW JAY D INTRODUCED HIMSELF TO THE BLOG IN MARCH 2010.
“I am saddened and disgusted by the ignorant (yes, I am using this word as it is intended, "lacking in knowledge or training") responses on this site in relation to the discussion regarding the potential sales tax increase.”
He went straight for name-calling and labeled everyone “ignorant” who disagreed with him.
On another post during the same time-frame, he said, “The comments on this post are truly laughable!“ He also singled out one blogger’s comments as being “absurd.”
THE BLOG BEGAN ON FEBRUARY 5, 2007. HERE IS HOW OVOT INTRODUCED HIMSELF TO THE BLOG ON FEBRUARY 19, 2007.
"I see the OV seagull has squawked and left some droppings. After careful analysis, artmarth, I suggest some more fiber in your diet and maybe, just maybe, your droppings will have more substance."
__________
Lady Cardinal is correct about the hostile environment, but I'm not the one who created it.
Lady Cardinal was right that there is a hostile environment on this blog, but this is nothing new.
VC, comments you make, even beginning in 2007, can be construed as hostile, aggressive, finger pointing, etc. "You either want to be surrounded by crowds and traffic and auto pollution or you want to be surrounded by nature and have peace and quiet. You can't have it both ways. So decide what you want and then move to that place." Or this one from November 2007: "Notice he hasn't written back with an answer to my question. They never do!" So I see a pattern as far back as 2007. From June 2008: "...If you really had any common sense you would not shop at Wal-Mart." And just recently, regarding a local business owner, you said:
"...all I can say is I can see that the personality bypass was a success!" The comments you have made since the inception of the blog are far from respectful and are definitely hostile.
My point is that you suggest that the hostile environment was created by some bloggers, me included, yet it's easy enough to site disrespectful, inappropriate comments you have made for years.
You said this about me: "He went straight for name-calling and labeled everyone “ignorant” who disagreed with him." If you read my comments well, I try very hard not to name call. I said things like, "I am saddened and disgusted by the ignorant responses" and "...comments are laughable..." or "absurd." I learned many years ago to refer to the behavior, NOT the person!
The bottom line is that there is an air of hostility here...There are few bloggers here, including at least one of the blogmasters, who can honestly say that his or her comments have never been hostile!
The sad part is that the hostility is paired with a bully mentality, so that posters who do not necessarily agree with the majority on this blog are the recipients of most of the hostility. And yes, it goes both ways.
JayD--- I saw fit to post your last comment because your point is well taken.. Inasmuch as we were forced---yes, forced, to revert back to monitored comments, why don't we all start trying to address the issues and not banter---or attack, counter-attack, back & forth.
A good start might be John Musolf's latest report on the OV Council.
There should be enough there for honest debate, and yet, to date, not even one comment.
OVOT,
You said "There is absolutely no opposing thoughts allowed." That's a strong statement, yet the facts are that you and Jay D and OV Dad have been allowed to post dozens (if not hundreds) of comments. Your assertion is blatantly false.
Art has made it clear many times, as he did again on THIS thread, that he welcomes "diverse CIVIL opinions."
Why can't you just be civil?
OV Dad,
You should re-read your initial post on this thread. You open with "VC - you are incredibly obnoxious." Why can't you just debate what she's saying, offer your counter-points and be done with it?
Why didn't you just open with "The violation of the sign code can be considered an act of civil disobedience." Do you see how one approach is civil and one is not?
BTW, if I walk by Quinn's restaurant every day and kick over her A-frame sign so that it's now laying flat on the ground and can no longer be seen from the road, would that be OK since it's just an act of civil disobedience?
Jay D,
I didn't say that I never "participated" in it, I said that I didn't "create" it.
You are comparing apples and oranges. I pointed out that you and OVOT and OV Dad had an attitude from day one. You pointed out that I developed an attitude at some point. Yes, I did. And that's because at some point I figured out that the only way to get through to some people is to speak to them in the only language they understand. But I would always revert back to being civil only to have my posts relentlessly attacked again by a handful of bloggers who are completely lacking in social skills.
I notice you didn't defend the "opening statements" of your friends OVOT and OV Dad.
Your first post sets the tone. It tells everyone the level on which you want to engage. I told everyone (repeatedly) that I wanted to debate/discuss in a mature and civil manner. I was met with a lot of resistance, both initially and to this day!
You said some of my comments "can be construed as hostile, aggressive, finger pointing, etc." CONSTRUED is the operative word here because some of the examples you gave were weak. YOU construed some of them as hostile even though I did not write them that way.
However, it's impossible to construe words like absurd, ridiculous, incredibly obnoxious, irrational, paranoid, you are un-American, you are the enemy, etc. as anything but hostile.
I believe my "common sense" comment was directed at a blogger who called himself "Common Sense Thinker." Notice how my pseudonym is non-offending (as is yours and OV Dads) but how some people arrive with an attitude just with the alias they choose. Oro Valley Objective Thinker announces that he is objective and you're not. Common Sense Thinker announces that he has common sense and you don't. It's off-putting from the start.
My comment about the personality bypass was left within the past 2 weeks. This is not how I introduced myself to the blog and it was not directed at another blogger.
I have also never "outed" another blogger whose identity I happen to know. This is another form of hostility.
Post a Comment