Okay so Bob Dunning obviously decides he too must weigh in on the issue of the pay raise for County Supervisors.
Dunning bets us that if we polled 100 residents, 80 percent couldn’t even tell you which county supervisor represents them and of the 20 percent who could, no one could name all five current supervisors.
That would be an interesting test. I know I’m not a random person on the street in Davis but I know my supervisor, Helen Thomson. And I can name all four of the other supervisors–I’ll even name both Sieferman AND Rexroad, for good measure. I’ve personally met all of them except for Duane Chamberlain. So I think it’s fair to assume that a random sample would find at least one person who could name all five.
I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.
Most polls of the American electorate have shown that slightly less than 50% of Americans can identify their own representative in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.
So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise? Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.
Despairingly Dunning writes that “apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”
I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning who is pulling in decent bucks is making comments like this about people who are not wealthy and are true public servants. They certainly are neither making nor asking for outrageous salaries.
Getting Small Results from Public Servants
Upon hearing that Supervisor Thomson had read from the Davis Vanguard at the recent County Board of Supervisors Meeting, I thought it would be a good idea to try to get a hold of a copy of the meeting or at least find out when the shows aired.
So I checked the website–no mention.
I called them up, and I spoke to a very nice lady in the Supervisor’s Clerk’s office, and they did not have the current information.
I called up the WAVE and got no answer there.
Finally, in frustration I emailed Supervisor Mariko Yamada. Within a day, the Public Officer had added the vital information to their webpage:
http://www.yolocounty.org/org/BOS/BOS-Meetings07.htm
There you go; constituent service at its finest.
I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.”
Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.
“On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.”
You have never shown where or how Dunning’s logic is faulty, and then you attack him for using faulty logic.
Dunning simply pointed out that the work of the supervisors is not well known. And as such, they are not well known figures (to most people). He did not say or imply that their work is unimportant, or that it is undeservering of being well compensated. In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.”
Because of your extreme hatred of the man, which you have identified as being one of the main reasons you started this blog, you have attributed to Dunning a point with which you disagree that he never made or even implied. If you would take your blinders off, perhaps you could see that. But I fear that your prejudice is so thick, you cannot see what is obvious.
And what is even more shameful is that uneducated boobs, who share your prejudices, will come on this blog and cheer you on for your calumny, yet neither you nor they will ever concede that what you have said is wrong and unfounded.
“So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise?”
No one but you has said this or suggested as much.
“Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.”
The only red herring is your perception of words that are not there.
“Despairingly Dunning writes that ‘apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…'”
What bull. First, the word you meant to say was disparagingly, not despairingly. I guess the UC Davis Political Science Department does not teach lexicology. Second, there is no reason to believe that Dunning meant anything other than what he said: that the current salary is not enough to live a proper lifestyle on. If you take that as being disparaging, then that just exposes the depths of your cynicism, not his.
“I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning (sic) who is pulling in decent buck (sic) is making comments like this (sic) about people who are not wealthy.”
Beyond your misunderstanding and poor usage of the English language, what I find distasteful is attributing a thought to someone else and defaming the person for that thought, when the person never expressed that thought at all.
It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.
I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.”
Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.
“On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.”
You have never shown where or how Dunning’s logic is faulty, and then you attack him for using faulty logic.
Dunning simply pointed out that the work of the supervisors is not well known. And as such, they are not well known figures (to most people). He did not say or imply that their work is unimportant, or that it is undeservering of being well compensated. In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.”
Because of your extreme hatred of the man, which you have identified as being one of the main reasons you started this blog, you have attributed to Dunning a point with which you disagree that he never made or even implied. If you would take your blinders off, perhaps you could see that. But I fear that your prejudice is so thick, you cannot see what is obvious.
And what is even more shameful is that uneducated boobs, who share your prejudices, will come on this blog and cheer you on for your calumny, yet neither you nor they will ever concede that what you have said is wrong and unfounded.
“So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise?”
No one but you has said this or suggested as much.
“Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.”
The only red herring is your perception of words that are not there.
“Despairingly Dunning writes that ‘apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…'”
What bull. First, the word you meant to say was disparagingly, not despairingly. I guess the UC Davis Political Science Department does not teach lexicology. Second, there is no reason to believe that Dunning meant anything other than what he said: that the current salary is not enough to live a proper lifestyle on. If you take that as being disparaging, then that just exposes the depths of your cynicism, not his.
“I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning (sic) who is pulling in decent buck (sic) is making comments like this (sic) about people who are not wealthy.”
Beyond your misunderstanding and poor usage of the English language, what I find distasteful is attributing a thought to someone else and defaming the person for that thought, when the person never expressed that thought at all.
It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.
I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.”
Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.
“On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.”
You have never shown where or how Dunning’s logic is faulty, and then you attack him for using faulty logic.
Dunning simply pointed out that the work of the supervisors is not well known. And as such, they are not well known figures (to most people). He did not say or imply that their work is unimportant, or that it is undeservering of being well compensated. In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.”
Because of your extreme hatred of the man, which you have identified as being one of the main reasons you started this blog, you have attributed to Dunning a point with which you disagree that he never made or even implied. If you would take your blinders off, perhaps you could see that. But I fear that your prejudice is so thick, you cannot see what is obvious.
And what is even more shameful is that uneducated boobs, who share your prejudices, will come on this blog and cheer you on for your calumny, yet neither you nor they will ever concede that what you have said is wrong and unfounded.
“So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise?”
No one but you has said this or suggested as much.
“Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.”
The only red herring is your perception of words that are not there.
“Despairingly Dunning writes that ‘apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…'”
What bull. First, the word you meant to say was disparagingly, not despairingly. I guess the UC Davis Political Science Department does not teach lexicology. Second, there is no reason to believe that Dunning meant anything other than what he said: that the current salary is not enough to live a proper lifestyle on. If you take that as being disparaging, then that just exposes the depths of your cynicism, not his.
“I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning (sic) who is pulling in decent buck (sic) is making comments like this (sic) about people who are not wealthy.”
Beyond your misunderstanding and poor usage of the English language, what I find distasteful is attributing a thought to someone else and defaming the person for that thought, when the person never expressed that thought at all.
It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.
I will concede the fact that most in Davis probably cannot name their own supervisor. However, I hardly believe that that should be the test for how much they should be paid.”
Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.
“On the other hand, 89 percent of Americans can correctly identify who Bart Simpson is. Using Dunning’s logic, we can guess at how he might respond here.”
You have never shown where or how Dunning’s logic is faulty, and then you attack him for using faulty logic.
Dunning simply pointed out that the work of the supervisors is not well known. And as such, they are not well known figures (to most people). He did not say or imply that their work is unimportant, or that it is undeservering of being well compensated. In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.”
Because of your extreme hatred of the man, which you have identified as being one of the main reasons you started this blog, you have attributed to Dunning a point with which you disagree that he never made or even implied. If you would take your blinders off, perhaps you could see that. But I fear that your prejudice is so thick, you cannot see what is obvious.
And what is even more shameful is that uneducated boobs, who share your prejudices, will come on this blog and cheer you on for your calumny, yet neither you nor they will ever concede that what you have said is wrong and unfounded.
“So does the fact that few in Davis can name their own county supervisor mean that County Supervisors do not deserve a pay raise?”
No one but you has said this or suggested as much.
“Or is this just another red herring disguised to distract us from more meaningful issues.”
The only red herring is your perception of words that are not there.
“Despairingly Dunning writes that ‘apparently the money [current salary of $49,730] isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…'”
What bull. First, the word you meant to say was disparagingly, not despairingly. I guess the UC Davis Political Science Department does not teach lexicology. Second, there is no reason to believe that Dunning meant anything other than what he said: that the current salary is not enough to live a proper lifestyle on. If you take that as being disparaging, then that just exposes the depths of your cynicism, not his.
“I find it distasteful when a guy like Dunning (sic) who is pulling in decent buck (sic) is making comments like this (sic) about people who are not wealthy.”
Beyond your misunderstanding and poor usage of the English language, what I find distasteful is attributing a thought to someone else and defaming the person for that thought, when the person never expressed that thought at all.
It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.
“Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.”
You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.
“In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.””
Actually he did not.
He said “we’ll get to the part about how underpaid they are in a minute…”
In fact that is sarcasm. He makes that clear with his statement, “Apparently the money isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”
Sorry but you’re going to have to do better than that.
I have no hatred for the man, in fact, on a personal level I like him. But I do not like some his columns, as I think he does us a disservice with many of them.
“Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.”
You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.
“In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.””
Actually he did not.
He said “we’ll get to the part about how underpaid they are in a minute…”
In fact that is sarcasm. He makes that clear with his statement, “Apparently the money isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”
Sorry but you’re going to have to do better than that.
I have no hatred for the man, in fact, on a personal level I like him. But I do not like some his columns, as I think he does us a disservice with many of them.
“Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.”
You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.
“In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.””
Actually he did not.
He said “we’ll get to the part about how underpaid they are in a minute…”
In fact that is sarcasm. He makes that clear with his statement, “Apparently the money isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”
Sorry but you’re going to have to do better than that.
I have no hatred for the man, in fact, on a personal level I like him. But I do not like some his columns, as I think he does us a disservice with many of them.
“Dunning never said or implied “that that should be the test.” You cannot quote one word of his column which suggests that.”
You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.
“In fact, he said that they are “underpaid.””
Actually he did not.
He said “we’ll get to the part about how underpaid they are in a minute…”
In fact that is sarcasm. He makes that clear with his statement, “Apparently the money isn’t sufficient to live a proper Yolo County lifestyle…”
Sorry but you’re going to have to do better than that.
I have no hatred for the man, in fact, on a personal level I like him. But I do not like some his columns, as I think he does us a disservice with many of them.
As I read Dunning’s column tonight I agree with him and think he is right on about “NO REPARKING on this BLOCK FACE” signs. I agree with him: “this new plan doesn’t solve anything… you still have the same number of cars and the same number of parking spots… you’re now just requiring people to drive more, pollute more and add to congestion when they look for a new spot…” Amen, Bob, amen.
As I read Dunning’s column tonight I agree with him and think he is right on about “NO REPARKING on this BLOCK FACE” signs. I agree with him: “this new plan doesn’t solve anything… you still have the same number of cars and the same number of parking spots… you’re now just requiring people to drive more, pollute more and add to congestion when they look for a new spot…” Amen, Bob, amen.
As I read Dunning’s column tonight I agree with him and think he is right on about “NO REPARKING on this BLOCK FACE” signs. I agree with him: “this new plan doesn’t solve anything… you still have the same number of cars and the same number of parking spots… you’re now just requiring people to drive more, pollute more and add to congestion when they look for a new spot…” Amen, Bob, amen.
As I read Dunning’s column tonight I agree with him and think he is right on about “NO REPARKING on this BLOCK FACE” signs. I agree with him: “this new plan doesn’t solve anything… you still have the same number of cars and the same number of parking spots… you’re now just requiring people to drive more, pollute more and add to congestion when they look for a new spot…” Amen, Bob, amen.
Now I’m confused. Does Rich want to have sex with Davisite or Doug?
Now I’m confused. Does Rich want to have sex with Davisite or Doug?
Now I’m confused. Does Rich want to have sex with Davisite or Doug?
Now I’m confused. Does Rich want to have sex with Davisite or Doug?
Actually I think it must be Bob Dunning the way he is defending him all the time.
Actually I think it must be Bob Dunning the way he is defending him all the time.
Actually I think it must be Bob Dunning the way he is defending him all the time.
Actually I think it must be Bob Dunning the way he is defending him all the time.
Okay, granted this is more on how the COD has screwed up parking downtown and less about how much county supervisors are getting paid, but what is UP with the new “if you leave your car downtown past 2am, you’re assured to get an $80 ticket and a tow” ordinance? So the COD would rather I risk getting in my car drunk and *possibly* get a DUI or assuredly get a ticket and tow. Yeah. That makes sense.
Now, I’m not a student any more so I’m slightly more financially able to afford a ticket and tow these days but let me tell you I would have to be falling down in the gutter, seeing double, throwing-up drunk before I ever leave my car downtown over night!
Okay, granted this is more on how the COD has screwed up parking downtown and less about how much county supervisors are getting paid, but what is UP with the new “if you leave your car downtown past 2am, you’re assured to get an $80 ticket and a tow” ordinance? So the COD would rather I risk getting in my car drunk and *possibly* get a DUI or assuredly get a ticket and tow. Yeah. That makes sense.
Now, I’m not a student any more so I’m slightly more financially able to afford a ticket and tow these days but let me tell you I would have to be falling down in the gutter, seeing double, throwing-up drunk before I ever leave my car downtown over night!
Okay, granted this is more on how the COD has screwed up parking downtown and less about how much county supervisors are getting paid, but what is UP with the new “if you leave your car downtown past 2am, you’re assured to get an $80 ticket and a tow” ordinance? So the COD would rather I risk getting in my car drunk and *possibly* get a DUI or assuredly get a ticket and tow. Yeah. That makes sense.
Now, I’m not a student any more so I’m slightly more financially able to afford a ticket and tow these days but let me tell you I would have to be falling down in the gutter, seeing double, throwing-up drunk before I ever leave my car downtown over night!
Okay, granted this is more on how the COD has screwed up parking downtown and less about how much county supervisors are getting paid, but what is UP with the new “if you leave your car downtown past 2am, you’re assured to get an $80 ticket and a tow” ordinance? So the COD would rather I risk getting in my car drunk and *possibly* get a DUI or assuredly get a ticket and tow. Yeah. That makes sense.
Now, I’m not a student any more so I’m slightly more financially able to afford a ticket and tow these days but let me tell you I would have to be falling down in the gutter, seeing double, throwing-up drunk before I ever leave my car downtown over night!
Yeah, whenever Rich starts throwing around the “calumny” word you know he’s hot to trot. Meow.
Yeah, whenever Rich starts throwing around the “calumny” word you know he’s hot to trot. Meow.
Yeah, whenever Rich starts throwing around the “calumny” word you know he’s hot to trot. Meow.
Yeah, whenever Rich starts throwing around the “calumny” word you know he’s hot to trot. Meow.
Sounds like a penny-wise/ pound-foolish solution.
One of the interesting things that came up at a recent council meeting was that the parking enforcement mechanism is now so good they’ve had budgeted short-falls. The council acknowledged it was a poor policy to write into the budget traffic and parking fines–so you rely on people to break the law in order to produce revenue.
Sounds like a penny-wise/ pound-foolish solution.
One of the interesting things that came up at a recent council meeting was that the parking enforcement mechanism is now so good they’ve had budgeted short-falls. The council acknowledged it was a poor policy to write into the budget traffic and parking fines–so you rely on people to break the law in order to produce revenue.
Sounds like a penny-wise/ pound-foolish solution.
One of the interesting things that came up at a recent council meeting was that the parking enforcement mechanism is now so good they’ve had budgeted short-falls. The council acknowledged it was a poor policy to write into the budget traffic and parking fines–so you rely on people to break the law in order to produce revenue.
Sounds like a penny-wise/ pound-foolish solution.
One of the interesting things that came up at a recent council meeting was that the parking enforcement mechanism is now so good they’ve had budgeted short-falls. The council acknowledged it was a poor policy to write into the budget traffic and parking fines–so you rely on people to break the law in order to produce revenue.
“Now I’m confused. Does Rich want to have sex with Davisite or Doug?”
How profound.
“Actually I think it must be Bob Dunning the way he is defending him all the time.”
My defense is of the truth and the facts, not the person. Nevertheless, the attacks do tend to be personal, which, alas, poisons a debate.
I will not, of course, win a popularity contest among the self-righteous, left-wing hate-mongers. And that makes me happy.
“Now I’m confused. Does Rich want to have sex with Davisite or Doug?”
How profound.
“Actually I think it must be Bob Dunning the way he is defending him all the time.”
My defense is of the truth and the facts, not the person. Nevertheless, the attacks do tend to be personal, which, alas, poisons a debate.
I will not, of course, win a popularity contest among the self-righteous, left-wing hate-mongers. And that makes me happy.
“Now I’m confused. Does Rich want to have sex with Davisite or Doug?”
How profound.
“Actually I think it must be Bob Dunning the way he is defending him all the time.”
My defense is of the truth and the facts, not the person. Nevertheless, the attacks do tend to be personal, which, alas, poisons a debate.
I will not, of course, win a popularity contest among the self-righteous, left-wing hate-mongers. And that makes me happy.
“Now I’m confused. Does Rich want to have sex with Davisite or Doug?”
How profound.
“Actually I think it must be Bob Dunning the way he is defending him all the time.”
My defense is of the truth and the facts, not the person. Nevertheless, the attacks do tend to be personal, which, alas, poisons a debate.
I will not, of course, win a popularity contest among the self-righteous, left-wing hate-mongers. And that makes me happy.
i’ll have you know i’m an educated boob, rifkin. i’m still a bit puzzled why you bother spending so much time here, if we’re all incorrigible left wing hatemongers (hate! get your red hot hate here!). is being an enterprise columnist really that boring a job, that you’re driven to trolling local blogs?
the parking situation is rediculous in this town, they keep throwing expensive solutions at problems that are really an issue of growing population and static parking spots. if the university had built adequate on-campus parking for the humanities side of campus, much of the downtown parking crunch would disappear overnight. forcing people to repark their cars on differnet blocks doesn’t address the parking shortage, it just makes more runaround for people.
the chalk the wheels solution worked just fine, for a fraction of the price. building denser, affordable housing for students in the downtown would create different congestion issues, but would probably cut down on the parking crunch on the west side of downtown, since more people would just walk or bike to class.
i’ll have you know i’m an educated boob, rifkin. i’m still a bit puzzled why you bother spending so much time here, if we’re all incorrigible left wing hatemongers (hate! get your red hot hate here!). is being an enterprise columnist really that boring a job, that you’re driven to trolling local blogs?
the parking situation is rediculous in this town, they keep throwing expensive solutions at problems that are really an issue of growing population and static parking spots. if the university had built adequate on-campus parking for the humanities side of campus, much of the downtown parking crunch would disappear overnight. forcing people to repark their cars on differnet blocks doesn’t address the parking shortage, it just makes more runaround for people.
the chalk the wheels solution worked just fine, for a fraction of the price. building denser, affordable housing for students in the downtown would create different congestion issues, but would probably cut down on the parking crunch on the west side of downtown, since more people would just walk or bike to class.
i’ll have you know i’m an educated boob, rifkin. i’m still a bit puzzled why you bother spending so much time here, if we’re all incorrigible left wing hatemongers (hate! get your red hot hate here!). is being an enterprise columnist really that boring a job, that you’re driven to trolling local blogs?
the parking situation is rediculous in this town, they keep throwing expensive solutions at problems that are really an issue of growing population and static parking spots. if the university had built adequate on-campus parking for the humanities side of campus, much of the downtown parking crunch would disappear overnight. forcing people to repark their cars on differnet blocks doesn’t address the parking shortage, it just makes more runaround for people.
the chalk the wheels solution worked just fine, for a fraction of the price. building denser, affordable housing for students in the downtown would create different congestion issues, but would probably cut down on the parking crunch on the west side of downtown, since more people would just walk or bike to class.
i’ll have you know i’m an educated boob, rifkin. i’m still a bit puzzled why you bother spending so much time here, if we’re all incorrigible left wing hatemongers (hate! get your red hot hate here!). is being an enterprise columnist really that boring a job, that you’re driven to trolling local blogs?
the parking situation is rediculous in this town, they keep throwing expensive solutions at problems that are really an issue of growing population and static parking spots. if the university had built adequate on-campus parking for the humanities side of campus, much of the downtown parking crunch would disappear overnight. forcing people to repark their cars on differnet blocks doesn’t address the parking shortage, it just makes more runaround for people.
the chalk the wheels solution worked just fine, for a fraction of the price. building denser, affordable housing for students in the downtown would create different congestion issues, but would probably cut down on the parking crunch on the west side of downtown, since more people would just walk or bike to class.
Rich –
I don’t agree with you the majority of the time; however, I do respect the fact that you are up front with your position on issues [even when you are wrong] unlike some of those that you defend such as your buddy Duplicitous Dunning, or the ASS (es) Asmundson, Saylor, Souza, on Davis City Council.
You are following in the footsteps of your duplicitous friend when you say to Doug:
“It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.”
Let’s be honest here Rich, you and Dunning both write “hit pieces” on people quite often and think you’re in the “right” simply because you have a column in the Enterprise, or in Dunning’s case are Catholic and can ask for forgiveness later on. You have both shown poor judgement and failed to concede when you were wrong about an issue, or attacked people on a personal level. Yes, you have in fact been wrong at times.
So if you’re going to attack people at least adhere to your own rules.
To attack Doug, on a personal level, instead of debating the issue at hand…AND…to say that he has failed to concede when you NEVER concede…is hypocritical.
Let’s stick to the issues Rich.
Michelle
P.S. Are you and Dunning step-brothers?
Rich –
I don’t agree with you the majority of the time; however, I do respect the fact that you are up front with your position on issues [even when you are wrong] unlike some of those that you defend such as your buddy Duplicitous Dunning, or the ASS (es) Asmundson, Saylor, Souza, on Davis City Council.
You are following in the footsteps of your duplicitous friend when you say to Doug:
“It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.”
Let’s be honest here Rich, you and Dunning both write “hit pieces” on people quite often and think you’re in the “right” simply because you have a column in the Enterprise, or in Dunning’s case are Catholic and can ask for forgiveness later on. You have both shown poor judgement and failed to concede when you were wrong about an issue, or attacked people on a personal level. Yes, you have in fact been wrong at times.
So if you’re going to attack people at least adhere to your own rules.
To attack Doug, on a personal level, instead of debating the issue at hand…AND…to say that he has failed to concede when you NEVER concede…is hypocritical.
Let’s stick to the issues Rich.
Michelle
P.S. Are you and Dunning step-brothers?
Rich –
I don’t agree with you the majority of the time; however, I do respect the fact that you are up front with your position on issues [even when you are wrong] unlike some of those that you defend such as your buddy Duplicitous Dunning, or the ASS (es) Asmundson, Saylor, Souza, on Davis City Council.
You are following in the footsteps of your duplicitous friend when you say to Doug:
“It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.”
Let’s be honest here Rich, you and Dunning both write “hit pieces” on people quite often and think you’re in the “right” simply because you have a column in the Enterprise, or in Dunning’s case are Catholic and can ask for forgiveness later on. You have both shown poor judgement and failed to concede when you were wrong about an issue, or attacked people on a personal level. Yes, you have in fact been wrong at times.
So if you’re going to attack people at least adhere to your own rules.
To attack Doug, on a personal level, instead of debating the issue at hand…AND…to say that he has failed to concede when you NEVER concede…is hypocritical.
Let’s stick to the issues Rich.
Michelle
P.S. Are you and Dunning step-brothers?
Rich –
I don’t agree with you the majority of the time; however, I do respect the fact that you are up front with your position on issues [even when you are wrong] unlike some of those that you defend such as your buddy Duplicitous Dunning, or the ASS (es) Asmundson, Saylor, Souza, on Davis City Council.
You are following in the footsteps of your duplicitous friend when you say to Doug:
“It’s funny that the author of this kind of hitpiece sees himself as the arbiter of good taste, when he shows so little taste and even less judgment.”
Let’s be honest here Rich, you and Dunning both write “hit pieces” on people quite often and think you’re in the “right” simply because you have a column in the Enterprise, or in Dunning’s case are Catholic and can ask for forgiveness later on. You have both shown poor judgement and failed to concede when you were wrong about an issue, or attacked people on a personal level. Yes, you have in fact been wrong at times.
So if you’re going to attack people at least adhere to your own rules.
To attack Doug, on a personal level, instead of debating the issue at hand…AND…to say that he has failed to concede when you NEVER concede…is hypocritical.
Let’s stick to the issues Rich.
Michelle
P.S. Are you and Dunning step-brothers?
Doug –
The day before yesterday you reported on the fiasco with the video recording system not working in City of Davis police cars.
You stated, “This brings up the question–what other problems are there with technology and other expenditures that we do not know about?”
I believe you answered that question for us by shedding light on the other problem regarding the fancy parking vehicles that are causing more headaches for downtown shoppers who want to avoid getting a ticket by the parking patrol.
How much $$$ did the previous council waste approving the purchase of those vehicles?
Michelle
Doug –
The day before yesterday you reported on the fiasco with the video recording system not working in City of Davis police cars.
You stated, “This brings up the question–what other problems are there with technology and other expenditures that we do not know about?”
I believe you answered that question for us by shedding light on the other problem regarding the fancy parking vehicles that are causing more headaches for downtown shoppers who want to avoid getting a ticket by the parking patrol.
How much $$$ did the previous council waste approving the purchase of those vehicles?
Michelle
Doug –
The day before yesterday you reported on the fiasco with the video recording system not working in City of Davis police cars.
You stated, “This brings up the question–what other problems are there with technology and other expenditures that we do not know about?”
I believe you answered that question for us by shedding light on the other problem regarding the fancy parking vehicles that are causing more headaches for downtown shoppers who want to avoid getting a ticket by the parking patrol.
How much $$$ did the previous council waste approving the purchase of those vehicles?
Michelle
Doug –
The day before yesterday you reported on the fiasco with the video recording system not working in City of Davis police cars.
You stated, “This brings up the question–what other problems are there with technology and other expenditures that we do not know about?”
I believe you answered that question for us by shedding light on the other problem regarding the fancy parking vehicles that are causing more headaches for downtown shoppers who want to avoid getting a ticket by the parking patrol.
How much $$$ did the previous council waste approving the purchase of those vehicles?
Michelle
Rich:
I find it interesting that you attacked my column in a half page diatribe. I then respond by pointing out a few facts. I see no response to those facts.
Michelle:
The parking system, the traffic cameras, and the digital recording system were part of a rather expensive expenditure, I was to say over a million, but I’ve gotten the numbers wrong before and don’t want to give an inaccurate number here.
Rich:
I find it interesting that you attacked my column in a half page diatribe. I then respond by pointing out a few facts. I see no response to those facts.
Michelle:
The parking system, the traffic cameras, and the digital recording system were part of a rather expensive expenditure, I was to say over a million, but I’ve gotten the numbers wrong before and don’t want to give an inaccurate number here.
Rich:
I find it interesting that you attacked my column in a half page diatribe. I then respond by pointing out a few facts. I see no response to those facts.
Michelle:
The parking system, the traffic cameras, and the digital recording system were part of a rather expensive expenditure, I was to say over a million, but I’ve gotten the numbers wrong before and don’t want to give an inaccurate number here.
Rich:
I find it interesting that you attacked my column in a half page diatribe. I then respond by pointing out a few facts. I see no response to those facts.
Michelle:
The parking system, the traffic cameras, and the digital recording system were part of a rather expensive expenditure, I was to say over a million, but I’ve gotten the numbers wrong before and don’t want to give an inaccurate number here.
“i’ll have you know i’m an educated boob, rifkin.”
Good for you, Wu.
“i’m still a bit puzzled why you bother spending so much time here, if we’re all incorrigible left wing hatemongers…”
I enjoy setting the record straight. It seems to me that if everyone in a blog just echoes each other, as often happens when I don’t butt in, there’s no real conversation at all.
“Oh, Doug, you are so profound!”
“Let’s be honest here (sic) Rich, you and Dunning both write “hit pieces” on people quite often and think you’re in the “right” (sic) simply because you have a column in the Enterprise…”
Leave Dunning out of this for a moment, Michelle: tell me when I ever wrote “a hitpiece” in my Enterprise column. And please be specific. Quote something I wrote which you believe is ad hominem.
“I find it interesting that you attacked my column in a half page diatribe. I then respond by pointing out a few facts. I see no response to those facts.”
Facts? Are you using the word facts to mean facts or to mean something else? Your lexicological indifference is perplexing.
“You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.”
Hmmm. What fact am I suppose to respond to here?
“i’ll have you know i’m an educated boob, rifkin.”
Good for you, Wu.
“i’m still a bit puzzled why you bother spending so much time here, if we’re all incorrigible left wing hatemongers…”
I enjoy setting the record straight. It seems to me that if everyone in a blog just echoes each other, as often happens when I don’t butt in, there’s no real conversation at all.
“Oh, Doug, you are so profound!”
“Let’s be honest here (sic) Rich, you and Dunning both write “hit pieces” on people quite often and think you’re in the “right” (sic) simply because you have a column in the Enterprise…”
Leave Dunning out of this for a moment, Michelle: tell me when I ever wrote “a hitpiece” in my Enterprise column. And please be specific. Quote something I wrote which you believe is ad hominem.
“I find it interesting that you attacked my column in a half page diatribe. I then respond by pointing out a few facts. I see no response to those facts.”
Facts? Are you using the word facts to mean facts or to mean something else? Your lexicological indifference is perplexing.
“You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.”
Hmmm. What fact am I suppose to respond to here?
“i’ll have you know i’m an educated boob, rifkin.”
Good for you, Wu.
“i’m still a bit puzzled why you bother spending so much time here, if we’re all incorrigible left wing hatemongers…”
I enjoy setting the record straight. It seems to me that if everyone in a blog just echoes each other, as often happens when I don’t butt in, there’s no real conversation at all.
“Oh, Doug, you are so profound!”
“Let’s be honest here (sic) Rich, you and Dunning both write “hit pieces” on people quite often and think you’re in the “right” (sic) simply because you have a column in the Enterprise…”
Leave Dunning out of this for a moment, Michelle: tell me when I ever wrote “a hitpiece” in my Enterprise column. And please be specific. Quote something I wrote which you believe is ad hominem.
“I find it interesting that you attacked my column in a half page diatribe. I then respond by pointing out a few facts. I see no response to those facts.”
Facts? Are you using the word facts to mean facts or to mean something else? Your lexicological indifference is perplexing.
“You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.”
Hmmm. What fact am I suppose to respond to here?
“i’ll have you know i’m an educated boob, rifkin.”
Good for you, Wu.
“i’m still a bit puzzled why you bother spending so much time here, if we’re all incorrigible left wing hatemongers…”
I enjoy setting the record straight. It seems to me that if everyone in a blog just echoes each other, as often happens when I don’t butt in, there’s no real conversation at all.
“Oh, Doug, you are so profound!”
“Let’s be honest here (sic) Rich, you and Dunning both write “hit pieces” on people quite often and think you’re in the “right” (sic) simply because you have a column in the Enterprise…”
Leave Dunning out of this for a moment, Michelle: tell me when I ever wrote “a hitpiece” in my Enterprise column. And please be specific. Quote something I wrote which you believe is ad hominem.
“I find it interesting that you attacked my column in a half page diatribe. I then respond by pointing out a few facts. I see no response to those facts.”
Facts? Are you using the word facts to mean facts or to mean something else? Your lexicological indifference is perplexing.
“You’re right I cannot quote him directly–it is called subtext.”
Hmmm. What fact am I suppose to respond to here?
Rich:
So you are going to claim that Dunning’s whole lengthy discussion about the lack of community knowledge about the County Supervisor was not subtext for setting that as a standard of worth of the position? Why would he even mention it in the context of his column which is discussing primarily the proposed payraise?
Second, and more pointedly you claim that he said they were underpaid. He did say that, but again, in the context of his column, that is clearly sarcasm. Please respond, since you decided to take it upon yourself to run me through the ringer on a pretty mild piece.
Finally, show me the ad hominen attack I have on Dunning in my column.
Rich:
So you are going to claim that Dunning’s whole lengthy discussion about the lack of community knowledge about the County Supervisor was not subtext for setting that as a standard of worth of the position? Why would he even mention it in the context of his column which is discussing primarily the proposed payraise?
Second, and more pointedly you claim that he said they were underpaid. He did say that, but again, in the context of his column, that is clearly sarcasm. Please respond, since you decided to take it upon yourself to run me through the ringer on a pretty mild piece.
Finally, show me the ad hominen attack I have on Dunning in my column.
Rich:
So you are going to claim that Dunning’s whole lengthy discussion about the lack of community knowledge about the County Supervisor was not subtext for setting that as a standard of worth of the position? Why would he even mention it in the context of his column which is discussing primarily the proposed payraise?
Second, and more pointedly you claim that he said they were underpaid. He did say that, but again, in the context of his column, that is clearly sarcasm. Please respond, since you decided to take it upon yourself to run me through the ringer on a pretty mild piece.
Finally, show me the ad hominen attack I have on Dunning in my column.
Rich:
So you are going to claim that Dunning’s whole lengthy discussion about the lack of community knowledge about the County Supervisor was not subtext for setting that as a standard of worth of the position? Why would he even mention it in the context of his column which is discussing primarily the proposed payraise?
Second, and more pointedly you claim that he said they were underpaid. He did say that, but again, in the context of his column, that is clearly sarcasm. Please respond, since you decided to take it upon yourself to run me through the ringer on a pretty mild piece.
Finally, show me the ad hominen attack I have on Dunning in my column.
Paraphrasing Woody Allen(his intellectual musings, not his actions), the foundation of our perception of reality is SEX and MORTALITY. How we see the world is largely based upon how successfully we deal with these twin pillars of the human condition.
Paraphrasing Woody Allen(his intellectual musings, not his actions), the foundation of our perception of reality is SEX and MORTALITY. How we see the world is largely based upon how successfully we deal with these twin pillars of the human condition.
Paraphrasing Woody Allen(his intellectual musings, not his actions), the foundation of our perception of reality is SEX and MORTALITY. How we see the world is largely based upon how successfully we deal with these twin pillars of the human condition.
Paraphrasing Woody Allen(his intellectual musings, not his actions), the foundation of our perception of reality is SEX and MORTALITY. How we see the world is largely based upon how successfully we deal with these twin pillars of the human condition.
A remarkable Davis political activist, whom I have been priviledged to call
“friend” counseled me recently…”heed the advice of Schopenhauer:”……….. reflect that, would you disabuse everyone of the absurd notions they harbor, you would not get done even if you reached the age of Methuselah.”
A remarkable Davis political activist, whom I have been priviledged to call
“friend” counseled me recently…”heed the advice of Schopenhauer:”……….. reflect that, would you disabuse everyone of the absurd notions they harbor, you would not get done even if you reached the age of Methuselah.”
A remarkable Davis political activist, whom I have been priviledged to call
“friend” counseled me recently…”heed the advice of Schopenhauer:”……….. reflect that, would you disabuse everyone of the absurd notions they harbor, you would not get done even if you reached the age of Methuselah.”
A remarkable Davis political activist, whom I have been priviledged to call
“friend” counseled me recently…”heed the advice of Schopenhauer:”……….. reflect that, would you disabuse everyone of the absurd notions they harbor, you would not get done even if you reached the age of Methuselah.”
“So you are going to claim that Dunning’s whole lengthy discussion about the lack of community knowledge about the County Supervisor was not subtext for setting that as a standard of worth of the position?”
Yes.
“Why would he even mention it in the context of his column which is discussing primarily the proposed payraise?”
Speaking for myself, I think it’s quite possible and not inconsistent to believe 1) that the supervisors’ jobs are not well understood by most taxpayers, and as a result, many people don’t know who the supervisors are, and 2) that the supervisors are underpaid, and 3) that the proposed pay raise (40%) is excessive, and 4) that it is unseemly and inappropriate that the sitting supervisors would increase their own rate of pay, beyond a COLA.
“Second, and more pointedly you claim that he said they were underpaid. He did say that, but again, in the context of his column, that is clearly sarcasm.”
I disagree.
“Please respond, since you decided to take it upon yourself to run me through the ringer on a pretty mild piece.”
Doug, I sense that you can handle your own wash-cycle perfectly well. Secondly, you have a goodly number of allies who will willingly come to your defense, if I berate you.
“So you are going to claim that Dunning’s whole lengthy discussion about the lack of community knowledge about the County Supervisor was not subtext for setting that as a standard of worth of the position?”
Yes.
“Why would he even mention it in the context of his column which is discussing primarily the proposed payraise?”
Speaking for myself, I think it’s quite possible and not inconsistent to believe 1) that the supervisors’ jobs are not well understood by most taxpayers, and as a result, many people don’t know who the supervisors are, and 2) that the supervisors are underpaid, and 3) that the proposed pay raise (40%) is excessive, and 4) that it is unseemly and inappropriate that the sitting supervisors would increase their own rate of pay, beyond a COLA.
“Second, and more pointedly you claim that he said they were underpaid. He did say that, but again, in the context of his column, that is clearly sarcasm.”
I disagree.
“Please respond, since you decided to take it upon yourself to run me through the ringer on a pretty mild piece.”
Doug, I sense that you can handle your own wash-cycle perfectly well. Secondly, you have a goodly number of allies who will willingly come to your defense, if I berate you.
“So you are going to claim that Dunning’s whole lengthy discussion about the lack of community knowledge about the County Supervisor was not subtext for setting that as a standard of worth of the position?”
Yes.
“Why would he even mention it in the context of his column which is discussing primarily the proposed payraise?”
Speaking for myself, I think it’s quite possible and not inconsistent to believe 1) that the supervisors’ jobs are not well understood by most taxpayers, and as a result, many people don’t know who the supervisors are, and 2) that the supervisors are underpaid, and 3) that the proposed pay raise (40%) is excessive, and 4) that it is unseemly and inappropriate that the sitting supervisors would increase their own rate of pay, beyond a COLA.
“Second, and more pointedly you claim that he said they were underpaid. He did say that, but again, in the context of his column, that is clearly sarcasm.”
I disagree.
“Please respond, since you decided to take it upon yourself to run me through the ringer on a pretty mild piece.”
Doug, I sense that you can handle your own wash-cycle perfectly well. Secondly, you have a goodly number of allies who will willingly come to your defense, if I berate you.
“So you are going to claim that Dunning’s whole lengthy discussion about the lack of community knowledge about the County Supervisor was not subtext for setting that as a standard of worth of the position?”
Yes.
“Why would he even mention it in the context of his column which is discussing primarily the proposed payraise?”
Speaking for myself, I think it’s quite possible and not inconsistent to believe 1) that the supervisors’ jobs are not well understood by most taxpayers, and as a result, many people don’t know who the supervisors are, and 2) that the supervisors are underpaid, and 3) that the proposed pay raise (40%) is excessive, and 4) that it is unseemly and inappropriate that the sitting supervisors would increase their own rate of pay, beyond a COLA.
“Second, and more pointedly you claim that he said they were underpaid. He did say that, but again, in the context of his column, that is clearly sarcasm.”
I disagree.
“Please respond, since you decided to take it upon yourself to run me through the ringer on a pretty mild piece.”
Doug, I sense that you can handle your own wash-cycle perfectly well. Secondly, you have a goodly number of allies who will willingly come to your defense, if I berate you.
I think that the author of this blog needs to step back and consider how the value of his creation is being diluted by so readily accepting the unnamed’s tit- for- tat jousting challenge in the name of dialogue as this is clearly NOT dialogue but something else.. I think that his comments should be left to stand for themselves. Your readers are perceptive enough to draw their own conclusions.
I think that the author of this blog needs to step back and consider how the value of his creation is being diluted by so readily accepting the unnamed’s tit- for- tat jousting challenge in the name of dialogue as this is clearly NOT dialogue but something else.. I think that his comments should be left to stand for themselves. Your readers are perceptive enough to draw their own conclusions.
I think that the author of this blog needs to step back and consider how the value of his creation is being diluted by so readily accepting the unnamed’s tit- for- tat jousting challenge in the name of dialogue as this is clearly NOT dialogue but something else.. I think that his comments should be left to stand for themselves. Your readers are perceptive enough to draw their own conclusions.
I think that the author of this blog needs to step back and consider how the value of his creation is being diluted by so readily accepting the unnamed’s tit- for- tat jousting challenge in the name of dialogue as this is clearly NOT dialogue but something else.. I think that his comments should be left to stand for themselves. Your readers are perceptive enough to draw their own conclusions.
Rich:
This is better, now we can actually have a discussion about the sources of my blog which was really meant to be somewhat light-hearted and your complaints about it.
Looking at your four points. Clearly, the first point is accurate, Dunning did state that supervisor’s jobs are neither well understood nor are the members themselves well-know. The question then becomes is that now subtext for what will follow or is he making that point completely independently.
I do not believe he made the statement that “supervisors are underpaid” because that would require that he made the case No.3 that the proposed pay raise was excessive. That’s the key to my interpretation of his column versus yours. If he made the case, it certainly was not evident to me.
For me his statement that they were underpaid was sarcasm and he then went on to disparage them making $70,000 which is less than some of our adjacent counties and overall not a hugely outrageous salary for a public servant.
This interpretation of his text leads me to believe that his introduction was actually a means to disparage the members of the board for proposing a pay increase.
If his point was actually that that was too large a pay increase, then it was poorly constructed. Being familiar with Dunning’s work, I would suggest it unlikely that he poorly construct anything. He is quite good with words and rarely gets sloppy with them.
So I stand by my interpretation. But I’ll say this really wasn’t a slam on Dunning so much as a response to what he wrote. He’s a very influential public figure and I think some things need a response.
I will also point out times like yesterday when I agree with him.
Rich:
This is better, now we can actually have a discussion about the sources of my blog which was really meant to be somewhat light-hearted and your complaints about it.
Looking at your four points. Clearly, the first point is accurate, Dunning did state that supervisor’s jobs are neither well understood nor are the members themselves well-know. The question then becomes is that now subtext for what will follow or is he making that point completely independently.
I do not believe he made the statement that “supervisors are underpaid” because that would require that he made the case No.3 that the proposed pay raise was excessive. That’s the key to my interpretation of his column versus yours. If he made the case, it certainly was not evident to me.
For me his statement that they were underpaid was sarcasm and he then went on to disparage them making $70,000 which is less than some of our adjacent counties and overall not a hugely outrageous salary for a public servant.
This interpretation of his text leads me to believe that his introduction was actually a means to disparage the members of the board for proposing a pay increase.
If his point was actually that that was too large a pay increase, then it was poorly constructed. Being familiar with Dunning’s work, I would suggest it unlikely that he poorly construct anything. He is quite good with words and rarely gets sloppy with them.
So I stand by my interpretation. But I’ll say this really wasn’t a slam on Dunning so much as a response to what he wrote. He’s a very influential public figure and I think some things need a response.
I will also point out times like yesterday when I agree with him.
Rich:
This is better, now we can actually have a discussion about the sources of my blog which was really meant to be somewhat light-hearted and your complaints about it.
Looking at your four points. Clearly, the first point is accurate, Dunning did state that supervisor’s jobs are neither well understood nor are the members themselves well-know. The question then becomes is that now subtext for what will follow or is he making that point completely independently.
I do not believe he made the statement that “supervisors are underpaid” because that would require that he made the case No.3 that the proposed pay raise was excessive. That’s the key to my interpretation of his column versus yours. If he made the case, it certainly was not evident to me.
For me his statement that they were underpaid was sarcasm and he then went on to disparage them making $70,000 which is less than some of our adjacent counties and overall not a hugely outrageous salary for a public servant.
This interpretation of his text leads me to believe that his introduction was actually a means to disparage the members of the board for proposing a pay increase.
If his point was actually that that was too large a pay increase, then it was poorly constructed. Being familiar with Dunning’s work, I would suggest it unlikely that he poorly construct anything. He is quite good with words and rarely gets sloppy with them.
So I stand by my interpretation. But I’ll say this really wasn’t a slam on Dunning so much as a response to what he wrote. He’s a very influential public figure and I think some things need a response.
I will also point out times like yesterday when I agree with him.
Rich:
This is better, now we can actually have a discussion about the sources of my blog which was really meant to be somewhat light-hearted and your complaints about it.
Looking at your four points. Clearly, the first point is accurate, Dunning did state that supervisor’s jobs are neither well understood nor are the members themselves well-know. The question then becomes is that now subtext for what will follow or is he making that point completely independently.
I do not believe he made the statement that “supervisors are underpaid” because that would require that he made the case No.3 that the proposed pay raise was excessive. That’s the key to my interpretation of his column versus yours. If he made the case, it certainly was not evident to me.
For me his statement that they were underpaid was sarcasm and he then went on to disparage them making $70,000 which is less than some of our adjacent counties and overall not a hugely outrageous salary for a public servant.
This interpretation of his text leads me to believe that his introduction was actually a means to disparage the members of the board for proposing a pay increase.
If his point was actually that that was too large a pay increase, then it was poorly constructed. Being familiar with Dunning’s work, I would suggest it unlikely that he poorly construct anything. He is quite good with words and rarely gets sloppy with them.
So I stand by my interpretation. But I’ll say this really wasn’t a slam on Dunning so much as a response to what he wrote. He’s a very influential public figure and I think some things need a response.
I will also point out times like yesterday when I agree with him.
Davisite:
I get a bit concerned about that as well. If it starts to devolve into a regular problem, I will likely crack down on it. Right now, this type of interaction is less the rule and more the exception.
Davisite:
I get a bit concerned about that as well. If it starts to devolve into a regular problem, I will likely crack down on it. Right now, this type of interaction is less the rule and more the exception.
Davisite:
I get a bit concerned about that as well. If it starts to devolve into a regular problem, I will likely crack down on it. Right now, this type of interaction is less the rule and more the exception.
Davisite:
I get a bit concerned about that as well. If it starts to devolve into a regular problem, I will likely crack down on it. Right now, this type of interaction is less the rule and more the exception.
Stepping back from the linguistic nit-picking and riduculous parcing of words that we are being subjected to, it should be abundantly clear to your readers that People’s Vanguard of Davis springs from the warm light of a perhaps utopian but hopeful life-affirming political reality in contrast to the darker, more mean-spirited one that we are witnessing. For myself, I choose to live in the light. I refer your readers to an old classic of mine( which may be difficult to unearth… sorry… my copy is currently out on loan ), Norman O. Brown’s “Life against Death” and particularly the chapter that relates this to the “religion” of Capitalism .
Stepping back from the linguistic nit-picking and riduculous parcing of words that we are being subjected to, it should be abundantly clear to your readers that People’s Vanguard of Davis springs from the warm light of a perhaps utopian but hopeful life-affirming political reality in contrast to the darker, more mean-spirited one that we are witnessing. For myself, I choose to live in the light. I refer your readers to an old classic of mine( which may be difficult to unearth… sorry… my copy is currently out on loan ), Norman O. Brown’s “Life against Death” and particularly the chapter that relates this to the “religion” of Capitalism .
Stepping back from the linguistic nit-picking and riduculous parcing of words that we are being subjected to, it should be abundantly clear to your readers that People’s Vanguard of Davis springs from the warm light of a perhaps utopian but hopeful life-affirming political reality in contrast to the darker, more mean-spirited one that we are witnessing. For myself, I choose to live in the light. I refer your readers to an old classic of mine( which may be difficult to unearth… sorry… my copy is currently out on loan ), Norman O. Brown’s “Life against Death” and particularly the chapter that relates this to the “religion” of Capitalism .
Stepping back from the linguistic nit-picking and riduculous parcing of words that we are being subjected to, it should be abundantly clear to your readers that People’s Vanguard of Davis springs from the warm light of a perhaps utopian but hopeful life-affirming political reality in contrast to the darker, more mean-spirited one that we are witnessing. For myself, I choose to live in the light. I refer your readers to an old classic of mine( which may be difficult to unearth… sorry… my copy is currently out on loan ), Norman O. Brown’s “Life against Death” and particularly the chapter that relates this to the “religion” of Capitalism .
Rich said: “Leave Dunning out of this for a moment, Michelle: tell me when I ever wrote “a hitpiece” in my Enterprise column. And please be specific. Quote something I wrote which you believe is ad hominem.”
Gee.. the hit-piece on the 4 Planning Commissioners in October comes to mind. In the “poor judgment” category, the H-bomb stands out but I’m sure you’ll do better in the future. To be honest, those are the only two of your articles I have ever read.
Rich said: “Leave Dunning out of this for a moment, Michelle: tell me when I ever wrote “a hitpiece” in my Enterprise column. And please be specific. Quote something I wrote which you believe is ad hominem.”
Gee.. the hit-piece on the 4 Planning Commissioners in October comes to mind. In the “poor judgment” category, the H-bomb stands out but I’m sure you’ll do better in the future. To be honest, those are the only two of your articles I have ever read.
Rich said: “Leave Dunning out of this for a moment, Michelle: tell me when I ever wrote “a hitpiece” in my Enterprise column. And please be specific. Quote something I wrote which you believe is ad hominem.”
Gee.. the hit-piece on the 4 Planning Commissioners in October comes to mind. In the “poor judgment” category, the H-bomb stands out but I’m sure you’ll do better in the future. To be honest, those are the only two of your articles I have ever read.
Rich said: “Leave Dunning out of this for a moment, Michelle: tell me when I ever wrote “a hitpiece” in my Enterprise column. And please be specific. Quote something I wrote which you believe is ad hominem.”
Gee.. the hit-piece on the 4 Planning Commissioners in October comes to mind. In the “poor judgment” category, the H-bomb stands out but I’m sure you’ll do better in the future. To be honest, those are the only two of your articles I have ever read.
This seems pretty close to ad hominen:
“Unlike the geniuses on our Planning Commission, I think most people in Davis would like our city government to keep our sales tax monies. “
“I wouldn’t suggest that all members of FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath. But if you get close enough, you’ll find that most FETID don’t buy deodorant or soap or undergarments. They never shop at Target. They despise “big box.””
Now he doesn’t actually name anyone by name, but it’s hard for me to really see the difference between generalized name-calling and specific name-calling. BTW, I don’t believe I called Dunning a name either.
This seems pretty close to ad hominen:
“Unlike the geniuses on our Planning Commission, I think most people in Davis would like our city government to keep our sales tax monies. “
“I wouldn’t suggest that all members of FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath. But if you get close enough, you’ll find that most FETID don’t buy deodorant or soap or undergarments. They never shop at Target. They despise “big box.””
Now he doesn’t actually name anyone by name, but it’s hard for me to really see the difference between generalized name-calling and specific name-calling. BTW, I don’t believe I called Dunning a name either.
This seems pretty close to ad hominen:
“Unlike the geniuses on our Planning Commission, I think most people in Davis would like our city government to keep our sales tax monies. “
“I wouldn’t suggest that all members of FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath. But if you get close enough, you’ll find that most FETID don’t buy deodorant or soap or undergarments. They never shop at Target. They despise “big box.””
Now he doesn’t actually name anyone by name, but it’s hard for me to really see the difference between generalized name-calling and specific name-calling. BTW, I don’t believe I called Dunning a name either.
This seems pretty close to ad hominen:
“Unlike the geniuses on our Planning Commission, I think most people in Davis would like our city government to keep our sales tax monies. “
“I wouldn’t suggest that all members of FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath. But if you get close enough, you’ll find that most FETID don’t buy deodorant or soap or undergarments. They never shop at Target. They despise “big box.””
Now he doesn’t actually name anyone by name, but it’s hard for me to really see the difference between generalized name-calling and specific name-calling. BTW, I don’t believe I called Dunning a name either.
That’s a hitpiece? My god, does anyone on the radical, vegan left have a sense of humor?
As I’ve explained before, FETID was funny. Ha-ha funny. I even went so far to explain that not all members FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath.
And as Doug concedes — thanks for the concession, Doug — I never mentioned anyone by name on the planning commission.
So why were my remarks directed at “the planning commission four” at all? Because that entire column was a response to what they wrote in an extensive letter to The Enterprise. I don’t see how I could have responded to them point-by-point if I didn’t note that I was in fact responding to them.
“In the “poor judgment” category, the H-bomb stands out but I’m sure you’ll do better in the future.”
I’ve never written about the H-bomb. I did write a piece about the A-bomb and its usage on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’d have to re-read that column to see if I mentioned a single person by name or by inference. I probably discussed Harry Truman, but I don’t recall. What I do remember was that my column generated a tremendous amount of email and a number of letters to The Enterprise. While I am pretty sure that most of Davis disagrees with me on that topic, my email and a couple of hand-written letters were overwhelmingly positive, while the letters to the paper were negative.
Part of the divide on Hiroshima/Nagasaki is ideological — more liberal/left people on one side; more conservative/right on the other — but a significant divide is based on age. Those who lived through the War (particularly as adults) are far more likely to agree with me that the Truman decision was a good one; younger people are more likely to be on the other side.
That’s a hitpiece? My god, does anyone on the radical, vegan left have a sense of humor?
As I’ve explained before, FETID was funny. Ha-ha funny. I even went so far to explain that not all members FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath.
And as Doug concedes — thanks for the concession, Doug — I never mentioned anyone by name on the planning commission.
So why were my remarks directed at “the planning commission four” at all? Because that entire column was a response to what they wrote in an extensive letter to The Enterprise. I don’t see how I could have responded to them point-by-point if I didn’t note that I was in fact responding to them.
“In the “poor judgment” category, the H-bomb stands out but I’m sure you’ll do better in the future.”
I’ve never written about the H-bomb. I did write a piece about the A-bomb and its usage on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’d have to re-read that column to see if I mentioned a single person by name or by inference. I probably discussed Harry Truman, but I don’t recall. What I do remember was that my column generated a tremendous amount of email and a number of letters to The Enterprise. While I am pretty sure that most of Davis disagrees with me on that topic, my email and a couple of hand-written letters were overwhelmingly positive, while the letters to the paper were negative.
Part of the divide on Hiroshima/Nagasaki is ideological — more liberal/left people on one side; more conservative/right on the other — but a significant divide is based on age. Those who lived through the War (particularly as adults) are far more likely to agree with me that the Truman decision was a good one; younger people are more likely to be on the other side.
That’s a hitpiece? My god, does anyone on the radical, vegan left have a sense of humor?
As I’ve explained before, FETID was funny. Ha-ha funny. I even went so far to explain that not all members FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath.
And as Doug concedes — thanks for the concession, Doug — I never mentioned anyone by name on the planning commission.
So why were my remarks directed at “the planning commission four” at all? Because that entire column was a response to what they wrote in an extensive letter to The Enterprise. I don’t see how I could have responded to them point-by-point if I didn’t note that I was in fact responding to them.
“In the “poor judgment” category, the H-bomb stands out but I’m sure you’ll do better in the future.”
I’ve never written about the H-bomb. I did write a piece about the A-bomb and its usage on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’d have to re-read that column to see if I mentioned a single person by name or by inference. I probably discussed Harry Truman, but I don’t recall. What I do remember was that my column generated a tremendous amount of email and a number of letters to The Enterprise. While I am pretty sure that most of Davis disagrees with me on that topic, my email and a couple of hand-written letters were overwhelmingly positive, while the letters to the paper were negative.
Part of the divide on Hiroshima/Nagasaki is ideological — more liberal/left people on one side; more conservative/right on the other — but a significant divide is based on age. Those who lived through the War (particularly as adults) are far more likely to agree with me that the Truman decision was a good one; younger people are more likely to be on the other side.
That’s a hitpiece? My god, does anyone on the radical, vegan left have a sense of humor?
As I’ve explained before, FETID was funny. Ha-ha funny. I even went so far to explain that not all members FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath.
And as Doug concedes — thanks for the concession, Doug — I never mentioned anyone by name on the planning commission.
So why were my remarks directed at “the planning commission four” at all? Because that entire column was a response to what they wrote in an extensive letter to The Enterprise. I don’t see how I could have responded to them point-by-point if I didn’t note that I was in fact responding to them.
“In the “poor judgment” category, the H-bomb stands out but I’m sure you’ll do better in the future.”
I’ve never written about the H-bomb. I did write a piece about the A-bomb and its usage on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I’d have to re-read that column to see if I mentioned a single person by name or by inference. I probably discussed Harry Truman, but I don’t recall. What I do remember was that my column generated a tremendous amount of email and a number of letters to The Enterprise. While I am pretty sure that most of Davis disagrees with me on that topic, my email and a couple of hand-written letters were overwhelmingly positive, while the letters to the paper were negative.
Part of the divide on Hiroshima/Nagasaki is ideological — more liberal/left people on one side; more conservative/right on the other — but a significant divide is based on age. Those who lived through the War (particularly as adults) are far more likely to agree with me that the Truman decision was a good one; younger people are more likely to be on the other side.
That wasn’t so much a concession as an attempt to lay out the parameters and I’m still trying to figure out why yours was not a hit piece and mine was. I did do a hit piece on Dunning–I hit him hard for going after Lamar without the facts at his disposal. This was not meant to be a hit piece on Dunning, just a response. Where did I attack him? We disagree on what he said, but that is another thing entire. I think most people didn’t find FETID very funny, but humor is in the eye of the beholder.
That wasn’t so much a concession as an attempt to lay out the parameters and I’m still trying to figure out why yours was not a hit piece and mine was. I did do a hit piece on Dunning–I hit him hard for going after Lamar without the facts at his disposal. This was not meant to be a hit piece on Dunning, just a response. Where did I attack him? We disagree on what he said, but that is another thing entire. I think most people didn’t find FETID very funny, but humor is in the eye of the beholder.
That wasn’t so much a concession as an attempt to lay out the parameters and I’m still trying to figure out why yours was not a hit piece and mine was. I did do a hit piece on Dunning–I hit him hard for going after Lamar without the facts at his disposal. This was not meant to be a hit piece on Dunning, just a response. Where did I attack him? We disagree on what he said, but that is another thing entire. I think most people didn’t find FETID very funny, but humor is in the eye of the beholder.
That wasn’t so much a concession as an attempt to lay out the parameters and I’m still trying to figure out why yours was not a hit piece and mine was. I did do a hit piece on Dunning–I hit him hard for going after Lamar without the facts at his disposal. This was not meant to be a hit piece on Dunning, just a response. Where did I attack him? We disagree on what he said, but that is another thing entire. I think most people didn’t find FETID very funny, but humor is in the eye of the beholder.
“Stepping back from the linguistic nit-picking and riduculous parcing of words that we are being subjected to…”
In my 20s, when I lived in West Oakland (in the ghetto), I volunteered for a program at McClymonds High School where I helped college-oriented students improve their English skills: grammar, spelling, writing, diction, etc. Because of the low standards in this area in the Oakland public schools, even the brightest children had no idea how to parse a sentence, how to conjugate irregular verbs, how to use the subjunctive, the difference between subjective and objective pronouns, the coordination of singular or plural forms, and so on. It was my pleasure to help bring these earnest kids up to speed, so that they would be ready for college.
“… riduculous parcing…”
Try this, instead: ridiculous parsing.
“Stepping back from the linguistic nit-picking and riduculous parcing of words that we are being subjected to…”
In my 20s, when I lived in West Oakland (in the ghetto), I volunteered for a program at McClymonds High School where I helped college-oriented students improve their English skills: grammar, spelling, writing, diction, etc. Because of the low standards in this area in the Oakland public schools, even the brightest children had no idea how to parse a sentence, how to conjugate irregular verbs, how to use the subjunctive, the difference between subjective and objective pronouns, the coordination of singular or plural forms, and so on. It was my pleasure to help bring these earnest kids up to speed, so that they would be ready for college.
“… riduculous parcing…”
Try this, instead: ridiculous parsing.
“Stepping back from the linguistic nit-picking and riduculous parcing of words that we are being subjected to…”
In my 20s, when I lived in West Oakland (in the ghetto), I volunteered for a program at McClymonds High School where I helped college-oriented students improve their English skills: grammar, spelling, writing, diction, etc. Because of the low standards in this area in the Oakland public schools, even the brightest children had no idea how to parse a sentence, how to conjugate irregular verbs, how to use the subjunctive, the difference between subjective and objective pronouns, the coordination of singular or plural forms, and so on. It was my pleasure to help bring these earnest kids up to speed, so that they would be ready for college.
“… riduculous parcing…”
Try this, instead: ridiculous parsing.
“Stepping back from the linguistic nit-picking and riduculous parcing of words that we are being subjected to…”
In my 20s, when I lived in West Oakland (in the ghetto), I volunteered for a program at McClymonds High School where I helped college-oriented students improve their English skills: grammar, spelling, writing, diction, etc. Because of the low standards in this area in the Oakland public schools, even the brightest children had no idea how to parse a sentence, how to conjugate irregular verbs, how to use the subjunctive, the difference between subjective and objective pronouns, the coordination of singular or plural forms, and so on. It was my pleasure to help bring these earnest kids up to speed, so that they would be ready for college.
“… riduculous parcing…”
Try this, instead: ridiculous parsing.
“As I’ve explained before, FETID was funny.”
Humor is in the eyes of the audience. If you tell a story and nobody laughs, it’s demonstrably not funny. The more you have to explain it, the less funny it is.
“I’ve never written about the H-bomb. I did write a piece about the A-bomb and its usage on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
…because that’s the most important point to argue: exactly which kind of nuclear device was discussed in your column.
“Try this, instead: ridiculous parsing.”
Since we’re expanding our vocabularies today, let’s discuss another word.
ped·ant n.
1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
1. One who exhibits one’s learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
“As I’ve explained before, FETID was funny.”
Humor is in the eyes of the audience. If you tell a story and nobody laughs, it’s demonstrably not funny. The more you have to explain it, the less funny it is.
“I’ve never written about the H-bomb. I did write a piece about the A-bomb and its usage on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
…because that’s the most important point to argue: exactly which kind of nuclear device was discussed in your column.
“Try this, instead: ridiculous parsing.”
Since we’re expanding our vocabularies today, let’s discuss another word.
ped·ant n.
1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
1. One who exhibits one’s learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
“As I’ve explained before, FETID was funny.”
Humor is in the eyes of the audience. If you tell a story and nobody laughs, it’s demonstrably not funny. The more you have to explain it, the less funny it is.
“I’ve never written about the H-bomb. I did write a piece about the A-bomb and its usage on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
…because that’s the most important point to argue: exactly which kind of nuclear device was discussed in your column.
“Try this, instead: ridiculous parsing.”
Since we’re expanding our vocabularies today, let’s discuss another word.
ped·ant n.
1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
1. One who exhibits one’s learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
“As I’ve explained before, FETID was funny.”
Humor is in the eyes of the audience. If you tell a story and nobody laughs, it’s demonstrably not funny. The more you have to explain it, the less funny it is.
“I’ve never written about the H-bomb. I did write a piece about the A-bomb and its usage on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
…because that’s the most important point to argue: exactly which kind of nuclear device was discussed in your column.
“Try this, instead: ridiculous parsing.”
Since we’re expanding our vocabularies today, let’s discuss another word.
ped·ant n.
1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
1. One who exhibits one’s learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
“If you tell a story and nobody laughs, it’s demonstrably not funny. The more you have to explain it, the less funny it is.”
The only folks who didn’t laugh were humorless ideologues. Count yourself in, Rob. Elsewhere, the majority of people in Davis were guffawing uproariously. Bah-ha-ha!
ped·ant n.
“1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.”
“2. One who exhibits one’s learning or scholarship ostentatiously.”
Rob,
It’s interesting that you call me pedantic. While I do pay attention to the basic rules of grammar and punctuation and think they have purpose, I’m not without common sense. What distinguishes a pedant is a person who lacks common sense in such matters. For example, someone who is so ideologically rigid in believing that a big box retailer will destroy his downtown, even when common sense suggests he’s wrong. When downtown Davis remains healthy in the years after Target opens, your pedantry will be transparent.
“If you tell a story and nobody laughs, it’s demonstrably not funny. The more you have to explain it, the less funny it is.”
The only folks who didn’t laugh were humorless ideologues. Count yourself in, Rob. Elsewhere, the majority of people in Davis were guffawing uproariously. Bah-ha-ha!
ped·ant n.
“1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.”
“2. One who exhibits one’s learning or scholarship ostentatiously.”
Rob,
It’s interesting that you call me pedantic. While I do pay attention to the basic rules of grammar and punctuation and think they have purpose, I’m not without common sense. What distinguishes a pedant is a person who lacks common sense in such matters. For example, someone who is so ideologically rigid in believing that a big box retailer will destroy his downtown, even when common sense suggests he’s wrong. When downtown Davis remains healthy in the years after Target opens, your pedantry will be transparent.
“If you tell a story and nobody laughs, it’s demonstrably not funny. The more you have to explain it, the less funny it is.”
The only folks who didn’t laugh were humorless ideologues. Count yourself in, Rob. Elsewhere, the majority of people in Davis were guffawing uproariously. Bah-ha-ha!
ped·ant n.
“1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.”
“2. One who exhibits one’s learning or scholarship ostentatiously.”
Rob,
It’s interesting that you call me pedantic. While I do pay attention to the basic rules of grammar and punctuation and think they have purpose, I’m not without common sense. What distinguishes a pedant is a person who lacks common sense in such matters. For example, someone who is so ideologically rigid in believing that a big box retailer will destroy his downtown, even when common sense suggests he’s wrong. When downtown Davis remains healthy in the years after Target opens, your pedantry will be transparent.
“If you tell a story and nobody laughs, it’s demonstrably not funny. The more you have to explain it, the less funny it is.”
The only folks who didn’t laugh were humorless ideologues. Count yourself in, Rob. Elsewhere, the majority of people in Davis were guffawing uproariously. Bah-ha-ha!
ped·ant n.
“1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.”
“2. One who exhibits one’s learning or scholarship ostentatiously.”
Rob,
It’s interesting that you call me pedantic. While I do pay attention to the basic rules of grammar and punctuation and think they have purpose, I’m not without common sense. What distinguishes a pedant is a person who lacks common sense in such matters. For example, someone who is so ideologically rigid in believing that a big box retailer will destroy his downtown, even when common sense suggests he’s wrong. When downtown Davis remains healthy in the years after Target opens, your pedantry will be transparent.
Those who are seriously interested in the future of this blog, I suggest again that you leave the likes of Rifkin to just howl into the wind.
Those who are seriously interested in the future of this blog, I suggest again that you leave the likes of Rifkin to just howl into the wind.
Those who are seriously interested in the future of this blog, I suggest again that you leave the likes of Rifkin to just howl into the wind.
Those who are seriously interested in the future of this blog, I suggest again that you leave the likes of Rifkin to just howl into the wind.