LESSONS LEARNED: Being Nice to Bob Dunning Does Not Pay

128 comments

1. And, now, if we didn’t already know, we understand why Dunning still writes for a smalltown, greensheet newspaper like the Enterprise.

   The telling thing is the imperial arrogance. Dunning could start walking down the street in royal garb like Emperor Norton did in San Francisco in the 1860s, but, then, he would have actually have to be likeable, and that might prove difficult.

   The hilarious thing is Dunning’s utter lack of understanding of how blogs work. Visitors post corrections and elaborations about content all the time, just yesterday someone did it on the blog where I post. It’s how they work, there’s a give and take without gatekeepers that one doesn’t experience with newspapers like the Enterprise.

   Log in to Reply

2. And, now, if we didn’t already know, we understand why Dunning still writes for a smalltown, greensheet newspaper like the Enterprise.

   The telling thing is the imperial arrogance. Dunning could start walking down the street in royal garb like Emperor Norton did in San Francisco in the 1860s, but, then, he would have actually have to be likeable, and that might prove difficult.

   The hilarious thing is Dunning’s utter lack of understanding of how blogs work. Visitors post corrections and elaborations about content all the time, just yesterday someone did it on the blog where I post. It’s how they work, there’s a give and take without gatekeepers that one doesn’t experience with newspapers like the Enterprise.

   Log in to Reply

3. And, now, if we didn’t already know, we understand why Dunning still writes for a smalltown, greensheet newspaper like the Enterprise.

   The telling thing is the imperial arrogance. Dunning could start walking down the street in royal garb like Emperor Norton did in San Francisco in the 1860s, but, then, he would have actually have to be likeable, and that might prove difficult.

   The hilarious thing is Dunning’s utter lack of understanding of how blogs work. Visitors post corrections and elaborations about content all the time, just yesterday someone did it on the blog where I post. It’s how they work, there’s a give and take without gatekeepers that one doesn’t experience with newspapers like the Enterprise.

   Log in to Reply

4. And, now, if we didn’t already know, we understand why Dunning still writes for a smalltown, greensheet newspaper like the Enterprise.

   The telling thing is the imperial arrogance. Dunning could start walking down the street in royal garb like Emperor Norton did in San Francisco in the 1860s, but, then, he would have actually have to be likeable, and that might prove difficult.

   The hilarious thing is Dunning’s utter lack of understanding of how blogs work. Visitors post corrections and elaborations about content all the time, just yesterday someone did it on the blog where I post. It’s how they work, there’s a give and take without gatekeepers that one doesn’t experience with newspapers like the Enterprise.

   Log in to Reply

5. Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest. I “love” this piece.. Dunning uses emails to take “pot shots” at readers who contact him in the belief that their communications are confidential…
   The difference here is that Doug has not distorted or selectively edited the material.. It is all there exactly as written and it
   reads like a morality tale.

   Log in to Reply

6. Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest. I “love” this piece.. Dunning uses emails to take “pot shots” at readers who contact him in the belief that their communications are confidential…
   The difference here is that Doug has not distorted or selectively edited the material.. It is all there exactly as written and it
   reads like a morality tale.

   Log in to Reply

7. Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest. I “love” this piece.. Dunning uses emails to take “pot shots” at readers who contact him in the belief that their communications are confidential…
   The difference here is that Doug has not distorted or selectively edited the material.. It is all there exactly as written and it
   reads like a morality tale.

   Log in to Reply

8. Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest. I “love” this piece.. Dunning uses emails to take “pot shots” at readers who contact him in the belief that their communications are confidential…
   The difference here is that Doug has not distorted or selectively edited the material.. It is all there exactly as written and it
   reads like a morality tale.

   Log in to Reply

9. If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

   I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.

   Log in to Reply

10. If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.

    Log in to Reply

11. If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.

    Log in to Reply

12. If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.

    Log in to Reply

13. “Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?”

    David,

    I’m amazed by your very strange reaction to criticism. “Who, me?”

    You often write scathing (and in my opinion unfair) attacks on Dunning and other public figures in town — and in at least one instance against a person who simply works for the city of Davis, but is not otherwise a public figure — and then you are taken aback when the people so attacked react harshly.

    (In most cases, I am the only reader of your blog who will stand up against these attacks on others, even when I don’t know them. And for that I get called a toady or a sycophant.)

    I grant that, when compared with the coward who calls himself “Davisite” — if he were not a coward, he would tell us his name — your level of calumny on this blog is minimal. But, nonetheless, you ought to be smart enough to realize that just about everything you express on your blog comes across as a vicious attack on the character and integrity of real live human beings. If you don’t want to have so many people react so defensively, then maybe you should try to be more civil in this blog. And a big part of civility involves thoroughly checking and sourcing your facts, and using a more understanding or sympathetic tone.

    It is one thing to be a muckraker, when there is clear and provable evidence of corruption or malfeasance. But it’s abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective.

    As the proprietor of this site, you should be held acccountable whenever defamatory remarks are posted. And you deserve especial condemnation when such defamation is made by your hand-picked editor, “Davisite,” who is a champion of name-calling.

    Now go ahead, “Davisite,” tell me what an a**hole I am.

    Log in to Reply

14. “Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?”

    David,

    I’m amazed by your very strange reaction to criticism. “Who, me?”

    You often write scathing (and in my opinion unfair) attacks on Dunning and other public figures in town — and in at least one instance against a person who simply works for the city of Davis, but is not otherwise a public figure — and then you are taken aback when the people so attacked react harshly.

    (In most cases, I am the only reader of your blog who will stand up against these attacks on others, even when I don’t know them. And for that I get called a toady or a sycophant.)

    I grant that, when compared with the coward who calls himself “Davisite” — if he were not a coward, he would tell us his name — your level of calumny on this blog is minimal. But, nonetheless, you ought to be smart enough to realize that just about everything you express on your blog comes across as a vicious attack on the character and integrity of real live human beings. If you don’t want to have so many people react so defensively, then maybe you should try to be more civil in this blog. And a big part of civility involves thoroughly checking and sourcing your facts, and using a more understanding or sympathetic tone.

    It is one thing to be a muckraker, when there is clear and provable evidence of corruption or malfeasance. But it’s abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective.

    As the proprietor of this site, you should be held acccountable whenever defamatory remarks are posted. And you deserve especial condemnation when such defamation is made by your hand-picked editor, “Davisite,” who is a champion of name-calling.

    Now go ahead, “Davisite,” tell me what an a**hole I am.

    Log in to Reply

15. “Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?”

    David,

    I’m amazed by your very strange reaction to criticism. “Who, me?”

    You often write scathing (and in my opinion unfair) attacks on Dunning and other public figures in town — and in at least one instance against a person who simply works for the city of Davis, but is not otherwise a public figure — and then you are taken aback when the people so attacked react harshly.

    (In most cases, I am the only reader of your blog who will stand up against these attacks on others, even when I don’t know them. And for that I get called a toady or a sycophant.)

    I grant that, when compared with the coward who calls himself “Davisite” — if he were not a coward, he would tell us his name — your level of calumny on this blog is minimal. But, nonetheless, you ought to be smart enough to realize that just about everything you express on your blog comes across as a vicious attack on the character and integrity of real live human beings. If you don’t want to have so many people react so defensively, then maybe you should try to be more civil in this blog. And a big part of civility involves thoroughly checking and sourcing your facts, and using a more understanding or sympathetic tone.

    It is one thing to be a muckraker, when there is clear and provable evidence of corruption or malfeasance. But it’s abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective.

    As the proprietor of this site, you should be held acccountable whenever defamatory remarks are posted. And you deserve especial condemnation when such defamation is made by your hand-picked editor, “Davisite,” who is a champion of name-calling.

    Now go ahead, “Davisite,” tell me what an a**hole I am.

    Log in to Reply

16. “Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?”

    David,

    I’m amazed by your very strange reaction to criticism. “Who, me?”

    You often write scathing (and in my opinion unfair) attacks on Dunning and other public figures in town — and in at least one instance against a person who simply works for the city of Davis, but is not otherwise a public figure — and then you are taken aback when the people so attacked react harshly.

    (In most cases, I am the only reader of your blog who will stand up against these attacks on others, even when I don’t know them. And for that I get called a toady or a sycophant.)

    I grant that, when compared with the coward who calls himself “Davisite” — if he were not a coward, he would tell us his name — your level of calumny on this blog is minimal. But, nonetheless, you ought to be smart enough to realize that just about everything you express on your blog comes across as a vicious attack on the character and integrity of real live human beings. If you don’t want to have so many people react so defensively, then maybe you should try to be more civil in this blog. And a big part of civility involves thoroughly checking and sourcing your facts, and using a more understanding or sympathetic tone.

    It is one thing to be a muckraker, when there is clear and provable evidence of corruption or malfeasance. But it’s abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective.

    As the proprietor of this site, you should be held acccountable whenever defamatory remarks are posted. And you deserve especial condemnation when such defamation is made by your hand-picked editor, “Davisite,” who is a champion of name-calling.

    Now go ahead, “Davisite,” tell me what an a**hole I am.

    Log in to Reply

17. “Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest.”

    Davisite, are you Bill Kopper?

    For what it’s worth, Dunning responded to this charge, first made by Kopper and here repeated by “Davisite,” the coward.

    Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    Here is what Dunning wrote:

    Said Kopper’s e-mail to Davis: “Mr. Dunning’s May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column.”

    Continued the e-mail: “Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.”

    Kopper then went on to argue why “statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly’s conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant.”

    Added Kopper: “I consider Mr. Dunning’s article professional slander of the three attorneys who wrote the Op. Ed piece, because Mr. Dunning knew the information was false before he wrote the column.”

    I think maybe the word

    Kopper was searching for was “libel,” but he’s the attorney, I’m not.

    Kopper’s charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It’s hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you’d have to agree that the information I allegedly “received” was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.

    Now, unless Kopper has tapped my phone, received an illegal recording of our conversation or happened to be peering over the fence from my neighbor Al’s back yard with some sort of high-tech listening device, I’m not sure how he knows the contents of my phone conversation with Mel Trujillo. And yet he uses terms like “precise reasons” as if he were there.

    Kopper also seems to know the exact time I wrote my May 12 column, since he claims I wrote it after allegedly receiving some contrary information from Mel Trujillo. It makes me wonder if maybe a little bell sounds in Kopper’s downtown office at the precise moment I have put the last period at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of my column.

    Furthermore, Kopper didn’t contact me in any way to ascertain either the content or the timing of the phone conversation with Mel Trujillo or the exact time I finished writing my column.

    But that didn’t stop Kopper from reporting the alleged contents of that conversation to my employer and using those alleged contents to claim I had knowingly written a column with false and defamatory information.

    In other words, he tried to convince my employer I was an unethical and untrustworthy employee. And believe me, in the current climate of journalistic scrutiny, those can be fatal words to a columnist’s future.

    Just for the record, Kopper’s charge is false. It’s also defamatory. The fact he made the charge to my employer makes it all the more defamatory because it strikes at the heart of my livelihood.

    As for Mel Trujillo, a nice enough sort who unwittingly became a mole for Kopper and his false charges to my employer, Mel now says (in an e-mail to me yesterday): “In retrospect,

    I believe that your column may have been written and submitted before my first phone call.

    I am lousy with days and dates. I could be mistaken about the days of the week that I called you.”

    Sounds like your star witness just went south on you, counselor.

    Log in to Reply

18. “Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest.”

    Davisite, are you Bill Kopper?

    For what it’s worth, Dunning responded to this charge, first made by Kopper and here repeated by “Davisite,” the coward.

    Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    Here is what Dunning wrote:

    Said Kopper’s e-mail to Davis: “Mr. Dunning’s May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column.”

    Continued the e-mail: “Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.”

    Kopper then went on to argue why “statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly’s conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant.”

    Added Kopper: “I consider Mr. Dunning’s article professional slander of the three attorneys who wrote the Op. Ed piece, because Mr. Dunning knew the information was false before he wrote the column.”

    I think maybe the word

    Kopper was searching for was “libel,” but he’s the attorney, I’m not.

    Kopper’s charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It’s hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you’d have to agree that the information I allegedly “received” was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.

    Now, unless Kopper has tapped my phone, received an illegal recording of our conversation or happened to be peering over the fence from my neighbor Al’s back yard with some sort of high-tech listening device, I’m not sure how he knows the contents of my phone conversation with Mel Trujillo. And yet he uses terms like “precise reasons” as if he were there.

    Kopper also seems to know the exact time I wrote my May 12 column, since he claims I wrote it after allegedly receiving some contrary information from Mel Trujillo. It makes me wonder if maybe a little bell sounds in Kopper’s downtown office at the precise moment I have put the last period at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of my column.

    Furthermore, Kopper didn’t contact me in any way to ascertain either the content or the timing of the phone conversation with Mel Trujillo or the exact time I finished writing my column.

    But that didn’t stop Kopper from reporting the alleged contents of that conversation to my employer and using those alleged contents to claim I had knowingly written a column with false and defamatory information.

    In other words, he tried to convince my employer I was an unethical and untrustworthy employee. And believe me, in the current climate of journalistic scrutiny, those can be fatal words to a columnist’s future.

    Just for the record, Kopper’s charge is false. It’s also defamatory. The fact he made the charge to my employer makes it all the more defamatory because it strikes at the heart of my livelihood.

    As for Mel Trujillo, a nice enough sort who unwittingly became a mole for Kopper and his false charges to my employer, Mel now says (in an e-mail to me yesterday): “In retrospect,

    I believe that your column may have been written and submitted before my first phone call.

    I am lousy with days and dates. I could be mistaken about the days of the week that I called you.”

    Sounds like your star witness just went south on you, counselor.

    Log in to Reply

19. “Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest.”

    Davisite, are you Bill Kopper?

    For what it’s worth, Dunning responded to this charge, first made by Kopper and here repeated by “Davisite,” the coward.

    Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    Here is what Dunning wrote:

    Said Kopper’s e-mail to Davis: “Mr. Dunning’s May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column.”

    Continued the e-mail: “Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.”

    Kopper then went on to argue why “statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly’s conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant.”

    Added Kopper: “I consider Mr. Dunning’s article professional slander of the three attorneys who wrote the Op. Ed piece, because Mr. Dunning knew the information was false before he wrote the column.”

    I think maybe the word

    Kopper was searching for was “libel,” but he’s the attorney, I’m not.

    Kopper’s charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It’s hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you’d have to agree that the information I allegedly “received” was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.

    Now, unless Kopper has tapped my phone, received an illegal recording of our conversation or happened to be peering over the fence from my neighbor Al’s back yard with some sort of high-tech listening device, I’m not sure how he knows the contents of my phone conversation with Mel Trujillo. And yet he uses terms like “precise reasons” as if he were there.

    Kopper also seems to know the exact time I wrote my May 12 column, since he claims I wrote it after allegedly receiving some contrary information from Mel Trujillo. It makes me wonder if maybe a little bell sounds in Kopper’s downtown office at the precise moment I have put the last period at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of my column.

    Furthermore, Kopper didn’t contact me in any way to ascertain either the content or the timing of the phone conversation with Mel Trujillo or the exact time I finished writing my column.

    But that didn’t stop Kopper from reporting the alleged contents of that conversation to my employer and using those alleged contents to claim I had knowingly written a column with false and defamatory information.

    In other words, he tried to convince my employer I was an unethical and untrustworthy employee. And believe me, in the current climate of journalistic scrutiny, those can be fatal words to a columnist’s future.

    Just for the record, Kopper’s charge is false. It’s also defamatory. The fact he made the charge to my employer makes it all the more defamatory because it strikes at the heart of my livelihood.

    As for Mel Trujillo, a nice enough sort who unwittingly became a mole for Kopper and his false charges to my employer, Mel now says (in an e-mail to me yesterday): “In retrospect,

    I believe that your column may have been written and submitted before my first phone call.

    I am lousy with days and dates. I could be mistaken about the days of the week that I called you.”

    Sounds like your star witness just went south on you, counselor.

    Log in to Reply

20. “Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest.”

    Davisite, are you Bill Kopper?

    For what it’s worth, Dunning responded to this charge, first made by Kopper and here repeated by “Davisite,” the coward.

    Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    Here is what Dunning wrote:

    Said Kopper’s e-mail to Davis: “Mr. Dunning’s May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column.”

    Continued the e-mail: “Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.”

    Kopper then went on to argue why “statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly’s conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant.”

    Added Kopper: “I consider Mr. Dunning’s article professional slander of the three attorneys who wrote the Op. Ed piece, because Mr. Dunning knew the information was false before he wrote the column.”

    I think maybe the word

    Kopper was searching for was “libel,” but he’s the attorney, I’m not.

    Kopper’s charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It’s hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you’d have to agree that the information I allegedly “received” was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.

    Now, unless Kopper has tapped my phone, received an illegal recording of our conversation or happened to be peering over the fence from my neighbor Al’s back yard with some sort of high-tech listening device, I’m not sure how he knows the contents of my phone conversation with Mel Trujillo. And yet he uses terms like “precise reasons” as if he were there.

    Kopper also seems to know the exact time I wrote my May 12 column, since he claims I wrote it after allegedly receiving some contrary information from Mel Trujillo. It makes me wonder if maybe a little bell sounds in Kopper’s downtown office at the precise moment I have put the last period at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of my column.

    Furthermore, Kopper didn’t contact me in any way to ascertain either the content or the timing of the phone conversation with Mel Trujillo or the exact time I finished writing my column.

    But that didn’t stop Kopper from reporting the alleged contents of that conversation to my employer and using those alleged contents to claim I had knowingly written a column with false and defamatory information.

    In other words, he tried to convince my employer I was an unethical and untrustworthy employee. And believe me, in the current climate of journalistic scrutiny, those can be fatal words to a columnist’s future.

    Just for the record, Kopper’s charge is false. It’s also defamatory. The fact he made the charge to my employer makes it all the more defamatory because it strikes at the heart of my livelihood.

    As for Mel Trujillo, a nice enough sort who unwittingly became a mole for Kopper and his false charges to my employer, Mel now says (in an e-mail to me yesterday): “In retrospect,

    I believe that your column may have been written and submitted before my first phone call.

    I am lousy with days and dates. I could be mistaken about the days of the week that I called you.”

    Sounds like your star witness just went south on you, counselor.

    Log in to Reply

21. Anonymous –

    As a loyal follower of the Vanguard I kindly remind you that newspapers did not out “Doug Paul Davis,” a.k.a. David Greenwald. He chose to be interviewed by the Sacramento Bee.

    Might I also add that that the Bee did a very good job of interviewing him and getting to the root of the reason why he started the blog in the first place. The one-sided view presented by the Enterprise has been a diservice to this community for a long time.

    I think I speak for many in Davis and surrounding areas when I say, “thank you for all the work you do maintaining the Vanguard Doug Paul Davis. You take a more in depth look at issues than the local paper.”

    Keep up the great work!

    Log in to Reply

22. Anonymous –

    As a loyal follower of the Vanguard I kindly remind you that newspapers did not out “Doug Paul Davis,” a.k.a. David Greenwald. He chose to be interviewed by the Sacramento Bee.

    Might I also add that that the Bee did a very good job of interviewing him and getting to the root of the reason why he started the blog in the first place. The one-sided view presented by the Enterprise has been a diservice to this community for a long time.

    I think I speak for many in Davis and surrounding areas when I say, “thank you for all the work you do maintaining the Vanguard Doug Paul Davis. You take a more in depth look at issues than the local paper.”

    Keep up the great work!

    Log in to Reply

23. Anonymous –

    As a loyal follower of the Vanguard I kindly remind you that newspapers did not out “Doug Paul Davis,” a.k.a. David Greenwald. He chose to be interviewed by the Sacramento Bee.

    Might I also add that that the Bee did a very good job of interviewing him and getting to the root of the reason why he started the blog in the first place. The one-sided view presented by the Enterprise has been a diservice to this community for a long time.

    I think I speak for many in Davis and surrounding areas when I say, “thank you for all the work you do maintaining the Vanguard Doug Paul Davis. You take a more in depth look at issues than the local paper.”

    Keep up the great work!

    Log in to Reply

24. Anonymous –

    As a loyal follower of the Vanguard I kindly remind you that newspapers did not out “Doug Paul Davis,” a.k.a. David Greenwald. He chose to be interviewed by the Sacramento Bee.

    Might I also add that that the Bee did a very good job of interviewing him and getting to the root of the reason why he started the blog in the first place. The one-sided view presented by the Enterprise has been a diservice to this community for a long time.

    I think I speak for many in Davis and surrounding areas when I say, “thank you for all the work you do maintaining the Vanguard Doug Paul Davis. You take a more in depth look at issues than the local paper.”

    Keep up the great work!

    Log in to Reply

25. I think what we have here are columnists who have never been questioned or challenged on their writings other than an occassional letter that may be printed in the Letter to the Editor section.

    I agree with Dunning hardly ever, but sometimes. Rich Rifkin…hmmm..sometimes, but rarely. I think it’s good to have a broad range of issues addressed and now that the Vanguard is giving us that opportunity.

    It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.

    Here’s some honey…be a little kinder Dunning & Rifkin.

    Log in to Reply

26. I think what we have here are columnists who have never been questioned or challenged on their writings other than an occassional letter that may be printed in the Letter to the Editor section.

    I agree with Dunning hardly ever, but sometimes. Rich Rifkin…hmmm..sometimes, but rarely. I think it’s good to have a broad range of issues addressed and now that the Vanguard is giving us that opportunity.

    It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.

    Here’s some honey…be a little kinder Dunning & Rifkin.

    Log in to Reply

27. I think what we have here are columnists who have never been questioned or challenged on their writings other than an occassional letter that may be printed in the Letter to the Editor section.

    I agree with Dunning hardly ever, but sometimes. Rich Rifkin…hmmm..sometimes, but rarely. I think it’s good to have a broad range of issues addressed and now that the Vanguard is giving us that opportunity.

    It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.

    Here’s some honey…be a little kinder Dunning & Rifkin.

    Log in to Reply

28. I think what we have here are columnists who have never been questioned or challenged on their writings other than an occassional letter that may be printed in the Letter to the Editor section.

    I agree with Dunning hardly ever, but sometimes. Rich Rifkin…hmmm..sometimes, but rarely. I think it’s good to have a broad range of issues addressed and now that the Vanguard is giving us that opportunity.

    It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.

    Here’s some honey…be a little kinder Dunning & Rifkin.

    Log in to Reply

29. “Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.“

    According to both Kopper and Trujillo, this is not correct. I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this. Trujillo spent a good deal of time explaining the law to Dunning. Trujillo did say it was possible that Dunning had already written his column, but he also had ample time to change it.

    Log in to Reply

30. “Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.“

    According to both Kopper and Trujillo, this is not correct. I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this. Trujillo spent a good deal of time explaining the law to Dunning. Trujillo did say it was possible that Dunning had already written his column, but he also had ample time to change it.

    Log in to Reply

31. “Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.“

    According to both Kopper and Trujillo, this is not correct. I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this. Trujillo spent a good deal of time explaining the law to Dunning. Trujillo did say it was possible that Dunning had already written his column, but he also had ample time to change it.

    Log in to Reply

32. “Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.“

    According to both Kopper and Trujillo, this is not correct. I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this. Trujillo spent a good deal of time explaining the law to Dunning. Trujillo did say it was possible that Dunning had already written his column, but he also had ample time to change it.

    Log in to Reply

33. “It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.”

    In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.

    Log in to Reply

34. “It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.”

    In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.

    Log in to Reply

35. “It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.”

    In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.

    Log in to Reply

36. “It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.”

    In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.

    Log in to Reply

37. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Who are you?

    Log in to Reply

38. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Who are you?

    Log in to Reply

39. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Who are you?

    Log in to Reply

40. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Who are you?

    Log in to Reply

41. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Information like this from anonymous sources is worse than useless.

    I think Bob has good reasons to be upset with various of the folks on this blog. I appreciate that you were trying to make a correction, Doug, but I can’t imagine why you were surprised by Bob’s reaction or chose to make a big deal about it.

    Log in to Reply

42. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Information like this from anonymous sources is worse than useless.

    I think Bob has good reasons to be upset with various of the folks on this blog. I appreciate that you were trying to make a correction, Doug, but I can’t imagine why you were surprised by Bob’s reaction or chose to make a big deal about it.

    Log in to Reply

43. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Information like this from anonymous sources is worse than useless.

    I think Bob has good reasons to be upset with various of the folks on this blog. I appreciate that you were trying to make a correction, Doug, but I can’t imagine why you were surprised by Bob’s reaction or chose to make a big deal about it.

    Log in to Reply

44. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Information like this from anonymous sources is worse than useless.

    I think Bob has good reasons to be upset with various of the folks on this blog. I appreciate that you were trying to make a correction, Doug, but I can’t imagine why you were surprised by Bob’s reaction or chose to make a big deal about it.

    Log in to Reply

45. What does it matter who I am? Mel’s listed in the phone book call him up and ask him yourself rather than falsely reporting information.

    Log in to Reply

46. What does it matter who I am? Mel’s listed in the phone book call him up and ask him yourself rather than falsely reporting information.

    Log in to Reply

47. What does it matter who I am? Mel’s listed in the phone book call him up and ask him yourself rather than falsely reporting information.

    Log in to Reply

48. What does it matter who I am? Mel’s listed in the phone book call him up and ask him yourself rather than falsely reporting information.

    Log in to Reply

49. Vanguardians are discerning readers.
    I have nothing to add to Rich Rifkin’s harangue.. it speaks amply for itself.

    Log in to Reply

50. Vanguardians are discerning readers.
    I have nothing to add to Rich Rifkin’s harangue.. it speaks amply for itself.

    Log in to Reply

51. Vanguardians are discerning readers.
    I have nothing to add to Rich Rifkin’s harangue.. it speaks amply for itself.

    Log in to Reply

52. Vanguardians are discerning readers.
    I have nothing to add to Rich Rifkin’s harangue.. it speaks amply for itself.

    Log in to Reply

53. Does it take one to know one?

    Rich Rifkin states that this blog is dedicated almost exclusively to personal attacks, and yet, being familiar with both this blog, and the Enterprise, there is no question that David engages in a thorough analysis of public policy issues facing the city of Davis and Yolo County that one rarely finds in the Enterprise.

    Methinks Rich doth protest too much. The loss of a local media monopoly hurts, I guess.

    But, let’s go back to the beginning. David made a mistake, acknowledged it, and communicated with Dunning and the Enterprise as to how to correct it (a kind of mistake, by the way, that is usually prompted identified in comments to a blog entry and readily acknowledged by the blogger), going far beyond the call of duty.

    And how did Dunning respond? He acted like a belligerent, arrogant bully, which is no surprise to long time residents of Davis.

    Meanwhile, if you will recall, Dunning posted something false about Lamar Heystek? Did Dunning acknowledge the error? No. Dunning claimed that he got the information as a result of a meeting with Lamar that Lamar says never happened. Dunning then went sideways with it by using it the error to further ridicule Lamar through the auspices of Noreen Mazelis.

    Rich, my advice to you is to separate yourself from this guy, and stop defending him so rabidly, it just makes both of you look bad. Unless, of course, you want to join Dunning in wearing those Emperor Norton outfits in the Farmer’s Market.

    –Richard Estes

    Log in to Reply

54. Does it take one to know one?

    Rich Rifkin states that this blog is dedicated almost exclusively to personal attacks, and yet, being familiar with both this blog, and the Enterprise, there is no question that David engages in a thorough analysis of public policy issues facing the city of Davis and Yolo County that one rarely finds in the Enterprise.

    Methinks Rich doth protest too much. The loss of a local media monopoly hurts, I guess.

    But, let’s go back to the beginning. David made a mistake, acknowledged it, and communicated with Dunning and the Enterprise as to how to correct it (a kind of mistake, by the way, that is usually prompted identified in comments to a blog entry and readily acknowledged by the blogger), going far beyond the call of duty.

    And how did Dunning respond? He acted like a belligerent, arrogant bully, which is no surprise to long time residents of Davis.

    Meanwhile, if you will recall, Dunning posted something false about Lamar Heystek? Did Dunning acknowledge the error? No. Dunning claimed that he got the information as a result of a meeting with Lamar that Lamar says never happened. Dunning then went sideways with it by using it the error to further ridicule Lamar through the auspices of Noreen Mazelis.

    Rich, my advice to you is to separate yourself from this guy, and stop defending him so rabidly, it just makes both of you look bad. Unless, of course, you want to join Dunning in wearing those Emperor Norton outfits in the Farmer’s Market.

    –Richard Estes

    Log in to Reply

55. Does it take one to know one?

    Rich Rifkin states that this blog is dedicated almost exclusively to personal attacks, and yet, being familiar with both this blog, and the Enterprise, there is no question that David engages in a thorough analysis of public policy issues facing the city of Davis and Yolo County that one rarely finds in the Enterprise.

    Methinks Rich doth protest too much. The loss of a local media monopoly hurts, I guess.

    But, let’s go back to the beginning. David made a mistake, acknowledged it, and communicated with Dunning and the Enterprise as to how to correct it (a kind of mistake, by the way, that is usually prompted identified in comments to a blog entry and readily acknowledged by the blogger), going far beyond the call of duty.

    And how did Dunning respond? He acted like a belligerent, arrogant bully, which is no surprise to long time residents of Davis.

    Meanwhile, if you will recall, Dunning posted something false about Lamar Heystek? Did Dunning acknowledge the error? No. Dunning claimed that he got the information as a result of a meeting with Lamar that Lamar says never happened. Dunning then went sideways with it by using it the error to further ridicule Lamar through the auspices of Noreen Mazelis.

    Rich, my advice to you is to separate yourself from this guy, and stop defending him so rabidly, it just makes both of you look bad. Unless, of course, you want to join Dunning in wearing those Emperor Norton outfits in the Farmer’s Market.

    –Richard Estes

    Log in to Reply

56. Does it take one to know one?

    Rich Rifkin states that this blog is dedicated almost exclusively to personal attacks, and yet, being familiar with both this blog, and the Enterprise, there is no question that David engages in a thorough analysis of public policy issues facing the city of Davis and Yolo County that one rarely finds in the Enterprise.

    Methinks Rich doth protest too much. The loss of a local media monopoly hurts, I guess.

    But, let’s go back to the beginning. David made a mistake, acknowledged it, and communicated with Dunning and the Enterprise as to how to correct it (a kind of mistake, by the way, that is usually prompted identified in comments to a blog entry and readily acknowledged by the blogger), going far beyond the call of duty.

    And how did Dunning respond? He acted like a belligerent, arrogant bully, which is no surprise to long time residents of Davis.

    Meanwhile, if you will recall, Dunning posted something false about Lamar Heystek? Did Dunning acknowledge the error? No. Dunning claimed that he got the information as a result of a meeting with Lamar that Lamar says never happened. Dunning then went sideways with it by using it the error to further ridicule Lamar through the auspices of Noreen Mazelis.

    Rich, my advice to you is to separate yourself from this guy, and stop defending him so rabidly, it just makes both of you look bad. Unless, of course, you want to join Dunning in wearing those Emperor Norton outfits in the Farmer’s Market.

    –Richard Estes

    Log in to Reply

57. Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised? The email that Doug Paul Davis received was obviously written by someone in a state of rage, quite inappropriate to the circumstances.

    Log in to Reply

58. Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised? The email that Doug Paul Davis received was obviously written by someone in a state of rage, quite inappropriate to the circumstances.

    Log in to Reply

59. Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised? The email that Doug Paul Davis received was obviously written by someone in a state of rage, quite inappropriate to the circumstances.

    Log in to Reply

60. Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised? The email that Doug Paul Davis received was obviously written by someone in a state of rage, quite inappropriate to the circumstances.

    Log in to Reply

61. Mr. Rifkin,

    Sure, nobody likes to be criticized, but you and Mr. Dunning who write commentary for a living evidently have very thin skins. Your many posts on this blog today in response to the Doug Paul Davis article on Mr. Dunning are quite revealing. You accuse others of “attacking,” of being “cowards,” of writing “vicious attacks,” that Doug Paul Davis is being “abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective and of defaming people.” You make assertions, yet offer no evidence to support them.

    You continue: “In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.”

    You accuse others of being “champions of name calling.” Frankly, Mr. Rifkin nobody is more of a champion of name calling than yourself.

    The People’s Vanguard of Davis is a credible source of articles and opinions based upon facts and research whether penned by an identified or anonymous author. It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.

    Log in to Reply

62. Mr. Rifkin,

    Sure, nobody likes to be criticized, but you and Mr. Dunning who write commentary for a living evidently have very thin skins. Your many posts on this blog today in response to the Doug Paul Davis article on Mr. Dunning are quite revealing. You accuse others of “attacking,” of being “cowards,” of writing “vicious attacks,” that Doug Paul Davis is being “abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective and of defaming people.” You make assertions, yet offer no evidence to support them.

    You continue: “In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.”

    You accuse others of being “champions of name calling.” Frankly, Mr. Rifkin nobody is more of a champion of name calling than yourself.

    The People’s Vanguard of Davis is a credible source of articles and opinions based upon facts and research whether penned by an identified or anonymous author. It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.

    Log in to Reply

63. Mr. Rifkin,

    Sure, nobody likes to be criticized, but you and Mr. Dunning who write commentary for a living evidently have very thin skins. Your many posts on this blog today in response to the Doug Paul Davis article on Mr. Dunning are quite revealing. You accuse others of “attacking,” of being “cowards,” of writing “vicious attacks,” that Doug Paul Davis is being “abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective and of defaming people.” You make assertions, yet offer no evidence to support them.

    You continue: “In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.”

    You accuse others of being “champions of name calling.” Frankly, Mr. Rifkin nobody is more of a champion of name calling than yourself.

    The People’s Vanguard of Davis is a credible source of articles and opinions based upon facts and research whether penned by an identified or anonymous author. It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.

    Log in to Reply

64. Mr. Rifkin,

    Sure, nobody likes to be criticized, but you and Mr. Dunning who write commentary for a living evidently have very thin skins. Your many posts on this blog today in response to the Doug Paul Davis article on Mr. Dunning are quite revealing. You accuse others of “attacking,” of being “cowards,” of writing “vicious attacks,” that Doug Paul Davis is being “abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective and of defaming people.” You make assertions, yet offer no evidence to support them.

    You continue: “In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.”

    You accuse others of being “champions of name calling.” Frankly, Mr. Rifkin nobody is more of a champion of name calling than yourself.

    The People’s Vanguard of Davis is a credible source of articles and opinions based upon facts and research whether penned by an identified or anonymous author. It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.

    Log in to Reply

65. “Anonymous said…
    If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.”
    3:59 PM

    Hey anonymous, aka Bob Dunning,

    You really ought to look in the mirror before casting stones within your glass house.

    Bob, once again you misrepresent the truth by accusing others such as David Greenwald of using writing methods which you regularily employ. And for the record, neither the Sacramento Bee nor other newspapers outed David Greenwald. Reading the articles it was apparent that Greenwald had met and worked with credible reporters and editors who were interested in writing on why blogs are fast becoming both a source of news and a way to hold traditional newspapers and their columnists accountable. It is quite evident that this medium and the truthfulness of it is threatening to you.

    Log in to Reply

66. “Anonymous said…
    If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.”
    3:59 PM

    Hey anonymous, aka Bob Dunning,

    You really ought to look in the mirror before casting stones within your glass house.

    Bob, once again you misrepresent the truth by accusing others such as David Greenwald of using writing methods which you regularily employ. And for the record, neither the Sacramento Bee nor other newspapers outed David Greenwald. Reading the articles it was apparent that Greenwald had met and worked with credible reporters and editors who were interested in writing on why blogs are fast becoming both a source of news and a way to hold traditional newspapers and their columnists accountable. It is quite evident that this medium and the truthfulness of it is threatening to you.

    Log in to Reply

67. “Anonymous said…
    If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.”
    3:59 PM

    Hey anonymous, aka Bob Dunning,

    You really ought to look in the mirror before casting stones within your glass house.

    Bob, once again you misrepresent the truth by accusing others such as David Greenwald of using writing methods which you regularily employ. And for the record, neither the Sacramento Bee nor other newspapers outed David Greenwald. Reading the articles it was apparent that Greenwald had met and worked with credible reporters and editors who were interested in writing on why blogs are fast becoming both a source of news and a way to hold traditional newspapers and their columnists accountable. It is quite evident that this medium and the truthfulness of it is threatening to you.

    Log in to Reply

68. “Anonymous said…
    If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.”
    3:59 PM

    Hey anonymous, aka Bob Dunning,

    You really ought to look in the mirror before casting stones within your glass house.

    Bob, once again you misrepresent the truth by accusing others such as David Greenwald of using writing methods which you regularily employ. And for the record, neither the Sacramento Bee nor other newspapers outed David Greenwald. Reading the articles it was apparent that Greenwald had met and worked with credible reporters and editors who were interested in writing on why blogs are fast becoming both a source of news and a way to hold traditional newspapers and their columnists accountable. It is quite evident that this medium and the truthfulness of it is threatening to you.

    Log in to Reply

69. Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.

    Log in to Reply

70. Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.

    Log in to Reply

71. Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.

    Log in to Reply

72. Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.

    Log in to Reply

73. “Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised?”
    Not really. There are 27 or so links to Bob on the People’s Vanguard, and many of them contain characterizations that I think anybody would find offensive. It’s clear there is personal animus between Bob and Doug.

    This blog is very useful and continues to gain credibility as Doug does in-depth research on numerous topics. But Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise are viewed, by Doug and many respondents, through an ideological prism that IMO distorts them. It is that prism that led to assumptions about Bob’s position on Measure J. I have no idea how Bob voted on Target, but I knew his position on Measure J.

    Log in to Reply

74. “Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised?”
    Not really. There are 27 or so links to Bob on the People’s Vanguard, and many of them contain characterizations that I think anybody would find offensive. It’s clear there is personal animus between Bob and Doug.

    This blog is very useful and continues to gain credibility as Doug does in-depth research on numerous topics. But Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise are viewed, by Doug and many respondents, through an ideological prism that IMO distorts them. It is that prism that led to assumptions about Bob’s position on Measure J. I have no idea how Bob voted on Target, but I knew his position on Measure J.

    Log in to Reply

75. “Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised?”
    Not really. There are 27 or so links to Bob on the People’s Vanguard, and many of them contain characterizations that I think anybody would find offensive. It’s clear there is personal animus between Bob and Doug.

    This blog is very useful and continues to gain credibility as Doug does in-depth research on numerous topics. But Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise are viewed, by Doug and many respondents, through an ideological prism that IMO distorts them. It is that prism that led to assumptions about Bob’s position on Measure J. I have no idea how Bob voted on Target, but I knew his position on Measure J.

    Log in to Reply

76. “Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised?”
    Not really. There are 27 or so links to Bob on the People’s Vanguard, and many of them contain characterizations that I think anybody would find offensive. It’s clear there is personal animus between Bob and Doug.

    This blog is very useful and continues to gain credibility as Doug does in-depth research on numerous topics. But Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise are viewed, by Doug and many respondents, through an ideological prism that IMO distorts them. It is that prism that led to assumptions about Bob’s position on Measure J. I have no idea how Bob voted on Target, but I knew his position on Measure J.

    Log in to Reply

77. Don.. so you were not surprised to see someone who makes his living shaping words lashing out in what looked like an outburst of literary rage in response to being sent an explanatory draft correcting an error that he took as an affront. Quite frankly, it appeared to me like his cheese had, at least for the moment, slipped off his cracker.

    Log in to Reply

78. Don.. so you were not surprised to see someone who makes his living shaping words lashing out in what looked like an outburst of literary rage in response to being sent an explanatory draft correcting an error that he took as an affront. Quite frankly, it appeared to me like his cheese had, at least for the moment, slipped off his cracker.

    Log in to Reply

79. Don.. so you were not surprised to see someone who makes his living shaping words lashing out in what looked like an outburst of literary rage in response to being sent an explanatory draft correcting an error that he took as an affront. Quite frankly, it appeared to me like his cheese had, at least for the moment, slipped off his cracker.

    Log in to Reply

80. Don.. so you were not surprised to see someone who makes his living shaping words lashing out in what looked like an outburst of literary rage in response to being sent an explanatory draft correcting an error that he took as an affront. Quite frankly, it appeared to me like his cheese had, at least for the moment, slipped off his cracker.

    Log in to Reply

81. and Don… There are at least 27 people in Davis who have been publicly ridiculed, their motives maligned and their character
    made the butt of derision in the Wary I. What goes around.. comes around.
    … but I agree, Bob Dunning is of no importance to the future of this blog and the less space about him the better.

    Log in to Reply

82. and Don… There are at least 27 people in Davis who have been publicly ridiculed, their motives maligned and their character
    made the butt of derision in the Wary I. What goes around.. comes around.
    … but I agree, Bob Dunning is of no importance to the future of this blog and the less space about him the better.

    Log in to Reply

83. and Don… There are at least 27 people in Davis who have been publicly ridiculed, their motives maligned and their character
    made the butt of derision in the Wary I. What goes around.. comes around.
    … but I agree, Bob Dunning is of no importance to the future of this blog and the less space about him the better.

    Log in to Reply

84. and Don… There are at least 27 people in Davis who have been publicly ridiculed, their motives maligned and their character
    made the butt of derision in the Wary I. What goes around.. comes around.
    … but I agree, Bob Dunning is of no importance to the future of this blog and the less space about him the better.

    Log in to Reply

85. “It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.”

    This is just false. I appreciate being held accountable. If I make a mistake, I like being told so. If someone sees a flaw in my argument, I want it pointed out. Almost all learning is done by a process of trial and error. I am a committed student of life. I’m always trying to learn, to improve myself.

    However, I do get angry when I am attacked, or frankly when anyone is attacked, by someone who does so anonymously. I find that weak and cowardly. If that is name calling, so be it. Or as we say in Hebrew, amen.

    Log in to Reply

86. “It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.”

    This is just false. I appreciate being held accountable. If I make a mistake, I like being told so. If someone sees a flaw in my argument, I want it pointed out. Almost all learning is done by a process of trial and error. I am a committed student of life. I’m always trying to learn, to improve myself.

    However, I do get angry when I am attacked, or frankly when anyone is attacked, by someone who does so anonymously. I find that weak and cowardly. If that is name calling, so be it. Or as we say in Hebrew, amen.

    Log in to Reply

87. “It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.”

    This is just false. I appreciate being held accountable. If I make a mistake, I like being told so. If someone sees a flaw in my argument, I want it pointed out. Almost all learning is done by a process of trial and error. I am a committed student of life. I’m always trying to learn, to improve myself.

    However, I do get angry when I am attacked, or frankly when anyone is attacked, by someone who does so anonymously. I find that weak and cowardly. If that is name calling, so be it. Or as we say in Hebrew, amen.

    Log in to Reply

88. “It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.”

    This is just false. I appreciate being held accountable. If I make a mistake, I like being told so. If someone sees a flaw in my argument, I want it pointed out. Almost all learning is done by a process of trial and error. I am a committed student of life. I’m always trying to learn, to improve myself.

    However, I do get angry when I am attacked, or frankly when anyone is attacked, by someone who does so anonymously. I find that weak and cowardly. If that is name calling, so be it. Or as we say in Hebrew, amen.

    Log in to Reply

89. “Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.”

    You may be right. I grew up hearing Yiddish, but I cannot speak the language, and may misunderstand how “shnook” ought to be used. I learned it, from my grandfather, who was born in Poland in 1886 (yes, that long ago) to use shnook for a sad sack, someone who is pathetic. It’s not as cutting or negative as shmuck, which is perhaps the word I should have used.

    Log in to Reply

90. “Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.”

    You may be right. I grew up hearing Yiddish, but I cannot speak the language, and may misunderstand how “shnook” ought to be used. I learned it, from my grandfather, who was born in Poland in 1886 (yes, that long ago) to use shnook for a sad sack, someone who is pathetic. It’s not as cutting or negative as shmuck, which is perhaps the word I should have used.

    Log in to Reply

91. “Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.”

    You may be right. I grew up hearing Yiddish, but I cannot speak the language, and may misunderstand how “shnook” ought to be used. I learned it, from my grandfather, who was born in Poland in 1886 (yes, that long ago) to use shnook for a sad sack, someone who is pathetic. It’s not as cutting or negative as shmuck, which is perhaps the word I should have used.

    Log in to Reply

92. “Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.”

    You may be right. I grew up hearing Yiddish, but I cannot speak the language, and may misunderstand how “shnook” ought to be used. I learned it, from my grandfather, who was born in Poland in 1886 (yes, that long ago) to use shnook for a sad sack, someone who is pathetic. It’s not as cutting or negative as shmuck, which is perhaps the word I should have used.

    Log in to Reply

93. I don’t understand why it matters if it is anonymous or not. Most of the people on this blog you probably don’t know and have no idea who they are. David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations. If you look at other blogs–most of them people post under monikers of some sort that are not their own name. It’s the new means of communication and I think it is healthy and it promotes honest discourse. People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.

    Log in to Reply

94. I don’t understand why it matters if it is anonymous or not. Most of the people on this blog you probably don’t know and have no idea who they are. David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations. If you look at other blogs–most of them people post under monikers of some sort that are not their own name. It’s the new means of communication and I think it is healthy and it promotes honest discourse. People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.

    Log in to Reply

95. I don’t understand why it matters if it is anonymous or not. Most of the people on this blog you probably don’t know and have no idea who they are. David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations. If you look at other blogs–most of them people post under monikers of some sort that are not their own name. It’s the new means of communication and I think it is healthy and it promotes honest discourse. People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.

    Log in to Reply

96. I don’t understand why it matters if it is anonymous or not. Most of the people on this blog you probably don’t know and have no idea who they are. David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations. If you look at other blogs–most of them people post under monikers of some sort that are not their own name. It’s the new means of communication and I think it is healthy and it promotes honest discourse. People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.

    Log in to Reply

97. Rifkin… missed again.. but closer. the Yiddish word sch….k is literally the working end of the male reproductive organ, a dismissive expletive with a little more bite but still without the venom you seek. These Yiddish expressions reflect a culture that
    does not easily find mean-spiritness or evil as motivation in its community but rather sees ignorance and stubborn refusal to recognize the truth as the problem.

    Log in to Reply

98. Rifkin… missed again.. but closer. the Yiddish word sch….k is literally the working end of the male reproductive organ, a dismissive expletive with a little more bite but still without the venom you seek. These Yiddish expressions reflect a culture that
    does not easily find mean-spiritness or evil as motivation in its community but rather sees ignorance and stubborn refusal to recognize the truth as the problem.

    Log in to Reply

99. Rifkin… missed again.. but closer. the Yiddish word sch….k is literally the working end of the male reproductive organ, a dismissive expletive with a little more bite but still without the venom you seek. These Yiddish expressions reflect a culture that
    does not easily find mean-spiritness or evil as motivation in its community but rather sees ignorance and stubborn refusal to recognize the truth as the problem.

    Log in to Reply

100. Rifkin… missed again.. but closer. the Yiddish word sch….k is literally the working end of the male reproductive organ, a dismissive expletive with a little more bite but still without the venom you seek. These Yiddish expressions reflect a culture that
     does not easily find mean-spiritness or evil as motivation in its community but rather sees ignorance and stubborn refusal to recognize the truth as the problem.

     Log in to Reply

101. “David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations.”

     By permitting anonymous postings, it is an invitation to character attacks. (I would not say assassinations.) That does not make this blog unique. Most of them suffer from this problem.

     But because of anonymity, all of the character attacks are one way: from the anonymous folks to the people who have the courage to honestly represent themselves or against public figures.

     Even if “anonymous” were disallowed, people could still use fake names. So this problem is not easily solved. However, that does not excuse Greenwald from using a nom de plum when he discusses issues that he or his family have a personal stake in.

     “People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.”

     I don’t get this. When is it a must? I think anonymity invites incivility. The guy who calls himself “Davisite,” for example, accuses other people, by name, of being unethical, even though his charges are complete nonsense. He would never have the guts to say such a thing to the person’s face. But by hiding under the skirt of anonymity, Davisite feels empowered to take pot-shots at innocent people.

     Log in to Reply

102. “David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations.”

     By permitting anonymous postings, it is an invitation to character attacks. (I would not say assassinations.) That does not make this blog unique. Most of them suffer from this problem.

     But because of anonymity, all of the character attacks are one way: from the anonymous folks to the people who have the courage to honestly represent themselves or against public figures.

     Even if “anonymous” were disallowed, people could still use fake names. So this problem is not easily solved. However, that does not excuse Greenwald from using a nom de plum when he discusses issues that he or his family have a personal stake in.

     “People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.”

     I don’t get this. When is it a must? I think anonymity invites incivility. The guy who calls himself “Davisite,” for example, accuses other people, by name, of being unethical, even though his charges are complete nonsense. He would never have the guts to say such a thing to the person’s face. But by hiding under the skirt of anonymity, Davisite feels empowered to take pot-shots at innocent people.

     Log in to Reply

103. “David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations.”

     By permitting anonymous postings, it is an invitation to character attacks. (I would not say assassinations.) That does not make this blog unique. Most of them suffer from this problem.

     But because of anonymity, all of the character attacks are one way: from the anonymous folks to the people who have the courage to honestly represent themselves or against public figures.

     Even if “anonymous” were disallowed, people could still use fake names. So this problem is not easily solved. However, that does not excuse Greenwald from using a nom de plum when he discusses issues that he or his family have a personal stake in.

     “People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.”

     I don’t get this. When is it a must? I think anonymity invites incivility. The guy who calls himself “Davisite,” for example, accuses other people, by name, of being unethical, even though his charges are complete nonsense. He would never have the guts to say such a thing to the person’s face. But by hiding under the skirt of anonymity, Davisite feels empowered to take pot-shots at innocent people.

     Log in to Reply

104. “David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations.”

     By permitting anonymous postings, it is an invitation to character attacks. (I would not say assassinations.) That does not make this blog unique. Most of them suffer from this problem.

     But because of anonymity, all of the character attacks are one way: from the anonymous folks to the people who have the courage to honestly represent themselves or against public figures.

     Even if “anonymous” were disallowed, people could still use fake names. So this problem is not easily solved. However, that does not excuse Greenwald from using a nom de plum when he discusses issues that he or his family have a personal stake in.

     “People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.”

     I don’t get this. When is it a must? I think anonymity invites incivility. The guy who calls himself “Davisite,” for example, accuses other people, by name, of being unethical, even though his charges are complete nonsense. He would never have the guts to say such a thing to the person’s face. But by hiding under the skirt of anonymity, Davisite feels empowered to take pot-shots at innocent people.

     Log in to Reply

105. “… but still without the venom you seek.”

     You’re off-base, here. That must be why you think I don’t understand how to use Yiddish words. I didn’t intend to be venomous. I simply intended to say that the person in question was pathetic. And for what it’s worth, I called a cousin of mine (actually a first cousin, twice removed) who speaks fluent Yiddish. And she said that my understanding of “shnook” was correct — it can mean “a sad, pathetic fool.”

     As far as shmuck goes, I know exactly what that means. It’s interesting that there are about 5 words or variants in Yiddish which for the penis: shmuck, shmo, shmendrick, shmeckle and putz, the last of which seems the harshest.

     Log in to Reply

106. “… but still without the venom you seek.”

     You’re off-base, here. That must be why you think I don’t understand how to use Yiddish words. I didn’t intend to be venomous. I simply intended to say that the person in question was pathetic. And for what it’s worth, I called a cousin of mine (actually a first cousin, twice removed) who speaks fluent Yiddish. And she said that my understanding of “shnook” was correct — it can mean “a sad, pathetic fool.”

     As far as shmuck goes, I know exactly what that means. It’s interesting that there are about 5 words or variants in Yiddish which for the penis: shmuck, shmo, shmendrick, shmeckle and putz, the last of which seems the harshest.

     Log in to Reply

107. “… but still without the venom you seek.”

     You’re off-base, here. That must be why you think I don’t understand how to use Yiddish words. I didn’t intend to be venomous. I simply intended to say that the person in question was pathetic. And for what it’s worth, I called a cousin of mine (actually a first cousin, twice removed) who speaks fluent Yiddish. And she said that my understanding of “shnook” was correct — it can mean “a sad, pathetic fool.”

     As far as shmuck goes, I know exactly what that means. It’s interesting that there are about 5 words or variants in Yiddish which for the penis: shmuck, shmo, shmendrick, shmeckle and putz, the last of which seems the harshest.

     Log in to Reply

108. “… but still without the venom you seek.”

     You’re off-base, here. That must be why you think I don’t understand how to use Yiddish words. I didn’t intend to be venomous. I simply intended to say that the person in question was pathetic. And for what it’s worth, I called a cousin of mine (actually a first cousin, twice removed) who speaks fluent Yiddish. And she said that my understanding of “shnook” was correct — it can mean “a sad, pathetic fool.”

     As far as shmuck goes, I know exactly what that means. It’s interesting that there are about 5 words or variants in Yiddish which for the penis: shmuck, shmo, shmendrick, shmeckle and putz, the last of which seems the harshest.

     Log in to Reply

109. Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?

     Log in to Reply

110. Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?

     Log in to Reply

111. Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?

     Log in to Reply

112. Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?

     Log in to Reply

113. Moderator’s comment: As before, I suggest that this blog comment section try and remain on topic and not be diverted by Rich Rifkin. Tit -for-tat comments may feel good but offer little in the way of meaningful dialogue. Self-absorbed ranting is easily recognizable and can be left to stand for itself, “naked” before the readership.

     Log in to Reply

114. Moderator’s comment: As before, I suggest that this blog comment section try and remain on topic and not be diverted by Rich Rifkin. Tit -for-tat comments may feel good but offer little in the way of meaningful dialogue. Self-absorbed ranting is easily recognizable and can be left to stand for itself, “naked” before the readership.

     Log in to Reply

115. Moderator’s comment: As before, I suggest that this blog comment section try and remain on topic and not be diverted by Rich Rifkin. Tit -for-tat comments may feel good but offer little in the way of meaningful dialogue. Self-absorbed ranting is easily recognizable and can be left to stand for itself, “naked” before the readership.

     Log in to Reply

116. Moderator’s comment: As before, I suggest that this blog comment section try and remain on topic and not be diverted by Rich Rifkin. Tit -for-tat comments may feel good but offer little in the way of meaningful dialogue. Self-absorbed ranting is easily recognizable and can be left to stand for itself, “naked” before the readership.

     Log in to Reply

117. Mr. Rifkin states: “I think anonymity invites incivility.”

     Rifkin & Dunning have proven that identifying oneself is no guarantee that incivility will not occur. Both are frequently uncivil. Much of the time, they are acerbic, accusatory and down right nasty, especially when being questioned or challenged by others. And they share in the mistaken belief that by identifying themselves they are more honorable than others who write anonymously.

     When King George ruled America it was by anonymous writings that many of the patriots worked to overthrow the monarchy and that tyrannical ruler who wanted no dissenting views expressed. Hear, hear to anonymous writers and the protection that the Constitution gives freedom of expression whether the authors choose to be identified or not.

     Ultimately, anyone’s writings whether anonymous or not will be judged by the opinions expressed and the facts given to support those opinions. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis has become so effective and respected as a source of news, facts and alternative opinions. The Vanguard’s articles are well written, informative and factually supported. The Vanguard also covers many topics that The Davis Enterprise and their columnists do not. And when an occasional mistake is made, the Vanguard writers are open to correction and in fact welcome it. The Vanguard is not afraid of criticism.

     Log in to Reply

118. Mr. Rifkin states: “I think anonymity invites incivility.”

     Rifkin & Dunning have proven that identifying oneself is no guarantee that incivility will not occur. Both are frequently uncivil. Much of the time, they are acerbic, accusatory and down right nasty, especially when being questioned or challenged by others. And they share in the mistaken belief that by identifying themselves they are more honorable than others who write anonymously.

     When King George ruled America it was by anonymous writings that many of the patriots worked to overthrow the monarchy and that tyrannical ruler who wanted no dissenting views expressed. Hear, hear to anonymous writers and the protection that the Constitution gives freedom of expression whether the authors choose to be identified or not.

     Ultimately, anyone’s writings whether anonymous or not will be judged by the opinions expressed and the facts given to support those opinions. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis has become so effective and respected as a source of news, facts and alternative opinions. The Vanguard’s articles are well written, informative and factually supported. The Vanguard also covers many topics that The Davis Enterprise and their columnists do not. And when an occasional mistake is made, the Vanguard writers are open to correction and in fact welcome it. The Vanguard is not afraid of criticism.

     Log in to Reply

119. Mr. Rifkin states: “I think anonymity invites incivility.”

     Rifkin & Dunning have proven that identifying oneself is no guarantee that incivility will not occur. Both are frequently uncivil. Much of the time, they are acerbic, accusatory and down right nasty, especially when being questioned or challenged by others. And they share in the mistaken belief that by identifying themselves they are more honorable than others who write anonymously.

     When King George ruled America it was by anonymous writings that many of the patriots worked to overthrow the monarchy and that tyrannical ruler who wanted no dissenting views expressed. Hear, hear to anonymous writers and the protection that the Constitution gives freedom of expression whether the authors choose to be identified or not.

     Ultimately, anyone’s writings whether anonymous or not will be judged by the opinions expressed and the facts given to support those opinions. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis has become so effective and respected as a source of news, facts and alternative opinions. The Vanguard’s articles are well written, informative and factually supported. The Vanguard also covers many topics that The Davis Enterprise and their columnists do not. And when an occasional mistake is made, the Vanguard writers are open to correction and in fact welcome it. The Vanguard is not afraid of criticism.

     Log in to Reply

120. Mr. Rifkin states: “I think anonymity invites incivility.”

     Rifkin & Dunning have proven that identifying oneself is no guarantee that incivility will not occur. Both are frequently uncivil. Much of the time, they are acerbic, accusatory and down right nasty, especially when being questioned or challenged by others. And they share in the mistaken belief that by identifying themselves they are more honorable than others who write anonymously.

     When King George ruled America it was by anonymous writings that many of the patriots worked to overthrow the monarchy and that tyrannical ruler who wanted no dissenting views expressed. Hear, hear to anonymous writers and the protection that the Constitution gives freedom of expression whether the authors choose to be identified or not.

     Ultimately, anyone’s writings whether anonymous or not will be judged by the opinions expressed and the facts given to support those opinions. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis has become so effective and respected as a source of news, facts and alternative opinions. The Vanguard’s articles are well written, informative and factually supported. The Vanguard also covers many topics that The Davis Enterprise and their columnists do not. And when an occasional mistake is made, the Vanguard writers are open to correction and in fact welcome it. The Vanguard is not afraid of criticism.

     Log in to Reply

121. “Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?”

     That was the point made by “anonymous,” not me. He/she suggested that the term shnook, which roughly means “pathetic,” lacks venom.

     Log in to Reply

122. “Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?”

     That was the point made by “anonymous,” not me. He/she suggested that the term shnook, which roughly means “pathetic,” lacks venom.

     Log in to Reply

123. “Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?”

     That was the point made by “anonymous,” not me. He/she suggested that the term shnook, which roughly means “pathetic,” lacks venom.

     Log in to Reply

124. “Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?”

     That was the point made by “anonymous,” not me. He/she suggested that the term shnook, which roughly means “pathetic,” lacks venom.

     Log in to Reply

125. I’ve lived in Davis since 1977 which makes me a relative newcomer. I am certainly a newcomer in the eyes of someone like Bob Dunning. I never really paid much attention to him as a columnist and regarded him as a sort of class clown trying to bring a little levity to Davis society through the local newspaper.

     It wasn’t until he wrote a very cynical and hurtful column on the death of Rachel Corrie in 2003, just four days before the invasion of Iraq, that I realized Bobs’ column is not just a benign diversion but is destructive or at best counterproductive to real understanding on any given issue about 95% of the time.

     He has a very deep need to support authority and prove his allegiance to it. This is why he becomes so unhinged when the big father figures like the police, the pope, military authority or any other institution that fills that kind of role, is attacked.

     In his column, he questioned Rachel’s motives and good sense about risking her life to protect the weak and powerless against overwhelming physical terror and violence that Bob can’t even contemplate. His article indicated a very superficial understanding of what Rachel was doing in Palestine, why she was there or anything about her. I had heard her speak on the radio in a live telephone interview just a few days before her death at the age of 23, crushed by an Israeli armored bulldozer that slowly ran over her. Rachel was a hero doing serious work on behalf of us all, but Bob portrayed her as fuzzy headed liberal cartoon. Her death was grist for his class clown act.

     I criticized Bob in a letter to the Enterprise editor. The letter was printed and it was one of Bob’s daughters, a 27 year old, who wrote to defend her father and say that he is really a good guy and not as bad as he sounds in his column.

     After reflecting on this four years later, I now see him as an insecure and frightened person who desperately needs affirmation and approval. I see no reason to single him out for special treatment or attack. It’s like making the drug lord’s guard dog into the enemy instead of who the dog is protecting.

     Bob’s schtick is to lampoon everybody, but not do real damage to those in authority and thus appear to be even-handed. Multiple column hatchet jobs are reserved for impertinent cop watchers.

     In my opinion, he doesn’t really care that much about developer watchers/haters. This measure J thing only suggests to me that he got his fanny whacked by the master and is hurting from it. He had an opinion at variance with the local elites, and was punished for it. He feels he should have your love, not your vituperation. He feels righteously dissed. I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Enterprise and praise him for his stance on Measure J and give him some positive recognition. We’ll need all the help we can get in the next Measure J vote.

     Just don’t criticize the big father.

     Log in to Reply

126. I’ve lived in Davis since 1977 which makes me a relative newcomer. I am certainly a newcomer in the eyes of someone like Bob Dunning. I never really paid much attention to him as a columnist and regarded him as a sort of class clown trying to bring a little levity to Davis society through the local newspaper.

     It wasn’t until he wrote a very cynical and hurtful column on the death of Rachel Corrie in 2003, just four days before the invasion of Iraq, that I realized Bobs’ column is not just a benign diversion but is destructive or at best counterproductive to real understanding on any given issue about 95% of the time.

     He has a very deep need to support authority and prove his allegiance to it. This is why he becomes so unhinged when the big father figures like the police, the pope, military authority or any other institution that fills that kind of role, is attacked.

     In his column, he questioned Rachel’s motives and good sense about risking her life to protect the weak and powerless against overwhelming physical terror and violence that Bob can’t even contemplate. His article indicated a very superficial understanding of what Rachel was doing in Palestine, why she was there or anything about her. I had heard her speak on the radio in a live telephone interview just a few days before her death at the age of 23, crushed by an Israeli armored bulldozer that slowly ran over her. Rachel was a hero doing serious work on behalf of us all, but Bob portrayed her as fuzzy headed liberal cartoon. Her death was grist for his class clown act.

     I criticized Bob in a letter to the Enterprise editor. The letter was printed and it was one of Bob’s daughters, a 27 year old, who wrote to defend her father and say that he is really a good guy and not as bad as he sounds in his column.

     After reflecting on this four years later, I now see him as an insecure and frightened person who desperately needs affirmation and approval. I see no reason to single him out for special treatment or attack. It’s like making the drug lord’s guard dog into the enemy instead of who the dog is protecting.

     Bob’s schtick is to lampoon everybody, but not do real damage to those in authority and thus appear to be even-handed. Multiple column hatchet jobs are reserved for impertinent cop watchers.

     In my opinion, he doesn’t really care that much about developer watchers/haters. This measure J thing only suggests to me that he got his fanny whacked by the master and is hurting from it. He had an opinion at variance with the local elites, and was punished for it. He feels he should have your love, not your vituperation. He feels righteously dissed. I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Enterprise and praise him for his stance on Measure J and give him some positive recognition. We’ll need all the help we can get in the next Measure J vote.

     Just don’t criticize the big father.

     Log in to Reply

127. I’ve lived in Davis since 1977 which makes me a relative newcomer. I am certainly a newcomer in the eyes of someone like Bob Dunning. I never really paid much attention to him as a columnist and regarded him as a sort of class clown trying to bring a little levity to Davis society through the local newspaper.

     It wasn’t until he wrote a very cynical and hurtful column on the death of Rachel Corrie in 2003, just four days before the invasion of Iraq, that I realized Bobs’ column is not just a benign diversion but is destructive or at best counterproductive to real understanding on any given issue about 95% of the time.

     He has a very deep need to support authority and prove his allegiance to it. This is why he becomes so unhinged when the big father figures like the police, the pope, military authority or any other institution that fills that kind of role, is attacked.

     In his column, he questioned Rachel’s motives and good sense about risking her life to protect the weak and powerless against overwhelming physical terror and violence that Bob can’t even contemplate. His article indicated a very superficial understanding of what Rachel was doing in Palestine, why she was there or anything about her. I had heard her speak on the radio in a live telephone interview just a few days before her death at the age of 23, crushed by an Israeli armored bulldozer that slowly ran over her. Rachel was a hero doing serious work on behalf of us all, but Bob portrayed her as fuzzy headed liberal cartoon. Her death was grist for his class clown act.

     I criticized Bob in a letter to the Enterprise editor. The letter was printed and it was one of Bob’s daughters, a 27 year old, who wrote to defend her father and say that he is really a good guy and not as bad as he sounds in his column.

     After reflecting on this four years later, I now see him as an insecure and frightened person who desperately needs affirmation and approval. I see no reason to single him out for special treatment or attack. It’s like making the drug lord’s guard dog into the enemy instead of who the dog is protecting.

     Bob’s schtick is to lampoon everybody, but not do real damage to those in authority and thus appear to be even-handed. Multiple column hatchet jobs are reserved for impertinent cop watchers.

     In my opinion, he doesn’t really care that much about developer watchers/haters. This measure J thing only suggests to me that he got his fanny whacked by the master and is hurting from it. He had an opinion at variance with the local elites, and was punished for it. He feels he should have your love, not your vituperation. He feels righteously dissed. I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Enterprise and praise him for his stance on Measure J and give him some positive recognition. We’ll need all the help we can get in the next Measure J vote.

     Just don’t criticize the big father.

     Log in to Reply

128. I’ve lived in Davis since 1977 which makes me a relative newcomer. I am certainly a newcomer in the eyes of someone like Bob Dunning. I never really paid much attention to him as a columnist and regarded him as a sort of class clown trying to bring a little levity to Davis society through the local newspaper.

     It wasn’t until he wrote a very cynical and hurtful column on the death of Rachel Corrie in 2003, just four days before the invasion of Iraq, that I realized Bobs’ column is not just a benign diversion but is destructive or at best counterproductive to real understanding on any given issue about 95% of the time.

     He has a very deep need to support authority and prove his allegiance to it. This is why he becomes so unhinged when the big father figures like the police, the pope, military authority or any other institution that fills that kind of role, is attacked.

     In his column, he questioned Rachel’s motives and good sense about risking her life to protect the weak and powerless against overwhelming physical terror and violence that Bob can’t even contemplate. His article indicated a very superficial understanding of what Rachel was doing in Palestine, why she was there or anything about her. I had heard her speak on the radio in a live telephone interview just a few days before her death at the age of 23, crushed by an Israeli armored bulldozer that slowly ran over her. Rachel was a hero doing serious work on behalf of us all, but Bob portrayed her as fuzzy headed liberal cartoon. Her death was grist for his class clown act.

     I criticized Bob in a letter to the Enterprise editor. The letter was printed and it was one of Bob’s daughters, a 27 year old, who wrote to defend her father and say that he is really a good guy and not as bad as he sounds in his column.

     After reflecting on this four years later, I now see him as an insecure and frightened person who desperately needs affirmation and approval. I see no reason to single him out for special treatment or attack. It’s like making the drug lord’s guard dog into the enemy instead of who the dog is protecting.

     Bob’s schtick is to lampoon everybody, but not do real damage to those in authority and thus appear to be even-handed. Multiple column hatchet jobs are reserved for impertinent cop watchers.

     In my opinion, he doesn’t really care that much about developer watchers/haters. This measure J thing only suggests to me that he got his fanny whacked by the master and is hurting from it. He had an opinion at variance with the local elites, and was punished for it. He feels he should have your love, not your vituperation. He feels righteously dissed. I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Enterprise and praise him for his stance on Measure J and give him some positive recognition. We’ll need all the help we can get in the next Measure J vote.

     Just don’t criticize the big father.

     Log in to Reply