These questions arose as the result of feedback from members of the community who participated in the parks poll.
During the course of conversations, questions arose as to why the caller ID from these calls identified, Ultra Clean Pools, as the source of the call.
We made the decision to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason why the company owned and run by a sitting Davis City Councilmember would be involved with a vendor that has a city contract to conduct surveys and create a parks master plan.
Based on these questions, a letter was drafted to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and copied to the entire city council, City Manager Bill Emlen, and City Clerk Margaret Roberts.
The decision was made to ask these questions in a public manner including a full disclosure of the letter to City Attorney Harriet Steiner.
Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza responded on the Vanguard:
“There is no relationship. You are confusing a poll on school board candidates and Measure Q with a survey being conducted by Godbe Research.”
City Attorney Harriet Steiner confirmed Mr. Souza’s contention.
“It is our understanding that there is no relationship between Stephen Souza and either Godbe Research or MIG. Rather, it is our understanding that Stephen Souza permitted the use of his phone lines at Ultra Clean Pools to be used to conduct telephone polls related to Measure Q. This survey was not done by the City and the City had no role in this survey whatsoever.
One of my associates has spoken with Bryan Godbe of Godbe Rearch. He explained that Godbe Research uses two primary data collection firms, Mountain West Research and EMH. A call from these data collection companies would likely register as an 800 number; the calls would not have been made from the Ultra Clean [line appears cut off].”
I appreciate the very quick turn around by the City Attorney on this matter. In fact, I have never gotten a response as quickly as this from the city.
The City Attorney further informed me that since the questionnaire is only a draft, it is not subject to a public records act request. The final questionnaire will be released when the survey and results are finalized, so as to not bias the survey itself.
This information clarifies that there was likely some confusion between the two surveys. However, some questions remain as to why and for whom Mr. Souza was conducting those polls and whether he was sharing the information generated from those polls with others including the school board candidates he supports, their campaigns or the campaign in support of Measure Q.
Mr. Souza states:
“The 3 question automated phone poll I conducted on school board candidates and Measure Q is completely separate from the live survey that Godbe Research is conducting on parks and recreation.”
Again, when questioned by citizens and readers of this blog about who had requested or was benefiting from his polling efforts Mr. Souza’s response to questions on this was less than satisfying and raise more questions than they answer:
“I am a citizen who is interested in the outcome of Measure Q. It will have an effect on our community and I wanted to see if it was passing. I wanted to see if I needed to do more to help assure its passage.”
So the central question in our inquiry has been answered and addressed, but others still remain.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Nice apology for seriously blowing it. I like how DPD wrote most of the post in passive voice (“Questions arose” and “an inquiry was sent”) to try and distance himself and the Vanguard from this fiasco. It’s almost like something just “happened” and no one needs to take responsibility.
Nice apology for seriously blowing it. I like how DPD wrote most of the post in passive voice (“Questions arose” and “an inquiry was sent”) to try and distance himself and the Vanguard from this fiasco. It’s almost like something just “happened” and no one needs to take responsibility.
Nice apology for seriously blowing it. I like how DPD wrote most of the post in passive voice (“Questions arose” and “an inquiry was sent”) to try and distance himself and the Vanguard from this fiasco. It’s almost like something just “happened” and no one needs to take responsibility.
Nice apology for seriously blowing it. I like how DPD wrote most of the post in passive voice (“Questions arose” and “an inquiry was sent”) to try and distance himself and the Vanguard from this fiasco. It’s almost like something just “happened” and no one needs to take responsibility.
Doesn’t appear much different from the original…
“Specifically the question arose as to the necessity of conducting a variety of surveys in the update of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.”
“After running the article last week, we began to get feedback from members of the community who participated in the poll.”
“In the course of these conversations, the questions arose however as to why the caller ID from these calls identified”
“After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason”
Same passive voice…
I still think the original article was misinterpreted as an attack rather than an inquiry. He merely asked the question, and having received a satisfactory answer, he has printed a follow up, better than what you’ll get at any newspaper.
Doesn’t appear much different from the original…
“Specifically the question arose as to the necessity of conducting a variety of surveys in the update of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.”
“After running the article last week, we began to get feedback from members of the community who participated in the poll.”
“In the course of these conversations, the questions arose however as to why the caller ID from these calls identified”
“After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason”
Same passive voice…
I still think the original article was misinterpreted as an attack rather than an inquiry. He merely asked the question, and having received a satisfactory answer, he has printed a follow up, better than what you’ll get at any newspaper.
Doesn’t appear much different from the original…
“Specifically the question arose as to the necessity of conducting a variety of surveys in the update of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.”
“After running the article last week, we began to get feedback from members of the community who participated in the poll.”
“In the course of these conversations, the questions arose however as to why the caller ID from these calls identified”
“After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason”
Same passive voice…
I still think the original article was misinterpreted as an attack rather than an inquiry. He merely asked the question, and having received a satisfactory answer, he has printed a follow up, better than what you’ll get at any newspaper.
Doesn’t appear much different from the original…
“Specifically the question arose as to the necessity of conducting a variety of surveys in the update of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.”
“After running the article last week, we began to get feedback from members of the community who participated in the poll.”
“In the course of these conversations, the questions arose however as to why the caller ID from these calls identified”
“After a long period of pondering, the decision was made to inquire as to how this came to be and whether there is a legitimate reason”
Same passive voice…
I still think the original article was misinterpreted as an attack rather than an inquiry. He merely asked the question, and having received a satisfactory answer, he has printed a follow up, better than what you’ll get at any newspaper.
DPD – No need to apologize. There are still a lot of unanswered questions that have come to the surface.
Without The People’s Vanguard we would NOT know that:
A. Don Saylor, a current council member is taking money from a business that is set to make millions from the city of Davis.
Who cares if the money was only $200. Davis has campaign limits of $100 per person, so it could be more that is undisclosed, or it could be from other West Yost employees.
The bottom line is that it is an unethical conflict of interest.
B. Stephen Souza, ANOTHER, council member, is supposedly paying $$$ to have a poll done about Measure Q, the school board election, and possibly parks….
We’ve heard from several people and still don’t have a clear answer from him. He tried to explain himself on the Vanguard and read like a bumbling fool.
No matter how Souza spins it…it is still another UNETHICAL conflict of interest in the eyes of the voters.
You have raised important questions that are never raised by the Emptyprise, because they are merely a mouthpiece for Souza, Saylor, Asmundson, and Puntillo when he was on the council.
Any heat you get from them is simply because you are giving us a “vivid description of the DARK UNDERBELLY of Davis.”
WEAR IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR!
DPD – No need to apologize. There are still a lot of unanswered questions that have come to the surface.
Without The People’s Vanguard we would NOT know that:
A. Don Saylor, a current council member is taking money from a business that is set to make millions from the city of Davis.
Who cares if the money was only $200. Davis has campaign limits of $100 per person, so it could be more that is undisclosed, or it could be from other West Yost employees.
The bottom line is that it is an unethical conflict of interest.
B. Stephen Souza, ANOTHER, council member, is supposedly paying $$$ to have a poll done about Measure Q, the school board election, and possibly parks….
We’ve heard from several people and still don’t have a clear answer from him. He tried to explain himself on the Vanguard and read like a bumbling fool.
No matter how Souza spins it…it is still another UNETHICAL conflict of interest in the eyes of the voters.
You have raised important questions that are never raised by the Emptyprise, because they are merely a mouthpiece for Souza, Saylor, Asmundson, and Puntillo when he was on the council.
Any heat you get from them is simply because you are giving us a “vivid description of the DARK UNDERBELLY of Davis.”
WEAR IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR!
DPD – No need to apologize. There are still a lot of unanswered questions that have come to the surface.
Without The People’s Vanguard we would NOT know that:
A. Don Saylor, a current council member is taking money from a business that is set to make millions from the city of Davis.
Who cares if the money was only $200. Davis has campaign limits of $100 per person, so it could be more that is undisclosed, or it could be from other West Yost employees.
The bottom line is that it is an unethical conflict of interest.
B. Stephen Souza, ANOTHER, council member, is supposedly paying $$$ to have a poll done about Measure Q, the school board election, and possibly parks….
We’ve heard from several people and still don’t have a clear answer from him. He tried to explain himself on the Vanguard and read like a bumbling fool.
No matter how Souza spins it…it is still another UNETHICAL conflict of interest in the eyes of the voters.
You have raised important questions that are never raised by the Emptyprise, because they are merely a mouthpiece for Souza, Saylor, Asmundson, and Puntillo when he was on the council.
Any heat you get from them is simply because you are giving us a “vivid description of the DARK UNDERBELLY of Davis.”
WEAR IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR!
DPD – No need to apologize. There are still a lot of unanswered questions that have come to the surface.
Without The People’s Vanguard we would NOT know that:
A. Don Saylor, a current council member is taking money from a business that is set to make millions from the city of Davis.
Who cares if the money was only $200. Davis has campaign limits of $100 per person, so it could be more that is undisclosed, or it could be from other West Yost employees.
The bottom line is that it is an unethical conflict of interest.
B. Stephen Souza, ANOTHER, council member, is supposedly paying $$$ to have a poll done about Measure Q, the school board election, and possibly parks….
We’ve heard from several people and still don’t have a clear answer from him. He tried to explain himself on the Vanguard and read like a bumbling fool.
No matter how Souza spins it…it is still another UNETHICAL conflict of interest in the eyes of the voters.
You have raised important questions that are never raised by the Emptyprise, because they are merely a mouthpiece for Souza, Saylor, Asmundson, and Puntillo when he was on the council.
Any heat you get from them is simply because you are giving us a “vivid description of the DARK UNDERBELLY of Davis.”
WEAR IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR!
When the Enterprise makes an “error” they put the correction in a small font on a page that most hardly see.
You Doug Paul, have integrity. Keep up the good work. We need you.
When the Enterprise makes an “error” they put the correction in a small font on a page that most hardly see.
You Doug Paul, have integrity. Keep up the good work. We need you.
When the Enterprise makes an “error” they put the correction in a small font on a page that most hardly see.
You Doug Paul, have integrity. Keep up the good work. We need you.
When the Enterprise makes an “error” they put the correction in a small font on a page that most hardly see.
You Doug Paul, have integrity. Keep up the good work. We need you.
David Greenwald (aka DPD) – Next time check your facts before you post stories attacking public officials, or anyone else. Journalism 101. You just got an F.
Decide what you want to be, a blogger or a journalist. Different standards apply. Don’t pretend to be a journalist without adhering to journalistic standards. Nobody will take seriously.
David Greenwald (aka DPD) – Next time check your facts before you post stories attacking public officials, or anyone else. Journalism 101. You just got an F.
Decide what you want to be, a blogger or a journalist. Different standards apply. Don’t pretend to be a journalist without adhering to journalistic standards. Nobody will take seriously.
David Greenwald (aka DPD) – Next time check your facts before you post stories attacking public officials, or anyone else. Journalism 101. You just got an F.
Decide what you want to be, a blogger or a journalist. Different standards apply. Don’t pretend to be a journalist without adhering to journalistic standards. Nobody will take seriously.
David Greenwald (aka DPD) – Next time check your facts before you post stories attacking public officials, or anyone else. Journalism 101. You just got an F.
Decide what you want to be, a blogger or a journalist. Different standards apply. Don’t pretend to be a journalist without adhering to journalistic standards. Nobody will take seriously.
Councilman Souza’s polling of the School Board candidates prompts a discomforting “gut reaction” that is well-worth taking note of. Attraction to power,an overblown sense of importance and difficulty recognizing ethical boundaries are things that we instinctively recognize as problematic when we consider who we will select to represent us.
Councilman Souza’s polling of the School Board candidates prompts a discomforting “gut reaction” that is well-worth taking note of. Attraction to power,an overblown sense of importance and difficulty recognizing ethical boundaries are things that we instinctively recognize as problematic when we consider who we will select to represent us.
Councilman Souza’s polling of the School Board candidates prompts a discomforting “gut reaction” that is well-worth taking note of. Attraction to power,an overblown sense of importance and difficulty recognizing ethical boundaries are things that we instinctively recognize as problematic when we consider who we will select to represent us.
Councilman Souza’s polling of the School Board candidates prompts a discomforting “gut reaction” that is well-worth taking note of. Attraction to power,an overblown sense of importance and difficulty recognizing ethical boundaries are things that we instinctively recognize as problematic when we consider who we will select to represent us.
Former Journalist:
When did DPD claim to be a journalist?
Former Journalist:
When did DPD claim to be a journalist?
Former Journalist:
When did DPD claim to be a journalist?
Former Journalist:
When did DPD claim to be a journalist?
From the January 14, Sacramento Bee Article:
“Greenwald admits his strong bias and says he’s not a journalist, nor would he want to be one.
“I can do and say things that papers can’t, won’t and shouldn’t do,” he said.”
From the January 14, Sacramento Bee Article:
“Greenwald admits his strong bias and says he’s not a journalist, nor would he want to be one.
“I can do and say things that papers can’t, won’t and shouldn’t do,” he said.”
From the January 14, Sacramento Bee Article:
“Greenwald admits his strong bias and says he’s not a journalist, nor would he want to be one.
“I can do and say things that papers can’t, won’t and shouldn’t do,” he said.”
From the January 14, Sacramento Bee Article:
“Greenwald admits his strong bias and says he’s not a journalist, nor would he want to be one.
“I can do and say things that papers can’t, won’t and shouldn’t do,” he said.”
I was the 5:00 Anonymous Post
I was the 5:00 Anonymous Post
I was the 5:00 Anonymous Post
I was the 5:00 Anonymous Post
DPD – You get an A+ in our book.
You never claim nor attempt to be a jounalist. You’re too good for that…you’re a blogger and you report, or blog on issues that the journalistic rag in town will not even discuss.
You get an A+ for:
“A”mple coverage of unethical behavior of councilmembers that should know better;
“A”lways covering the issues that other papers don’t and won’t;
“A”sking the tough questions on everyone’s mind;
Covering “A”ggie issues that the Emptyprise will not cover, i.e. Sodexho workers, and students being disrespected by the Chamber CEO, Sherry Puntillo.
Good work DPD! Keep getting under their skin by uncovering the truth!
DPD – You get an A+ in our book.
You never claim nor attempt to be a jounalist. You’re too good for that…you’re a blogger and you report, or blog on issues that the journalistic rag in town will not even discuss.
You get an A+ for:
“A”mple coverage of unethical behavior of councilmembers that should know better;
“A”lways covering the issues that other papers don’t and won’t;
“A”sking the tough questions on everyone’s mind;
Covering “A”ggie issues that the Emptyprise will not cover, i.e. Sodexho workers, and students being disrespected by the Chamber CEO, Sherry Puntillo.
Good work DPD! Keep getting under their skin by uncovering the truth!
DPD – You get an A+ in our book.
You never claim nor attempt to be a jounalist. You’re too good for that…you’re a blogger and you report, or blog on issues that the journalistic rag in town will not even discuss.
You get an A+ for:
“A”mple coverage of unethical behavior of councilmembers that should know better;
“A”lways covering the issues that other papers don’t and won’t;
“A”sking the tough questions on everyone’s mind;
Covering “A”ggie issues that the Emptyprise will not cover, i.e. Sodexho workers, and students being disrespected by the Chamber CEO, Sherry Puntillo.
Good work DPD! Keep getting under their skin by uncovering the truth!
DPD – You get an A+ in our book.
You never claim nor attempt to be a jounalist. You’re too good for that…you’re a blogger and you report, or blog on issues that the journalistic rag in town will not even discuss.
You get an A+ for:
“A”mple coverage of unethical behavior of councilmembers that should know better;
“A”lways covering the issues that other papers don’t and won’t;
“A”sking the tough questions on everyone’s mind;
Covering “A”ggie issues that the Emptyprise will not cover, i.e. Sodexho workers, and students being disrespected by the Chamber CEO, Sherry Puntillo.
Good work DPD! Keep getting under their skin by uncovering the truth!
“I still think the original article was misinterpreted as an attack rather than an inquiry.”
This comment is laughable. Either the person is kidding or incredibly dim.
Imagine, dear friend, how you would feel if this “inquiry” was launched against you or a loved one, in the terms that Doug launched this “inquiry” against Souza.
Doug made it very clear that he thought Souza had an illicit business relationship with the company the city hired to conduct a poll on parks. There is no question what Doug was trying to do. He was dragging Souza’s name through the mud.
If his buddy Heystek had been involved in the Yes on Q campaign and people had noticed that his phone number had shown up on Caller ID and mistakenly confused that with the polling on the parks, there is no chance that Doug would have run Heystek’s name through the mud the way he did with Souza. Doug would have asked Heystek what the story was first. But Doug’s clear intention was to hurt Souza, so getting his facts straight was unimportant to Doug.
It’s a shame that Doug believes in being so mean and nasty. It reflects his amorality, lack of character and poor judgment.
“I still think the original article was misinterpreted as an attack rather than an inquiry.”
This comment is laughable. Either the person is kidding or incredibly dim.
Imagine, dear friend, how you would feel if this “inquiry” was launched against you or a loved one, in the terms that Doug launched this “inquiry” against Souza.
Doug made it very clear that he thought Souza had an illicit business relationship with the company the city hired to conduct a poll on parks. There is no question what Doug was trying to do. He was dragging Souza’s name through the mud.
If his buddy Heystek had been involved in the Yes on Q campaign and people had noticed that his phone number had shown up on Caller ID and mistakenly confused that with the polling on the parks, there is no chance that Doug would have run Heystek’s name through the mud the way he did with Souza. Doug would have asked Heystek what the story was first. But Doug’s clear intention was to hurt Souza, so getting his facts straight was unimportant to Doug.
It’s a shame that Doug believes in being so mean and nasty. It reflects his amorality, lack of character and poor judgment.
“I still think the original article was misinterpreted as an attack rather than an inquiry.”
This comment is laughable. Either the person is kidding or incredibly dim.
Imagine, dear friend, how you would feel if this “inquiry” was launched against you or a loved one, in the terms that Doug launched this “inquiry” against Souza.
Doug made it very clear that he thought Souza had an illicit business relationship with the company the city hired to conduct a poll on parks. There is no question what Doug was trying to do. He was dragging Souza’s name through the mud.
If his buddy Heystek had been involved in the Yes on Q campaign and people had noticed that his phone number had shown up on Caller ID and mistakenly confused that with the polling on the parks, there is no chance that Doug would have run Heystek’s name through the mud the way he did with Souza. Doug would have asked Heystek what the story was first. But Doug’s clear intention was to hurt Souza, so getting his facts straight was unimportant to Doug.
It’s a shame that Doug believes in being so mean and nasty. It reflects his amorality, lack of character and poor judgment.
“I still think the original article was misinterpreted as an attack rather than an inquiry.”
This comment is laughable. Either the person is kidding or incredibly dim.
Imagine, dear friend, how you would feel if this “inquiry” was launched against you or a loved one, in the terms that Doug launched this “inquiry” against Souza.
Doug made it very clear that he thought Souza had an illicit business relationship with the company the city hired to conduct a poll on parks. There is no question what Doug was trying to do. He was dragging Souza’s name through the mud.
If his buddy Heystek had been involved in the Yes on Q campaign and people had noticed that his phone number had shown up on Caller ID and mistakenly confused that with the polling on the parks, there is no chance that Doug would have run Heystek’s name through the mud the way he did with Souza. Doug would have asked Heystek what the story was first. But Doug’s clear intention was to hurt Souza, so getting his facts straight was unimportant to Doug.
It’s a shame that Doug believes in being so mean and nasty. It reflects his amorality, lack of character and poor judgment.
I think it would have been better to make it clear in the first paragraph that rumors concerning Stephen’s involvement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG)and Godbe Research proved to be unfounded.
I think it would have been better to make it clear in the first paragraph that rumors concerning Stephen’s involvement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG)and Godbe Research proved to be unfounded.
I think it would have been better to make it clear in the first paragraph that rumors concerning Stephen’s involvement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG)and Godbe Research proved to be unfounded.
I think it would have been better to make it clear in the first paragraph that rumors concerning Stephen’s involvement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG)and Godbe Research proved to be unfounded.
Sue Greenwald said…
I think it would have been better to make it clear in the first paragraph that rumors concerning Stephen’s involvement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG)and Godbe Research proved to be unfounded.
I agree.
Sue Greenwald said…
I think it would have been better to make it clear in the first paragraph that rumors concerning Stephen’s involvement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG)and Godbe Research proved to be unfounded.
I agree.
Sue Greenwald said…
I think it would have been better to make it clear in the first paragraph that rumors concerning Stephen’s involvement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG)and Godbe Research proved to be unfounded.
I agree.
Sue Greenwald said…
I think it would have been better to make it clear in the first paragraph that rumors concerning Stephen’s involvement with Moore Iacofano Goltsman (MIG)and Godbe Research proved to be unfounded.
I agree.
DPD – lots of comments about you and your blog here, and for good reason. The postings regarding Saylor and Souza have not been what many of us expect from you.
I think it would be a very good time for you to publicly declare, on this blog, your intentions and hopes for this blog. Are you a journalist, attempting to report facts, well founded and reasonably well researched, so that the people who read this blog can depend on the information that you present as being unbiased and true?
Or, as some have tried to explain, used your own alleged comments (I write alleged b/c I haven’t personally seen any such commentary) that you have no intention of being a journalist in the traditional sense of the word; that you intend to be biased, persuasive and with an intent to further a “progressive” agenda? Some of us are very confused, and I think it would be helpful to know, from you, how you would like us to perceive you?
DPD – lots of comments about you and your blog here, and for good reason. The postings regarding Saylor and Souza have not been what many of us expect from you.
I think it would be a very good time for you to publicly declare, on this blog, your intentions and hopes for this blog. Are you a journalist, attempting to report facts, well founded and reasonably well researched, so that the people who read this blog can depend on the information that you present as being unbiased and true?
Or, as some have tried to explain, used your own alleged comments (I write alleged b/c I haven’t personally seen any such commentary) that you have no intention of being a journalist in the traditional sense of the word; that you intend to be biased, persuasive and with an intent to further a “progressive” agenda? Some of us are very confused, and I think it would be helpful to know, from you, how you would like us to perceive you?
DPD – lots of comments about you and your blog here, and for good reason. The postings regarding Saylor and Souza have not been what many of us expect from you.
I think it would be a very good time for you to publicly declare, on this blog, your intentions and hopes for this blog. Are you a journalist, attempting to report facts, well founded and reasonably well researched, so that the people who read this blog can depend on the information that you present as being unbiased and true?
Or, as some have tried to explain, used your own alleged comments (I write alleged b/c I haven’t personally seen any such commentary) that you have no intention of being a journalist in the traditional sense of the word; that you intend to be biased, persuasive and with an intent to further a “progressive” agenda? Some of us are very confused, and I think it would be helpful to know, from you, how you would like us to perceive you?
DPD – lots of comments about you and your blog here, and for good reason. The postings regarding Saylor and Souza have not been what many of us expect from you.
I think it would be a very good time for you to publicly declare, on this blog, your intentions and hopes for this blog. Are you a journalist, attempting to report facts, well founded and reasonably well researched, so that the people who read this blog can depend on the information that you present as being unbiased and true?
Or, as some have tried to explain, used your own alleged comments (I write alleged b/c I haven’t personally seen any such commentary) that you have no intention of being a journalist in the traditional sense of the word; that you intend to be biased, persuasive and with an intent to further a “progressive” agenda? Some of us are very confused, and I think it would be helpful to know, from you, how you would like us to perceive you?
“Are you a journalist, attempting to report facts, well founded and reasonably well researched, so that the people who read this blog can depend on the information that you present as being unbiased and true?”
One can be a journalist and be biased. They are not mutually exclusive. I see no problem with David Greenwald having a bias. His “progressive” prejudice is quite clear in every article he writes.
However, having a bias does not excuse anyone from mistreating another person. It’s just a matter of decency. Even if it does not rise to the level of libel, it is poor journalism to write something scurilous about another person when you haven’t really bothered to see if what you’ve penned is true. It’s like accusing the Davis police of institutional racism when you don’t have the facts to support that claim, not that any decent person would do that.
“Are you a journalist, attempting to report facts, well founded and reasonably well researched, so that the people who read this blog can depend on the information that you present as being unbiased and true?”
One can be a journalist and be biased. They are not mutually exclusive. I see no problem with David Greenwald having a bias. His “progressive” prejudice is quite clear in every article he writes.
However, having a bias does not excuse anyone from mistreating another person. It’s just a matter of decency. Even if it does not rise to the level of libel, it is poor journalism to write something scurilous about another person when you haven’t really bothered to see if what you’ve penned is true. It’s like accusing the Davis police of institutional racism when you don’t have the facts to support that claim, not that any decent person would do that.
“Are you a journalist, attempting to report facts, well founded and reasonably well researched, so that the people who read this blog can depend on the information that you present as being unbiased and true?”
One can be a journalist and be biased. They are not mutually exclusive. I see no problem with David Greenwald having a bias. His “progressive” prejudice is quite clear in every article he writes.
However, having a bias does not excuse anyone from mistreating another person. It’s just a matter of decency. Even if it does not rise to the level of libel, it is poor journalism to write something scurilous about another person when you haven’t really bothered to see if what you’ve penned is true. It’s like accusing the Davis police of institutional racism when you don’t have the facts to support that claim, not that any decent person would do that.
“Are you a journalist, attempting to report facts, well founded and reasonably well researched, so that the people who read this blog can depend on the information that you present as being unbiased and true?”
One can be a journalist and be biased. They are not mutually exclusive. I see no problem with David Greenwald having a bias. His “progressive” prejudice is quite clear in every article he writes.
However, having a bias does not excuse anyone from mistreating another person. It’s just a matter of decency. Even if it does not rise to the level of libel, it is poor journalism to write something scurilous about another person when you haven’t really bothered to see if what you’ve penned is true. It’s like accusing the Davis police of institutional racism when you don’t have the facts to support that claim, not that any decent person would do that.
FWIW, the article that the Sac Bee quote came from was written January 14, 2007. If one has been around the blog for a long time, you would recognize an evolution in the writing of DPD. It has evolved into a more journalistic style and away from a more “blog” style (for lack of a better word).
That said, I think we occasionally have reminders that DPD is who he is. He is not a trained journalist. He still makes some mistakes, but he tends to be fairly up front about them. I doubt we would see a similar effort from the Davis Enterprise to “set the record straight.”
I think the only complaint that some have is that it is not a “mea culpa.”
I actually think that Diogenes interestingly enough pays him a high compliment when he/ she says: “have not been what many of us expect from you. “
On the other hand, I am not completely convinced that this was an inappropriate inquiry. There was clearly some confusion on the part of people who communicated with DPD.
In any case, once again, we end up discussing important issues that do not come to light elsewhere.
FWIW, the article that the Sac Bee quote came from was written January 14, 2007. If one has been around the blog for a long time, you would recognize an evolution in the writing of DPD. It has evolved into a more journalistic style and away from a more “blog” style (for lack of a better word).
That said, I think we occasionally have reminders that DPD is who he is. He is not a trained journalist. He still makes some mistakes, but he tends to be fairly up front about them. I doubt we would see a similar effort from the Davis Enterprise to “set the record straight.”
I think the only complaint that some have is that it is not a “mea culpa.”
I actually think that Diogenes interestingly enough pays him a high compliment when he/ she says: “have not been what many of us expect from you. “
On the other hand, I am not completely convinced that this was an inappropriate inquiry. There was clearly some confusion on the part of people who communicated with DPD.
In any case, once again, we end up discussing important issues that do not come to light elsewhere.
FWIW, the article that the Sac Bee quote came from was written January 14, 2007. If one has been around the blog for a long time, you would recognize an evolution in the writing of DPD. It has evolved into a more journalistic style and away from a more “blog” style (for lack of a better word).
That said, I think we occasionally have reminders that DPD is who he is. He is not a trained journalist. He still makes some mistakes, but he tends to be fairly up front about them. I doubt we would see a similar effort from the Davis Enterprise to “set the record straight.”
I think the only complaint that some have is that it is not a “mea culpa.”
I actually think that Diogenes interestingly enough pays him a high compliment when he/ she says: “have not been what many of us expect from you. “
On the other hand, I am not completely convinced that this was an inappropriate inquiry. There was clearly some confusion on the part of people who communicated with DPD.
In any case, once again, we end up discussing important issues that do not come to light elsewhere.
FWIW, the article that the Sac Bee quote came from was written January 14, 2007. If one has been around the blog for a long time, you would recognize an evolution in the writing of DPD. It has evolved into a more journalistic style and away from a more “blog” style (for lack of a better word).
That said, I think we occasionally have reminders that DPD is who he is. He is not a trained journalist. He still makes some mistakes, but he tends to be fairly up front about them. I doubt we would see a similar effort from the Davis Enterprise to “set the record straight.”
I think the only complaint that some have is that it is not a “mea culpa.”
I actually think that Diogenes interestingly enough pays him a high compliment when he/ she says: “have not been what many of us expect from you. “
On the other hand, I am not completely convinced that this was an inappropriate inquiry. There was clearly some confusion on the part of people who communicated with DPD.
In any case, once again, we end up discussing important issues that do not come to light elsewhere.
Am I missing something here? Isn’t anyone bothered by the notion Souza has admitted to allowing a poll to be conducted from the phone lines of a business he is affiliated with? I participated in a Measure Q Survey, and was never told it was being conducted under the auspices of Souza, who was trying to determine if he needed to do more campaigning on behalf of Measure Q. Normally polls are run by private consultants who have no stake in the process, and can be trusted to keep a respondent’s answers confidential. I for one, will never answer another telephone poll. To me, there are some very troubling legal and ethical ramifications in permitting a poll to be conducted from “phone lines of Ultra Clean Pools to be used to conduct telephone polls related to Measure Q”. I am also bothered that the City Attorney doesn’t see a problem with this unorthodox method of conducting a poll involving a sitting City Council member.
Am I missing something here? Isn’t anyone bothered by the notion Souza has admitted to allowing a poll to be conducted from the phone lines of a business he is affiliated with? I participated in a Measure Q Survey, and was never told it was being conducted under the auspices of Souza, who was trying to determine if he needed to do more campaigning on behalf of Measure Q. Normally polls are run by private consultants who have no stake in the process, and can be trusted to keep a respondent’s answers confidential. I for one, will never answer another telephone poll. To me, there are some very troubling legal and ethical ramifications in permitting a poll to be conducted from “phone lines of Ultra Clean Pools to be used to conduct telephone polls related to Measure Q”. I am also bothered that the City Attorney doesn’t see a problem with this unorthodox method of conducting a poll involving a sitting City Council member.
Am I missing something here? Isn’t anyone bothered by the notion Souza has admitted to allowing a poll to be conducted from the phone lines of a business he is affiliated with? I participated in a Measure Q Survey, and was never told it was being conducted under the auspices of Souza, who was trying to determine if he needed to do more campaigning on behalf of Measure Q. Normally polls are run by private consultants who have no stake in the process, and can be trusted to keep a respondent’s answers confidential. I for one, will never answer another telephone poll. To me, there are some very troubling legal and ethical ramifications in permitting a poll to be conducted from “phone lines of Ultra Clean Pools to be used to conduct telephone polls related to Measure Q”. I am also bothered that the City Attorney doesn’t see a problem with this unorthodox method of conducting a poll involving a sitting City Council member.
Am I missing something here? Isn’t anyone bothered by the notion Souza has admitted to allowing a poll to be conducted from the phone lines of a business he is affiliated with? I participated in a Measure Q Survey, and was never told it was being conducted under the auspices of Souza, who was trying to determine if he needed to do more campaigning on behalf of Measure Q. Normally polls are run by private consultants who have no stake in the process, and can be trusted to keep a respondent’s answers confidential. I for one, will never answer another telephone poll. To me, there are some very troubling legal and ethical ramifications in permitting a poll to be conducted from “phone lines of Ultra Clean Pools to be used to conduct telephone polls related to Measure Q”. I am also bothered that the City Attorney doesn’t see a problem with this unorthodox method of conducting a poll involving a sitting City Council member.
The avalanche of “gotcha!!” postings on this update article only confirms the quality of the articles that DPD offers every day(sometimes twice/day)
Take your best shot…the opportunities are SO few and far between.
Sue Greenwald said: “..proved to be unfounded”.
From start to finish on this subject, DPD was raising questions and seeking answers. He never stated a conclusion and,as I read this update, was continuing to present the information that he received to his questions without coming to a conclusion. He leaves the reader to come to their own conclusions. This approach was obviously very effective as it has generated, to date, 76 comments from Vanguard readers.
The avalanche of “gotcha!!” postings on this update article only confirms the quality of the articles that DPD offers every day(sometimes twice/day)
Take your best shot…the opportunities are SO few and far between.
Sue Greenwald said: “..proved to be unfounded”.
From start to finish on this subject, DPD was raising questions and seeking answers. He never stated a conclusion and,as I read this update, was continuing to present the information that he received to his questions without coming to a conclusion. He leaves the reader to come to their own conclusions. This approach was obviously very effective as it has generated, to date, 76 comments from Vanguard readers.
The avalanche of “gotcha!!” postings on this update article only confirms the quality of the articles that DPD offers every day(sometimes twice/day)
Take your best shot…the opportunities are SO few and far between.
Sue Greenwald said: “..proved to be unfounded”.
From start to finish on this subject, DPD was raising questions and seeking answers. He never stated a conclusion and,as I read this update, was continuing to present the information that he received to his questions without coming to a conclusion. He leaves the reader to come to their own conclusions. This approach was obviously very effective as it has generated, to date, 76 comments from Vanguard readers.
The avalanche of “gotcha!!” postings on this update article only confirms the quality of the articles that DPD offers every day(sometimes twice/day)
Take your best shot…the opportunities are SO few and far between.
Sue Greenwald said: “..proved to be unfounded”.
From start to finish on this subject, DPD was raising questions and seeking answers. He never stated a conclusion and,as I read this update, was continuing to present the information that he received to his questions without coming to a conclusion. He leaves the reader to come to their own conclusions. This approach was obviously very effective as it has generated, to date, 76 comments from Vanguard readers.
I am not sure I have problems with a city councilperson lending his business phones for Measure Q (realtors in town do that for propositions routinely)but I DO have a problem with a sitting councilperson conducting a poll for proposition AND candidates especially without revealing they are the source. I was called by an automated poll for Q and candidates (maybe it was his; I don’t have caller ID) and was very annoyed after I answered that there was NO indication who was sponsoring it. I think automated calls should state that upfront so the callee can decide whether to participate. Afterwards, I wished I hadn’t.
I am not sure I have problems with a city councilperson lending his business phones for Measure Q (realtors in town do that for propositions routinely)but I DO have a problem with a sitting councilperson conducting a poll for proposition AND candidates especially without revealing they are the source. I was called by an automated poll for Q and candidates (maybe it was his; I don’t have caller ID) and was very annoyed after I answered that there was NO indication who was sponsoring it. I think automated calls should state that upfront so the callee can decide whether to participate. Afterwards, I wished I hadn’t.
I am not sure I have problems with a city councilperson lending his business phones for Measure Q (realtors in town do that for propositions routinely)but I DO have a problem with a sitting councilperson conducting a poll for proposition AND candidates especially without revealing they are the source. I was called by an automated poll for Q and candidates (maybe it was his; I don’t have caller ID) and was very annoyed after I answered that there was NO indication who was sponsoring it. I think automated calls should state that upfront so the callee can decide whether to participate. Afterwards, I wished I hadn’t.
I am not sure I have problems with a city councilperson lending his business phones for Measure Q (realtors in town do that for propositions routinely)but I DO have a problem with a sitting councilperson conducting a poll for proposition AND candidates especially without revealing they are the source. I was called by an automated poll for Q and candidates (maybe it was his; I don’t have caller ID) and was very annoyed after I answered that there was NO indication who was sponsoring it. I think automated calls should state that upfront so the callee can decide whether to participate. Afterwards, I wished I hadn’t.
“This approach was obviously very effective as it has generated, to date, 76 comments from Vanguard readers.”
Correction: a total of 94 comments on the two blog articles on this subject.
“This approach was obviously very effective as it has generated, to date, 76 comments from Vanguard readers.”
Correction: a total of 94 comments on the two blog articles on this subject.
“This approach was obviously very effective as it has generated, to date, 76 comments from Vanguard readers.”
Correction: a total of 94 comments on the two blog articles on this subject.
“This approach was obviously very effective as it has generated, to date, 76 comments from Vanguard readers.”
Correction: a total of 94 comments on the two blog articles on this subject.
What was the result of the survey?
Or should we just wait until Nov. to find out?
What was the result of the survey?
Or should we just wait until Nov. to find out?
What was the result of the survey?
Or should we just wait until Nov. to find out?
What was the result of the survey?
Or should we just wait until Nov. to find out?
Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.
It’s funny how people such as yourself and others want an apology from DPD when there is a councilmember who is unethical.
Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.
It’s funny how people such as yourself and others want an apology from DPD when there is a councilmember who is unethical.
Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.
It’s funny how people such as yourself and others want an apology from DPD when there is a councilmember who is unethical.
Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.
It’s funny how people such as yourself and others want an apology from DPD when there is a councilmember who is unethical.
What the hell is a journalist anyway, a person that can write about something? I know a guy that started a newspaper, he never had a class in journalism, didn’t want to limit his creative juices. Maybe all these experts on journalism should identify themselves so we can seek their expertise. All this sounds like you either agree with DPD or don’t. It has generated attention.
What the hell is a journalist anyway, a person that can write about something? I know a guy that started a newspaper, he never had a class in journalism, didn’t want to limit his creative juices. Maybe all these experts on journalism should identify themselves so we can seek their expertise. All this sounds like you either agree with DPD or don’t. It has generated attention.
What the hell is a journalist anyway, a person that can write about something? I know a guy that started a newspaper, he never had a class in journalism, didn’t want to limit his creative juices. Maybe all these experts on journalism should identify themselves so we can seek their expertise. All this sounds like you either agree with DPD or don’t. It has generated attention.
What the hell is a journalist anyway, a person that can write about something? I know a guy that started a newspaper, he never had a class in journalism, didn’t want to limit his creative juices. Maybe all these experts on journalism should identify themselves so we can seek their expertise. All this sounds like you either agree with DPD or don’t. It has generated attention.
DPD, this week you’ve become champion of the extreme-left and Davis conspiracy theorists.
I really used to like your blog, but it has lost its credibility. I hope you can try to find the middle again and earn it back.
DPD, this week you’ve become champion of the extreme-left and Davis conspiracy theorists.
I really used to like your blog, but it has lost its credibility. I hope you can try to find the middle again and earn it back.
DPD, this week you’ve become champion of the extreme-left and Davis conspiracy theorists.
I really used to like your blog, but it has lost its credibility. I hope you can try to find the middle again and earn it back.
DPD, this week you’ve become champion of the extreme-left and Davis conspiracy theorists.
I really used to like your blog, but it has lost its credibility. I hope you can try to find the middle again and earn it back.
Davis Democrat –
You are wrong. Doug Paul Davis has not lost his credability. If anything he has gained more credability.
He is NOT afraid to ask the tough questions that many are.
He has brought up a concern on the minds of many:
1) Why is a sitting councilmember getting money from a company posed to make millions from the city of Davis? (Don Saylor / West Yost Associates).
2) Why is another sitting councilmember conducting a poll on the school board election and not disclosing that he is conducting it? Trying to keep it a pssst…”secret?”
Also, why are he and the other two councilmembers voting to WASTE $75,000 of taxpayer money on a silly parks poll when all they had to do was have the WELL PAID city Parks Staff to conduct the poll?
Doug Paul Davis thank you for having courage to ask the tough questions.
Courage is something that is lacking in our city. We used to be a city that was known for doing the right thing and now we have a lot of DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) sitting on the city council.
They are about as liberal as G.W. Bush in some cases. Just look at their voting record.
Keep asking the tough questions, and keep reporting / blogging / and giving us your opinion. We’re tired of the Emptyprise that has nothing to offer other than listing who is having a yard sale.
Keep up the great work DPD! Someone has to!
Davis Democrat –
You are wrong. Doug Paul Davis has not lost his credability. If anything he has gained more credability.
He is NOT afraid to ask the tough questions that many are.
He has brought up a concern on the minds of many:
1) Why is a sitting councilmember getting money from a company posed to make millions from the city of Davis? (Don Saylor / West Yost Associates).
2) Why is another sitting councilmember conducting a poll on the school board election and not disclosing that he is conducting it? Trying to keep it a pssst…”secret?”
Also, why are he and the other two councilmembers voting to WASTE $75,000 of taxpayer money on a silly parks poll when all they had to do was have the WELL PAID city Parks Staff to conduct the poll?
Doug Paul Davis thank you for having courage to ask the tough questions.
Courage is something that is lacking in our city. We used to be a city that was known for doing the right thing and now we have a lot of DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) sitting on the city council.
They are about as liberal as G.W. Bush in some cases. Just look at their voting record.
Keep asking the tough questions, and keep reporting / blogging / and giving us your opinion. We’re tired of the Emptyprise that has nothing to offer other than listing who is having a yard sale.
Keep up the great work DPD! Someone has to!
Davis Democrat –
You are wrong. Doug Paul Davis has not lost his credability. If anything he has gained more credability.
He is NOT afraid to ask the tough questions that many are.
He has brought up a concern on the minds of many:
1) Why is a sitting councilmember getting money from a company posed to make millions from the city of Davis? (Don Saylor / West Yost Associates).
2) Why is another sitting councilmember conducting a poll on the school board election and not disclosing that he is conducting it? Trying to keep it a pssst…”secret?”
Also, why are he and the other two councilmembers voting to WASTE $75,000 of taxpayer money on a silly parks poll when all they had to do was have the WELL PAID city Parks Staff to conduct the poll?
Doug Paul Davis thank you for having courage to ask the tough questions.
Courage is something that is lacking in our city. We used to be a city that was known for doing the right thing and now we have a lot of DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) sitting on the city council.
They are about as liberal as G.W. Bush in some cases. Just look at their voting record.
Keep asking the tough questions, and keep reporting / blogging / and giving us your opinion. We’re tired of the Emptyprise that has nothing to offer other than listing who is having a yard sale.
Keep up the great work DPD! Someone has to!
Davis Democrat –
You are wrong. Doug Paul Davis has not lost his credability. If anything he has gained more credability.
He is NOT afraid to ask the tough questions that many are.
He has brought up a concern on the minds of many:
1) Why is a sitting councilmember getting money from a company posed to make millions from the city of Davis? (Don Saylor / West Yost Associates).
2) Why is another sitting councilmember conducting a poll on the school board election and not disclosing that he is conducting it? Trying to keep it a pssst…”secret?”
Also, why are he and the other two councilmembers voting to WASTE $75,000 of taxpayer money on a silly parks poll when all they had to do was have the WELL PAID city Parks Staff to conduct the poll?
Doug Paul Davis thank you for having courage to ask the tough questions.
Courage is something that is lacking in our city. We used to be a city that was known for doing the right thing and now we have a lot of DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) sitting on the city council.
They are about as liberal as G.W. Bush in some cases. Just look at their voting record.
Keep asking the tough questions, and keep reporting / blogging / and giving us your opinion. We’re tired of the Emptyprise that has nothing to offer other than listing who is having a yard sale.
Keep up the great work DPD! Someone has to!
Yes Mary, thanks for making my point with your two conspiracy theories.
Yes Mary, thanks for making my point with your two conspiracy theories.
Yes Mary, thanks for making my point with your two conspiracy theories.
Yes Mary, thanks for making my point with your two conspiracy theories.
Davis Democrat –
How does it feel to be a pot?
You may be from Davis, but I would not consider you a true Democrat.
Perhaps you are a DINO like whom you attempt to proctect.
The phonies we have on our city council would be registered Republicans in any other city, so I find it quite interesting that you fail to question their questionable unethical behavior.
If you were a true Democrat you would not be advocating for the “middle of the road….blah, blah, blah.”
It was the middle of the road blunder that got the Democrats into the position they are now with George Bush in the White House and Arnold in the Governor’s seat.
We don’t want to see more of that occur here in Davis. We have had enough.
Thank you for your conspiracy theories. They are quite entertaining to read.
Davis Democrat –
How does it feel to be a pot?
You may be from Davis, but I would not consider you a true Democrat.
Perhaps you are a DINO like whom you attempt to proctect.
The phonies we have on our city council would be registered Republicans in any other city, so I find it quite interesting that you fail to question their questionable unethical behavior.
If you were a true Democrat you would not be advocating for the “middle of the road….blah, blah, blah.”
It was the middle of the road blunder that got the Democrats into the position they are now with George Bush in the White House and Arnold in the Governor’s seat.
We don’t want to see more of that occur here in Davis. We have had enough.
Thank you for your conspiracy theories. They are quite entertaining to read.
Davis Democrat –
How does it feel to be a pot?
You may be from Davis, but I would not consider you a true Democrat.
Perhaps you are a DINO like whom you attempt to proctect.
The phonies we have on our city council would be registered Republicans in any other city, so I find it quite interesting that you fail to question their questionable unethical behavior.
If you were a true Democrat you would not be advocating for the “middle of the road….blah, blah, blah.”
It was the middle of the road blunder that got the Democrats into the position they are now with George Bush in the White House and Arnold in the Governor’s seat.
We don’t want to see more of that occur here in Davis. We have had enough.
Thank you for your conspiracy theories. They are quite entertaining to read.
Davis Democrat –
How does it feel to be a pot?
You may be from Davis, but I would not consider you a true Democrat.
Perhaps you are a DINO like whom you attempt to proctect.
The phonies we have on our city council would be registered Republicans in any other city, so I find it quite interesting that you fail to question their questionable unethical behavior.
If you were a true Democrat you would not be advocating for the “middle of the road….blah, blah, blah.”
It was the middle of the road blunder that got the Democrats into the position they are now with George Bush in the White House and Arnold in the Governor’s seat.
We don’t want to see more of that occur here in Davis. We have had enough.
Thank you for your conspiracy theories. They are quite entertaining to read.
I just finished catching up on reading the blog entries for the week that I missed and boy Vanguard…what a doozy.
It sounds to me like councilmember Souza needs to come “ultra clean,” and not mix his busienss with politics. Aren’t there conflict of interest laws for the city?
Good blogging.
I just finished catching up on reading the blog entries for the week that I missed and boy Vanguard…what a doozy.
It sounds to me like councilmember Souza needs to come “ultra clean,” and not mix his busienss with politics. Aren’t there conflict of interest laws for the city?
Good blogging.
I just finished catching up on reading the blog entries for the week that I missed and boy Vanguard…what a doozy.
It sounds to me like councilmember Souza needs to come “ultra clean,” and not mix his busienss with politics. Aren’t there conflict of interest laws for the city?
Good blogging.
I just finished catching up on reading the blog entries for the week that I missed and boy Vanguard…what a doozy.
It sounds to me like councilmember Souza needs to come “ultra clean,” and not mix his busienss with politics. Aren’t there conflict of interest laws for the city?
Good blogging.
This whole episode is an embarassment, and shows the blog’s tendency to relentlessly attack Souza and Saylor on a personal level, rather than debating their politics and policy choices. The self-righteous way that the attacks are personalizd under an ethical shroud, while DPD’s wife is running for the Council, are sickening. Attacking the policies is fair game. Claiming in every instance that the motivation behind them is developer money, is stretching the truth too much.
This whole episode is an embarassment, and shows the blog’s tendency to relentlessly attack Souza and Saylor on a personal level, rather than debating their politics and policy choices. The self-righteous way that the attacks are personalizd under an ethical shroud, while DPD’s wife is running for the Council, are sickening. Attacking the policies is fair game. Claiming in every instance that the motivation behind them is developer money, is stretching the truth too much.
This whole episode is an embarassment, and shows the blog’s tendency to relentlessly attack Souza and Saylor on a personal level, rather than debating their politics and policy choices. The self-righteous way that the attacks are personalizd under an ethical shroud, while DPD’s wife is running for the Council, are sickening. Attacking the policies is fair game. Claiming in every instance that the motivation behind them is developer money, is stretching the truth too much.
This whole episode is an embarassment, and shows the blog’s tendency to relentlessly attack Souza and Saylor on a personal level, rather than debating their politics and policy choices. The self-righteous way that the attacks are personalizd under an ethical shroud, while DPD’s wife is running for the Council, are sickening. Attacking the policies is fair game. Claiming in every instance that the motivation behind them is developer money, is stretching the truth too much.
Anonymous 4:53 said:
“….attack Souza and Saylor on a personal level, rather than debating their politics and policy choices.”
Souza and Saylor are adept at obfuscation and meaningless campaign rhetoric. As I remember it, they ran as “slow growth” candidates.. so much for considering their campaign statements about their future policies. They were both caught making false statements in their Yes on Measure X Enterprise OP-Ed piece by Enterprise reporter,Claire St. John. Voter judgement about candidate trustworthiness is probably even more important than their their campaign rhetoric.
Anonymous 4:53 said:
“….attack Souza and Saylor on a personal level, rather than debating their politics and policy choices.”
Souza and Saylor are adept at obfuscation and meaningless campaign rhetoric. As I remember it, they ran as “slow growth” candidates.. so much for considering their campaign statements about their future policies. They were both caught making false statements in their Yes on Measure X Enterprise OP-Ed piece by Enterprise reporter,Claire St. John. Voter judgement about candidate trustworthiness is probably even more important than their their campaign rhetoric.
Anonymous 4:53 said:
“….attack Souza and Saylor on a personal level, rather than debating their politics and policy choices.”
Souza and Saylor are adept at obfuscation and meaningless campaign rhetoric. As I remember it, they ran as “slow growth” candidates.. so much for considering their campaign statements about their future policies. They were both caught making false statements in their Yes on Measure X Enterprise OP-Ed piece by Enterprise reporter,Claire St. John. Voter judgement about candidate trustworthiness is probably even more important than their their campaign rhetoric.
Anonymous 4:53 said:
“….attack Souza and Saylor on a personal level, rather than debating their politics and policy choices.”
Souza and Saylor are adept at obfuscation and meaningless campaign rhetoric. As I remember it, they ran as “slow growth” candidates.. so much for considering their campaign statements about their future policies. They were both caught making false statements in their Yes on Measure X Enterprise OP-Ed piece by Enterprise reporter,Claire St. John. Voter judgement about candidate trustworthiness is probably even more important than their their campaign rhetoric.
“Claiming in every instance that the motivation behind them is developer money, is stretching the truth too much. “
Where did DPD claim this in the Souza case?
“Claiming in every instance that the motivation behind them is developer money, is stretching the truth too much. “
Where did DPD claim this in the Souza case?
“Claiming in every instance that the motivation behind them is developer money, is stretching the truth too much. “
Where did DPD claim this in the Souza case?
“Claiming in every instance that the motivation behind them is developer money, is stretching the truth too much. “
Where did DPD claim this in the Souza case?
Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.
Yes, this is true. About a couple of months ago, Rifkin subtlely tried to recycle Ted Puntillo’s old sinuendo, intimating that Buzayan really had done something wrong, and only those “in the know”, like city councilmembers, the DA and the police knew about it, then quickly backed away when it was pointed out that the charges were dismissed.
At least, Rifkin understood that it is not a good idea to imply that someone engaged in criminal conduct after the court dismisses a case, unlike Puntillo, who was fool enough to do it in a letter published in the Enterprise.
–Richard Estes
Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.
Yes, this is true. About a couple of months ago, Rifkin subtlely tried to recycle Ted Puntillo’s old sinuendo, intimating that Buzayan really had done something wrong, and only those “in the know”, like city councilmembers, the DA and the police knew about it, then quickly backed away when it was pointed out that the charges were dismissed.
At least, Rifkin understood that it is not a good idea to imply that someone engaged in criminal conduct after the court dismisses a case, unlike Puntillo, who was fool enough to do it in a letter published in the Enterprise.
–Richard Estes
Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.
Yes, this is true. About a couple of months ago, Rifkin subtlely tried to recycle Ted Puntillo’s old sinuendo, intimating that Buzayan really had done something wrong, and only those “in the know”, like city councilmembers, the DA and the police knew about it, then quickly backed away when it was pointed out that the charges were dismissed.
At least, Rifkin understood that it is not a good idea to imply that someone engaged in criminal conduct after the court dismisses a case, unlike Puntillo, who was fool enough to do it in a letter published in the Enterprise.
–Richard Estes
Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.
Yes, this is true. About a couple of months ago, Rifkin subtlely tried to recycle Ted Puntillo’s old sinuendo, intimating that Buzayan really had done something wrong, and only those “in the know”, like city councilmembers, the DA and the police knew about it, then quickly backed away when it was pointed out that the charges were dismissed.
At least, Rifkin understood that it is not a good idea to imply that someone engaged in criminal conduct after the court dismisses a case, unlike Puntillo, who was fool enough to do it in a letter published in the Enterprise.
–Richard Estes
“Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.”
FWIW, I don’t believe that I have ever mentioned the Buzayans in a column I’ve ever written.
I did, however, quote from the Human Relations Commission report in a March, 2006 column, which referred to “a teenager.” I made no comment on this teenager. None whatsoever. My comment was on the report itself, which in that instance was in error.
I had no idea who the teenager was when I wrote that column. However, I now assume that the teenager, based on what I learned much later, was Miss Buzayan.
“About a couple of months ago, Rifkin subtlely tried to recycle Ted Puntillo’s old sinuendo, intimating that Buzayan really had done something wrong, and only those “in the know”, like city councilmembers, the DA and the police knew about it, then quickly backed away when it was pointed out that the charges were dismissed.”
I have no idea what you are saying here, Estes.
It is true that I find Officer Ly’s conclusion, that the daughter was driving the car in the Safeway parking lot, credible and convincing. He based that, of course, on eyewitness testimony and logic. And as such, I do believe that Mrs. Buzayan lied to Officer Ly when she claimed that she and not her daughter was driving. If that makes me a terrible person, so be it. It certainly doesn’t mean that I “slandered” anyone.
As far as what Ted Puntillo has said, I again don’t know what Estes is talking about. If he also has publicly stated that he agrees with Ly’s conclusion regarding who was driving the SUV, then I was unknowingly “recycling” Ted’s opinion.
“Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.”
FWIW, I don’t believe that I have ever mentioned the Buzayans in a column I’ve ever written.
I did, however, quote from the Human Relations Commission report in a March, 2006 column, which referred to “a teenager.” I made no comment on this teenager. None whatsoever. My comment was on the report itself, which in that instance was in error.
I had no idea who the teenager was when I wrote that column. However, I now assume that the teenager, based on what I learned much later, was Miss Buzayan.
“About a couple of months ago, Rifkin subtlely tried to recycle Ted Puntillo’s old sinuendo, intimating that Buzayan really had done something wrong, and only those “in the know”, like city councilmembers, the DA and the police knew about it, then quickly backed away when it was pointed out that the charges were dismissed.”
I have no idea what you are saying here, Estes.
It is true that I find Officer Ly’s conclusion, that the daughter was driving the car in the Safeway parking lot, credible and convincing. He based that, of course, on eyewitness testimony and logic. And as such, I do believe that Mrs. Buzayan lied to Officer Ly when she claimed that she and not her daughter was driving. If that makes me a terrible person, so be it. It certainly doesn’t mean that I “slandered” anyone.
As far as what Ted Puntillo has said, I again don’t know what Estes is talking about. If he also has publicly stated that he agrees with Ly’s conclusion regarding who was driving the SUV, then I was unknowingly “recycling” Ted’s opinion.
“Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.”
FWIW, I don’t believe that I have ever mentioned the Buzayans in a column I’ve ever written.
I did, however, quote from the Human Relations Commission report in a March, 2006 column, which referred to “a teenager.” I made no comment on this teenager. None whatsoever. My comment was on the report itself, which in that instance was in error.
I had no idea who the teenager was when I wrote that column. However, I now assume that the teenager, based on what I learned much later, was Miss Buzayan.
“About a couple of months ago, Rifkin subtlely tried to recycle Ted Puntillo’s old sinuendo, intimating that Buzayan really had done something wrong, and only those “in the know”, like city councilmembers, the DA and the police knew about it, then quickly backed away when it was pointed out that the charges were dismissed.”
I have no idea what you are saying here, Estes.
It is true that I find Officer Ly’s conclusion, that the daughter was driving the car in the Safeway parking lot, credible and convincing. He based that, of course, on eyewitness testimony and logic. And as such, I do believe that Mrs. Buzayan lied to Officer Ly when she claimed that she and not her daughter was driving. If that makes me a terrible person, so be it. It certainly doesn’t mean that I “slandered” anyone.
As far as what Ted Puntillo has said, I again don’t know what Estes is talking about. If he also has publicly stated that he agrees with Ly’s conclusion regarding who was driving the SUV, then I was unknowingly “recycling” Ted’s opinion.
“Rich Rifkin –
You and the Souza sycophants slandered the Buzayans and others in the Davis Enterprise and never offered an apology. Even when their daughter’s case was dismissed from Yolo Courts you did not apologize. What a hypocrite you are Mr. Rifkin.”
FWIW, I don’t believe that I have ever mentioned the Buzayans in a column I’ve ever written.
I did, however, quote from the Human Relations Commission report in a March, 2006 column, which referred to “a teenager.” I made no comment on this teenager. None whatsoever. My comment was on the report itself, which in that instance was in error.
I had no idea who the teenager was when I wrote that column. However, I now assume that the teenager, based on what I learned much later, was Miss Buzayan.
“About a couple of months ago, Rifkin subtlely tried to recycle Ted Puntillo’s old sinuendo, intimating that Buzayan really had done something wrong, and only those “in the know”, like city councilmembers, the DA and the police knew about it, then quickly backed away when it was pointed out that the charges were dismissed.”
I have no idea what you are saying here, Estes.
It is true that I find Officer Ly’s conclusion, that the daughter was driving the car in the Safeway parking lot, credible and convincing. He based that, of course, on eyewitness testimony and logic. And as such, I do believe that Mrs. Buzayan lied to Officer Ly when she claimed that she and not her daughter was driving. If that makes me a terrible person, so be it. It certainly doesn’t mean that I “slandered” anyone.
As far as what Ted Puntillo has said, I again don’t know what Estes is talking about. If he also has publicly stated that he agrees with Ly’s conclusion regarding who was driving the SUV, then I was unknowingly “recycling” Ted’s opinion.