A few of the recommendations were implemented including a pilot program to change some of the rules that pertain to the operation of meetings. However, for the most part there has not been a huge change in the way in which meetings are run or even the overall level of civility.
Watching the workshops, it did not take long to see why the approach was bound to fail–there was a lack of introspection among the councilmembers with perhaps the exception of the one councilmember least culpable in the infighting. Councilmembers were willing to take others to task but rarely willing to look at their own actions and admit their part in the problems with the way meetings are run. As we know, unless people are willing to look at their own actions and attempt to change their own actions, rarely if ever will real change occur.
But at the end of the day, as we are still on this topic, I begin to wonder if this is something that we ought to really be that concerned about. Local politics is often contentious. Politics in general is in fact contentious. People claim to hate partisanship as it pertains to Washington or Sacramento, but then again they keep electing the same people over and over again–thus rewarding partisan tactics.
I wonder if civility is in fact even that good for the polity. Looking back at the school board, there were divisive issues on the school board over the past two years, but for the most part the members of the board treated each other with respect and disagreements rarely turned acrimonious. Even at points of most tension like the closing of Valley Oak and the September meeting involving the truancy issue, the discourse was reserved and respectful. The school board race itself was largely unremarkable even with a small scandal mixed in. The result, a neat clean election with only 30 percent turnout.
City council races are built on issues that will make the blood boil. The issue of growth is pardoning the pun, explosive. People will come out until three in the morning on hot issues like the building of a new Target store in Davis. Passions will fly. Fights will erupt.
In the ideal world our councilmembers could debate the tough issues and then go get Martinis afterwards. However in the real world, issues are passionate and the bars close at 1 am. Do we really want to take that passion and energy away from the council and make them stale like the school board?
The biggest disappointment this year were survey results that showed how few people watched the City Council on television let alone come down to council chambers. Democracy able to come into people’s homes. Issues vital to the community live on our screen. Is it that incivility coming back to bite us yet again? Would people watch their city council if only for the venom and backbiting they watch on the tube that just turns their stomach and forces them to go play a game of soccer, ride their bikes, or watch God forbid, commercial television?
Unfortunately, you see none of that venom at school board meetings. Their meetings are also on TV. And yet, if they did a survey, I would wager that their Nielsen ratings would be through the floor.
Everyone claims to want civility in this society but their actions tell us a different story. They watch the blood and the carnage and turn the station when things get too nice.
Civility sells well in a campaign package, but it isn’t what we really want. We want good old bare knuckle, backroom, brawls. We want screaming in the bathroom at 2 am. We want people to show that they care about the issues that we care about. That they are passionate about it. That these issues mean something. And anything short of that is simply unacceptable. These are the issues that shape our community and we want our leaders to respect those issues and fall on the sword for them if they must. Our democracy demands no less.
After all this is the People’s Republic of Davis and we are the second most educated city in America. We have standards to maintain and a reputation to uphold. Let us not pretend to be something that we are not.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
government is best that governs least…
government is best that governs least…
government is best that governs least…
government is best that governs least…
Government is also best when it listens to voters and doesn’t just pay lip service.
Government is also best when it listens to voters and doesn’t just pay lip service.
Government is also best when it listens to voters and doesn’t just pay lip service.
Government is also best when it listens to voters and doesn’t just pay lip service.
Government is best when it does for the people what they cannot do for themselves. A government that is based up majority rules will always be contentious.
Civility stinks if all it means is protection of the status quo and business as usual. I agree with DPD. In our political arena you have got to be ready to go to the mat. Of course you can smile when you sy that pardner.
Government is best when it does for the people what they cannot do for themselves. A government that is based up majority rules will always be contentious.
Civility stinks if all it means is protection of the status quo and business as usual. I agree with DPD. In our political arena you have got to be ready to go to the mat. Of course you can smile when you sy that pardner.
Government is best when it does for the people what they cannot do for themselves. A government that is based up majority rules will always be contentious.
Civility stinks if all it means is protection of the status quo and business as usual. I agree with DPD. In our political arena you have got to be ready to go to the mat. Of course you can smile when you sy that pardner.
Government is best when it does for the people what they cannot do for themselves. A government that is based up majority rules will always be contentious.
Civility stinks if all it means is protection of the status quo and business as usual. I agree with DPD. In our political arena you have got to be ready to go to the mat. Of course you can smile when you sy that pardner.
I recently watched a DVD of the Kennedy-Nixon debates and was astonished at the civility. There was disagreement, but mostly about the how to approach different issues. When Nixon was asked about a derogatory comment then President Eisenhower made about him, he handled it without becoming defensive.
I think people should fight hard and passionately about the issues that matter to them. But I truly believe that people can fight about the issues without getting into the ad hominim attacks that seem to be the currency of the day. I still believe that it is possible to politely and with great civility dismantle your opponent’s argument without attacking your opponent personally at all.
I am not claiming that I have always been successful in doing so, or that I never lose my cool when arguing for a cause I really care about, but I still think its possible. The personal attacks and animosity may keep as many people away from politics as general dullness does.
Fighting over issues is exciting, repeating the same old insults doesn’t lead anywhere.
I really like your point that real change can only occur when people make changes in the way they do things, rather than endlessly complaining about how other people need to change. Truer words have never been spoken.
I recently watched a DVD of the Kennedy-Nixon debates and was astonished at the civility. There was disagreement, but mostly about the how to approach different issues. When Nixon was asked about a derogatory comment then President Eisenhower made about him, he handled it without becoming defensive.
I think people should fight hard and passionately about the issues that matter to them. But I truly believe that people can fight about the issues without getting into the ad hominim attacks that seem to be the currency of the day. I still believe that it is possible to politely and with great civility dismantle your opponent’s argument without attacking your opponent personally at all.
I am not claiming that I have always been successful in doing so, or that I never lose my cool when arguing for a cause I really care about, but I still think its possible. The personal attacks and animosity may keep as many people away from politics as general dullness does.
Fighting over issues is exciting, repeating the same old insults doesn’t lead anywhere.
I really like your point that real change can only occur when people make changes in the way they do things, rather than endlessly complaining about how other people need to change. Truer words have never been spoken.
I recently watched a DVD of the Kennedy-Nixon debates and was astonished at the civility. There was disagreement, but mostly about the how to approach different issues. When Nixon was asked about a derogatory comment then President Eisenhower made about him, he handled it without becoming defensive.
I think people should fight hard and passionately about the issues that matter to them. But I truly believe that people can fight about the issues without getting into the ad hominim attacks that seem to be the currency of the day. I still believe that it is possible to politely and with great civility dismantle your opponent’s argument without attacking your opponent personally at all.
I am not claiming that I have always been successful in doing so, or that I never lose my cool when arguing for a cause I really care about, but I still think its possible. The personal attacks and animosity may keep as many people away from politics as general dullness does.
Fighting over issues is exciting, repeating the same old insults doesn’t lead anywhere.
I really like your point that real change can only occur when people make changes in the way they do things, rather than endlessly complaining about how other people need to change. Truer words have never been spoken.
I recently watched a DVD of the Kennedy-Nixon debates and was astonished at the civility. There was disagreement, but mostly about the how to approach different issues. When Nixon was asked about a derogatory comment then President Eisenhower made about him, he handled it without becoming defensive.
I think people should fight hard and passionately about the issues that matter to them. But I truly believe that people can fight about the issues without getting into the ad hominim attacks that seem to be the currency of the day. I still believe that it is possible to politely and with great civility dismantle your opponent’s argument without attacking your opponent personally at all.
I am not claiming that I have always been successful in doing so, or that I never lose my cool when arguing for a cause I really care about, but I still think its possible. The personal attacks and animosity may keep as many people away from politics as general dullness does.
Fighting over issues is exciting, repeating the same old insults doesn’t lead anywhere.
I really like your point that real change can only occur when people make changes in the way they do things, rather than endlessly complaining about how other people need to change. Truer words have never been spoken.
DPD,
If Cecilia Escamila Greenwald is elected, (your wife) Will she be fighting people in the bathroom at 2 am. And is that a good example for the few kids there and thining population of Davis?
I sure don’t think it is and I would like to think that as we teach our children fighting/ bickering and aggresion is not the answer. So I am all four civility!
DPD,
If Cecilia Escamila Greenwald is elected, (your wife) Will she be fighting people in the bathroom at 2 am. And is that a good example for the few kids there and thining population of Davis?
I sure don’t think it is and I would like to think that as we teach our children fighting/ bickering and aggresion is not the answer. So I am all four civility!
DPD,
If Cecilia Escamila Greenwald is elected, (your wife) Will she be fighting people in the bathroom at 2 am. And is that a good example for the few kids there and thining population of Davis?
I sure don’t think it is and I would like to think that as we teach our children fighting/ bickering and aggresion is not the answer. So I am all four civility!
DPD,
If Cecilia Escamila Greenwald is elected, (your wife) Will she be fighting people in the bathroom at 2 am. And is that a good example for the few kids there and thining population of Davis?
I sure don’t think it is and I would like to think that as we teach our children fighting/ bickering and aggresion is not the answer. So I am all four civility!
Don’t confuse personal fighting with passion for the issues. People can care deeply, and have great debates, without hating one another. Davis is a great community, and we do have standards to uphold – we need to have an active, engaged, and educated public. Debating is wonderful. Arguing is dreadful.
Civility is extremely important to the adoption of good public policy. In Sacramento, one often hears the argument that less gets done these days because legislators do not have the type of personal relationships they used to have. While I know that this argument is a bit misleading, I also know that people are willing to compromise with one another if they have a personal connection. In a democratic society such as ours, compromise is the key to achieving results. If people choose to argue and demagog, nothing productive will ever get done.
But then, people who compromise are generally moderates, and we all know that moderates are villified in both parties.
Don’t confuse personal fighting with passion for the issues. People can care deeply, and have great debates, without hating one another. Davis is a great community, and we do have standards to uphold – we need to have an active, engaged, and educated public. Debating is wonderful. Arguing is dreadful.
Civility is extremely important to the adoption of good public policy. In Sacramento, one often hears the argument that less gets done these days because legislators do not have the type of personal relationships they used to have. While I know that this argument is a bit misleading, I also know that people are willing to compromise with one another if they have a personal connection. In a democratic society such as ours, compromise is the key to achieving results. If people choose to argue and demagog, nothing productive will ever get done.
But then, people who compromise are generally moderates, and we all know that moderates are villified in both parties.
Don’t confuse personal fighting with passion for the issues. People can care deeply, and have great debates, without hating one another. Davis is a great community, and we do have standards to uphold – we need to have an active, engaged, and educated public. Debating is wonderful. Arguing is dreadful.
Civility is extremely important to the adoption of good public policy. In Sacramento, one often hears the argument that less gets done these days because legislators do not have the type of personal relationships they used to have. While I know that this argument is a bit misleading, I also know that people are willing to compromise with one another if they have a personal connection. In a democratic society such as ours, compromise is the key to achieving results. If people choose to argue and demagog, nothing productive will ever get done.
But then, people who compromise are generally moderates, and we all know that moderates are villified in both parties.
Don’t confuse personal fighting with passion for the issues. People can care deeply, and have great debates, without hating one another. Davis is a great community, and we do have standards to uphold – we need to have an active, engaged, and educated public. Debating is wonderful. Arguing is dreadful.
Civility is extremely important to the adoption of good public policy. In Sacramento, one often hears the argument that less gets done these days because legislators do not have the type of personal relationships they used to have. While I know that this argument is a bit misleading, I also know that people are willing to compromise with one another if they have a personal connection. In a democratic society such as ours, compromise is the key to achieving results. If people choose to argue and demagog, nothing productive will ever get done.
But then, people who compromise are generally moderates, and we all know that moderates are villified in both parties.
For some politicians, a call to “patriotism” has been described as the “last refuge of the scoundrel”. To this ,one could add calls for “civility”.
For some politicians, a call to “patriotism” has been described as the “last refuge of the scoundrel”. To this ,one could add calls for “civility”.
For some politicians, a call to “patriotism” has been described as the “last refuge of the scoundrel”. To this ,one could add calls for “civility”.
For some politicians, a call to “patriotism” has been described as the “last refuge of the scoundrel”. To this ,one could add calls for “civility”.
“Don’t confuse personal fighting with passion for the issues.”
I think this is a decent point but it misses the context of the civility argument. The civility argument is an attempt by some to quell the vocal minority on the council–namely Sue Greenwald. How do we know? Look at the complaints–terminology of the council majority is considered uncivil, pressing staff to answer for themselves and their inconsistent statements is mistreatment of staff. So I think this article is right on.
“Don’t confuse personal fighting with passion for the issues.”
I think this is a decent point but it misses the context of the civility argument. The civility argument is an attempt by some to quell the vocal minority on the council–namely Sue Greenwald. How do we know? Look at the complaints–terminology of the council majority is considered uncivil, pressing staff to answer for themselves and their inconsistent statements is mistreatment of staff. So I think this article is right on.
“Don’t confuse personal fighting with passion for the issues.”
I think this is a decent point but it misses the context of the civility argument. The civility argument is an attempt by some to quell the vocal minority on the council–namely Sue Greenwald. How do we know? Look at the complaints–terminology of the council majority is considered uncivil, pressing staff to answer for themselves and their inconsistent statements is mistreatment of staff. So I think this article is right on.
“Don’t confuse personal fighting with passion for the issues.”
I think this is a decent point but it misses the context of the civility argument. The civility argument is an attempt by some to quell the vocal minority on the council–namely Sue Greenwald. How do we know? Look at the complaints–terminology of the council majority is considered uncivil, pressing staff to answer for themselves and their inconsistent statements is mistreatment of staff. So I think this article is right on.
If you took the current city council and replaced Sue Greenwald with a person who agreed with her on every issue but had a more congenial personality (such as Ken Wagstaff), all of the “incivility” would disappear over night. The disagreements on policy would still be passionate. But the debate would be civilized and polite. The mayor is a smart woman who cares deeply about our city. She is honest and decent. But her personal style and her tendency to interrupt others and talk too long irritates everyone in the room. If you moved Sue Greenwald to the school board and Jim Provenza to the city council, suddenly the school board meetings would be incivil and the city council meetings would be friendly. It doesn’t have to do with how contentious the issues are (closing Valley Oak was every bit as contentious as opening Target), it has to do with having people who have diplomatic personalities.
— I.T.M.
If you took the current city council and replaced Sue Greenwald with a person who agreed with her on every issue but had a more congenial personality (such as Ken Wagstaff), all of the “incivility” would disappear over night. The disagreements on policy would still be passionate. But the debate would be civilized and polite. The mayor is a smart woman who cares deeply about our city. She is honest and decent. But her personal style and her tendency to interrupt others and talk too long irritates everyone in the room. If you moved Sue Greenwald to the school board and Jim Provenza to the city council, suddenly the school board meetings would be incivil and the city council meetings would be friendly. It doesn’t have to do with how contentious the issues are (closing Valley Oak was every bit as contentious as opening Target), it has to do with having people who have diplomatic personalities.
— I.T.M.
If you took the current city council and replaced Sue Greenwald with a person who agreed with her on every issue but had a more congenial personality (such as Ken Wagstaff), all of the “incivility” would disappear over night. The disagreements on policy would still be passionate. But the debate would be civilized and polite. The mayor is a smart woman who cares deeply about our city. She is honest and decent. But her personal style and her tendency to interrupt others and talk too long irritates everyone in the room. If you moved Sue Greenwald to the school board and Jim Provenza to the city council, suddenly the school board meetings would be incivil and the city council meetings would be friendly. It doesn’t have to do with how contentious the issues are (closing Valley Oak was every bit as contentious as opening Target), it has to do with having people who have diplomatic personalities.
— I.T.M.
If you took the current city council and replaced Sue Greenwald with a person who agreed with her on every issue but had a more congenial personality (such as Ken Wagstaff), all of the “incivility” would disappear over night. The disagreements on policy would still be passionate. But the debate would be civilized and polite. The mayor is a smart woman who cares deeply about our city. She is honest and decent. But her personal style and her tendency to interrupt others and talk too long irritates everyone in the room. If you moved Sue Greenwald to the school board and Jim Provenza to the city council, suddenly the school board meetings would be incivil and the city council meetings would be friendly. It doesn’t have to do with how contentious the issues are (closing Valley Oak was every bit as contentious as opening Target), it has to do with having people who have diplomatic personalities.
— I.T.M.
Disagree Inga–it’s not all Sue. Don has been a disruptive influence everywhere he’s been whether it be on the school board or in the city council.
Disagree Inga–it’s not all Sue. Don has been a disruptive influence everywhere he’s been whether it be on the school board or in the city council.
Disagree Inga–it’s not all Sue. Don has been a disruptive influence everywhere he’s been whether it be on the school board or in the city council.
Disagree Inga–it’s not all Sue. Don has been a disruptive influence everywhere he’s been whether it be on the school board or in the city council.
I’ll take Sue Greenwald as our next Mayor Pro Tem , personality “warts” and all. You can trust that she is working for and listening to the Davis voters rather than the special interests that bankroll the campaigns for Assembly; a reminder to those who may have forgotten that Don Saylor tried to be our next Assembly candidate and is now running for Council reelection only because his first attempt to be our next Assembly candidate failed.
I’ll take Sue Greenwald as our next Mayor Pro Tem , personality “warts” and all. You can trust that she is working for and listening to the Davis voters rather than the special interests that bankroll the campaigns for Assembly; a reminder to those who may have forgotten that Don Saylor tried to be our next Assembly candidate and is now running for Council reelection only because his first attempt to be our next Assembly candidate failed.
I’ll take Sue Greenwald as our next Mayor Pro Tem , personality “warts” and all. You can trust that she is working for and listening to the Davis voters rather than the special interests that bankroll the campaigns for Assembly; a reminder to those who may have forgotten that Don Saylor tried to be our next Assembly candidate and is now running for Council reelection only because his first attempt to be our next Assembly candidate failed.
I’ll take Sue Greenwald as our next Mayor Pro Tem , personality “warts” and all. You can trust that she is working for and listening to the Davis voters rather than the special interests that bankroll the campaigns for Assembly; a reminder to those who may have forgotten that Don Saylor tried to be our next Assembly candidate and is now running for Council reelection only because his first attempt to be our next Assembly candidate failed.
Sue Greenwald is poison to any conversation whether it be at council meetings or in the farmers market. She has a point of view or opinion that does not change or alter in anyway during a conversation or debate. It is useless to engage her in any kind of conversation – it is a one way flow of information and gossip from her to the other person. However, she is right on the money on some things, maybe the right things, so people will vote for her, but then they cannot expect any congeniality on the council with her part of it. And since most of the community does not have to interact with her and does not even watch the meetings, why would they or should they care?
I also think that Sue overshadows the problems of other council members. If she were not such an easy target for allegations of ‘incivility’, Don, Ruth and Steve’s actions would show up more.
I have never seen or heard of Lamar Heystek being impolite or uncivil to any one, ever. His mother should be very proud.
Sue Greenwald is poison to any conversation whether it be at council meetings or in the farmers market. She has a point of view or opinion that does not change or alter in anyway during a conversation or debate. It is useless to engage her in any kind of conversation – it is a one way flow of information and gossip from her to the other person. However, she is right on the money on some things, maybe the right things, so people will vote for her, but then they cannot expect any congeniality on the council with her part of it. And since most of the community does not have to interact with her and does not even watch the meetings, why would they or should they care?
I also think that Sue overshadows the problems of other council members. If she were not such an easy target for allegations of ‘incivility’, Don, Ruth and Steve’s actions would show up more.
I have never seen or heard of Lamar Heystek being impolite or uncivil to any one, ever. His mother should be very proud.
Sue Greenwald is poison to any conversation whether it be at council meetings or in the farmers market. She has a point of view or opinion that does not change or alter in anyway during a conversation or debate. It is useless to engage her in any kind of conversation – it is a one way flow of information and gossip from her to the other person. However, she is right on the money on some things, maybe the right things, so people will vote for her, but then they cannot expect any congeniality on the council with her part of it. And since most of the community does not have to interact with her and does not even watch the meetings, why would they or should they care?
I also think that Sue overshadows the problems of other council members. If she were not such an easy target for allegations of ‘incivility’, Don, Ruth and Steve’s actions would show up more.
I have never seen or heard of Lamar Heystek being impolite or uncivil to any one, ever. His mother should be very proud.
Sue Greenwald is poison to any conversation whether it be at council meetings or in the farmers market. She has a point of view or opinion that does not change or alter in anyway during a conversation or debate. It is useless to engage her in any kind of conversation – it is a one way flow of information and gossip from her to the other person. However, she is right on the money on some things, maybe the right things, so people will vote for her, but then they cannot expect any congeniality on the council with her part of it. And since most of the community does not have to interact with her and does not even watch the meetings, why would they or should they care?
I also think that Sue overshadows the problems of other council members. If she were not such an easy target for allegations of ‘incivility’, Don, Ruth and Steve’s actions would show up more.
I have never seen or heard of Lamar Heystek being impolite or uncivil to any one, ever. His mother should be very proud.
politics with civility, one may as well require us to eat chocolate without cocoa, cookies and cakes without sugar
–Richard Estes
politics with civility, one may as well require us to eat chocolate without cocoa, cookies and cakes without sugar
–Richard Estes
politics with civility, one may as well require us to eat chocolate without cocoa, cookies and cakes without sugar
–Richard Estes
politics with civility, one may as well require us to eat chocolate without cocoa, cookies and cakes without sugar
–Richard Estes
over-consumption of sugar can cause type II diabetes.
over-consumption of sugar can cause type II diabetes.
over-consumption of sugar can cause type II diabetes.
over-consumption of sugar can cause type II diabetes.
there is a difference between passion and incivility, just as there is a difference between intense political debate and incivility.
just as there is a difference between calling for a basic level of civility on the one hand, and using the same rhetoric to try and silence actual debate on the other.
i try to be civil as i debate issues. it’s certainly not impossible to do, most of the time.
there is a difference between passion and incivility, just as there is a difference between intense political debate and incivility.
just as there is a difference between calling for a basic level of civility on the one hand, and using the same rhetoric to try and silence actual debate on the other.
i try to be civil as i debate issues. it’s certainly not impossible to do, most of the time.
there is a difference between passion and incivility, just as there is a difference between intense political debate and incivility.
just as there is a difference between calling for a basic level of civility on the one hand, and using the same rhetoric to try and silence actual debate on the other.
i try to be civil as i debate issues. it’s certainly not impossible to do, most of the time.
there is a difference between passion and incivility, just as there is a difference between intense political debate and incivility.
just as there is a difference between calling for a basic level of civility on the one hand, and using the same rhetoric to try and silence actual debate on the other.
i try to be civil as i debate issues. it’s certainly not impossible to do, most of the time.
Inga said…
“…The disagreements on policy would still be passionate. But the debate would be civilized and polite. The mayor is a smart woman who cares deeply about our city. She is honest and decent. But her personal style and her tendency to interrupt others and talk too long irritates everyone in the room.”
Funny. I’m not a Sue lover but if you replaced the above with Ruth, it would fit well. Ruth is abrasive and interrupts people as well. BTW, I was in the house for the bathroom brawl and it took two to have that fight.
Inga said…
“…The disagreements on policy would still be passionate. But the debate would be civilized and polite. The mayor is a smart woman who cares deeply about our city. She is honest and decent. But her personal style and her tendency to interrupt others and talk too long irritates everyone in the room.”
Funny. I’m not a Sue lover but if you replaced the above with Ruth, it would fit well. Ruth is abrasive and interrupts people as well. BTW, I was in the house for the bathroom brawl and it took two to have that fight.
Inga said…
“…The disagreements on policy would still be passionate. But the debate would be civilized and polite. The mayor is a smart woman who cares deeply about our city. She is honest and decent. But her personal style and her tendency to interrupt others and talk too long irritates everyone in the room.”
Funny. I’m not a Sue lover but if you replaced the above with Ruth, it would fit well. Ruth is abrasive and interrupts people as well. BTW, I was in the house for the bathroom brawl and it took two to have that fight.
Inga said…
“…The disagreements on policy would still be passionate. But the debate would be civilized and polite. The mayor is a smart woman who cares deeply about our city. She is honest and decent. But her personal style and her tendency to interrupt others and talk too long irritates everyone in the room.”
Funny. I’m not a Sue lover but if you replaced the above with Ruth, it would fit well. Ruth is abrasive and interrupts people as well. BTW, I was in the house for the bathroom brawl and it took two to have that fight.
Sue is much of the cause of the horrible relations on the CC. Don is second … I dont understand his internal issues, or how could a person develop and operate the Tiger Cages in the California CYA as he did? (“Father of the Tiger Cages”….) Mean and mostly corrupt.
Anyone willing to spend $5,000 on research about his background, and what he did to kids in the other state (Montana, or Wyoming?) before he came to California CYA? The Flatlander several years ago researched him in Sacramento, and it was disgusting. Unfortunately, it came out too late, and the publisher was not willing to totally take the gloves off and fully report what the witnesses said about his conduct at the CYA as a manager and “teacher” of children.
However, Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia. Anyone who personally knows and loves her should urge her not to run for CC again. Her “supporters” who say they care about her should not endorse her. If they do, it is all about their own selfish wishes or desire for access to local power.
[Sue … I know you read this … hang it up, for your own sake, and the sake of the voters of Davis. Most of us will never vote for you again. Turst me.]
I know that I will never endorse or vote for someone who is already mentally ill, and whose illness is greatly heightened by the CC job.
And Souza? simply stupid, and driven by his internal sense of insecurity. Is it the years of chlorine?
God help Davis.
Sue is much of the cause of the horrible relations on the CC. Don is second … I dont understand his internal issues, or how could a person develop and operate the Tiger Cages in the California CYA as he did? (“Father of the Tiger Cages”….) Mean and mostly corrupt.
Anyone willing to spend $5,000 on research about his background, and what he did to kids in the other state (Montana, or Wyoming?) before he came to California CYA? The Flatlander several years ago researched him in Sacramento, and it was disgusting. Unfortunately, it came out too late, and the publisher was not willing to totally take the gloves off and fully report what the witnesses said about his conduct at the CYA as a manager and “teacher” of children.
However, Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia. Anyone who personally knows and loves her should urge her not to run for CC again. Her “supporters” who say they care about her should not endorse her. If they do, it is all about their own selfish wishes or desire for access to local power.
[Sue … I know you read this … hang it up, for your own sake, and the sake of the voters of Davis. Most of us will never vote for you again. Turst me.]
I know that I will never endorse or vote for someone who is already mentally ill, and whose illness is greatly heightened by the CC job.
And Souza? simply stupid, and driven by his internal sense of insecurity. Is it the years of chlorine?
God help Davis.
Sue is much of the cause of the horrible relations on the CC. Don is second … I dont understand his internal issues, or how could a person develop and operate the Tiger Cages in the California CYA as he did? (“Father of the Tiger Cages”….) Mean and mostly corrupt.
Anyone willing to spend $5,000 on research about his background, and what he did to kids in the other state (Montana, or Wyoming?) before he came to California CYA? The Flatlander several years ago researched him in Sacramento, and it was disgusting. Unfortunately, it came out too late, and the publisher was not willing to totally take the gloves off and fully report what the witnesses said about his conduct at the CYA as a manager and “teacher” of children.
However, Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia. Anyone who personally knows and loves her should urge her not to run for CC again. Her “supporters” who say they care about her should not endorse her. If they do, it is all about their own selfish wishes or desire for access to local power.
[Sue … I know you read this … hang it up, for your own sake, and the sake of the voters of Davis. Most of us will never vote for you again. Turst me.]
I know that I will never endorse or vote for someone who is already mentally ill, and whose illness is greatly heightened by the CC job.
And Souza? simply stupid, and driven by his internal sense of insecurity. Is it the years of chlorine?
God help Davis.
Sue is much of the cause of the horrible relations on the CC. Don is second … I dont understand his internal issues, or how could a person develop and operate the Tiger Cages in the California CYA as he did? (“Father of the Tiger Cages”….) Mean and mostly corrupt.
Anyone willing to spend $5,000 on research about his background, and what he did to kids in the other state (Montana, or Wyoming?) before he came to California CYA? The Flatlander several years ago researched him in Sacramento, and it was disgusting. Unfortunately, it came out too late, and the publisher was not willing to totally take the gloves off and fully report what the witnesses said about his conduct at the CYA as a manager and “teacher” of children.
However, Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia. Anyone who personally knows and loves her should urge her not to run for CC again. Her “supporters” who say they care about her should not endorse her. If they do, it is all about their own selfish wishes or desire for access to local power.
[Sue … I know you read this … hang it up, for your own sake, and the sake of the voters of Davis. Most of us will never vote for you again. Turst me.]
I know that I will never endorse or vote for someone who is already mentally ill, and whose illness is greatly heightened by the CC job.
And Souza? simply stupid, and driven by his internal sense of insecurity. Is it the years of chlorine?
God help Davis.
“Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia.”
If this is not cause for libel, I don’t know what is.
In a discussion on being more civilized, making this kind of ridiculous (and of course “anonymous”) accusation is about as uncivil as any I’ve ever seen published. What a cowardly attack.
“Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia.”
If this is not cause for libel, I don’t know what is.
In a discussion on being more civilized, making this kind of ridiculous (and of course “anonymous”) accusation is about as uncivil as any I’ve ever seen published. What a cowardly attack.
“Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia.”
If this is not cause for libel, I don’t know what is.
In a discussion on being more civilized, making this kind of ridiculous (and of course “anonymous”) accusation is about as uncivil as any I’ve ever seen published. What a cowardly attack.
“Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia.”
If this is not cause for libel, I don’t know what is.
In a discussion on being more civilized, making this kind of ridiculous (and of course “anonymous”) accusation is about as uncivil as any I’ve ever seen published. What a cowardly attack.
Rich,
I agree, panzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee anoymouse state your self or knock it off
Rich,
I agree, panzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee anoymouse state your self or knock it off
Rich,
I agree, panzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee anoymouse state your self or knock it off
Rich,
I agree, panzeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee anoymouse state your self or knock it off
We shouldn’t demonize the mentally ill. With a proper course of treatment and drug therapy I am sure Sue could serve productively on the council.
Of course, without treatment she will continue to be a train wreck and counterproductive to most of the causes she espouses.
Mental illness is different than many physical illnesses in that patients rarely improve without treatment. A flu, or even more severe illnesses, you will ususally get over, with or without treatment. Paranoia is a different matter.
We shouldn’t demonize the mentally ill. With a proper course of treatment and drug therapy I am sure Sue could serve productively on the council.
Of course, without treatment she will continue to be a train wreck and counterproductive to most of the causes she espouses.
Mental illness is different than many physical illnesses in that patients rarely improve without treatment. A flu, or even more severe illnesses, you will ususally get over, with or without treatment. Paranoia is a different matter.
We shouldn’t demonize the mentally ill. With a proper course of treatment and drug therapy I am sure Sue could serve productively on the council.
Of course, without treatment she will continue to be a train wreck and counterproductive to most of the causes she espouses.
Mental illness is different than many physical illnesses in that patients rarely improve without treatment. A flu, or even more severe illnesses, you will ususally get over, with or without treatment. Paranoia is a different matter.
We shouldn’t demonize the mentally ill. With a proper course of treatment and drug therapy I am sure Sue could serve productively on the council.
Of course, without treatment she will continue to be a train wreck and counterproductive to most of the causes she espouses.
Mental illness is different than many physical illnesses in that patients rarely improve without treatment. A flu, or even more severe illnesses, you will ususally get over, with or without treatment. Paranoia is a different matter.
Whether you like Sue Greenwald’s politics or not, cheap shots are just that – CHEAP – AnonyMOUSE. And one thing everyone seems to agree on – is that Sue has the interests of the city at heart. This cannot be said of some other council members, and Davisites know it.
DPD, did you ever consider the possibility that the rampant incivility that goes on in politics is nothing but a red herring. When politicians rant about this, that, and the other, it draws attention away from the real issues – which most politicians have no clue how to solve. Just positing another theory!
Additionally, incivility of the sort we have seen on the City Council lately drives away good candidates. I have been asked to run by numerous people – but you couldn’t get me to for a million bucks. Who the heck wants to put up with the nonsense and childish antics our City Council members subject each other and the public to?
I find our City Council to be unprofessional, short on substantive ideas and knowledge of the issues, and devoid of sensible solutions. They are too busy bickering, sneering, sniping, and have no time to address the issues with anything close to useful.
Think about it. There was purpose behind why meetings ran until the wee hours of the morning. Often the most important issues were put on at the very end of the agenda. That was no coincidence. How many times do controversial issues end up being placed on the Consent Calendar? No uncivil discourse there.
DPD, I think you may have missed the boat here. Incivility deflects attention, as it is meant to do. It keeps gov’t from doing business, and hides the ball. Less and less gets done. This incivility also trickles down to City Staff, and some of them partake in the nastiness of it all. Have you ever heard the expression “Garbage in, garbage out”? I place incivility in the garbage category -if you catch my drift!?! Let me translate: incivility in, garbage out!
Whether you like Sue Greenwald’s politics or not, cheap shots are just that – CHEAP – AnonyMOUSE. And one thing everyone seems to agree on – is that Sue has the interests of the city at heart. This cannot be said of some other council members, and Davisites know it.
DPD, did you ever consider the possibility that the rampant incivility that goes on in politics is nothing but a red herring. When politicians rant about this, that, and the other, it draws attention away from the real issues – which most politicians have no clue how to solve. Just positing another theory!
Additionally, incivility of the sort we have seen on the City Council lately drives away good candidates. I have been asked to run by numerous people – but you couldn’t get me to for a million bucks. Who the heck wants to put up with the nonsense and childish antics our City Council members subject each other and the public to?
I find our City Council to be unprofessional, short on substantive ideas and knowledge of the issues, and devoid of sensible solutions. They are too busy bickering, sneering, sniping, and have no time to address the issues with anything close to useful.
Think about it. There was purpose behind why meetings ran until the wee hours of the morning. Often the most important issues were put on at the very end of the agenda. That was no coincidence. How many times do controversial issues end up being placed on the Consent Calendar? No uncivil discourse there.
DPD, I think you may have missed the boat here. Incivility deflects attention, as it is meant to do. It keeps gov’t from doing business, and hides the ball. Less and less gets done. This incivility also trickles down to City Staff, and some of them partake in the nastiness of it all. Have you ever heard the expression “Garbage in, garbage out”? I place incivility in the garbage category -if you catch my drift!?! Let me translate: incivility in, garbage out!
Whether you like Sue Greenwald’s politics or not, cheap shots are just that – CHEAP – AnonyMOUSE. And one thing everyone seems to agree on – is that Sue has the interests of the city at heart. This cannot be said of some other council members, and Davisites know it.
DPD, did you ever consider the possibility that the rampant incivility that goes on in politics is nothing but a red herring. When politicians rant about this, that, and the other, it draws attention away from the real issues – which most politicians have no clue how to solve. Just positing another theory!
Additionally, incivility of the sort we have seen on the City Council lately drives away good candidates. I have been asked to run by numerous people – but you couldn’t get me to for a million bucks. Who the heck wants to put up with the nonsense and childish antics our City Council members subject each other and the public to?
I find our City Council to be unprofessional, short on substantive ideas and knowledge of the issues, and devoid of sensible solutions. They are too busy bickering, sneering, sniping, and have no time to address the issues with anything close to useful.
Think about it. There was purpose behind why meetings ran until the wee hours of the morning. Often the most important issues were put on at the very end of the agenda. That was no coincidence. How many times do controversial issues end up being placed on the Consent Calendar? No uncivil discourse there.
DPD, I think you may have missed the boat here. Incivility deflects attention, as it is meant to do. It keeps gov’t from doing business, and hides the ball. Less and less gets done. This incivility also trickles down to City Staff, and some of them partake in the nastiness of it all. Have you ever heard the expression “Garbage in, garbage out”? I place incivility in the garbage category -if you catch my drift!?! Let me translate: incivility in, garbage out!
Whether you like Sue Greenwald’s politics or not, cheap shots are just that – CHEAP – AnonyMOUSE. And one thing everyone seems to agree on – is that Sue has the interests of the city at heart. This cannot be said of some other council members, and Davisites know it.
DPD, did you ever consider the possibility that the rampant incivility that goes on in politics is nothing but a red herring. When politicians rant about this, that, and the other, it draws attention away from the real issues – which most politicians have no clue how to solve. Just positing another theory!
Additionally, incivility of the sort we have seen on the City Council lately drives away good candidates. I have been asked to run by numerous people – but you couldn’t get me to for a million bucks. Who the heck wants to put up with the nonsense and childish antics our City Council members subject each other and the public to?
I find our City Council to be unprofessional, short on substantive ideas and knowledge of the issues, and devoid of sensible solutions. They are too busy bickering, sneering, sniping, and have no time to address the issues with anything close to useful.
Think about it. There was purpose behind why meetings ran until the wee hours of the morning. Often the most important issues were put on at the very end of the agenda. That was no coincidence. How many times do controversial issues end up being placed on the Consent Calendar? No uncivil discourse there.
DPD, I think you may have missed the boat here. Incivility deflects attention, as it is meant to do. It keeps gov’t from doing business, and hides the ball. Less and less gets done. This incivility also trickles down to City Staff, and some of them partake in the nastiness of it all. Have you ever heard the expression “Garbage in, garbage out”? I place incivility in the garbage category -if you catch my drift!?! Let me translate: incivility in, garbage out!
Wu Ming lances the blister:
Incivility is inefficient, time-wasting and of interest only to
the incivil.
Wu Ming lances the blister:
Incivility is inefficient, time-wasting and of interest only to
the incivil.
Wu Ming lances the blister:
Incivility is inefficient, time-wasting and of interest only to
the incivil.
Wu Ming lances the blister:
Incivility is inefficient, time-wasting and of interest only to
the incivil.
“DPD, did you ever consider the possibility that the rampant incivility that goes on in politics is nothing but a red herring. When politicians rant about this, that, and the other, it draws attention away from the real issues – which most politicians have no clue how to solve. Just positing another theory!”
I agree completely. It doesn’t just draw attention from the real issues, it draws attention from the fact that those complaining about incivility are themselves being uncivil.
That said, the only way to expose it is to show the rhetoric for what it is.
“DPD, did you ever consider the possibility that the rampant incivility that goes on in politics is nothing but a red herring. When politicians rant about this, that, and the other, it draws attention away from the real issues – which most politicians have no clue how to solve. Just positing another theory!”
I agree completely. It doesn’t just draw attention from the real issues, it draws attention from the fact that those complaining about incivility are themselves being uncivil.
That said, the only way to expose it is to show the rhetoric for what it is.
“DPD, did you ever consider the possibility that the rampant incivility that goes on in politics is nothing but a red herring. When politicians rant about this, that, and the other, it draws attention away from the real issues – which most politicians have no clue how to solve. Just positing another theory!”
I agree completely. It doesn’t just draw attention from the real issues, it draws attention from the fact that those complaining about incivility are themselves being uncivil.
That said, the only way to expose it is to show the rhetoric for what it is.
“DPD, did you ever consider the possibility that the rampant incivility that goes on in politics is nothing but a red herring. When politicians rant about this, that, and the other, it draws attention away from the real issues – which most politicians have no clue how to solve. Just positing another theory!”
I agree completely. It doesn’t just draw attention from the real issues, it draws attention from the fact that those complaining about incivility are themselves being uncivil.
That said, the only way to expose it is to show the rhetoric for what it is.
anonymous posts making degrading comments about an incumbent city councilmember seem to have become a commonplace feature of this blog, regardless of the topic of the post, yet the blog retains its policy of allowing anonymous posts, and allows these posts to remain (while moderators have removed other offensive comments), so it makes me, what is the real purpose of this blog?
to address important community issues? or to demean Sue Greenwald?
–Richard Estes
anonymous posts making degrading comments about an incumbent city councilmember seem to have become a commonplace feature of this blog, regardless of the topic of the post, yet the blog retains its policy of allowing anonymous posts, and allows these posts to remain (while moderators have removed other offensive comments), so it makes me, what is the real purpose of this blog?
to address important community issues? or to demean Sue Greenwald?
–Richard Estes
anonymous posts making degrading comments about an incumbent city councilmember seem to have become a commonplace feature of this blog, regardless of the topic of the post, yet the blog retains its policy of allowing anonymous posts, and allows these posts to remain (while moderators have removed other offensive comments), so it makes me, what is the real purpose of this blog?
to address important community issues? or to demean Sue Greenwald?
–Richard Estes
anonymous posts making degrading comments about an incumbent city councilmember seem to have become a commonplace feature of this blog, regardless of the topic of the post, yet the blog retains its policy of allowing anonymous posts, and allows these posts to remain (while moderators have removed other offensive comments), so it makes me, what is the real purpose of this blog?
to address important community issues? or to demean Sue Greenwald?
–Richard Estes
If you read the actual post rather than the comments you quickly realize that the purpose of this was to defend Sue Greenwald and attack Don Saylor.
If you read the actual post rather than the comments you quickly realize that the purpose of this was to defend Sue Greenwald and attack Don Saylor.
If you read the actual post rather than the comments you quickly realize that the purpose of this was to defend Sue Greenwald and attack Don Saylor.
If you read the actual post rather than the comments you quickly realize that the purpose of this was to defend Sue Greenwald and attack Don Saylor.
To DPD’s comment: “I agree completely. It [incivility in political arena] doesn’t just draw attention from the real issues, it draws attention from the fact that those complaining about incivility are themselves being uncivil. That said, the only way to expose it is to show the rhetoric for what it is.”
I couldn’t agree with you more about incivility here. Those on the City Council that complain the most about the “tone of the community” – when some Davisite goes to the podium and speaks out against wrongful or questionable actions by some on the City Council – should take a good hard look at themselves!
Secondly, the incivility of the City Council forces citizens to speak out when some of their local politicians try to cover wrongdoing by pointing fingers elsewhere.
To Vincente’s comment: “If you read the actual post rather than the comments you quickly realize that the purpose of this [nasty attack on Sue Greenwald] was to defend Sue Greenwald and attack Don Saylor.” Just one more attempt at a red herring. To demean any City Council member the way Sue Greenwald was attacked is unacceptable – period. That sort of thing should not be done to any of the five – or anyone else for that matter. Frankly I would suspect it was done by those who find Sue’s questions too uncomfortable and right on target – like the City Council majority perhaps? Cheap shots are lazy thinking in diguise. When you can’t win the argument, try and rip your opponent with a smear campaign.
DPD – I would like to see you do an upcoming article, when appropriate, about the use of abuse of process to deflect attention from the real issues, or to get items passed by flying them under the radar screen. Another tactic used by the those united with the Dark Side!
To DPD’s comment: “I agree completely. It [incivility in political arena] doesn’t just draw attention from the real issues, it draws attention from the fact that those complaining about incivility are themselves being uncivil. That said, the only way to expose it is to show the rhetoric for what it is.”
I couldn’t agree with you more about incivility here. Those on the City Council that complain the most about the “tone of the community” – when some Davisite goes to the podium and speaks out against wrongful or questionable actions by some on the City Council – should take a good hard look at themselves!
Secondly, the incivility of the City Council forces citizens to speak out when some of their local politicians try to cover wrongdoing by pointing fingers elsewhere.
To Vincente’s comment: “If you read the actual post rather than the comments you quickly realize that the purpose of this [nasty attack on Sue Greenwald] was to defend Sue Greenwald and attack Don Saylor.” Just one more attempt at a red herring. To demean any City Council member the way Sue Greenwald was attacked is unacceptable – period. That sort of thing should not be done to any of the five – or anyone else for that matter. Frankly I would suspect it was done by those who find Sue’s questions too uncomfortable and right on target – like the City Council majority perhaps? Cheap shots are lazy thinking in diguise. When you can’t win the argument, try and rip your opponent with a smear campaign.
DPD – I would like to see you do an upcoming article, when appropriate, about the use of abuse of process to deflect attention from the real issues, or to get items passed by flying them under the radar screen. Another tactic used by the those united with the Dark Side!
To DPD’s comment: “I agree completely. It [incivility in political arena] doesn’t just draw attention from the real issues, it draws attention from the fact that those complaining about incivility are themselves being uncivil. That said, the only way to expose it is to show the rhetoric for what it is.”
I couldn’t agree with you more about incivility here. Those on the City Council that complain the most about the “tone of the community” – when some Davisite goes to the podium and speaks out against wrongful or questionable actions by some on the City Council – should take a good hard look at themselves!
Secondly, the incivility of the City Council forces citizens to speak out when some of their local politicians try to cover wrongdoing by pointing fingers elsewhere.
To Vincente’s comment: “If you read the actual post rather than the comments you quickly realize that the purpose of this [nasty attack on Sue Greenwald] was to defend Sue Greenwald and attack Don Saylor.” Just one more attempt at a red herring. To demean any City Council member the way Sue Greenwald was attacked is unacceptable – period. That sort of thing should not be done to any of the five – or anyone else for that matter. Frankly I would suspect it was done by those who find Sue’s questions too uncomfortable and right on target – like the City Council majority perhaps? Cheap shots are lazy thinking in diguise. When you can’t win the argument, try and rip your opponent with a smear campaign.
DPD – I would like to see you do an upcoming article, when appropriate, about the use of abuse of process to deflect attention from the real issues, or to get items passed by flying them under the radar screen. Another tactic used by the those united with the Dark Side!
To DPD’s comment: “I agree completely. It [incivility in political arena] doesn’t just draw attention from the real issues, it draws attention from the fact that those complaining about incivility are themselves being uncivil. That said, the only way to expose it is to show the rhetoric for what it is.”
I couldn’t agree with you more about incivility here. Those on the City Council that complain the most about the “tone of the community” – when some Davisite goes to the podium and speaks out against wrongful or questionable actions by some on the City Council – should take a good hard look at themselves!
Secondly, the incivility of the City Council forces citizens to speak out when some of their local politicians try to cover wrongdoing by pointing fingers elsewhere.
To Vincente’s comment: “If you read the actual post rather than the comments you quickly realize that the purpose of this [nasty attack on Sue Greenwald] was to defend Sue Greenwald and attack Don Saylor.” Just one more attempt at a red herring. To demean any City Council member the way Sue Greenwald was attacked is unacceptable – period. That sort of thing should not be done to any of the five – or anyone else for that matter. Frankly I would suspect it was done by those who find Sue’s questions too uncomfortable and right on target – like the City Council majority perhaps? Cheap shots are lazy thinking in diguise. When you can’t win the argument, try and rip your opponent with a smear campaign.
DPD – I would like to see you do an upcoming article, when appropriate, about the use of abuse of process to deflect attention from the real issues, or to get items passed by flying them under the radar screen. Another tactic used by the those united with the Dark Side!
I think the entire council has been uncivil at times (some more than others) with the exception of Councilman Lamar Heystek.
He, is a class act. The others should learn from him.
I think the entire council has been uncivil at times (some more than others) with the exception of Councilman Lamar Heystek.
He, is a class act. The others should learn from him.
I think the entire council has been uncivil at times (some more than others) with the exception of Councilman Lamar Heystek.
He, is a class act. The others should learn from him.
I think the entire council has been uncivil at times (some more than others) with the exception of Councilman Lamar Heystek.
He, is a class act. The others should learn from him.
Most of us do not engage in dialogue with someone who is publicly and incoherently ranting on a street corner. We IGNORE them. I would hope that we do the same for those authors, however they identify themselves,whose comments we feel fall into that same category. In this blog administrator’s opinion,the boundaries of Vanguard comment freedom of expression should be as unrestrictive, within the guidelines already laid out,as possible. This includes the freedom to express outrageous ideas that make some readers uncomfortable. To quote an ANONYMOUS world-class philosopher,”Sticks and stones will break my bones…”
Most of us do not engage in dialogue with someone who is publicly and incoherently ranting on a street corner. We IGNORE them. I would hope that we do the same for those authors, however they identify themselves,whose comments we feel fall into that same category. In this blog administrator’s opinion,the boundaries of Vanguard comment freedom of expression should be as unrestrictive, within the guidelines already laid out,as possible. This includes the freedom to express outrageous ideas that make some readers uncomfortable. To quote an ANONYMOUS world-class philosopher,”Sticks and stones will break my bones…”
Most of us do not engage in dialogue with someone who is publicly and incoherently ranting on a street corner. We IGNORE them. I would hope that we do the same for those authors, however they identify themselves,whose comments we feel fall into that same category. In this blog administrator’s opinion,the boundaries of Vanguard comment freedom of expression should be as unrestrictive, within the guidelines already laid out,as possible. This includes the freedom to express outrageous ideas that make some readers uncomfortable. To quote an ANONYMOUS world-class philosopher,”Sticks and stones will break my bones…”
Most of us do not engage in dialogue with someone who is publicly and incoherently ranting on a street corner. We IGNORE them. I would hope that we do the same for those authors, however they identify themselves,whose comments we feel fall into that same category. In this blog administrator’s opinion,the boundaries of Vanguard comment freedom of expression should be as unrestrictive, within the guidelines already laid out,as possible. This includes the freedom to express outrageous ideas that make some readers uncomfortable. To quote an ANONYMOUS world-class philosopher,”Sticks and stones will break my bones…”
Most of us do not engage in dialogue with someone who is publicly and incoherently ranting on a street corner. We IGNORE them. I would hope that we do the same for those authors, however they identify themselves,whose comments we feel fall into that same category. In this blog administrator’s opinion,the boundaries of Vanguard comment freedom of expression should be as unrestrictive, within the guidelines already laid out,as possible. This includes the freedom to express outrageous ideas that make some readers uncomfortable. To quote an ANONYMOUS world-class philosopher,”Sticks and stones will break my bones…”
11/15/07 9:26 AM
Interesting. I had a comment pulled from the site, say about 5 or 6 months ago, a comment that did not insult or degrade anyone, but merely noted that a veteran, mentioned in another context in the post as someone who was confused about the subject of the post (which I have forgotten), was probably equally confused about why were still in Iraq and perpetuating the most horrible brutalities against the populace.
As I said, that comment was removed. The tone of it was minor compared to what I now see here, and it was a legitimate response to the post.
I also suspect that Rich Rifkin has also had a number of comments removed for being off topic, even though there weren’t nearly as nasty as the comments now being posted about Greenwald.
Indeed, it seems like just about every other post is turning into a free for all to personally insult and demean Sue Greenwald.
People (or is it just one person?) are allowed to do it anonymously, and the remarks are never removed.
DPD runs the blog. He can put a stop to it, because, regardless of whether the post itself can be construed favorably to Greenwald or not, it is increasingly beginning to appear that the posts are merely a pretext to create the opportunity to repeatedly insult Greenwald.
Alternatively, if the goal is to allow completely unfettered, uncensored comments, it would be nice if that policy were applied across the board, instead of having it emerge to protect people who demean Sue Greenwald repeatedly on a nearly daily basis.
–Richard Estes
Most of us do not engage in dialogue with someone who is publicly and incoherently ranting on a street corner. We IGNORE them. I would hope that we do the same for those authors, however they identify themselves,whose comments we feel fall into that same category. In this blog administrator’s opinion,the boundaries of Vanguard comment freedom of expression should be as unrestrictive, within the guidelines already laid out,as possible. This includes the freedom to express outrageous ideas that make some readers uncomfortable. To quote an ANONYMOUS world-class philosopher,”Sticks and stones will break my bones…”
11/15/07 9:26 AM
Interesting. I had a comment pulled from the site, say about 5 or 6 months ago, a comment that did not insult or degrade anyone, but merely noted that a veteran, mentioned in another context in the post as someone who was confused about the subject of the post (which I have forgotten), was probably equally confused about why were still in Iraq and perpetuating the most horrible brutalities against the populace.
As I said, that comment was removed. The tone of it was minor compared to what I now see here, and it was a legitimate response to the post.
I also suspect that Rich Rifkin has also had a number of comments removed for being off topic, even though there weren’t nearly as nasty as the comments now being posted about Greenwald.
Indeed, it seems like just about every other post is turning into a free for all to personally insult and demean Sue Greenwald.
People (or is it just one person?) are allowed to do it anonymously, and the remarks are never removed.
DPD runs the blog. He can put a stop to it, because, regardless of whether the post itself can be construed favorably to Greenwald or not, it is increasingly beginning to appear that the posts are merely a pretext to create the opportunity to repeatedly insult Greenwald.
Alternatively, if the goal is to allow completely unfettered, uncensored comments, it would be nice if that policy were applied across the board, instead of having it emerge to protect people who demean Sue Greenwald repeatedly on a nearly daily basis.
–Richard Estes
Most of us do not engage in dialogue with someone who is publicly and incoherently ranting on a street corner. We IGNORE them. I would hope that we do the same for those authors, however they identify themselves,whose comments we feel fall into that same category. In this blog administrator’s opinion,the boundaries of Vanguard comment freedom of expression should be as unrestrictive, within the guidelines already laid out,as possible. This includes the freedom to express outrageous ideas that make some readers uncomfortable. To quote an ANONYMOUS world-class philosopher,”Sticks and stones will break my bones…”
11/15/07 9:26 AM
Interesting. I had a comment pulled from the site, say about 5 or 6 months ago, a comment that did not insult or degrade anyone, but merely noted that a veteran, mentioned in another context in the post as someone who was confused about the subject of the post (which I have forgotten), was probably equally confused about why were still in Iraq and perpetuating the most horrible brutalities against the populace.
As I said, that comment was removed. The tone of it was minor compared to what I now see here, and it was a legitimate response to the post.
I also suspect that Rich Rifkin has also had a number of comments removed for being off topic, even though there weren’t nearly as nasty as the comments now being posted about Greenwald.
Indeed, it seems like just about every other post is turning into a free for all to personally insult and demean Sue Greenwald.
People (or is it just one person?) are allowed to do it anonymously, and the remarks are never removed.
DPD runs the blog. He can put a stop to it, because, regardless of whether the post itself can be construed favorably to Greenwald or not, it is increasingly beginning to appear that the posts are merely a pretext to create the opportunity to repeatedly insult Greenwald.
Alternatively, if the goal is to allow completely unfettered, uncensored comments, it would be nice if that policy were applied across the board, instead of having it emerge to protect people who demean Sue Greenwald repeatedly on a nearly daily basis.
–Richard Estes
Most of us do not engage in dialogue with someone who is publicly and incoherently ranting on a street corner. We IGNORE them. I would hope that we do the same for those authors, however they identify themselves,whose comments we feel fall into that same category. In this blog administrator’s opinion,the boundaries of Vanguard comment freedom of expression should be as unrestrictive, within the guidelines already laid out,as possible. This includes the freedom to express outrageous ideas that make some readers uncomfortable. To quote an ANONYMOUS world-class philosopher,”Sticks and stones will break my bones…”
11/15/07 9:26 AM
Interesting. I had a comment pulled from the site, say about 5 or 6 months ago, a comment that did not insult or degrade anyone, but merely noted that a veteran, mentioned in another context in the post as someone who was confused about the subject of the post (which I have forgotten), was probably equally confused about why were still in Iraq and perpetuating the most horrible brutalities against the populace.
As I said, that comment was removed. The tone of it was minor compared to what I now see here, and it was a legitimate response to the post.
I also suspect that Rich Rifkin has also had a number of comments removed for being off topic, even though there weren’t nearly as nasty as the comments now being posted about Greenwald.
Indeed, it seems like just about every other post is turning into a free for all to personally insult and demean Sue Greenwald.
People (or is it just one person?) are allowed to do it anonymously, and the remarks are never removed.
DPD runs the blog. He can put a stop to it, because, regardless of whether the post itself can be construed favorably to Greenwald or not, it is increasingly beginning to appear that the posts are merely a pretext to create the opportunity to repeatedly insult Greenwald.
Alternatively, if the goal is to allow completely unfettered, uncensored comments, it would be nice if that policy were applied across the board, instead of having it emerge to protect people who demean Sue Greenwald repeatedly on a nearly daily basis.
–Richard Estes
There was an attempt by one moderator to put some kind of control on the more personal attacks toward Sue, but she was soundly chastized by community members (on the blog and in person) for “censoring” their comments. The community seems to prefer unfettered freedom to post whatever they please. I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.
There was an attempt by one moderator to put some kind of control on the more personal attacks toward Sue, but she was soundly chastized by community members (on the blog and in person) for “censoring” their comments. The community seems to prefer unfettered freedom to post whatever they please. I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.
There was an attempt by one moderator to put some kind of control on the more personal attacks toward Sue, but she was soundly chastized by community members (on the blog and in person) for “censoring” their comments. The community seems to prefer unfettered freedom to post whatever they please. I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.
There was an attempt by one moderator to put some kind of control on the more personal attacks toward Sue, but she was soundly chastized by community members (on the blog and in person) for “censoring” their comments. The community seems to prefer unfettered freedom to post whatever they please. I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.
“Please note that any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
That seems pretty clear to me. The post by Anonymous 8:56 PM engages in name calling and is slanderous — well, technically, it’s libelous, not slanderous. It was never deleted. That suggests to me that there is a double standard at play, here.
“Posts whose primary purpose is to correct spelling and/ or grammar are also subject to deletion.”
Yeah, it sure is horrible to use correct grammar. That gets deleted every time. But make up some bogus story about an innocent person’s medical records, as was done by Anon 8:56, and that stays.
Nice.
“Please note that any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
That seems pretty clear to me. The post by Anonymous 8:56 PM engages in name calling and is slanderous — well, technically, it’s libelous, not slanderous. It was never deleted. That suggests to me that there is a double standard at play, here.
“Posts whose primary purpose is to correct spelling and/ or grammar are also subject to deletion.”
Yeah, it sure is horrible to use correct grammar. That gets deleted every time. But make up some bogus story about an innocent person’s medical records, as was done by Anon 8:56, and that stays.
Nice.
“Please note that any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
That seems pretty clear to me. The post by Anonymous 8:56 PM engages in name calling and is slanderous — well, technically, it’s libelous, not slanderous. It was never deleted. That suggests to me that there is a double standard at play, here.
“Posts whose primary purpose is to correct spelling and/ or grammar are also subject to deletion.”
Yeah, it sure is horrible to use correct grammar. That gets deleted every time. But make up some bogus story about an innocent person’s medical records, as was done by Anon 8:56, and that stays.
Nice.
“Please note that any posts that use profanity or engage in name-calling or other potentially slanderous attacks will be subject to deletion.”
That seems pretty clear to me. The post by Anonymous 8:56 PM engages in name calling and is slanderous — well, technically, it’s libelous, not slanderous. It was never deleted. That suggests to me that there is a double standard at play, here.
“Posts whose primary purpose is to correct spelling and/ or grammar are also subject to deletion.”
Yeah, it sure is horrible to use correct grammar. That gets deleted every time. But make up some bogus story about an innocent person’s medical records, as was done by Anon 8:56, and that stays.
Nice.
“I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.”
Fair game? Really?
It seems fair to me to criticize a policy or a vote of a public official. Or if that person said or wrote something you don’t agree with, then lay out your arguments against that individual. But this idea that someone who lives in our commmunity should be subject to terribly mean personal attacks simply because she was elected to the city council is ridiculous. It’s a total violation of our most basic ideas of decency, a negation of the Golden Rule.
Ad hominem attacks, especially when they are made anonymously, don’t help anyone. Whether they are directed against Sue Greenwald or any of the other elected officials or city staff or someone who is otherwise widely known in town, they ought not be aired in public discourse. That sort of incivility, it seems to me, is far more harmful than any disagreements on the council dais.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a handful of posters who have nothing to say other than making ad hominem attacks. And if that is the case, then just don’t say anything at all.
“I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.”
Fair game? Really?
It seems fair to me to criticize a policy or a vote of a public official. Or if that person said or wrote something you don’t agree with, then lay out your arguments against that individual. But this idea that someone who lives in our commmunity should be subject to terribly mean personal attacks simply because she was elected to the city council is ridiculous. It’s a total violation of our most basic ideas of decency, a negation of the Golden Rule.
Ad hominem attacks, especially when they are made anonymously, don’t help anyone. Whether they are directed against Sue Greenwald or any of the other elected officials or city staff or someone who is otherwise widely known in town, they ought not be aired in public discourse. That sort of incivility, it seems to me, is far more harmful than any disagreements on the council dais.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a handful of posters who have nothing to say other than making ad hominem attacks. And if that is the case, then just don’t say anything at all.
“I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.”
Fair game? Really?
It seems fair to me to criticize a policy or a vote of a public official. Or if that person said or wrote something you don’t agree with, then lay out your arguments against that individual. But this idea that someone who lives in our commmunity should be subject to terribly mean personal attacks simply because she was elected to the city council is ridiculous. It’s a total violation of our most basic ideas of decency, a negation of the Golden Rule.
Ad hominem attacks, especially when they are made anonymously, don’t help anyone. Whether they are directed against Sue Greenwald or any of the other elected officials or city staff or someone who is otherwise widely known in town, they ought not be aired in public discourse. That sort of incivility, it seems to me, is far more harmful than any disagreements on the council dais.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a handful of posters who have nothing to say other than making ad hominem attacks. And if that is the case, then just don’t say anything at all.
“I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.”
Fair game? Really?
It seems fair to me to criticize a policy or a vote of a public official. Or if that person said or wrote something you don’t agree with, then lay out your arguments against that individual. But this idea that someone who lives in our commmunity should be subject to terribly mean personal attacks simply because she was elected to the city council is ridiculous. It’s a total violation of our most basic ideas of decency, a negation of the Golden Rule.
Ad hominem attacks, especially when they are made anonymously, don’t help anyone. Whether they are directed against Sue Greenwald or any of the other elected officials or city staff or someone who is otherwise widely known in town, they ought not be aired in public discourse. That sort of incivility, it seems to me, is far more harmful than any disagreements on the council dais.
Unfortunately, there seem to be a handful of posters who have nothing to say other than making ad hominem attacks. And if that is the case, then just don’t say anything at all.
I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.
This is really laughable, as Rich observes.
Perhaps, a blog name change is in order. Say, from “Davis Vanguard” to “Sue Greenwald, Boil on the Bollocks of Davis”.
–Richard Estes
I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.
This is really laughable, as Rich observes.
Perhaps, a blog name change is in order. Say, from “Davis Vanguard” to “Sue Greenwald, Boil on the Bollocks of Davis”.
–Richard Estes
I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.
This is really laughable, as Rich observes.
Perhaps, a blog name change is in order. Say, from “Davis Vanguard” to “Sue Greenwald, Boil on the Bollocks of Davis”.
–Richard Estes
I believe that foul language, attacks directed toward private citizens, posts completely off topic are removed, but Sue, being a public official, is fair game.
This is really laughable, as Rich observes.
Perhaps, a blog name change is in order. Say, from “Davis Vanguard” to “Sue Greenwald, Boil on the Bollocks of Davis”.
–Richard Estes
A review of the comments on this “civility” thread will reveal that Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.
A review of the comments on this “civility” thread will reveal that Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.
A review of the comments on this “civility” thread will reveal that Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.
A review of the comments on this “civility” thread will reveal that Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.
Foul language is not acceptable on this blog and should immediately be taken down regardless of who it directed towards.
It’s difficult to slander a public official so that by definition makes the stakes for deletion higher.
This is certainly not an anti-Sue blog though obviously my ability to control who posts here is non-existent.
Foul language is not acceptable on this blog and should immediately be taken down regardless of who it directed towards.
It’s difficult to slander a public official so that by definition makes the stakes for deletion higher.
This is certainly not an anti-Sue blog though obviously my ability to control who posts here is non-existent.
Foul language is not acceptable on this blog and should immediately be taken down regardless of who it directed towards.
It’s difficult to slander a public official so that by definition makes the stakes for deletion higher.
This is certainly not an anti-Sue blog though obviously my ability to control who posts here is non-existent.
Foul language is not acceptable on this blog and should immediately be taken down regardless of who it directed towards.
It’s difficult to slander a public official so that by definition makes the stakes for deletion higher.
This is certainly not an anti-Sue blog though obviously my ability to control who posts here is non-existent.
Blog Administrator said…
A review of the comments on this “civility” thread will reveal that Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.
11/15/07 12:47
I encourage others to review this thread as suggested by the blog administrator and decide whether this response is disingenous.
–Richard Estes
Blog Administrator said…
A review of the comments on this “civility” thread will reveal that Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.
11/15/07 12:47
I encourage others to review this thread as suggested by the blog administrator and decide whether this response is disingenous.
–Richard Estes
Blog Administrator said…
A review of the comments on this “civility” thread will reveal that Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.
11/15/07 12:47
I encourage others to review this thread as suggested by the blog administrator and decide whether this response is disingenous.
–Richard Estes
Blog Administrator said…
A review of the comments on this “civility” thread will reveal that Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.
11/15/07 12:47
I encourage others to review this thread as suggested by the blog administrator and decide whether this response is disingenous.
–Richard Estes
Richard Estes – Who are you to judge? Riducule does not win friends or arguments.
Richard Estes – Who are you to judge? Riducule does not win friends or arguments.
Richard Estes – Who are you to judge? Riducule does not win friends or arguments.
Richard Estes – Who are you to judge? Riducule does not win friends or arguments.
A month or so ago an “anon” posted a comment that essentially called Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson a “whore”. I pleaded that the comment be deleted but it was not. I am disappointed at the vicious name calling allowed to stand toward certain individuals.
A month or so ago an “anon” posted a comment that essentially called Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson a “whore”. I pleaded that the comment be deleted but it was not. I am disappointed at the vicious name calling allowed to stand toward certain individuals.
A month or so ago an “anon” posted a comment that essentially called Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson a “whore”. I pleaded that the comment be deleted but it was not. I am disappointed at the vicious name calling allowed to stand toward certain individuals.
A month or so ago an “anon” posted a comment that essentially called Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson a “whore”. I pleaded that the comment be deleted but it was not. I am disappointed at the vicious name calling allowed to stand toward certain individuals.
These folks work very long hours for very little pay. They ran for the positions because they thought they could effect change, but then get stymied. The meetings run until ridiculous hours of the morning. And then they are subjected to the kind of vitriol you see posted here.
It is no wonder they aren’t always civil. It’s a wonder they are as nice as they are. It takes a very thick skin to be a public official in this town.
There is a tendency to demonize folks, to ascribe the worst motives to people we disagree with. It is possible to disagree respectfully and to state your positions passionately but without resorting to personal attacks. Individuals are not merely the sum of their political beliefs. I greatly respect the years of service that all members of the city council have provided: as volunteers, on the school board, and in attending endless meetings of the council and the various subcommittees.
These folks work very long hours for very little pay. They ran for the positions because they thought they could effect change, but then get stymied. The meetings run until ridiculous hours of the morning. And then they are subjected to the kind of vitriol you see posted here.
It is no wonder they aren’t always civil. It’s a wonder they are as nice as they are. It takes a very thick skin to be a public official in this town.
There is a tendency to demonize folks, to ascribe the worst motives to people we disagree with. It is possible to disagree respectfully and to state your positions passionately but without resorting to personal attacks. Individuals are not merely the sum of their political beliefs. I greatly respect the years of service that all members of the city council have provided: as volunteers, on the school board, and in attending endless meetings of the council and the various subcommittees.
These folks work very long hours for very little pay. They ran for the positions because they thought they could effect change, but then get stymied. The meetings run until ridiculous hours of the morning. And then they are subjected to the kind of vitriol you see posted here.
It is no wonder they aren’t always civil. It’s a wonder they are as nice as they are. It takes a very thick skin to be a public official in this town.
There is a tendency to demonize folks, to ascribe the worst motives to people we disagree with. It is possible to disagree respectfully and to state your positions passionately but without resorting to personal attacks. Individuals are not merely the sum of their political beliefs. I greatly respect the years of service that all members of the city council have provided: as volunteers, on the school board, and in attending endless meetings of the council and the various subcommittees.
These folks work very long hours for very little pay. They ran for the positions because they thought they could effect change, but then get stymied. The meetings run until ridiculous hours of the morning. And then they are subjected to the kind of vitriol you see posted here.
It is no wonder they aren’t always civil. It’s a wonder they are as nice as they are. It takes a very thick skin to be a public official in this town.
There is a tendency to demonize folks, to ascribe the worst motives to people we disagree with. It is possible to disagree respectfully and to state your positions passionately but without resorting to personal attacks. Individuals are not merely the sum of their political beliefs. I greatly respect the years of service that all members of the city council have provided: as volunteers, on the school board, and in attending endless meetings of the council and the various subcommittees.
“Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.”
Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I agree that other members of the council (as well as a couple of high profile public employees) have been defamed on this website. It is not limited to the unmitigated hatred a few individuals have for Sue. More people here seem to hate Stephen, Don and Ruth. But regardless of whom the personal attacks are directed at, they are simply wrong.
They are wrong for at least two reasons:
1) They are unneighborly. The members of the council are first and foremost members of the Davis community. Davis is a nice community, where the vast majority of people are friendly. Just because a person holds a certain office doesn’t make it okay to be nasty to them as a human being; and
2) The comments are all made anonymously or pseudonymously. It’s not as if the person being attacked can respond to his accuser or give him a phone call to clear up matters or even understand where the accuser is coming from.
In private conversations, all of us have said things about other people which are less than friendly. That’s fine for a private conversation. Don’t poison our community by taking those private thoughts public.
“Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.”
Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I agree that other members of the council (as well as a couple of high profile public employees) have been defamed on this website. It is not limited to the unmitigated hatred a few individuals have for Sue. More people here seem to hate Stephen, Don and Ruth. But regardless of whom the personal attacks are directed at, they are simply wrong.
They are wrong for at least two reasons:
1) They are unneighborly. The members of the council are first and foremost members of the Davis community. Davis is a nice community, where the vast majority of people are friendly. Just because a person holds a certain office doesn’t make it okay to be nasty to them as a human being; and
2) The comments are all made anonymously or pseudonymously. It’s not as if the person being attacked can respond to his accuser or give him a phone call to clear up matters or even understand where the accuser is coming from.
In private conversations, all of us have said things about other people which are less than friendly. That’s fine for a private conversation. Don’t poison our community by taking those private thoughts public.
“Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.”
Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I agree that other members of the council (as well as a couple of high profile public employees) have been defamed on this website. It is not limited to the unmitigated hatred a few individuals have for Sue. More people here seem to hate Stephen, Don and Ruth. But regardless of whom the personal attacks are directed at, they are simply wrong.
They are wrong for at least two reasons:
1) They are unneighborly. The members of the council are first and foremost members of the Davis community. Davis is a nice community, where the vast majority of people are friendly. Just because a person holds a certain office doesn’t make it okay to be nasty to them as a human being; and
2) The comments are all made anonymously or pseudonymously. It’s not as if the person being attacked can respond to his accuser or give him a phone call to clear up matters or even understand where the accuser is coming from.
In private conversations, all of us have said things about other people which are less than friendly. That’s fine for a private conversation. Don’t poison our community by taking those private thoughts public.
“Don Saylor and Steve Souza were also described in quite unflattering terms.. the Vanguard tries to be an equal-opportunity institution.”
Two wrongs don’t make it right.
I agree that other members of the council (as well as a couple of high profile public employees) have been defamed on this website. It is not limited to the unmitigated hatred a few individuals have for Sue. More people here seem to hate Stephen, Don and Ruth. But regardless of whom the personal attacks are directed at, they are simply wrong.
They are wrong for at least two reasons:
1) They are unneighborly. The members of the council are first and foremost members of the Davis community. Davis is a nice community, where the vast majority of people are friendly. Just because a person holds a certain office doesn’t make it okay to be nasty to them as a human being; and
2) The comments are all made anonymously or pseudonymously. It’s not as if the person being attacked can respond to his accuser or give him a phone call to clear up matters or even understand where the accuser is coming from.
In private conversations, all of us have said things about other people which are less than friendly. That’s fine for a private conversation. Don’t poison our community by taking those private thoughts public.
So should the blog administrators tighten up what is allowed to stay on the blog and be more involved in guiding the conversation away from hateful speech or personal attacks?
So should the blog administrators tighten up what is allowed to stay on the blog and be more involved in guiding the conversation away from hateful speech or personal attacks?
So should the blog administrators tighten up what is allowed to stay on the blog and be more involved in guiding the conversation away from hateful speech or personal attacks?
So should the blog administrators tighten up what is allowed to stay on the blog and be more involved in guiding the conversation away from hateful speech or personal attacks?
I think the Vanguard needs to be consistent. Any comment which is a personal attack on a person who lives in our community ought to be out of bounds. I think some of the posts which have been removed — such as jokes or comments that are off topic or regard spelling — ought to have been left alone. Of course, all of it is a choice of David Greenwald. Whatever he decides the policy is reflects on his beliefs as to what is right.
I think the Vanguard needs to be consistent. Any comment which is a personal attack on a person who lives in our community ought to be out of bounds. I think some of the posts which have been removed — such as jokes or comments that are off topic or regard spelling — ought to have been left alone. Of course, all of it is a choice of David Greenwald. Whatever he decides the policy is reflects on his beliefs as to what is right.
I think the Vanguard needs to be consistent. Any comment which is a personal attack on a person who lives in our community ought to be out of bounds. I think some of the posts which have been removed — such as jokes or comments that are off topic or regard spelling — ought to have been left alone. Of course, all of it is a choice of David Greenwald. Whatever he decides the policy is reflects on his beliefs as to what is right.
I think the Vanguard needs to be consistent. Any comment which is a personal attack on a person who lives in our community ought to be out of bounds. I think some of the posts which have been removed — such as jokes or comments that are off topic or regard spelling — ought to have been left alone. Of course, all of it is a choice of David Greenwald. Whatever he decides the policy is reflects on his beliefs as to what is right.
One person’s “personal attack” is another’s assessment of a candidate’s/office holder’s personal history, values,skills,character and suitability to represent them. These considerations are valid in opining what kind of future decisions the candidate/office holder will make . This is especially true for candidates/office holders who rely on obfuscation and vapid campaign slogans rather than “straight talk” to the Davis electorate.
One person’s “personal attack” is another’s assessment of a candidate’s/office holder’s personal history, values,skills,character and suitability to represent them. These considerations are valid in opining what kind of future decisions the candidate/office holder will make . This is especially true for candidates/office holders who rely on obfuscation and vapid campaign slogans rather than “straight talk” to the Davis electorate.
One person’s “personal attack” is another’s assessment of a candidate’s/office holder’s personal history, values,skills,character and suitability to represent them. These considerations are valid in opining what kind of future decisions the candidate/office holder will make . This is especially true for candidates/office holders who rely on obfuscation and vapid campaign slogans rather than “straight talk” to the Davis electorate.
One person’s “personal attack” is another’s assessment of a candidate’s/office holder’s personal history, values,skills,character and suitability to represent them. These considerations are valid in opining what kind of future decisions the candidate/office holder will make . This is especially true for candidates/office holders who rely on obfuscation and vapid campaign slogans rather than “straight talk” to the Davis electorate.
“Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia.”
That’s an assessment of a candidate’s suitability? Sounds like a personal attack to me. But maybe that’s just me.
“Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia.”
That’s an assessment of a candidate’s suitability? Sounds like a personal attack to me. But maybe that’s just me.
“Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia.”
That’s an assessment of a candidate’s suitability? Sounds like a personal attack to me. But maybe that’s just me.
“Sue is mentally ill with what I am sure is a highly-documented medical file for severe paranoia.”
That’s an assessment of a candidate’s suitability? Sounds like a personal attack to me. But maybe that’s just me.
Incivility indeed.
And so many posts in this blog seem like another example of it.
And yes, a distraction too, from substantitive issues.
It seems pervasive.
Incivility indeed.
And so many posts in this blog seem like another example of it.
And yes, a distraction too, from substantitive issues.
It seems pervasive.
Incivility indeed.
And so many posts in this blog seem like another example of it.
And yes, a distraction too, from substantitive issues.
It seems pervasive.
Incivility indeed.
And so many posts in this blog seem like another example of it.
And yes, a distraction too, from substantitive issues.
It seems pervasive.
Rich Rifkin at 11/15/07 5:39 PM said, “I think the Vanguard needs to be consistent. Any comment which is a personal attack on a person who lives in our community ought to be out of bounds.”
Rich, Rich, Rich –
I’m sorry, but you are sounding a bit hypocritical in your comment at 5:39 PM. I remember at times reading your column and reading some attacks you have made on good people from our Davis community.
Of course, if you are attacking them then perhaps you do not believe they are good people, but nevertheless, they are.
I’m sure you’ve heard this many times, but please, practice what you preach.
And as for the mayor, she’s a grown woman and so are the council members. They work late into the evening because they set up the agenda that way so that important issues are heard and observed by few.
Former councils knew how to govern much better and involved the public.
I don’t feel sorry for this council. They have earned what they have.
No violins.
Rich Rifkin at 11/15/07 5:39 PM said, “I think the Vanguard needs to be consistent. Any comment which is a personal attack on a person who lives in our community ought to be out of bounds.”
Rich, Rich, Rich –
I’m sorry, but you are sounding a bit hypocritical in your comment at 5:39 PM. I remember at times reading your column and reading some attacks you have made on good people from our Davis community.
Of course, if you are attacking them then perhaps you do not believe they are good people, but nevertheless, they are.
I’m sure you’ve heard this many times, but please, practice what you preach.
And as for the mayor, she’s a grown woman and so are the council members. They work late into the evening because they set up the agenda that way so that important issues are heard and observed by few.
Former councils knew how to govern much better and involved the public.
I don’t feel sorry for this council. They have earned what they have.
No violins.
Rich Rifkin at 11/15/07 5:39 PM said, “I think the Vanguard needs to be consistent. Any comment which is a personal attack on a person who lives in our community ought to be out of bounds.”
Rich, Rich, Rich –
I’m sorry, but you are sounding a bit hypocritical in your comment at 5:39 PM. I remember at times reading your column and reading some attacks you have made on good people from our Davis community.
Of course, if you are attacking them then perhaps you do not believe they are good people, but nevertheless, they are.
I’m sure you’ve heard this many times, but please, practice what you preach.
And as for the mayor, she’s a grown woman and so are the council members. They work late into the evening because they set up the agenda that way so that important issues are heard and observed by few.
Former councils knew how to govern much better and involved the public.
I don’t feel sorry for this council. They have earned what they have.
No violins.
Rich Rifkin at 11/15/07 5:39 PM said, “I think the Vanguard needs to be consistent. Any comment which is a personal attack on a person who lives in our community ought to be out of bounds.”
Rich, Rich, Rich –
I’m sorry, but you are sounding a bit hypocritical in your comment at 5:39 PM. I remember at times reading your column and reading some attacks you have made on good people from our Davis community.
Of course, if you are attacking them then perhaps you do not believe they are good people, but nevertheless, they are.
I’m sure you’ve heard this many times, but please, practice what you preach.
And as for the mayor, she’s a grown woman and so are the council members. They work late into the evening because they set up the agenda that way so that important issues are heard and observed by few.
Former councils knew how to govern much better and involved the public.
I don’t feel sorry for this council. They have earned what they have.
No violins.
“…because they set up the agenda that way so that important issues are heard and observed by few.”
Who sets the council agenda?
“…because they set up the agenda that way so that important issues are heard and observed by few.”
Who sets the council agenda?
“…because they set up the agenda that way so that important issues are heard and observed by few.”
Who sets the council agenda?
“…because they set up the agenda that way so that important issues are heard and observed by few.”
Who sets the council agenda?
Kris: “I remember at times reading your column and reading some attacks you have made on good people from our Davis community.”
This is untrue. If you can point to a single instance in the last four years where I made a personal attack against an individual in our community I would be shocked and would apologize profusely.
Not only do I believe that I have never made a personal attack against individuals in our community, I have rarely ever mentioned anyone by name or even inference in our community in a negative way in my columns. I try to always stick to ideas.
I just looked through my columns from the last year and this is the “worst” of what I found:
I made no personal attacks whatsoever. I was critical of the school board in general (over the truancy issue), because I feel like not enough is done to help kids who are not academically inclined, and in saying that I quoted Keltie Jones. However, I didn’t make any kind of a personal attack against her. I happen to like and respect Ms. Jones very much….
In a column on the Mishka’s Cafe proposal slated to go in the Dresbach Hunt Boyer Mansion plaza, I mentioned Sinisa Novakovic by name and said I don’t like his proposal (which he has subsequently changed). But I made no personal attacks against Mr. Novakovic, who happens to be another person I have great admiration for….
In a column on the Anderson Bank Building, I made critical comments about the way Jim Kidd has maintained his building and about his proposal to alter the historic facade. I don’t believe my comments were personal attacks. They certainly were not intended to be….
Lastly, in a column on our voting system in which I advocated going to a vote-by-mail system, I quoted Freddie Oakley extensively, and then pointed out that she was wrong on this issue. I never attacked Freddie personally. I like Freddie very much and think she does a great job. So great in fact that she now has come around and agrees with my proposal for vote-by-mail only elections.
Kris: “I remember at times reading your column and reading some attacks you have made on good people from our Davis community.”
This is untrue. If you can point to a single instance in the last four years where I made a personal attack against an individual in our community I would be shocked and would apologize profusely.
Not only do I believe that I have never made a personal attack against individuals in our community, I have rarely ever mentioned anyone by name or even inference in our community in a negative way in my columns. I try to always stick to ideas.
I just looked through my columns from the last year and this is the “worst” of what I found:
I made no personal attacks whatsoever. I was critical of the school board in general (over the truancy issue), because I feel like not enough is done to help kids who are not academically inclined, and in saying that I quoted Keltie Jones. However, I didn’t make any kind of a personal attack against her. I happen to like and respect Ms. Jones very much….
In a column on the Mishka’s Cafe proposal slated to go in the Dresbach Hunt Boyer Mansion plaza, I mentioned Sinisa Novakovic by name and said I don’t like his proposal (which he has subsequently changed). But I made no personal attacks against Mr. Novakovic, who happens to be another person I have great admiration for….
In a column on the Anderson Bank Building, I made critical comments about the way Jim Kidd has maintained his building and about his proposal to alter the historic facade. I don’t believe my comments were personal attacks. They certainly were not intended to be….
Lastly, in a column on our voting system in which I advocated going to a vote-by-mail system, I quoted Freddie Oakley extensively, and then pointed out that she was wrong on this issue. I never attacked Freddie personally. I like Freddie very much and think she does a great job. So great in fact that she now has come around and agrees with my proposal for vote-by-mail only elections.
Kris: “I remember at times reading your column and reading some attacks you have made on good people from our Davis community.”
This is untrue. If you can point to a single instance in the last four years where I made a personal attack against an individual in our community I would be shocked and would apologize profusely.
Not only do I believe that I have never made a personal attack against individuals in our community, I have rarely ever mentioned anyone by name or even inference in our community in a negative way in my columns. I try to always stick to ideas.
I just looked through my columns from the last year and this is the “worst” of what I found:
I made no personal attacks whatsoever. I was critical of the school board in general (over the truancy issue), because I feel like not enough is done to help kids who are not academically inclined, and in saying that I quoted Keltie Jones. However, I didn’t make any kind of a personal attack against her. I happen to like and respect Ms. Jones very much….
In a column on the Mishka’s Cafe proposal slated to go in the Dresbach Hunt Boyer Mansion plaza, I mentioned Sinisa Novakovic by name and said I don’t like his proposal (which he has subsequently changed). But I made no personal attacks against Mr. Novakovic, who happens to be another person I have great admiration for….
In a column on the Anderson Bank Building, I made critical comments about the way Jim Kidd has maintained his building and about his proposal to alter the historic facade. I don’t believe my comments were personal attacks. They certainly were not intended to be….
Lastly, in a column on our voting system in which I advocated going to a vote-by-mail system, I quoted Freddie Oakley extensively, and then pointed out that she was wrong on this issue. I never attacked Freddie personally. I like Freddie very much and think she does a great job. So great in fact that she now has come around and agrees with my proposal for vote-by-mail only elections.
Kris: “I remember at times reading your column and reading some attacks you have made on good people from our Davis community.”
This is untrue. If you can point to a single instance in the last four years where I made a personal attack against an individual in our community I would be shocked and would apologize profusely.
Not only do I believe that I have never made a personal attack against individuals in our community, I have rarely ever mentioned anyone by name or even inference in our community in a negative way in my columns. I try to always stick to ideas.
I just looked through my columns from the last year and this is the “worst” of what I found:
I made no personal attacks whatsoever. I was critical of the school board in general (over the truancy issue), because I feel like not enough is done to help kids who are not academically inclined, and in saying that I quoted Keltie Jones. However, I didn’t make any kind of a personal attack against her. I happen to like and respect Ms. Jones very much….
In a column on the Mishka’s Cafe proposal slated to go in the Dresbach Hunt Boyer Mansion plaza, I mentioned Sinisa Novakovic by name and said I don’t like his proposal (which he has subsequently changed). But I made no personal attacks against Mr. Novakovic, who happens to be another person I have great admiration for….
In a column on the Anderson Bank Building, I made critical comments about the way Jim Kidd has maintained his building and about his proposal to alter the historic facade. I don’t believe my comments were personal attacks. They certainly were not intended to be….
Lastly, in a column on our voting system in which I advocated going to a vote-by-mail system, I quoted Freddie Oakley extensively, and then pointed out that she was wrong on this issue. I never attacked Freddie personally. I like Freddie very much and think she does a great job. So great in fact that she now has come around and agrees with my proposal for vote-by-mail only elections.
“Who sets the council agenda?”
By rule the Mayor and the City Manager.
In practice, Don Saylor and the City Manager.
“Who sets the council agenda?”
By rule the Mayor and the City Manager.
In practice, Don Saylor and the City Manager.
“Who sets the council agenda?”
By rule the Mayor and the City Manager.
In practice, Don Saylor and the City Manager.
“Who sets the council agenda?”
By rule the Mayor and the City Manager.
In practice, Don Saylor and the City Manager.
Rifkin… In this very blog, you referred to the lawyers working for the County on the Conway Ranch deal as “slimey” or “slimeballs”(as close as I can remember).
Rifkin… In this very blog, you referred to the lawyers working for the County on the Conway Ranch deal as “slimey” or “slimeballs”(as close as I can remember).
Rifkin… In this very blog, you referred to the lawyers working for the County on the Conway Ranch deal as “slimey” or “slimeballs”(as close as I can remember).
Rifkin… In this very blog, you referred to the lawyers working for the County on the Conway Ranch deal as “slimey” or “slimeballs”(as close as I can remember).
You want more civility? Then have people identify who they are when they send comments. Incivility to many people is disagreeing with them. Thus in politics there can be considerable incivility, in fact it is necessary. That does not mean below the belt attacks or smears. Quit hiding behind fake names and being anonymous and stand up for yourself or shut up.
You want more civility? Then have people identify who they are when they send comments. Incivility to many people is disagreeing with them. Thus in politics there can be considerable incivility, in fact it is necessary. That does not mean below the belt attacks or smears. Quit hiding behind fake names and being anonymous and stand up for yourself or shut up.
You want more civility? Then have people identify who they are when they send comments. Incivility to many people is disagreeing with them. Thus in politics there can be considerable incivility, in fact it is necessary. That does not mean below the belt attacks or smears. Quit hiding behind fake names and being anonymous and stand up for yourself or shut up.
You want more civility? Then have people identify who they are when they send comments. Incivility to many people is disagreeing with them. Thus in politics there can be considerable incivility, in fact it is necessary. That does not mean below the belt attacks or smears. Quit hiding behind fake names and being anonymous and stand up for yourself or shut up.
For those who are so strenuously arguing for using their own name, that is your privilege but consider whether it also may reflect a personal ego issue. There is definitely something to be said for anonymous comments offered on this thread which are read and considered by discerning adult readers purely on their own merits. I am not referring to over-the-top personal attacks that are easily recognizable to the reader and deserve to be simply ignored.
For those who are so strenuously arguing for using their own name, that is your privilege but consider whether it also may reflect a personal ego issue. There is definitely something to be said for anonymous comments offered on this thread which are read and considered by discerning adult readers purely on their own merits. I am not referring to over-the-top personal attacks that are easily recognizable to the reader and deserve to be simply ignored.
For those who are so strenuously arguing for using their own name, that is your privilege but consider whether it also may reflect a personal ego issue. There is definitely something to be said for anonymous comments offered on this thread which are read and considered by discerning adult readers purely on their own merits. I am not referring to over-the-top personal attacks that are easily recognizable to the reader and deserve to be simply ignored.
For those who are so strenuously arguing for using their own name, that is your privilege but consider whether it also may reflect a personal ego issue. There is definitely something to be said for anonymous comments offered on this thread which are read and considered by discerning adult readers purely on their own merits. I am not referring to over-the-top personal attacks that are easily recognizable to the reader and deserve to be simply ignored.
blog watcher said…
Richard Estes – Who are you to judge? Riducule does not win friends or argumentsz.
Apparently, there was a reading comprehension problem here. I specifically asked OTHERS to read through the comments and decide whether the blog administrator’s defense was credible.
–Richard Estes
blog watcher said…
Richard Estes – Who are you to judge? Riducule does not win friends or argumentsz.
Apparently, there was a reading comprehension problem here. I specifically asked OTHERS to read through the comments and decide whether the blog administrator’s defense was credible.
–Richard Estes
blog watcher said…
Richard Estes – Who are you to judge? Riducule does not win friends or argumentsz.
Apparently, there was a reading comprehension problem here. I specifically asked OTHERS to read through the comments and decide whether the blog administrator’s defense was credible.
–Richard Estes
blog watcher said…
Richard Estes – Who are you to judge? Riducule does not win friends or argumentsz.
Apparently, there was a reading comprehension problem here. I specifically asked OTHERS to read through the comments and decide whether the blog administrator’s defense was credible.
–Richard Estes
Rifkin… In this very blog, you referred to the lawyers working for the County on the Conway Ranch deal as “slimey” or “slimeballs”(as close as I can remember).
You must have me confused with someone else. First, I would never say anything like “‘Joe Smith’ is a slimeball,” unless I knew there was a very specific thing he did which was “slimey.” Second, I was told that the law firm representing the county in the Conaway case was from Sacramento, not our community. And third, my complaint with the lawyers hired by the county was that they charged Yolo County taxpayers $2.4 million for something which was unnecessary. But that is not the law firm’s fault. That was the mistake of our Board of Supervisors.
Nevertheless, that is off-point. I was accused by “Kris” of making personal attacks against individual members of our community in my Enterprise column (not on Vanguard). She mentioned no specifics at all. It was simply a blanket charge, unsupported by any facts. And it is false.
Rifkin… In this very blog, you referred to the lawyers working for the County on the Conway Ranch deal as “slimey” or “slimeballs”(as close as I can remember).
You must have me confused with someone else. First, I would never say anything like “‘Joe Smith’ is a slimeball,” unless I knew there was a very specific thing he did which was “slimey.” Second, I was told that the law firm representing the county in the Conaway case was from Sacramento, not our community. And third, my complaint with the lawyers hired by the county was that they charged Yolo County taxpayers $2.4 million for something which was unnecessary. But that is not the law firm’s fault. That was the mistake of our Board of Supervisors.
Nevertheless, that is off-point. I was accused by “Kris” of making personal attacks against individual members of our community in my Enterprise column (not on Vanguard). She mentioned no specifics at all. It was simply a blanket charge, unsupported by any facts. And it is false.
Rifkin… In this very blog, you referred to the lawyers working for the County on the Conway Ranch deal as “slimey” or “slimeballs”(as close as I can remember).
You must have me confused with someone else. First, I would never say anything like “‘Joe Smith’ is a slimeball,” unless I knew there was a very specific thing he did which was “slimey.” Second, I was told that the law firm representing the county in the Conaway case was from Sacramento, not our community. And third, my complaint with the lawyers hired by the county was that they charged Yolo County taxpayers $2.4 million for something which was unnecessary. But that is not the law firm’s fault. That was the mistake of our Board of Supervisors.
Nevertheless, that is off-point. I was accused by “Kris” of making personal attacks against individual members of our community in my Enterprise column (not on Vanguard). She mentioned no specifics at all. It was simply a blanket charge, unsupported by any facts. And it is false.
Rifkin… In this very blog, you referred to the lawyers working for the County on the Conway Ranch deal as “slimey” or “slimeballs”(as close as I can remember).
You must have me confused with someone else. First, I would never say anything like “‘Joe Smith’ is a slimeball,” unless I knew there was a very specific thing he did which was “slimey.” Second, I was told that the law firm representing the county in the Conaway case was from Sacramento, not our community. And third, my complaint with the lawyers hired by the county was that they charged Yolo County taxpayers $2.4 million for something which was unnecessary. But that is not the law firm’s fault. That was the mistake of our Board of Supervisors.
Nevertheless, that is off-point. I was accused by “Kris” of making personal attacks against individual members of our community in my Enterprise column (not on Vanguard). She mentioned no specifics at all. It was simply a blanket charge, unsupported by any facts. And it is false.
I also disagree about civility. What we have here in Davis is a lack of professionalism. And by that I mean taking things serious enough to listen to your heart on the matter, and not what people tell you.
In other words, the meetings suffer from TOO MANY WORDS, and not enough TRUTH.
Truth is what comes out when one listens to their heart and speaks only then. And amazingly enough, truth begets respect from others!
And, in our system, if we don’t agree with one persons truth, we get to vote them out next time around.
Davis has the unique problem of people who think too much. So much in fact that Davis-ites don’t always end up believing themselves.
Don’t council-watchers find it interesting that the most talkative person outside of the chambers (Lamar Heysteck) is also the least talkative inside? Could it be he actually believes in the words he uses and so doesn’t need to use so many of them?
I also disagree about civility. What we have here in Davis is a lack of professionalism. And by that I mean taking things serious enough to listen to your heart on the matter, and not what people tell you.
In other words, the meetings suffer from TOO MANY WORDS, and not enough TRUTH.
Truth is what comes out when one listens to their heart and speaks only then. And amazingly enough, truth begets respect from others!
And, in our system, if we don’t agree with one persons truth, we get to vote them out next time around.
Davis has the unique problem of people who think too much. So much in fact that Davis-ites don’t always end up believing themselves.
Don’t council-watchers find it interesting that the most talkative person outside of the chambers (Lamar Heysteck) is also the least talkative inside? Could it be he actually believes in the words he uses and so doesn’t need to use so many of them?
I also disagree about civility. What we have here in Davis is a lack of professionalism. And by that I mean taking things serious enough to listen to your heart on the matter, and not what people tell you.
In other words, the meetings suffer from TOO MANY WORDS, and not enough TRUTH.
Truth is what comes out when one listens to their heart and speaks only then. And amazingly enough, truth begets respect from others!
And, in our system, if we don’t agree with one persons truth, we get to vote them out next time around.
Davis has the unique problem of people who think too much. So much in fact that Davis-ites don’t always end up believing themselves.
Don’t council-watchers find it interesting that the most talkative person outside of the chambers (Lamar Heysteck) is also the least talkative inside? Could it be he actually believes in the words he uses and so doesn’t need to use so many of them?
I also disagree about civility. What we have here in Davis is a lack of professionalism. And by that I mean taking things serious enough to listen to your heart on the matter, and not what people tell you.
In other words, the meetings suffer from TOO MANY WORDS, and not enough TRUTH.
Truth is what comes out when one listens to their heart and speaks only then. And amazingly enough, truth begets respect from others!
And, in our system, if we don’t agree with one persons truth, we get to vote them out next time around.
Davis has the unique problem of people who think too much. So much in fact that Davis-ites don’t always end up believing themselves.
Don’t council-watchers find it interesting that the most talkative person outside of the chambers (Lamar Heysteck) is also the least talkative inside? Could it be he actually believes in the words he uses and so doesn’t need to use so many of them?