Homophobic Remarks Tied To Measure D Opponent

According to Webster’s Online Dictionary homophobia is defined as “prejudice against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality”.  Yesterday here on the Liberal OC we were all exposed to homophobia in its purest form.  In a post written by Andrew Davey entitled “Help Equality for All Stop Legalized Discrimination This Weekend!” someone using the pseudonym “Centaurs For Equality” posted remarks that equated same-sex marriage to beastiality and pedophilia.

The first post which came at 2:52 PM yesterday read, “Would this event include those who want to legalize marriage between a human and an animal?  Centaurs For Equality”.  They followed up that nugget of wisdom with another post at 3:51 PM which read, “Would I qualify as a member of NAMBLA?  A Centaur needs his lovin’ as well.”

These comments were extremely distasteful and led to many folks contacting me about them.  We at the LiberalOC believe that we should have a free and open forum to discuss and debate issues.  For the most part, unlike other local blogs, we do not censor peoples comments.  That is why we allowed these insensitive remarks to remain posted on our site.  However we have chosen to investigate who was behind these posts using our system that has the ability to track the IP addresses of those posting comments on our site.  We were all shocked by what we discovered.

The posts written by “Centaurs For Equality” came from the IP address 63.206.255.212.  According to the American Registry for Internet Numbers or ARIN that IP address is from AT&T Internet Services and is registered to Tardif Sheet Metal.  In fact IP addresses 63.206.255.208 thru 63.206.255.216 are all registered to Tardif according to ARIN’s database.

So just who is Tardif Sheet Metal?

Tardif Sheet Sheet Metal is a local Santa Ana company located on East Fourth Street and it is owned by Mike Tardif.  Tardif I am told is quite friendly with State Senator Lou Correa.  I am reasonaby certain that Senator Correa would not care to associate himself with these homophobic remarks. He would most likely, in my opinion, condem them. 

Tardif has been in the spotlight recently as one of the main opponents to Santa Ana’s controversial Renaissance Specific Plan.  Tardif has led the fight against the plan on behalf of the industrial property owners within the plan area.  Tardif and his allies have become fixtures at almost every meeting at which the plan is being discussed.

As a result of his involvement in fighting the Renaissance Plan Tardif hooked up with the folks opposing Measure D.  Tardif became a major opponent of D.  Tardif even created “No on D” buttons and handed them out at Santa Ana City Council Meetings. I know many of the people who opposed Measure D, and I figure tey don’t care to be associated with such comments.

This is not the first time that someone from Tardif’s IP addresses has posted on this site, it is however the first time that they have posted something so despicable.  On occasion they have posted using other pseudonym’s and gone after our fellow blogger Sean Mill and they have also posted defending the Logan Barrio.  The pseudonyms used by this IP address include:  “Centaurs for Equality”, “Dick Cabeza”, “Dick Cabesa”, “PeaceLove&Grenade’s”, “Mike Tardif”, “Jack Bauer”, “Santa Ana Lover”, “Mose”, “Anonymous” and anon.

We are not saying that Mike Tardif is the person that wrote these homophobic remarks, we are however saying that it was someone using a computer at his place of business.  We at the LiberalOC ask that Mr. Tardif come clean about who at Tardif Sheet Metal was behind posting these insensitive remarks.  If it was him, he should fess up and apologize.  If it was one of his employees, he should discipline them .

Homophobia, racism and bigotry will not be tolerated here at the LiberalOC.  If you choose to engage in such behavior on this site, we will either call you out, delete your comments, or both.  We encourage the other OC blogs to do the same if this occurs on their sites. Mr. Tardif the balls in your court.  We hope you will do the right thing?

On February 8th Mr. Tardif posted his phone number on this site and let folks know that he and others look forward to working with the residents of Santa Ana to defeat the Renaissance Plan.  Well we at the LiberalOC would like for Tardif and company to help us defeat homophobia and bigotry.  Maybe our readers would like to give him a call at (714) 547-7135 and encourage him to join us in that fight.

  108 comments for “Homophobic Remarks Tied To Measure D Opponent

  1. PeaceLove&Grenade's
    March 7, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    Learn how to take a joke you people are pathetic.

    The valid point you are missing is…once you start redefining marriage where do you stop. Maybe it shouldn’t have been put into a joking form but it was that none the less.

    Tell the world who everyone is… might as well all post with your name, address, phone number, and business address because once you post something they don’t like they will send the monkey’s after your a**.

    By the way this is NOT MIKE TARDIF you people are so pathetic.

  2. March 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Chris,

    As I posted yesterday, I feel those were quite ignorant and distasteful.

    If they were meant to be funny or a joke, only the person that wrote them knows. Let me assure that person that no one here was laughing.

    I, like you, am shocked to find out that these remarks came from someone at Tardif. I hope Mike clears this up immediately and an apology is given.

    I don’t want this to turn into another Patrick Munoz situation where folks waited and waited for an apology and all the got was a press release issued by Rutan & Tucker.

  3. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm

    Why did you stop there why don’t you post every comment I have ever made under any name and Anon?
    I will defend all comments.

  4. just...asking?
    March 7, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Chris,

    You should send a hardcopy of the original post and stream to Tardiff Sheet Metal. If Mr. Tardiff is doing any work with public agencies these postings will come up when background checks are performed on his business. This poster has created a negative economic impact on his/her business owner. While repulsive and offensive this is a matter of Tardiff Sheet Metal and should be dealt with internally.

  5. March 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    “Mike Tardif”, if it is indeed you posting, I’m only taking issue with the comments referenced in this post. You are free to defend your comments, I just have no way of knowing who is actually posting from the Tardif IP address.

  6. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    You have indentified me as a person who supports the definition of marraige as between a man and a woman. As did many politicians and the overwhelming majority of voters in California.

    I stand by that. And I do not discriminate against any person for the lifestyle they choose.

  7. March 7, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    “You have indentified me as a person who supports the definition of marraige as between a man and a woman.”

    Mike,

    Supporting the definition of marriage as “between a man and a woman” is a far cry from comparing same-sex marriage to beastiality or pedophilia. To do so is just flat out wrong.

    Not to long ago bigots in this country that opposed interacial marriage used this same sort of illogical argument.

  8. Jubal
    March 7, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Chris:

    You may have opened a door you didn’t intend to.

    Will you also identify county employees who post comments from work?

  9. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    Chris P says: “Homophobia, racism and bigotry will not be tolerated here at the LiberalOC.”

    Mike T says: You certainly paint with a broad brush.

    Chris P says: On February 8th Mr. Tardif posted ….. (and) let folks know that he and others look forward to working with the residents of Santa Ana to defeat the Renaissance Plan.

    Mike T says: I NEVER intended to defeat the Renaissance Plan – only improve it.

  10. anon
    March 7, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    While I certainly don’t condone homophobia, I’ve got some very real concerns about your blogger’s inclinations to post people’s IP addresses. There is a very vibrant debate going on as to whether or not an IP address is personal information (I happen to feel that it CAN be, thus my concern). Read more at this link, but you guys might want to think twice before you find yourselves in hot water.

    http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-ip-addresses-personal.html

  11. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    Why do I keep seeing the word “homophobia” associated with my posted comment ?

    It was a hyperbolic (exaggeration for those of you in Rio Linda) comment intended to upset those who would grant a privilege reserved for a man and a woman.

    While it is certainly your right to characterise my comment as “homophobic” – I do not see it that way.

  12. rebecca
    March 7, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Lou’s never been good on gay rights. I believe the Weekly used to call him “Lou Sheldon’s bitch.”

  13. rebecca
    March 7, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    Oh, PS:

    If you’re going to out anonymous people for their statements, this one put his name right on it: http://www.ocweekly.com/columns/letters/letters/18303/

    This is for Rebecca Schoenkopf:

    I see you put another piece-of-shit article in the Weekly about Ted Moreno (“No Sex! Alleged Lies? Videotape?” Sept. 18). I know you and your little queer art friends have it in for Ted, but this is yellow journalism at its worst. This is just ridiculous. If you and the rest of your little queer buddies are going to make attacks on Ted, well, go ahead. But . . . if you’re going to pretend to be a journalist, at least pretend to be a little ethical and a little fair. Thank you.

    -Sean Mill
    Santa Ana

  14. March 7, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    So Mike Tardif isn’t homophobic and doesn’t want to discriminate against gay people. He just wants to RESERVE certain PRIVILEGES for a certain segment of the population (wink, nudge).
    Exactly how is that different?
    I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court long ago decided that separate but equal is INHERENTLY unequal.

  15. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Publius – Serarate but equal in regards to race is certainly racist. We are talking marraige here. Many courts have ruled that laws reserving marraige between a man and a woman are to be respected.

    If courts ruled the other way or if laws were passed which redefine marraige I may not like it but I would certainly respect the law.

  16. March 7, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    PeaceLove&Grenade’s – The only redefinition of marriage people are looking for is gender related. How can that be a slippery slope? Marriage is something reserved for PEOPLE regardless of gender.

    Is that clear enough? This is what people think who believe that gay marriage should be legal and equal. It in no way harms nor undermines “straight” marriage.

    No one wants to force a Church to recognize a marriage but I do believe that the Government should not be telling people who they can marry, it’s a separate matter completely. This is where I don’t understand how so many can call themselves “conservatives” when they want the Government involved in so many aspects of our PERSONAL lives.

  17. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    Chris P – Why don’t you cross reference my IP information with Gustavo? I am sure that you can dig up more dirt.

    As I said before, I am happy to defend any of my comments, whether under a nickname or anonymous or under my name.

  18. March 7, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Well Rebecca I would like to know if you have a copy of the alleged letter that you have posted here?

    I know for a fact that I never wrote such a letter to you or the OC Weekly. I believe that you may have taken liberty with a phone message left but I know for a fact that I never wrote such a letter.

    As far as your attempt to paint me as anti-gay I can proudly say that I received the endorsement of the Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club when I ran for city council in Santa Ana. I am pretty sure that they don’t support those that are homophobes.

    There was a letter that I did sign my name to however. It appeared in the July 27, 1998 edition of the OC Register. In the letter to the editor I condemned football star Reggie White for his gay bashing bigotry. If you go to the Register archives I am sure you can find a copy or if you’d like I can fax you a copy.

    I am quite confident that those that know me know where I stand in regards to gay rights and same-sex marriage.

  19. rebecca
    March 7, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Yes, Sean, I “took liberties” with your phone call, by transcribing it and putting it on the letters page.

    I guess the Eleanor Roosevelt Club didn’t know you call people queers, and supported Ted Moreno, whether or not he was guilty of corruption (which he was, convicted and everything!) because it was in service of keeping my “queer artist buddies” out of the Artists Village.

    Sorry, but you REALLY brought this on yourself.

  20. just...asking?
    March 7, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Mike Tardif (or whoever you are),

    Your NAMBLA and beastiality references go to the heart of your offensive comments. if you wish to voice/type opposition to others based on their (legal) sexual preferences that is your right. But to lump illegal sexual practices into the discussion with no basis is akin to saying you traffic in prostitution or sex slavery in Santa Ana’s massage parlors without evidence.

    Wouldn’t it be wrong?

  21. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Sean – This is your letter word for word:

    DON’T CRY FOR ME, TED MORENO This is for Rebecca Schoenkopf:
    I see you put another piece-of-shit article in the Weekly about Ted Moreno (“No Sex! Alleged Lies? Videotape?” Sept. 18).

    I know you and your little queer art friends have it in for Ted,

    but this is yellow journalism at its worst. This is just ridiculous. If you and the rest of

    your little queer buddies

    are going to make attacks on Ted, well, go ahead. But . . . if you’re going to pretend to be a journalist, at least pretend to be a little ethical and a little fair. Thank you.
    -Sean Mill
    Santa Ana

    You can see it for yourself: http://www.ocweekly.com/columns/letters/letters/18303/

  22. anon
    March 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    It isn’t that Sean necessarily hates gays. It’s that he hates artists and anyone having to do with the Santa Ana Artists Village.

  23. March 7, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    “Sean – This is your letter word for word”

    Mike actually I never wrote such a letter.

    But if you want to use a heated 1998 phone conversation that Ms. Schoenkopf takes liberty with as a defense for comments comparing same-sex marriage to beastiality and pedophilia you do that.

    I know where I stand and so do those that know me. We also now know where you stand.

  24. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    To – just…asking?

    The basis of my intentially harsh comment was to point out, in an exaggerated manner, one of the problems with redefining marraige as diferent than between between a man and a woman. Where does the redefinition stop?

  25. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Sean ,

    Yes, you do know where I stand – squarely against redefining marraige as anything other than between a man an a woman.

    Mike Tardif

  26. HAHA
    March 7, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    MILL IS HYPOCRITE LIAR

  27. rebecca
    March 7, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    It wasn’t a conversation, Sean, it was a voice mail. I do not print conversations as letters. Nor do I “take liberties.” I think if you ask anyone, they’ll say that while I certainly have my opinions, I am also EXTREMELY fair. And you certainly never tried to deny it at the time, when we still had the tape.

  28. March 7, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    Wow – A link to a letter from 10 years ago. I don’t even know where to start with this. How about letting go, I think the discussion was about something post in this century and in fact in the last week.

    Now I want to know what is happening in the Santa Ana’s art village. I was good friends with the owners of one of the first art galleries to pop up near Bowers in the early nineties. Fine upstanding citizens and yes, they happened to be gay.

  29. March 7, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Rebecca,

    I never even knew the existed or that it was posted in the OC Weekly. I found out about it a few years back. Had I known that you posted it I would have said something then. However I am not going to get in a pissing match over something ten years old.

    That being said, I have been on the record quite publicly in the blogosphere and in the newspapers supporting gay rights and same-sex marriage. If your intention is to try and paint me as anti-gay with this ten year old Weekly piece I can happily present scores of articles and posts that counteract that.

    This post is about someone comparing same-sex marriage to beastiality and pedophilia. If you want to turn it into a bash Sean thread I will gladly start a new post and let you have at it.

  30. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    I have neighbors who live across the street from me who are gay. We have no problems – zero.

    I interact socially with gay people. I have invited gay people to play golf with me.

    If I have offended any gay people with my “supposedly” anonymous comments, I apologize. I intended to make an argumentative point, I did not intend to draw a comparison.

    So call me a homophobe if you like, that is your characterisation, it is not reality.

    Mike Tardif

  31. HAHA
    March 7, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    TYPICAL LIB COVERING UP FOR FRIEND…MILL CARES ENOGH TO CRY AND SPIN

  32. March 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Heather,

    In regards to the Artists Village I was quite public with my opposition to the use of taxpayer funds to subsidize it. I believe that the people of Santa Ana had a much greater need for those tax dollars and that they should have gone to improve the quality of life for all our residents.

    My opposition to the Artists Village had nothing to do with anyone’s sexual orientation. In fact, I was not opposed to the Artists Village simply how it was funded.

  33. PeaceLove&Grenade's
    March 7, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Heather dear sweet girl I never said I if I did or didn’t believe in gay marriage. Actually I have very little opinion on it, I don’t think its morally wrong and I would never fight to ban gay marriage I guess I just don’t care enough either way. Whatever the law is, thats what I obey. The way I vote doesn’t pass very often and I still believe in the law and our government.

    You guys all just jump on some imaginary bandwagon or start a witch hunt why? Oh wait because you can, and I guess that should be a good enough reason for everyone.

    You post peoples personal information and you think its ok. You don’t like what they say so you try and ruin them. You are dishonest and nobody should trust this blog. If you step on the wrong toe you might get spanked.

  34. “Dick Cabeza”, “Dick Cabesa”, “PeaceLove&Grenade’s”, “Mike Tardif”, “Jack Bauer”, ââ
    March 7, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Sorry boss I’m stealing all the names and making them one long name I really like it plus I can’t remember which were mine anymore.

  35. March 7, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    i miss oc.

  36. Dan Chmielewski
    March 7, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    “I have neighbors who live across the street from me who are gay. We have no problems – zero.

    I interact socially with gay people. I have invited gay people to play golf with me.”

    Mike – what is about not allowing two men or two women who love each other and want to get married? What is the harm. If you have no problem with gay people, what’s the big deal? If you really want to protect marriage, why not make it harder to get divorced?

    I think its criminal that Newt Gingrich can marry three times but gay people can’t. Its an equal rights issue completely.

  37. Dan Chmielewski
    March 7, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Matt — I think exposing an IP address is something selectivelty done based on circumstance; the Internet is NOT private. Its not like we leaked confidential information or anything. We didn’t expose the Pentagon Papers or anything.

  38. PeaceLove&Grenade's
    March 7, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    Dan-
    Thats a cop out. Give me a break there are many people who post on this blog from work, many probably on the city or counties dime. I’m not saying who and I’m not saying everyone either. But one day maybe they post something that people collectively don’t like and then they are outted and lose their jobs. All of this from posting on this blog thats not right…oh give us your email but it (will not be published) what a joke…we will not publish your email but we will publish personal information, business address etc. its not right no matter what is posted here.

    Selective? oh so that makes it ok wow you people are scarier than someone posting a joke that is offensive.

  39. anon
    March 7, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Dan,

    The point isn’t whether or not the internet is private. The point is whether or not information retrieved from the internet is private and personal. It IS possible to identify someone by using their IP address.

    I would take that issue a bit more seriously if I were you, instead of casually dismissing the posting of IP addresses by contrasting it with exposing the Pentagon Papers.

  40. March 7, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    If I have offended any gay people with my “supposedly” anonymous comments, I apologize. I intended to make an argumentative point, I did not intend to draw a comparison.

    I am not gay, nor is Sean, nor is Heather, nor is Dan; but you offended and disgusted us BIG TIME. What you said was offensive PERIOD, and because you do not recognize it, what you’ve done is all the more offensive.

    You owe EVERYONE here, bloggers and readers alike, a sincere, unqualified, and humble apology.

    As for me, I’m starting to think the hope of anonymity is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

  41. March 7, 2008 at 8:01 pm

    Gila,

    I thought Sean’s comments were rather offensive too – the ones that Commie Girl posted. He too needs to apologize, don’t you think? Or is there a double-standard at this blog?

  42. March 7, 2008 at 8:23 pm

    Pedroza,

    Lets see Rebecca digs up something from ten years ago based on a phone call from me and all of a sudden you want people to believe that I am the second coming of Lou Sheldon. As I have said previously my position on gay rights and same-sex measure is pretty clear. Be it in the print media or the blogosphere I think that I have made it clear.

    If you want to cite a ten year old article created by Rebecca as a means to defend your ally in your losing “No on Measure D” battle you go right ahead. As we all know you have quite a track record of homophobic activities, so before you try cherry picking things to try and cast aspersions on me perhaps you should take a long look in the mirror.

    The folks that know me know that I have both publicly and privately stood up to bigotry against homosexuals and others. You on the other hand were in the forefront of battles against gay rights. Wasn’t that you that used to lead the protests at Lou Correa’s office to try and coerce Lou to take a position against gay rights?

    When I ran for public office I was supported by the Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club. When you ran for public office you were supported by Rosie Avila. The ERDC is a leading proponent of gay rights. Rosie Avila is a leading proponent of gay bashing.

    Why don’t slither back over to the Orange Juice and write some more slanderous lies that you are famous for. And do all of us at the Liberal OC a favor and take your homophobic friends with you.

  43. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    “Homophobic Remarks Tied to Measure D Oponent”

    With the emphasis on Measure D, it seems to me that the OC Liberal is more interested in scoring perceived political points, rather than presenting a defence of gay marraige.

  44. March 7, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Pedroza has chosen to attack me based on a 10 year old article created by Rebecca formerly of the OC Weekly.

    Many of the folks in the blogosphere may only know Pedroza as the fact-less story teller from the OJ. Well prior to that he was a card carrying member of the gay bashing religious right. To help those of you who don’t remember this side of Pedroza’s deranged personality I’d like to share some of it with you.

    Here is a sample:

    Art Pedroza, spokesman for an Orange County advocacy group called Families Who Care, contends the new laws “would do nothing but destroy the innocence of our children.” He especially was angered by the new measure banning discrimination against homosexual students, which already has resulted in creation of homosexual students’ clubs at several high schools. “This bill is just going to open a Pandora’s box,” says Pedroza.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_3_16/ai_59035536

    All you need to do is Google: Art Pedroza + gay + homosexual

    You will find scores of articles that demonstrate his bigotry towards the homosexual community. I will not sit back and allow someone like him with a history of homophobia to try and paint me as being anti-gay.

  45. March 7, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    “With the emphasis on Measure D, it seems to me that the OC Liberal is more interested in scoring perceived political points, rather than presenting a defence of gay marraige.”

    And with your emphasis on beastiality and pedophilia it looks like you were more concerned with making bigoted homophobic remarks than you were opposing same-sex marriage.

  46. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    I did not use those terms Sean, you did.

    Perhaps I did get carried away a bit. I should reserve comments like that for Gustavo’s Naval Gazing. You cannot get more disgusting that that blog.

  47. cook
    March 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    Mr Tardif crimes was to say an off-color comment in a mix sex group room.

    The “political correct police” have tried to exact a pound of flesh by ridiculing him, unsuccessfully I might add.

    He has even apologized to the room for his error in judgment.

    Are you all sure all you want is a [ I’m Sorry ] or is it really [ a-cat-of-nine-tails ] what your are looking for?

  48. Peter North
    March 7, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    Will anyone who has not cast a verbal stone to an opposing group please submit his/her name?

    Honestly, you would have to originate from a coocoon, live achohol free an never be at a boiling point where something offensive came out.

    Rebecca, has a point that before you throw stones you might check to recall if you threw a few before. The “liberties” defense is hillarious. I like your position on many things, Sean, but the “grown over 10 years” defense and the “My friend is gay” defense is a played out defense.

    It seems to me that the “homophobia” outing of an anynomous blogger is wrong becasue you really can’t identify the person who made the comment.

    Do you even have a disclaimer that the bloggers of your site may on occassion attempt to identify who made anonymous comments that based on the bloogers subjective opinion are offensive.

  49. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 9:34 pm

    To Dan C,

    “Mike – what is about not allowing two men or two women who love each other and want to get married?”

    I will just say that I stand with 4 1/2 million CA voters, and Pres. Bill Clinton who signed the Defence of Marriage Act, who defined marriage as a privilege granted only between a man and a woman.

    Mike Tardif

  50. Mike Tardif
    March 7, 2008 at 9:44 pm

    To Chris P,

    I am waiting for more of my posted comments which you feel I need to defend. You have them all, I am sure.

    Mike Tardif

  51. March 7, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    Well, this post lit things up today.

    Sorry for the late response. As I can only post comments from my phone periodically during the day, I could not respond until I got home. Also, as Jubal (Matt) knows, I do not post from my work computer (never have) because it is not a permitted use of County resources.

    First, there is no such thing a anonymous on the internet. Both Jubal and Art Pedroza know that. We all have blocked particular users because of theircomments through their IP addresses. In fact, as Art admitted tonight on his blog, he did so regarding the viewing activity of the law firm Rutan & Tucker a few weeks ago. I specifically pointed out the IP address related to two comments on a particular post, that by their very nature, could not have been reasonably considered a joke. They were offensive, and if people want to make such comments anonymously they should think twice before posting them on a blog.

    We do not regularly “out” anonymous commenters and we do not take such steps lightly. In this case, I pointed out that the commenter was commenting from a business IP address that was clearly identifiable. When people post from home, the only thing I can see is that their service provider is Cox, SBC, AT&T, Verizon, etc. In any circumstance, there is no way for me to identify a commenter by their actual name unless they give me that information, or posted that information publicly in some way.

    I did not identify an individual commenter in my post. I identified the name of the owner of the business from which the comments were made, and pointed out that it might be a problem for that business owner to have such comments made from his IP address. Turns out, he was the one making the comments and stands by them. His choice, not mine.

    To Jubal’s question about outing county employees who may comment from work. I cannot identify them by name, and with more than 12,000 employees accessing the internet, there is no possible consequence of such a revelation. But for the record, 9 comments out of 10,184 comments from County IP addresses.

    Mr. Tardif, if you were joking, your jokes were offesive. I have no desire to continue beating you over head about it. I think the message was received.

    Commenters on any blog should understand that posting comments from a business computer can cause a variety of problems. That is simple common sense.

  52. March 7, 2008 at 9:57 pm

    Sean,

    The best you can do is drag up my GOP past? I don’t hide the fact that I was a conservative Republican. I have been blogging my thoughts on politics since 2003. My life is an open book. Yes, I was a big-time homophobe. I have since changed my views. And apologized. But you still keep on harping about my past. I would think that liberals would be happy when someone agrees with them, at long last.

    You on the other hand have STILL not apologized for your comments. Can’t you at least do that?

  53. March 7, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    Sean,

    BTW, do you want me to dredge up all your emails where you have insinuated that Miguel Pulido is gay and that he has been caught having sex in parks with men? I did save those emails Sean. Thomas did too.

  54. March 7, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    Chris,

    Thanks for the explanation, but I still think you took this too far. If you ask me, it sure looks like Sean goaded you into doing this. I think that Sean was just looking to punish Mike Tardiff for his support for the No on Measure D campaign. That is how Sean rolls. When he blogged for me he always got tied up in endless personal vendettas.

    I recommend that next time you talk to someone sensible, like Gila, before you run something sensitive by Sean.

  55. PeaceLove&Grenade's
    March 7, 2008 at 10:15 pm

    “I did not identify an individual commenter in my post. I identified the name of the owner of the business from which the comments were made, and pointed out that it might be a problem for that business owner to have such comments made from his IP address.”

    Mike Tardif does not make all the comments posted from said IP address. And “We do not regularly “out” anonymous commenters and we do not take such steps lightly. In this case, I pointed out that the commenter was commenting from a business IP address that was clearly identifiable. When people post from home, the only thing I can see is that their service provider is Cox, SBC, AT&T, Verizon, etc.”

    Oh beat me with a wet noodle I post on this blog from work. Are you kidding me with that comment if you could find out peoples names, address, and phone number and maybe where their kids go to school you would post that info right here if it somehow served your pathetic purpose! You basically just said as much but poor you only being able to find their providers. You are an opportunist, you use people when you want to. I stand by what I said too and I’m not Mike Tardif amazingly enough we don’t even use the same internet provider ha.

  56. just...asking?
    March 7, 2008 at 10:22 pm

    Art,

    Chris did what you did on Orange Juice to Rattan and Tucker, he outed the domain. The blogger outed himself and decided to stand by his homophobic and outragous comments. That was his choice not Chris’s. Sean or Chris did not do this, it was a personal choice by the flippant blogger, it should be our choice if we want to put our name(s) next to our comments and allegations (the latter of which I believe we should do).

  57. March 7, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    Pedroza,

    Feel free to post anything that you have if that is what makes you feel better. If that is supposed to be some sort of a threat by you, trust me I don’t scare easily. Post away.

    Why do you feel the need to bring Thomas into your childish games? Thomas Gordon does not carry himself in the same manner as you do Pedroza. He is a man.

    Maybe you can post the email where I admitted to kidnapping the Lindberg baby or the one where I admitted to being on the grassy knoll. LOL!!! You’re a real joke!!!

    If you have actual verifiable emails where I said any of those things that you claim I did perhaps you can write a post about them. Maybe that will help your readership some. Lord knows we kick your ass daily with our numbers here at the Liberal OC.

    Or perhaps we can compare notes. I’ll share those comments you have made about certain people in town that you probably should think twice before attacking.

  58. March 8, 2008 at 12:55 am

    I’m a lesbian and a Pagan. I honestly take offense to the idea of gay marriage for religious reasons. We LGBT folk are part of a movement that is proudly anti-establishment. Marriage is the ULTIMATE establishment concept. Why would any of us want to patronize it? Same same marriage doesn’t weaken hetero-marriages, it actually *empowers* the status quo. Nobody ever chanted, ‘we’re here,. we’re queer, and we want to be like you!’

    There should most certainly be equality in the unions of any two people regardless of sex, but marriage, being a Judeo-Christian concept that was preempted by the government of our so-called ‘Christian Nation,’ is not an institution I want to be a part of. We should have civil unions that provide ALL of the same benefits as marriage and leave the religious overtones out of it!

    In fact, ideally, instead of allowing gay marriage, we should offer civil unions for homo AND hetero couples that don’t feel Christian ‘values’ mesh with their core belilefs! Gay marriage is as paradoxical as the ‘Log Cabin Republicans.’

    The concept of ‘marriage’ as the only type of legal union of people should be deserted altogether. I mean, come on, Pagans don’t get married, they get handfasted. Any sex and even any *number* of people can get handfasted. It’s a bond among spirits, not just two people of opposite sex getting a change in tax status and shared medical benefits for the perpetuation of the religious and governmental establishments seeking to churn out ‘good little taxpayers.’ Talk about limited scope!

    SMS

  59. March 8, 2008 at 2:06 am

    Chris –

    By the way, next time, just don’t take the bait. I really think you got set up here and I have faith that you won’t make this mistake again…

    However, hateful statements from anonymous address should be frowned upon. If you have the supposed courage of your convictions, then tell us who you are. Anyone who spews hate anonymously is simply a rhetorical terrorist. You can attack us, but we can’t even *identify* you? Sounds like terrorism to me. COWARD!

    SMS

  60. March 8, 2008 at 6:51 am

    Sean,

    “Thomas Gordon does not carry himself in the same manner as you do Pedroza. He is a man.”

    Funny. You sure did not stand up for Thomas when your boy Sal kicked him off the EPIC Commission.

    I have other things to post that are far more important than your ramblings.

    Shame on you for dragging Chris into the mud.

  61. March 8, 2008 at 8:01 am

    “Funny. You sure did not stand up for Thomas when your boy Sal kicked him off the EPIC Commission.”

    Pedroza,

    I wasn’t even in the country or aware that it happened and you know that. How can I be there to stand up for him if I am out of the country thousands of miles away?

    As far as dragging Chris into the “mud”, give me a break. Neither Chris nor I wrote those bigoted posts. Don’t try and paint either of us as the bad guy. I have yet you hear you condemn your boy Tardif for his comments.

  62. March 8, 2008 at 8:55 am

    Sean,

    Hmmm. Where were you when Thomas was booted? Care to divulge exactly what country you were in?

    And your excuse is B.S. Everyone knows that you and Sal discuss everything he does, in advance.

    And yes, your desire to get back at Tardiff for opposing Measure D led you and Chris down a very dark road indeed.

    BTW, when will you apologize for your anti-gay rant that Commie Girl revealed? With regard to Tardiff’s comments, I already wrote that “I totally disagree with this line of thought.” But you have yet to say sorry for your awful words.

  63. March 8, 2008 at 9:53 am

    Gila-

    Wow! Tough crowd around here I’ve noticed. This is the second unfair comment levied against me in as many days,

    Let me make two things clear. First of all. I don’t speak for all LGBT people and I never said that I did, but as I discussed, the chant is, ‘we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.’ If you don’t want to call that anti-establishment (and I still think it is), then fine, at the very least it’s self-determining which leads me to my second point. I merely speak for myself, which is what everyone is expected to do in a democracy, and I don’t let the establishment push me around. I also know I’m far from the only one.

    Not to mention, I also made it clear that I’m Pagan which clearly gives me a different perspective than gays and lesbians of more ‘mainstream’ religions. I have also been considered a non-conformist, and I don’t mean that it a way that implies counter-culture, it means a true independent thinker, because in fact, the counter-culture *is* a culture, like that of some of the socialists who post on this board. I make this very clear on my blog and I have made no bones about it here. I’m a MODERATE! I’m here, I have no fear. Get used to it.

    As far as your claim that your hetero-ceremony had no religious overtones, well I think that’s just naive. Sure, the word or idea of God was never brought into it, but go back and read what I wrote earlier, ALL marriage has a religious overtone by the very history of the concept. Calling it a civil union takes away ALL allusions to Judeo-Christianity and I’m more comfortable with that, as are many others, but you’re right, not all.

    Harmful mythology? The harmful mythology is that all LGBT people are the same, which is what you imply be accusing me of attempting to speak for all of us. I said the idea of marriage as the ONLY union among people is a dangerous idea because it LIMITS people’s choices. Allowing hetero-couples to have civil unions as well as gays and lesbians should be an option, not a mandate, and I never suggested otherwise. Choice is the most Democratic ideal there is.

    I think YOU believe you speak for all of us especially when you say, ‘I believe we have an obligation to be very clear in how we represent the facts regarding same-sex unions and other issues of interest to liberals. We can educate people if we are truthful and our facts are reliable.’ I agree, and so it’s important to note that you too used the word ‘union’ in lieu of ‘marriage’ here. And how are my facts ‘imprecise?’ I never made a statement of fact. I made an opinion. Many blogs are editorial venues, not a news venues and you need to make that distinction.

    Perhaps my writing is too nuanced, too sophisticated for some people here, and perhaps some just like to flame, but I’m putting out my warning now. If I have to keep defending myself for things I didn’t say, IN WRITING mind you so I can’t be misquoted, only misunderstood, I’m not going to be so nice in the future. I can be just as nasty as a lot of other people here seem to be getting lately, but I’d VERY much prefer that the infighting stop, especially during an election season when we need to work together and stop LOOKING for things to argue about.

    Oh. make your mistake, your comments were an attack based on an incorrect interpretation of my words, not grounds for debate. If this is how you want to be, then please contact me after November 4th and we can have it out. Until then, socialists, liberals, moderates, it’s just time to be Dems and win some goddamn (yeah, I said god) elections.

    SMS

  64. March 8, 2008 at 9:56 am

    Oh, and please ignore the typos. I just woke up and I’m in a hurry to get out the door. *blush*

    SMS

  65. March 8, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Sarah: you said “We LGBT folk are part of a movement that is proudly anti-establishment.” When you say “we (whomever)” you are defacto speaking for the members of that group. If you said “We women” or “We Pagans” you would be claiming to speak for all women or all Pagans.

    I did not say that my civil marriage had no religious overtones. You said “we should offer civil unions for homo AND hetero couples.” I responded that civil unions for hets already exist.

    I’d VERY much prefer that the infighting stop”

    I think, then, you oughtn’t pick fights with your allies — especially when you are representing someone who is running in a contested Partisan race.

    It appears we’ve hijacked this thread, though, and I’m not going to continue the conversation in this location.

  66. March 8, 2008 at 10:13 am

    We the PEOPLE of a democracy demand CHOICE. Period. Is that more clear for you?

    And unfair comment #3. I don’t represent ANYONE here. I speak for myself. When I sign my posts with my official title THEN I speak for the campaign. Seriously, get *over* yourself. *You* picked this fight by accusing me of grandiosity in speaking for everyone. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry. TRUST me.

    Oh, and another thing, in contested partisan race in a RED district, it doesn’t make any sense to go far left now does it? Perhaps that’s why they chose me, but I give pause to speaking for the campaign on this topic, because again, my posts here are just my opinion.

    SMS

  67. March 8, 2008 at 10:17 am

    SMS refers to her own comments as “too nuanced” or “too sophisticated for some people here.” [How very humble.]
    I disagree with her self-assessment.
    More like immature and self-important.
    Gila already quoted the portion of her comment in which SMS attempts to speak for the entire LGBT community, so I won’t bother to repeat that point.
    The problem is the duality of marriage – in this country it is BOTH a civil contract and (for many but not all) a religious sacrament. Separating the two is difficult, but not impossible.

  68. March 8, 2008 at 10:23 am

    If overall you agree with me, then how am I self important? And I ‘corrected’ my wording on who I speak for. Me. What’s the problem? I’ll be back this afternoon if you guys want to fight it out some more, but just because I make an observation about my community which is true, doesn’t mean I think I speak for everyone. Indeed, Gila picked the fight with me. WE’RE HERE, WE’RE QUEER, GET USED TO IT!

    SMS

  69. jose s.
    March 8, 2008 at 11:56 am

    a persons comment no matter how vile it is is their comment and their belief. who is anybody here to demand an apology from anyone on what they believe. and as far as making public their ip address, not cool.

  70. March 8, 2008 at 6:40 pm

    The problem is the duality of marriage – in this country it is BOTH a civil contract and (for many but not all) a religious sacrament. Separating the two is difficult, but not impossible. –

    I agree with this and I’ve suggested that the Government only sanction “civil unions” or the contracted part that allows people the legal rights of marriage recognized by the Government. Then “marriage” is something your Church would recognize . But many in the GLBT have told me it’s just not the same and it should be called marriage for all.

    I do believe that the Government has no business recognizing a religious ceremony but the legal implications of the union. But it’s really easy for me to say this, I’m married already.

  71. March 8, 2008 at 8:19 pm

    Thank you Heather. Wow! Someone actually agrees with me on something. Hallelujah! (lol I said hallelujah! I so love irony!)

    The reason LGBT people want marriage as opposed to civil unions is because in this case separate is not equal. Civil unions don’t have some of the protections that marriage has. Like you said, by making civil unions the legal standard for both homo and hetero couples, it would be up to the religious denominations to determine whether or not they want to marry homosexual couples.

    It’s a very fair and reasonable system and would seem to be equitable to all, yet I have a feeling someone will very quickly find an unjustified way to argue the point or nitpick one of two words of my statement since I’m the one who suggested it. I find it amusing actually that some so-called liberal Dems are just as closed-minded as conservatives since really all most of us want is equality. Who cares what name we put on it?

    SMS

  72. March 8, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Oh, I forgot to say that if we use the civil union standard, all civil unions should have the same protections that marriage currently has. I think that was implied, but I thought I should make sure to get that in there before I get flamed again!

    SMS

  73. March 8, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    SMS – No problem. I believe in equal rights for my beloved friends, gay, straight, bi etc. All of them. I personally don’t care what we call it as long as the outcome is equal protection such as Hospital rights, tax breaks, etc.

    And we both know that there already Churches who would be more than happy to marry Homosexual couples it’s just that the Government won’t recognize the LEGAL implications of such a union. To me, it’s not the Governments job to say who can marry each other (well in obvious cases such as age, relatives etc.)

  74. March 9, 2008 at 10:19 am

    Publius-

    I was going to drop this, but your post has been gnawing at me for days. What’s with the out-of-context quotes?

    You said, ‘SMS refers to her own comments as “too nuanced” or “too sophisticated for some people here.” [How very humble.]
    I disagree with her self-assessment.
    More like immature and self-important.’

    What the hell man? The full quote is ‘PERHAPS my writing is too nuanced, too sophisticated for some people here, and perhaps some just like to flame.’ What part of ‘perhaps’ do you not understand? I used the appropriate qualifier and obviously this statement was intended to highlight the fact that I was being unfairly targeted and nothing more. And immature? Antagonizing someone is what’s immature and I’m simply not doing that while some other people clearly are.

    Which leads me to another quote: ‘Gila already quoted the portion of her comment in which SMS attempts to speak for the entire LGBT community, so I won’t bother to repeat that point.’ OMG! I’m so sorry, I used the word ‘we’ as opposed to ‘many’ when I made my observation about MY community (neither of you is LGBT as far as I know). Seriously, the attacks against me were based on ONE incorrectly chosen word. If that’s not LOOKING for a fight, then I don’t know what is.

    And excuuuuuse me, but what makes you qualified to pass judgment on my view of my own community anyway? I made the comment because last time I checked, there was no such thing as a ‘Straight Pride Parade’ which is interesting because I disagree with the concept of pride parades in general. Being proud of who you are is a great feeling, but if you don’t choose to be gay (or Chinese or Italian or whatever), then why be proud or ashamed of it? It is what it is.

    SMS

  75. just...asking?
    March 9, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    SMS,

    Who are u? just…asking? …because you’ve been kind enough to post under your given name…

    I’ve seen your posts the last few days on several blogs. I’ve not read your posts before on OC related blogs. Your comments seem to assume we know who you are and where your coming from. Sorry if I’m wrong, but it reads like we’ve interrupted your argument(s) from some other blog world.

  76. March 9, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    It’s funny you should ask. Thank you for a convenient introduction to what I’m about to say.

    I worked with the OCYD during the 2006 midterms and met a lot of people who post here through that campaign or Drinking Liberally.

    I moved here in 2005 from Boston. My and my family name are very well known in political circles in cities just north of Boston proper. I had been campaigning there and in southern New Hampshire for the previous 17 years, since age 12, working for family friends and then eventually branching out on my own. I have worked on campaigns at every level of government from local ward elections to John Kerry’s presidential bid in 2004, totaling about 10 in all.

    As some, but not all people here know, I was recently named the Communications Director of Ed Chau for Congress in the 42nd CD, but I have just today resigned due to some people on the blogosphere maliciously associating my personal beliefs with his campaign, despite my never identifying myself as one his top-level advisers, only once saying that I ‘worked’ for him, and nothing more.

    But it’s my belief that a lot of people here who use the internet as a political tool didn’t want Ron Shepston to lose his netroots support if I attempted to challenge him on it later on down the road. There are two women in particular, and they know who they are, who facilitated this unfortunate turn of events. One of whom I’ve never even met, but has been putting unfair pressure on a mutual friend, and the other whom I’ve very much despised since the moment I met her and always saw as a talentless hack with an attitude problem who’s own self importance makes me look like a Franciscan monk by comparison.

    Make no mistake, I still wholeheartedly support Ed Chau for Congress. In fact, now that I’m no longer affiliated with his campaign, I’ll probably show even stronger support for him. I intend to break Ron Shepston’s monopoly on the netroots, especially since I haven’t seen a word from him online since he declared.

    Thank you ladies for taking off my leash! Trust me, I’ll find another job, but right this moment I’m more adamant than ever that Ed will win his race and I will fight to make sure that people stop using convenient friendships and some truly meaningless online posts as bludgeons to get their own way like spoiled children. It’s going to be an extraordinarily FUN election season now girls. You better watch what you post from here on in because I’ll be watching.

    Many people in OC view Democrats as weak and shifty. I may not always agree with them, but now I know what their justification is. You’ve made a HUGE tactical error and an enemy of the WRONG woman and I’m not going to let fascist commies steal my party, the Democratic Party, as in DEMOCRACY, whose support for liberty and the first amendment is supposed to be as clear as an open blue sky! If you really want to win elections you need to smarten up.

    SMS

  77. just...asking?
    March 9, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Instead of a long rant, why didn’t you just say your a nut!

    Why so much baggage!

    Take a breath, relax, then type…

  78. March 9, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Sorry-

    I just really love my party. I hate to see it get hijacked, especially when people ignore the first amendment to do it. So sad.

    If being passionate makes me a nut, then I guess I’m an Almond Joy. You know, ‘sometimes you feel like a nut… sometimes you don’t!’ I’m enjoying a glass of wine as I write this and feeling much better now than I got that out. I’ve been holding it in for Ed’s sake! Again, sorry about that. lol

    SMS

  79. just...asking?
    March 9, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    SMS,

    Let it go already!

    Your among friends! You don’t have to hit us over the head with a sledgehammer… calm down and get you message out sans the vile. I agreed with a lot of what you typed, just not the style in which you typed it. Start the wine a little sooner…then type…

    p.s. and not all of us are leftists… some of us consider ourselves very progressive centrists…

  80. March 10, 2008 at 7:42 am

    lol I know. I know. I totally agree. That post was aimed at two people in particular. I hope the community at large doesn’t think I was talking about anyone else, but you’re right so I’ll take this opportunity to clarify that again, but the two women I’m talking about really did need the sledgehammer treatment.

    I wrote an ‘angry letter’ of my own to one in particular that I’m not going to post unless she gives me more cause because if my last post was a sledgehammer, this one is a shotgun so I’m going to keep it to myself for now.

    And I’ve always considered myself progressive too, which is why I get upset when the leftists flex their muscles at me like I’m *not* among friends. I think you and I will get along just fine though! lol

    Thanks for reminding me that there are other free thinkers here. :)

    Feeling much better,
    SMS

  81. rebecca
    March 10, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    Sarah, I assume I’m the talentless hack with an attitude problem you’ve despised since the moment we met–a moment, sadly, that I don’t remember; I do meet a lot of people.
    I did in fact make a call to our mutual friend, concerned that the way you present yourself on this site could reflect badly on your candidate. I did not act out of malice; Iactually was very gentle–even politic–in my criticisms, considering I feel that you come across as a loose cannon. Of course, it takes one to know one.
    I also regret hijacking YOUR party with my trademark communastiness; I was under the apparent misapprehension that it belongs to ALL of us–even the lefties and liberals you so apparently despise. I’ve felt that way throughout my 25-year grassroots career. My 25 to your 17 (19?); I hope that means I win?

  82. rebecca
    March 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    PS: The First Amendment isn’t what you think it is.

  83. Dan Chmielewski
    March 10, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    Rebecca, you’re not that old.

    And Sarah, please stick the the subject matter of the post at hand. This thread has meandered hopelessly out of control. You have your own blog to opine about all things SMS.

  84. rebecca
    March 10, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    I was 10, Dan, holding up banners made from bedsheets and contact paper before school every morning for our local congressional hopefuls. Went to Nevada, too, to the Mother’s Day protest at the test site, but my mom wouldn’t let me get arrested. Oh, did I pout and sulk!

  85. Dan Chmielewski
    March 10, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    I remember casting a vote for Humphrey is third grade; and came of age during Watergate. Got into trouble for “Impeach the President” signs. When I moved to OC in 1997, I told my dad I was about 11 miles from the Nixon library and his gravesite; he asked how much they charged to use it as a men’s room. Dad was pretty crude when it came to Nixon.

  86. rebecca
    March 10, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    That’s sweet! (The Humphreys part, not the peeing-on-Nixon part, which still made me laugh anyway. And to anyone from OCBLog who’s about to get vapors at the Dems’ incivility, my mom’s evil stepdad was always talking about peeing on Kennedy’s grave, so there.)

  87. Dan Chmielewski
    March 10, 2008 at 4:42 pm

    I can top that Rebecca; My last visit to the Kennedy Library, I asked where the Marilyn Monroe room was….. nasty looks all around

  88. March 10, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Rebecca –

    This isn’t a win or lose game, but I’ll agree to a cease fire if you do. The ‘take off the leash comment’ is actually an allusion to the fact that, even though I don’t think it was fair of you to associate me so closely with my candidate since I BARELY identified him here, now I no longer have that problem. :P

    SMS

    PS: First Amendment be damned in this case actually. I have a MUCH angrier letter on my laptop that I didn’t send, so in essence I censored *myself*. Let’s move past this for now, ok?

  89. rebecca
    March 11, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Okay, I wasn’t going to respond anymore, since you were being nice and seemed to have dropped the crazy. But apparently you’ve just moved it over to Orange Juice.
    http://www.theorangejuice.com/2008/03/thank-you-paul-lucas-part-1.html#comments

    Your calling people “terrorists” when they disagree with you is the reason you are not fit to be a communications director for a political campaign, unless maybe it’s Steve King’s campaign.

    I did not advocate your “ouster.” I was concerned for the campaign being associated with you, when you clearly can’t keep your shit together. I was assured that you’d already had a conversation the day before, and everyone thought things would be toned down, and everything would be fine. Then YOU RESIGNED when asked to choose between the campaign and blogging. Whatever, Nutty.

    I have no idea who Ron Shepston is, and am certainly not somehow colluding on his behalf.

    Please stop calling me an extremist, you flaming bag of crazy. And by all means, let’s see this shotgun letter that will blow me away. I can’t wait.

  90. March 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    Guilty conscience much? I wasn’t talking about you. Now who’s crazy?! rofl GEEZ!

    And I didn’t *choose* blogging. I was forced to resign by the person I *was* referring to, who, hate me for saying this if you like, is much more influential than you are. Since I’m actually not mad at you anymore and I know you get a kick out of flame letters, maybe I’ll send it just to give you a laugh. It actually is kinda funny if you take the malice out of it.

    Now settle down Beavis. :P

    SMS

  91. March 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Dan – You know the Marylin room has to be kept a secret!

  92. rebecca
    March 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    Sarah, you are parsing and twisting and contorting your own words in a big ballet of nutball. You were clearly talking about me when you said “one of whom I’ve agreed to disagree with”–take a look at YOUR OWN COMMENT right above mine–and then trying to call me crazy for saying so? Lady, I am a lot of things, but you are the most illogical, paranoid, narcissistic creature with whom I’ve had the pleasure of acquainting myself in years. Roll on the floor all you want, honey. I’m the crazy one. You’ve done the same thing consistently in these threads–someone points out that you call your arguments too nuanced and sophisticated for this board, and you start shrieking about having your words twisted because you’d said “perhaps.” Yes, and you’d followed it with an either-or; PERHAPS you were too sophisticated, or PERHAPS people just like flaming. You’ve been calling people extremists and terrorists, said they were hijacking YOUR party, are completely unable to relate to people in a manner that is anything less that shrill and uncommonly rude. I do this too, I understand it. But I am not on someone’s payroll in a communications position. Of course, you aren’t either anymore.
    Look at Samantha Power. I agreed with everythign she said about Hillary, and yet the consensus is that when you are an adviser on a campaign, you can’t run around shooting your mouth off like an idiot. It reflects badly. Now you’re claiming you didn’t represent yourself as on Ed Chau’s campaign, where before you said you’d only said so once, and then you said you’d “barely” mentioned it. Now you haven’t mentioned it at all, huh?
    Change change change your positions all you want, and then say others are distorting you.

    Also? Go back and read the Bill of Rights again before you start whining about the First Amendment. Your ignorance is embarrassing.

  93. March 11, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Wow!

    Where do I start?

    First of all, YOU are the crazy one! Did you not call our friend and complain about me? Just because I mentioned that you *also* complained on OJ doesn’t mean ANYTHING else on that post had ANYTHING to do with you. The post was about SOMEONE ELSE, and if you MUST know (I’m tired of dancing around it), that person was Gila. I’M narcissistic? Have you looked in a mirror lately? ITS NOT ABOUT YOU! Bringing you up was a minor afterthought. Really, I hate to tell you this but you are NOT that important!

    Secondly, if you can’t understand the word ‘perhaps’ then maybe my writings ARE too sophisticated for you. I was being facetious you psycho! If I wanted to sound pompous I would NOT have used the word ‘perhaps.’ I would have said outright that some people here are self-inflating MORONS who apparently are also illiterate because they don’t understand a two syllable word… and I’d be 100% correct. They’re called qualifiers for a reason. What kind of ‘journalist’ doesn’t understand that?

    How am *I* illogical and paranoid? First of all, I’m a centrist. That means I tend to hold beliefs that are the MOST logical AND MODERATE (i.e. not extreme, in case you need a definition) and not based on partisan politics, unlike someone else who’s so extreme that she calls herself ‘Commie Girl!’ And paranoid? You’re the one freaking out about a post that (let me say this again) IS NOT ABOUT YOU! STOP LOOKING FOR TROUBLE! I wonder if you’re not setting this whole thing up to make yourself relevant again because right now you’re NOBODY!

    And I never said I wasn’t on Ed’s staff. I said I never identified myself as a ‘top level adviser.’ Go back and read it if you like. For all anyone knew I volunteered on his fucking phone bank! GILA outed me as being something more, not me. And in fact without doing so she never could have forced my resignation now could she? She stabbed me in the back, HARDCORE and she was COMPLETELY wrong to nitpick my words like you’re doing right now to create a controversy and stir up shit in his camp.

    When I wrote materials for the campaign I would sign my full name and title. When I write on blogs I sign SMS. SMS! That’s not even my name, it’s my goddamn initials! How much more informal can I be?

    Yes you hijack my party. I say MY party because Communism is NOT compatible with Democracy. Are you really proud to associate yourself with a form of government that controls the masses like a herd of sheep? If so, then YOU can stand in line for a loaf of bread for 6 hours but I’m going to take advantage of our free market economy to get mine in about 6 minutes! You’re so far to the left it makes me sick. What is it with all the partisan bullshit in this county? I’ve been all over the country and I’ve never seen anything like this in my LIFE! If you were in Boston on my turf you would never, EVER get a writing gig and in fact people there would find you so vile as to be the far-left version of Anne Coulter, which indeed you are so keep your comments about my fitness to be Communications Director to yourself because you have NO credibility to talk about the subject of communications and I don’t take opinions about democracy from socialists. You disgust me. Just because the Reps out here are far right does NOT mean you HAVE to go far left. It’s not a game, this is people’s lives we’re talking about and we’ll never win elections here if everyone keeps adopting your attitude. POLITICS 101!

    And fuck your Samantha Power comment. You think I didn’t make the correlation myself? In fact it’s probably how GIla got the idea. I didn’t call anyone a name. I didn’t say anything malilicious (like you do every time you speak). I didn’t call Ed’s opponent a monster. I simply disagreed with Gila and then she started shit with me! Ohh.. don’t argue with the almighty Gila. If you do you’re automatically wrong and crazy!

    She was a terrorist because *she* got picky with *me*, telling me that I supposedly speak for the whole LGBT community merely because I FORGOT the qualifier this time. Oh how IRONIC! What’s worse is SHES STRAIGHT! What gives her the right to speak for my community? You don’t see me speaking for the black community or the Vietnamese community! And so the campaign to pressures me to leave over it? Their fucking loss.

    I think YOU should read the first amendment again and the relevant case law that says we have the freedom of speech and press to the extent that we don’t cause a public panic such as screaming ‘fire in a crowded movie theater.’ Again, you’re SUPPOSED to be a journalist. I should be allowed to differ with her without having to worry about my position being exploited for her personal gain. It’s no secret. GILA DOESN’T LIKE ED! SHE DIDN’T WANT HIM TO RUN! You think I’m self-important? I knew from day ONE that this had NOTHING to do with me, how much more humble can you be? GIla doesn’t strike me as petty so I’m sure this was a calculated action. I’m not sure which is worse to be honest.

    So grow the fuck up and stay out of things that don’t concern you and take responsibility for the things that you do do. EVERYTHING IS NOT ABOUT YOU! You’re bringing this on yourself because I’ll say it one last time you projecting bitch: THE POST SAID NOTHING ABOUT YOU OTHER THAN YOU MADE A PHONE CALL!

    SMS

    PS: This isn’t the ‘angry letter.’ I’m just getting warmed up.

  94. March 11, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Rebecca-
    Attempts to use logical reasoning with someone who is clearly mentally and emotionally unstable will only result in more frustration.

  95. March 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm

    Pubius-

    As usual, you have nothing positive to add.

    SMS

  96. Flowerszzz
    March 11, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Rebecca – I just wanted to say thanks! I was thinking SMS was a “bit off” but you say and said it better then I ever could have. Good gawd she is quite full of herself in all her 30 years, is this our youth today? Me thinks she has some more life experiences to learn!

  97. who cares if you are anon
    March 11, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    “clearly mentally and emotionally unstable”

    I find this totally and completely offensive. Does that matter or does it only matter when its ironic (even inappropriate) comments that you deem homophobic.

  98. March 12, 2008 at 2:16 am

    Flowerzzz-

    Did it ever occur to you that I try to be so aggressively fair because in fact I have TOO MUCH life experience? It’s hard to have a unique perspective without it and indeed it’s that view that’s come under fire. It’s called frustration. After all my years in politics, I’m sick of everyone’s ‘because I said so attitude’ with which nobody seems to have to defend their opinions, instead calling their opponents ‘nutjobs’ and ‘flaming bags of crazy’ and the like, even when the victim only made it personal in retaliation.

    It’s not my opposition that people fear. Frankly, I DO know that I’m not that important. But my ideas ARE, because to be a moderate means to acknowledge that there will be no time for people to find solutions to problems when they’re too busy bickering.

    I come here to make points about issues while everyone else here is busy making attacks on each. The bottom line is, if we actually worked together and SOLVED a lot of out problems, there would be nothing left for us to talk about, let along argue over, which would render partisans (thankfully) obsolete.

    It’s so sad that the state of affairs has degraded to a point where people are more concerned about arguing to LOOK right than trying to work together to figure out what *IS* right. As I said, conservatives going far right is no excuse for liberals to go for left and it hinders our progress as citizens.

    SMS

  99. Flowerszzz
    March 12, 2008 at 6:54 am

    SMS – speak less, listen more. You are so busy talking about yourself, and “proving” that you are right, that you can not hear what anyone else says. I am not a Democrat, but there are may Dems here that I respect even if I disagre with them.

  100. March 12, 2008 at 7:14 am

    It’s funny. As I was loading this page I was already considering my response because I knew what you’d say. And I was right.

    If a tree falls in the forest… Just because you guys all agree with each other and have cute little mutual admiration society it doesn’t make you right. Bush has loyalists too. They’re called ‘Bushies.’ So appropriately Rebecca’s people should be called ‘Commies.’ That doesn’t make any of you right, much like Bushies are all still wrong, it only means you’re in agreement. Are you a Commie?

    SMS

Comments are closed.