"Shemp53" left a comment on a post on my Ponte Vista blog that would surely be found to be slanderous and would have done harm to an innocent individual.
"Shemp53" also doesn't seem to realize that others may be put in jeopardy for publishing items that cannot be proven by this blogger, nor do I wish to use unfounded statements.
However, I have always stated that I would publish all comments. I never stated on which blog I would publish those statements.
I decided to edit the comments from "Shemp53" because that individual offered no actual, verifiable proof or statements from particular individuals to support the allegations made in the comments.
"Shemp53 has left a new comment on your post "A Political Endorsement Specifically Relating to Ponte Vista":
I played football under XXXXXX at XXXXXXX He was a XXXXXXXX there and was having sex with XXXXXXXX another student in my class!
XXXXXXXX is scum."
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Was You Know Who really You Know Who?
I may have been royally had, but I am not that upset about it.
I really continue to think and feel that you know who is not the you know who other people are telling me that you know who really is.
I have written directly to you know who, but I haven't received a reply yet. Perhaps I'll try to comment on you know who's blog and see if it get printed or rejected.
It could be that you know who is no longer going to write because of a certain intermediary's recent passing away. Then that would give you know who a reason to have folks think he really is the recently departed, but I am thinking and feeling that the two persons are not one in the same.
I could be very wrong, and that makes me sad. Not because I would have been proven wrong, but I was able to talk and discuss many issues with the fellow who recently passed away.
And boy, could he and I share some unbelieveable stories, with the conditions we both had and how certaing things were almost too tough to control. But that is another story.
So if you know who is still out there, I hope he is not hiding behind the fact that an acquaintenance to both of us has met his untimely end, with so many more things to consider, debate, and discuss.
I really continue to think and feel that you know who is not the you know who other people are telling me that you know who really is.
I have written directly to you know who, but I haven't received a reply yet. Perhaps I'll try to comment on you know who's blog and see if it get printed or rejected.
It could be that you know who is no longer going to write because of a certain intermediary's recent passing away. Then that would give you know who a reason to have folks think he really is the recently departed, but I am thinking and feeling that the two persons are not one in the same.
I could be very wrong, and that makes me sad. Not because I would have been proven wrong, but I was able to talk and discuss many issues with the fellow who recently passed away.
And boy, could he and I share some unbelieveable stories, with the conditions we both had and how certaing things were almost too tough to control. But that is another story.
So if you know who is still out there, I hope he is not hiding behind the fact that an acquaintenance to both of us has met his untimely end, with so many more things to consider, debate, and discuss.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
I Guess I Need Help
I think I am going to probably need to hire a consultant to help me try and understand what the other blogger writes.
Here is a passage of the most recent attack on me:
Way back in one of my very first posts on May 29, 2007 I went into great detail about how we could no longer environmentally afford R1 homes in a major metropolitan area. I wrote about the wasted time in commuting, the wasted gasoline and oil, the wasted water in maintaining their scaled-down versions of a vast prairie homestead, right here in an urban area. That it just is not feasible any longer. We needed to look to our European roots and look to their cities. Why should one house have a lawn the size of a park which is rarely used, instead of the homes having no lawns and having extensive use of the parks?
First I must surmise that the blogger was against the nice R1 zoned lots and single-family homes built overlooking Playa Vista.
What I am still being confused about is, if up to 735 single-family dwellings would result in "wasted time in commuting, the wasted gasoline and oil, the wasted water in maintaining their scaled-down versions of a vast prairie homestead", then why wouldn't 1,950-units, with 1,100 units being for non-age restricted residents, cause even more of a problem than just leaving the zoning as it is?
Now I know the other blogger will probably let us know that if up to 735 single-family houses are built at Ponte Vista, that would still more water than the 1,950 units combined with the 40% of open spaces. I can probably imagine that the grass growing on the roofs of the buildings will be watered by the outflow of condensers for the air conditioning.
I did forget the address where I sent the R1 button. But if the request was contained in an Email to me, it will be found somewhere in my software or in one of the backups I have done.
Again I must remind folks that LEEDS Certification, as wonderful as it could be, has not been seen being built yet, at Ponte Vista. That is because nothing has been approved of to build at Ponte Vista. Remember when Bob promised that Eastview Little League would be welcome to a new home at Ponte Vista? Remember the survey that Bob admitted he helped construct stated there would be "single family homes, town houses, and condominiums..."?
Remember when Bob spoke up at one of the CAC meetings and said, "We are not building any single-family homes at Ponte Vista! Does that help you, Chuck?"
I am sorry folks, but I can't believe everything I hear coming out of Bob or his representatives and/or his advisory board members. Remember when Bob stated many, many times that he would be building 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista?
I agree that things change. That is not a bad thing. But why should we believe that Bob would provide construction that would comply with LEEDS Certification since he has already changed his application? I would hope, but can not be certain that Bob would actually provide for compliance for LEEDS Certification just because he said so, or has worked on plans for it.
If I know the other blogger as I think I now do, I can imagine that the other blogger is not totally supportive of everything that Bob wants. I also can imagine that the other blogger has enough feelings for OUR community that they are truly disgusted by the divisions that have cropped up in OUR community, WHEN THEY NEEDN'T HAVE DONE SO IN THE FIRST PLACE!
I am also quite disturbed that the other blogger broke their own word by publishing name(s) on their blog that we agreed would not be mentioned. I am not going to mention those names on this blog because of something I learned recently. There is no need for me to speculate further on who I believe is the other blogger's true identity.
There seems to be a really good person who feels they need to resort to their lowest levels and attack me and others who just wants what is reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful in OUR community.
Here is another issue that I want to clarify from the other blogger's most recent post.
The write: "Of course he posted under the name of "Mack Panoramic". But the comment was saved and logged along with the IP address. According to pacbell.net it belongs to Mark Wells."
I must tell you that if this was a true statement, the author of it broke the law IF they can specifically identify that any I.P. address is issued to me.
In comments I receive, I only get most of the I.P. addresses of people who comment and then I have to find that out by looking at my site meter and bash it against the time the comment was posted. I don't ever do that anymore because I don't want to, it is a waste of my time.
For the other blogger's quote to be factual, they would have to know whether I have a "Static I.P. address" or if I have a "Dynamic I.P. address".
Of course the other blogger knows that I have an account on pacbell.net. It doesn't take a very smart person to know that I have worked for the company that is now called AT&T for over 27 years, and it would be foolish for me to have DSL from a "CLEC" or have broadband via cable.
The other blogger knows my @pacbell.net Email address. No matter what browser or Email service I use, I do just like folks who have @sbcglobal.net do and have my routing through the same routers. That is no secret.
If you want to have a look at the site meter on my main blog, please feel free. Not only will you see a partial I.P. address, you will also see the server I use. Even if I use Internet Explorer to browse the Internet, it still goes through routers owned by AT&T.
All I would need is a comment from the other blogger on my main site, and I could tell you whether they actually have @sbcglobal.net or not, for instance.
Well I'm done for now. Let us see if I am offered any consulting services by the other blogger. It seems they know so much more about computers and computing than I do. I bet they have a good resume of education on that stuff.
P.S. It took about ten minutes for me to find the Email with the address. Using the reverse lookup on www.whitepages.com, I got a name and phone number. This really means nothing though because the other blogger could have moved out since 2/27 or just asked the resident of that address to hold on to any mail with the name of you-know-who on it.
I wouldn't expect the other blogger to reveal the street knowing how easy it is to find other information. I doubt the other blogger is that stupid. Deceptive, lacking in accomplishing agreements and promises, yes. Being stupid, no.
Here is a passage of the most recent attack on me:
Way back in one of my very first posts on May 29, 2007 I went into great detail about how we could no longer environmentally afford R1 homes in a major metropolitan area. I wrote about the wasted time in commuting, the wasted gasoline and oil, the wasted water in maintaining their scaled-down versions of a vast prairie homestead, right here in an urban area. That it just is not feasible any longer. We needed to look to our European roots and look to their cities. Why should one house have a lawn the size of a park which is rarely used, instead of the homes having no lawns and having extensive use of the parks?
First I must surmise that the blogger was against the nice R1 zoned lots and single-family homes built overlooking Playa Vista.
What I am still being confused about is, if up to 735 single-family dwellings would result in "wasted time in commuting, the wasted gasoline and oil, the wasted water in maintaining their scaled-down versions of a vast prairie homestead", then why wouldn't 1,950-units, with 1,100 units being for non-age restricted residents, cause even more of a problem than just leaving the zoning as it is?
Now I know the other blogger will probably let us know that if up to 735 single-family houses are built at Ponte Vista, that would still more water than the 1,950 units combined with the 40% of open spaces. I can probably imagine that the grass growing on the roofs of the buildings will be watered by the outflow of condensers for the air conditioning.
I did forget the address where I sent the R1 button. But if the request was contained in an Email to me, it will be found somewhere in my software or in one of the backups I have done.
Again I must remind folks that LEEDS Certification, as wonderful as it could be, has not been seen being built yet, at Ponte Vista. That is because nothing has been approved of to build at Ponte Vista. Remember when Bob promised that Eastview Little League would be welcome to a new home at Ponte Vista? Remember the survey that Bob admitted he helped construct stated there would be "single family homes, town houses, and condominiums..."?
Remember when Bob spoke up at one of the CAC meetings and said, "We are not building any single-family homes at Ponte Vista! Does that help you, Chuck?"
I am sorry folks, but I can't believe everything I hear coming out of Bob or his representatives and/or his advisory board members. Remember when Bob stated many, many times that he would be building 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista?
I agree that things change. That is not a bad thing. But why should we believe that Bob would provide construction that would comply with LEEDS Certification since he has already changed his application? I would hope, but can not be certain that Bob would actually provide for compliance for LEEDS Certification just because he said so, or has worked on plans for it.
If I know the other blogger as I think I now do, I can imagine that the other blogger is not totally supportive of everything that Bob wants. I also can imagine that the other blogger has enough feelings for OUR community that they are truly disgusted by the divisions that have cropped up in OUR community, WHEN THEY NEEDN'T HAVE DONE SO IN THE FIRST PLACE!
I am also quite disturbed that the other blogger broke their own word by publishing name(s) on their blog that we agreed would not be mentioned. I am not going to mention those names on this blog because of something I learned recently. There is no need for me to speculate further on who I believe is the other blogger's true identity.
There seems to be a really good person who feels they need to resort to their lowest levels and attack me and others who just wants what is reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful in OUR community.
Here is another issue that I want to clarify from the other blogger's most recent post.
The write: "Of course he posted under the name of "Mack Panoramic". But the comment was saved and logged along with the IP address. According to pacbell.net it belongs to Mark Wells."
I must tell you that if this was a true statement, the author of it broke the law IF they can specifically identify that any I.P. address is issued to me.
In comments I receive, I only get most of the I.P. addresses of people who comment and then I have to find that out by looking at my site meter and bash it against the time the comment was posted. I don't ever do that anymore because I don't want to, it is a waste of my time.
For the other blogger's quote to be factual, they would have to know whether I have a "Static I.P. address" or if I have a "Dynamic I.P. address".
Of course the other blogger knows that I have an account on pacbell.net. It doesn't take a very smart person to know that I have worked for the company that is now called AT&T for over 27 years, and it would be foolish for me to have DSL from a "CLEC" or have broadband via cable.
The other blogger knows my @pacbell.net Email address. No matter what browser or Email service I use, I do just like folks who have @sbcglobal.net do and have my routing through the same routers. That is no secret.
If you want to have a look at the site meter on my main blog, please feel free. Not only will you see a partial I.P. address, you will also see the server I use. Even if I use Internet Explorer to browse the Internet, it still goes through routers owned by AT&T.
All I would need is a comment from the other blogger on my main site, and I could tell you whether they actually have @sbcglobal.net or not, for instance.
Well I'm done for now. Let us see if I am offered any consulting services by the other blogger. It seems they know so much more about computers and computing than I do. I bet they have a good resume of education on that stuff.
P.S. It took about ten minutes for me to find the Email with the address. Using the reverse lookup on www.whitepages.com, I got a name and phone number. This really means nothing though because the other blogger could have moved out since 2/27 or just asked the resident of that address to hold on to any mail with the name of you-know-who on it.
I wouldn't expect the other blogger to reveal the street knowing how easy it is to find other information. I doubt the other blogger is that stupid. Deceptive, lacking in accomplishing agreements and promises, yes. Being stupid, no.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Humor From Mac or Channel
Well the fellow has created quite a funny piece this time where not only does she mess with what I have written, she has continued to mislead everyone who reads that troublesome blog.
I still don't know if you-know-who is Mac Panoramic or perhaps someone who possibly could have had a channel with a similar name.
It really doesn't matter though. It seems she is one of my regular readers, so thank you for that.
Of course I am not opposed to Mike Rosenthal's building three single-family houses on the three lots currently zoned as R1. T. is having fun and I got the joke.
But as a supporter of Bob, how come Mike can offer three wonderful multi-story, single-family houses, with two-car garages, and sitting on lots not less than 5,000 square feet, for only just over $406.35 per square foot, when Bob will charge at least $500.00 per square foot for his smallest unit where the only interior walls will be for the indoor personal stress relieving unit?
Even the Senior units at Arlington and Sepulveda, in Torrance are going for just about $466.67 per square foot. Bob doesn't seem willing to sell his smallest unit for even that low of a price.
T. is really the only one who seems to be writing anything in favor oh a large development of condos on Western Avenue. Where are all the sites where people have guts enough to identify themselves and their support for Bob's weapon of mass development?
Well, I continue to find that I am having such an effect on "Mac" or "channel", or whoever it is who is writing as a gutless, fearful, sarcastic, and diminished capacity author.
So here I am, Mark Wells, the real person. I do not object to Mike R. building at least three beautiful single-family houses on the property he owns in San Pedro.
I suppose IF Mike gets at least part of his way, a certain supporter of Bob's may even buy yet another condo to rent out, as he has done for years.
Of course you all know that San Pedro's own Rudy Svornich has lobbied for both Bob and Mike, it appears. I guess once you serve the public as a Councilman, you can be served by the same folks once you leave office, and for the rest of your life.
Sorry to have to cut this short, "Mac", "Channel", or whoever, but I have better things to do and I shouldn't waste any more of my time.
I still don't know if you-know-who is Mac Panoramic or perhaps someone who possibly could have had a channel with a similar name.
It really doesn't matter though. It seems she is one of my regular readers, so thank you for that.
Of course I am not opposed to Mike Rosenthal's building three single-family houses on the three lots currently zoned as R1. T. is having fun and I got the joke.
But as a supporter of Bob, how come Mike can offer three wonderful multi-story, single-family houses, with two-car garages, and sitting on lots not less than 5,000 square feet, for only just over $406.35 per square foot, when Bob will charge at least $500.00 per square foot for his smallest unit where the only interior walls will be for the indoor personal stress relieving unit?
Even the Senior units at Arlington and Sepulveda, in Torrance are going for just about $466.67 per square foot. Bob doesn't seem willing to sell his smallest unit for even that low of a price.
T. is really the only one who seems to be writing anything in favor oh a large development of condos on Western Avenue. Where are all the sites where people have guts enough to identify themselves and their support for Bob's weapon of mass development?
Well, I continue to find that I am having such an effect on "Mac" or "channel", or whoever it is who is writing as a gutless, fearful, sarcastic, and diminished capacity author.
So here I am, Mark Wells, the real person. I do not object to Mike R. building at least three beautiful single-family houses on the property he owns in San Pedro.
I suppose IF Mike gets at least part of his way, a certain supporter of Bob's may even buy yet another condo to rent out, as he has done for years.
Of course you all know that San Pedro's own Rudy Svornich has lobbied for both Bob and Mike, it appears. I guess once you serve the public as a Councilman, you can be served by the same folks once you leave office, and for the rest of your life.
Sorry to have to cut this short, "Mac", "Channel", or whoever, but I have better things to do and I shouldn't waste any more of my time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
