May 16, 2005
A Little Late-Night Character Assassination
'Communique' Critic Charges Conflict Of Interest
Over in one of the many recent conversations here about the Burnside Bridgehead, one of our critics this evening charged us with conflict of interest.
"[L]et's move away from the pointing fingers and the worries about 'spin' and PR/lobbyist," wrote the anonymous thinkbigPDX, "because you know as well as I do that BEAM had them too, including payments to the guy in that cute little hat in the cartoon, but I digress."
In case you missed it, the "guy in that cute little hat" of course is a reference to us. The reader will note that in that first comment, our latest critic simply lets the charge hang in the air on its own and then scurries away from it.
Our intial response was simple and direct: "Back this up or retract it, because my records don't show any payments from anyone I know to be tied to the Beam team." We added that if he or she knew something we didn't, they should say what it is, and if indeed someone with connections to Beam Development contributed money to Portland Communique, we would publicly disclose that fact.
That, of course, wasn't enough for them, because the point of this for them isn't simply to get to the truth, but to screw around. Here was his or her next comment:
Sensitive. You sure you want me to share what I know or would you rather re-check your records, re-think who you "know to be tied to the beam team" and how cavalier they might have been with details of how they achieved such powerful community support while gloating about their apparent "lock on this project" after certain community meetings? I'll let you sleep on it.
You'll note that despite our open statement that we would publicly disclose if any contributions to us were made by someone with connections to Beam as soon as we learned of it, thinkbigPDX ignores that statement and continues simply to try to smear us with a problem. Our own response follows:
Of course I'm sensitive when someone is trying to insinuate that I knowingly accepted money from someone connected to the Beam team while supporting their proposal.
You'll note, however (well, you won't, but other readers will) that I expressly admitted to the possibility that there's a name connected to the team that I never recognized as being connected to the team -- an inherent and open declaration that I have no problem with you backing up your claim if you can.
You can keep trying to back me into a corner where I look bad if that's what gets you off. But my point is this: If you have information, share it. If it's a valid connection to Beam, I'll post it a fresh item of its very own, not buried in the comments.
I'm not the one trying to hide anything here, Mister Anonymous. You're the one making charges of conflict of interest and then doing a "I know something you don't know" and not releasing your data.
So I'll let my readers, once again, decide who is playing games -- me, or my critic.
Which is where it stands this evening. They've charged us with taking money from someone connected to the Beam team. We've checked our records and don't recognize any names as having connections to the Beam team, and further, we've immediately stated that if evidence of any such contribution exists, we'll publicly disclose it.
In turn and instead, our small-minded big thinking critic up and went to bed. Just in case you were wondering whether this was about the truth or about trying to engage in an extended bout of character assassination.
So our own big thinking was this: Since they're trying so hard either to make it sound like we have something to hide, or at the very least make it sound like we have something we should want to hide, we're bumping the entire exchange into its own item, to make it blatantly clear that we don't have anything to hide.
If, whenever this mystery person wakes up, they decide to share their data with the us mere mortals out here, we will post a new item with their information.
For now, we can only say this: If someone connected to Beam contributed to Portland Communique without us knowing that they were (or are) connected to the Beam team, and if we're prepared to publicly disclose that fact if it's true, is that a conflict of interest?
Comments (44)
allehseya on 17 May 2005
For now, we can only say this: If someone connected to Beam contributed to Portland Communique without us knowing that they were (or are) connected to the Beam team, and if we're prepared to publicly disclose that fact if it's true, is that a conflict of interest?
Nope.
Amanda on 17 May 2005
There are eight people listed on your Contributors list (which is disappointing considering how many people read and comment on this site, evidently finding it useful, yet don't donate). Is this person implying one of those eight is connected with Beam, or that there are other contributors not listed? If the former, then no, it's not a conflict of interest (and it's not me, either). If the latter, either I'm misunderstanding your Contributions policy, or yes.
myrln on 17 May 2005
So, thinkbigmouth is at it again. I guess ITS first humiliation wasn't enough, or maybe that's what IT gets off on and is looking for more. In any case, three lawyer friends of mine had a good laugh over ITS' remarks and noted IT probably tries to remain anonymous for good reason: to avoid being sued for slander. But, they pointed out, i'net anonymity is easily penetrated. I love the devious minds of lawyers, always ready to make a case. So Bix, ignore thinkbigmouth. IT's all hot air, which suggests a p.r. or political background. When IT decides IT has courage enough (doubtful) to surrender ITs mask of anonymity (more doubtful), then give IT a little (but not much) attention. Anonymous, unreachable cowards aren't worth any of your time.
JS on 17 May 2005
I would take THINKBIGPDX and YOYOBOY a lot more seriously if they disclosed who they were or what their roles have been in this PDC process. Actually, I've been absent from this discussion for a few weeks, so maybe they've already explained their roles. If so, it would be great if they could be reposted.
Peter Stark, a member of the Beam team, posted on another thread, and I thought his comments (along with his disclosure) was enlightening.
THINKBIGPDX and YOYOBOY, I hope you would both consider enlightening me (and the other readers of this blog) with a little more information about who you are and what credence we should give your numerous comments.
Thanks.
no one in particular on 17 May 2005
Amanda: There are more contributors than that. Those are just the people that signed up after February 1st, 2005. I think the initial call for monthly contributions went out in June 2004 or so, so there are probably a lot of people (myself included) not listed.
Coyote on 17 May 2005
touche' on bringing out the cabal of Portland business interests and appointed public board members.
shannon on 17 May 2005
what the HELL is going on here?
We come here for information; presented fairly and accurately and with the suberb timing and concentrated effort that b!x is kind enough to provide.
We do not come for petty accusations (worded in the nastiest sophomoric tone imaginable) thrown out by some pussy anonymous poster who employs cut and run methodology.
Dear Think Big:
Put up or shut up.
Because frankly, you are wasting our time
(and making yourself appear quite stoopid).
And use your own name, li'l coward.
Sincerely,
Me
Lily on 17 May 2005
As I've said before, "thinkbig" is obviously clevenger. He just can't leave it alone, can he?? Go, b!X!!
Mark on 17 May 2005
I don't think they are the same person -- "Than" was much funnier than this anonymous entity. Come back Thanenger!
Alan DeWitt on 17 May 2005
I also think thinktroll is not Clevenger, despite my previous potshot to the contrary. At this point, thinktroll's anonymity does nothing but hurt Clevenger's reputation, because there's no way Clevenger can really prove he's not thinktroll.
Than, may I suggest a new target for your mano-a-mano PR work?
Oh, and Shannon? Right on.
The One True b!X on 17 May 2005
For the record, I also not do believe that thinkbigPDX is Clevenger. Mainly because, while the latter clearly had a rather significant off-day here, I do not beleive he's stupid enough to try to come in here anonymously and risk being caught at doing so.
sandy bickmeyer on 17 May 2005
Cut the passive aggressive “he said, she said” shit out and stick to the facts. If I wanted this kind of discussion I can go to my local middle school!
Is Beam capable of financially pulling off a project this big? Yes or no!! Has he ever done a project even close to one this size? I for one am sick and tired of bailing out our failed public projects and I am sorry to say I just don’t feel comfortable with Beam’s financing or lack of it. As “pretty” as the concept may be, I sure as hell don’t want to end up paying for it.
Elaine of Kalilily on 17 May 2005
Beam might well have the best ideas for the Bridgehead project; OPUS might well have more secure financing. Perhaps Potter has the right idea -- collaborate. Why isn't a greater effort being made to set up the kind win-win outcome in which everyone gets something good out of this -- especially the citizens of Portland?? Oh. Well then those who put all their marbles in OPUS' can of worms might lose a few marbles. (Heh. Or maybe they already have. )
doretta on 17 May 2005
About a gazillion words later mr. thinkbig's fans consist of Jack P. and yet another anonymous yoyo who will probably turn out to be his kid or his parole officer or his third split personality twice-removed.
Your serious readers know better than to think you have taken sides based on a conflict of interest and trust you to disclose whatever pertinent information you may have about such things when you get it.
So far, not even the appearance of a conflict of interest has been offered, just useless innuendo.
There's only one thing you can do with a troll, tell him to put up or shut up, which you've done, and then when he fails to do so, ignore him.
ThinkPDXLocal on 17 May 2005
It should come as no surpirse that a certian poster to this blog would toss claims of wrong doing like so much linguine, seeing what sticks and calling it a win. It should also come as no surprise that this certian poster and a certian other poster of obvious ill intent should be seen in the same localtion on a semi-regular basis in a certian open air gathering spot in the city proper.
What do they talk about for about an hour and a half? Did the venti mocha help?
Would you like to hear more? Had I the time or desire you might, but as it may or may not be a valid subject for this blog I will only say that should anyone be near this location this Thursaday then one might notice a certian poster and his partner standing on line for a venti mocha as they talk over a response.
One could wonder if this is considered a legal expense for one or both given the nature of their job.
gs/FD
yoyoboy on 17 May 2005
you know, with all the accusatory anonymous tones on this blog i still have not seen a NAME ADDRESS PHONE# from any of you
ss/lily/js/ elaine the Just! of Kallily! and of course the Knights of Templar! i have the holy grail in a box in the hall closet!
b!x you will soon make this blog irrelevant unless you curb this anonymity stuff.
Peter, thanks for the validation. JS, who are you? my post that was validated should tell you if my word is valid.
People, again, Beam would have won if they had the money. Don't any of you see that?
They wanted to take 15 million in tax credits away frm the rest of Portland. that pisses the rest of us off. those CE URA credits run out, then who pays the bills, we do!@@%#$ certainly not the 40 pissed off people in CE.
WE PAID FOR PGE, ARMORY, CREATIVE SERVICES BUILDING!!!!!!
DON'T YOU GET IT????
also, bravo TBPDX! Whoever you are, you're an idiot but you do raise some questions that need to be answered.
if any of you have affiliates w/Beam or OPUS you should reveal them now. You cannot ask for what you would not do yourselves.
b!x, legally you are responsible for whoever gives you money. That is like saying, "gee officer, i did not know i was laundering mob money!" Yes, you are responsible to whoever gives you money, it is your job to find out where it comes from. and to decline any that is tainted. That is called unbiased journalism. otherwise you are the WORLD WEEKLY NEWS! i can get that at any safeway and read about the aliens (elaine of kallily) who have visited this week.
Peter, I am no ones plant, or animal, or mineral. like clint eastwood, i work alone.
my comment on fleas stands.
yoyo
The One True b!X on 17 May 2005
I'll take the complaints about anonymity seriously when they aren't being made by "thinkbigPDX" and "yoyoboy".
The One True b!X on 17 May 2005
And as long as yoyoboy has decided it's time to devolve this discussion into calling people idiots, while there's an ethical question raised if I knowingly take money from someone connected to a story I cover and don't disclose that fact publicly so my readers can take it into consideration (the reason why I disclosed that mayoral candidates had take out ads here), there's no legal implication if thinkbigPDX is correct that someone connected to the Beam team contributed to this site without my realizing it.
If an anonymous critic thinks he or she can complain about anonymity and then confuse ethics with legality, well, I think we know who the idiot is.
The One True b!X on 17 May 2005
One other point regarding anonymity: It annoys me, also, but it's also a protected part of free speech. What I trust is that my readers are intelligent enough to factor in someone's anonymity when weighing what the anonymous have to say.
From the purely realistic standpoint, there would be no way to enforce any policy against anonymity anyway, and if there were, where would "thinkbigPDX" and "yoyoboy" go to play then?
The One True b!X on 17 May 2005
Oh, wait, one more thing. Yoyo has claimed that he or she works in the press. One would like to believe, then, that he or she understands how to do research. In this day and age, that includes the simple ability to click hyperlinks on the Web.
If he or she had done so, at any point, he or she would know full well that Elaine of Kalilily is hardly anonymous, but merely pseudonymous, and easily traced to an actual name, and therefore connection.
Use the mouse or trackpad, Yoyo. Use the button. Learn the ways of the Web.
tomhiggins on 17 May 2005
Being nonanon I can say these things with clarity...
* My name is Tom Higgins, I live in Portland.
* I give money to bix to help run the communique becuase I belive what he is doing is worth it.
* I have purchased ad spce on this blog for one of the projects I am involved in (the PTP) because the traffic this blog has is of a type my message was geared for.
* I have not asked b!x to run a story or toss a spin because of the support I have given him.
* I dont always agree with bix's take on things, but I support his efforts to report what he sees going an around him not as a detached drone but as a fellow citizen of Portland with his own slant on things.
* I belive that if there are any concrete facts to show Bix has taken money to influence a story or slant one then those facts should be posted here openly and quickly.
* I KNOW that if these facts are not made open and public by the accuser then the accuser is simply looking to cause trouble for B!x for some reason not known at this time. Sure I could spin on about the possible whys and suspects but Id rather see things done out in the open. Anon speculation is cheap, open and honest facts are the value of a good social interaction.
So lets raise the ante on this thread and see who has worth and who is full of bullshit.
Call time....you in?
yoyoGirl on 17 May 2005
In addition,
If the city's megalomanic Eisenhower-era "urban-renewal" agency weren't fudging around with areas that do not require "renewal," while ignoring areas that do (or botching the projects scheduled in areas that do), there is a good chance that we would not be having this conversation at all.
I'm quite certain that there is no need for anonymous members of the "press," or anonymous holders of GE stock certificates to chime in about the dangers of anonymity in a public forum, all the while writing from a comfortable position of anonymity, complaining about:
anonymity, and possible violations of j-school ethics (once again, without offering proof of said accusations, but merely echoing the baseless accusations of an anonymousanonymousanonymous crony).
It is all just hooey. The PDC's fate will be discussed in city council chambers on June 16, so let us all show up and contribute to that eminently valuable discussion. And wear raccoon-skin hats, so we will know who you are.
yoyoboy on 17 May 2005
Thank you OBI-WAN
And I say to you b!x that if you admit that you do not know the names associated with the teams, how can you judge? You can post any number of comments by informed individuals but your reporting comes under suspicion when it is as one sided as it is. See below.
That fact, coupled with the idea that our elected officials are actually reading this makes the rest of us citizens in Portland pissed. This is not a credible forum for them to exchange information with the public.
On your most recent blog you spend the first 2/3rd's of it blasting the OPUS team and then slip in at the end the fact that the protest should be aimed at both sides. That both sides were in direct violation, that is what called "below the fold" in our business.
That is biased journalism. plain and simple.
I do not care who wins this, I have said that before, but the truth will out! the truth will out!
yoyo
The One True b!X on 17 May 2005
but the truth will out! the truth will out!
Ok, you first. What is your name, address, and telephone number?
Randy Leonard on 17 May 2005
"The PDC's fate will be discussed in city council chambers on June 16..."
Wrong.
June 15th at 6pm in city hall chambers.
And by the way, some of the other misinformation and misrepresentations being made by the anonymous posters here is received with a great deal of conern as to content and motivation.
yoyoGirl on 17 May 2005
Sorry about the incorrect date of the council meeting. I wrote it on my calendar correctly, but was too lazy to check when citing it in my previous post -- because I thought I remembered it correctly.
And my real name is Aimee Knudsson. Roseway district, formerly of Kerns. I'd prefer not to leave my home phone number. Will post as "Aimee" from this point forward.
Randy Leonard on 17 May 2005
Apology accepted. Thank you.
Alan DeWitt on 17 May 2005
"This is not a credible forum for them to exchange information with the public."
Obviously you have not been reading the thread on neighborhood service centers. If that thread isn't a credible forum, I don't know what is.
(Speaking of that thread: Bravo, Commissioner Leonard. If I lived in Portland, your honest self-appraisals in that discussion would be sufficient to make me a loyal voter. Not every politician can come out and admit that they failed. I'll remember this if you ever run for statewide office and, as much as I hate to disappoint Jack Peek, I'll probably even campaign on your behalf.)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I post here under my real name. (Which might prove a bit foolhardy if I end up eating Than's knuckle sandwich in return for my random potshot at thinktroll.) I have also posted here under the name "Dimwitt" because, I have to admit, it is kinda funny. I may continue to do that now and then.
Randy Leonard on 17 May 2005
Thank you, Alan. I appreciate your kind remarks.
paul gronke on 18 May 2005
I hate to sound like a recent arrival out of town snob, but this all strikes me as so much bush league. Someone sees Jane at the coffee shop with John? Someone else ventilates about a supposed contribution from Jim to Joseph? Personal letters from X to Y, phone calls from Z to A.
Gosh. No wonder Portland is the poor relation to Seattle. They do business. They do tourism. They do higher education. They do sports.
We just futz about and examine our navel lint.
Grow up folks and smell the coffee. Let's get off our fu**ing as*es and get this development moving.
doretta on 18 May 2005
Um, paul, you might want to check your satire meter, I think it might be on the fritz.
justa guy on 18 May 2005
I'll remember this if you ever run for statewide office and, as much as I hate to disappoint Jack Peek, I'll probably even campaign on your behalf.)
It would be a big relief to get him out of PDX...TRY this cell phone tax and HIS "whatever' crap to a reasonable question in Baker City and K-falls, but as those folks already know, in Randys eyes, they dont count for S--- . PLEASE RUN FOR STATE OFFICE AND SOON.
thinkbigPDX on 18 May 2005
The reality is it doesn’t matter who anyone is and the affiliations, if any, are worth noting, but really we are all citizens of this city and have an opinion on the bridgehead project. A first name, an alias, who cares? I have a personal e-mail that I check regularly at thinkbigpdx@yahoo.com. I don’t want calls at my house or on my cell, but if it makes you all feel better, I live in the city and make an effort to follow the politics of the city.
I have said before I have nothing to gain either way in this whole thing and have spent as much time with Bruce as I have with Brad. And I firmly believe that the citizens of this city have something to gain by being exposed to an honest source of news/information that is not afraid, but is also not biased. I thought I had this in B!X and have been a reader of the communiqué for a few years. Never posted, but read what was there and learned from it. The bridgehead thing got me to post because I felt the level of bias was unconscionable.
It stood out to me as a departure from the normal “opinion based” bias of the editor that lived here as in any other news source. I started paying attention and did a little digging and found that BEAM had exerted an undue influence on the one true opinion. I know this to be a fact. I heard it from the BEAM team and am certain that the communiqué was used as a part of a broader strategy to influence the community. Our friend B!X was taken by the BEAM team and became a pawn in the game of some very powerful, greedy people who certainly know how to spin the system as well as anyone.
B!X, they got you this time. Admit it or prove they didn’t. It’s alright, everyone gets taken sometimes. The important thing is to look at your mistakes with an objective eye and learn from them so the next time someone is a little too congratulatory, a little too interested in your opinion, a little too willing to support you and you are not sure why you stop, think about it and ask yourself what is their motivation? How am I helping them? What am I doing for them that I might not be aware of? You got got. Learn from it and move on.
The One True b!X on 18 May 2005
That's your big revelation, after your earlier hit-and-run allegation that the Beam team paid me off?
I don't have to disprove vague comments of influence over me which come with no evidence. You give me evidence, and I'll respond to it no matter where it does or doesn't lead.
If you've got a card, play it. Otherwise, I think people are intelligent enough to see this is nothing but unsubstantiated charges.
doretta on 18 May 2005
So, "think", still with the innuendo but no particulars? Put up or shut up, why don't you? You really do think we are all so stupid we won't notice you haven't actually said anything yet, don't you?
Or are you just trying to goad b!X so that he'll lose his temper and do a "Clevenger"?
That's "big" of you.
Dave J. on 18 May 2005
B!X, they got you this time. Admit it or prove they didn’t.
Ah ha! "Prove they didn't." That's the loser's last taunt before slinking off into (we hope) obscurity. One hears that demand from the right side of the aisle all the time--prove that Saddam didn't have WMD. Prove that Al Qaeda wasn't working with Iraq on 9/11. Of course it is difficult to prove a negative, which our big thinker knows all too well.
I heard it from the BEAM team
And that's the most declarative statement yet. Cough up your source, why dontcha? Are you saying that someone @ BEAM not only told you that they had paid off b!X for his opinion, but that he knew about it? Because that is certainly the charge you are making, and that's very serious. I think you are treading dangerously close to thin ice the longer you dance around the little secret you are apparently so proud of.
Because if b!X didn't know about who was funding his site, then he wouldn't be in the quid-pro-quo situation you evidently think he is in. And if he did know, then he'd be guilty of the ultimate sin in blogging--accepting contributions in exchange for an editorial slant, and failing to disclose such to his readers. You are clearly insinuating the latter, and you need to either back away from that or provide proof.
The One True b!X on 18 May 2005
One other thing. If you're so big on the premise that people have a right to know all the information so they can judge for themselves whether or not someone is bought and paid for, or has a vested interest in something, then that's why you need to pony up your real identity, to afford the rest of us the oportunity to judge fr ourselves, not simply trust your statements that you're not part of one side or the other in this game.
You're telling people not to simply trust me. But you're telling those same people just to trust you.
So one other thing I think my readers are smart enough to see: Anyone who demands one set of rules for themselves while trying to impose a different set of rules on someone else, is someone without credibility.
Dave J. on 18 May 2005
It's becoming more and more apparent that "thinkbig" is most likely either someone at PDC or someone at Opus, and that this person comes from a world where a person supports something only because the backers of that thing have paid them off. He looks around and sees the widespread community support for Beam's proposal, and naturally assumes that this can only be because of nefarious backroom deals and outright payouts. That is certainly what he is alleging (with all the subtlety and nuance of a jackhammer) here. It is evident that he is simply incapable of getting that concept that people occasionally support the better idea because, um, it's the better idea.
tomhiggins on 18 May 2005
That ThinkBig has fallen on such desperate turns as "Im rubber your glue" is telling of several things...
* There is a vested interest on his part to do some face saving for either himself or someone close and the tactic chosen is to smear some grime on bix. "Hey dont look at our train wreck of stupidity, look at that b!x guy becuase we have proof hes..uuum.hes...hes being influence by beam..yea thats the ticket"
* Given the continuing coverage of BullyBoys ties with the PDC (http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=6321) and given the timed attack of ThinkBig it seems likely to reason there might be a link of sorts to be found there.
* The break down of attacks by ThinkBig shows a decided lack of skill at online parlance beyond simple partisan exchanges or the type of interoffice email maneuvering that speaks to an overextended sense of self worth in this particular field of communication. There is no artiste sensability of the kind you would find in someone who has honed thier craft on usenet, across decades of bbs postings or even at a face to face exchange between opposing ideas in a civilized manner. It speaks more to the dumbing down of discourse where shallow falacy replaces factaul veracity.
* The supposed "Im an insider" slant on ThinkBig further speaks to either an overinflated ego as to skill level at communications or perhaps an underlings overreaching imitation of supposed "proper" communcations. It also lets us know that when this thing does get opened up, when we know the True Names all around, there will either be chuckle at the underling who overreached, the non entity who supposed his mask of innuendo was that damn good, or a belly shaking rip roaring laugh at yet another insider who decided to play bully boy on b!x. The last would also be a good show of the decay of the infrastructual problems of the citys workings and further strengthen the notion that One True person with a good intent can make a real impact on the workings of a city such that the bloated fat leeches who live off the tax money of the citizenry feel the heat enough to make idiot attacks against those good works.
Enough run on sentences for ya? Ok. Shorties for the rest of the day..
How about this one, yea I know its a repeat..Prove It ThinkBig. You made the first claim, you say you know the facts. So spill it. If you dont, and soon, then all your claims are for nada and the only outcome is to show you as unreliable, incompitent and a bit of a worthless hack. Given that you claim insider status and given the fact your True Name will eventualy be tied to this it will be interesting to see the reaction of those you do biz with.
-tom
Alan DeWitt on 18 May 2005
"I heard it from the BEAM team and am certain that the communiqué was used as a part of a broader strategy to influence the community."
Well, that could be. It'd be fairly straightforward for someone to "use the communique" to support one plan over another, by posting comments. It's called astroturfing, and any pubic conversation is vulnerable to it.
However, the possible (or actual) existance of astroturfing in the comments is not at all relevant to the communique's editorial integrity. B!x obviously exerts nearly no control over the comment section. Sure, he might be influenced by astroturf comments just like anyone else in the conversation... that's the point of astroturfing. But that's not collusion.
And, if there is astroturfing here, the bad guys still would be the astroturfers, not the editor.
"I know this to be a fact. [...] Admit it or prove they didn’t."
Bullshit. If you know it for a fact, then you can name sources sufficient to prove the connection. If you don't have the guts to say it here, then send your evidence to some other news outlet. I'm sure there's someone who would be delighted to take B!x down a peg. Lars, maybe.
Anyone with half a brain knows any challenge of the form "prove you didn't" is impossible to meet. That's why we operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", ya know, and why we avoid trying people in the court of public opinion. (Funny, I thought you were against media trials just last week.)
B!x, I know it would be a real bummer on many levels, but perhaps its time to consider pubically attaching poster's IP addresses to their posts. That would help expose both astroturfers and trolls.
thinkbigPDX on 18 May 2005
Time will tell and when it does we will all have a great time revisiting the archives of this site to see who was right and who was wrong. You all believe what you do and I will maintain my assertion. It will all come out in the wash. I heard things that make me "uncomfortable" with the editor's position on this issue. The other readers don't want to believe it is possible. Time always tells.
tomhiggins on 18 May 2005
Hey ThinkBig, or is that ThinkGames....
You stated you had FACTS..not BELIFES. You said there were real factual items you had placing BEAM money in Bix's hands for influence....SO the deal here is you either lied and are now caught in a badly constructed trap that backfired on you...or there are facts but they dont say what you said they did.
So which is it? I mean screw this "time will tell" thing,you made the claim and now you are being asked to show your hand or fold like a cheap chair.
Time will tell, and I give it about 5 hours. Either you put up or the case closes on your claim and you are show to be a simpleton fraud with ill intent.
Or as the fitness avatar would say "Come on, give me one more rep..feel the burn,"
-tom
Gigi on 18 May 2005
I can't decide which Flame Warrior thinkBig is:
The Blowhard?
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/blowhard.htm
The Tireless Rebutter?
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm
The Nitpick?
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm
He seems to have traits of each all balled up into a bundle of joy and innuendo... Oh wait, perhaps he is this one:
http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/stealth.htm
JACK PEEK on 18 May 2005
Tonya Collier...former county commissionor (mine, when all this crap first started in the grouphome deal) worked so hard for the neighborhood impacted, arranged meeting after meeting..(like another commissioner said he did), then low an behold, when elections came up, after we got the place shoved down our throat, a newpaper ad showing all who donated and supported her..WHY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO GOT THE HOME PLACED!
So the point, B!X....KNOWING OR NOT, did any money from any source close to this developer hit your pocket?
Shut the guy up once an for all!
Or I'm telling your Mom, you fibbed!