LESSONS LEARNED: Being Nice to Bob Dunning Does Not Pay

(The Scorpion and the Turtle)

Last Friday, I put up a “briefs” piece talking about a few small items, one of which was some commentary on Dunning’s week where I agreed with several points that he made, including his support for Measure J.

Researching old Davis Enterprise articles is kind of tricky at times. Newsbank has a database that goes back to 1997, however, the further back one goes in time, the more sketchy the database becomes. My search of “Bob Dunning” and “Measure J” revealed nothing prior to 2004. That left me with two alternatives—one would be to go to the library to wade through old microfilm from 2000 or the other was to ask people active in Davis at that time what their recollection was. Several people remembered Bob Dunning being mentioned in the “No on J” ad prior to the election and argued that his position was considerably nuanced and ambiguous.

So as my commentary on the matter, I threw in the line, “Then perhaps most shockingly he strongly supports Measure J (a measure he opposed when it was actually on the ballot)”—and didn’t think twice about it until I got an email from Bob Dunning, much to my surprise, since the last time he emailed me he was none too happy with me.

Dunning wrote:

“One quick correction if you wish to make it. I have always been in favor of Measure J. Both before and after. (Ask the anti-J folks. They were very mad at me at the time.) I have the battle scars to prove it. I can’t believe you didn’t check that out and I do note a lack of any quotes from me to back up your assertion that I was against Measure J.”

While this was a very small part of the piece–the major part was to demonstrate Dunning’s contemporary position on some issues that we have agreement. However, since I was clearly wrong here, I put an immediate correction on the blog entry and intended to examine it further.

Dunning was not satisfied with this solution:

“Your “correction” woefully misses the mark on two fronts. First, you didn’t list it anew, you just went back to the original copy, which most folks have already read and aren’t likely to read again…”

I politely explained to him that blogs work a bit differently than newspapers.

“There is a difference between a blog and a newspaper. One of the differences is that the majority people read newspapers when they first come out. However, the majority of the people who will read this blog entry will do so in the future and have not done so already. So for people in the future, they will see that correction. People log on today and read what I wrote four months ago using Google and other search engines or going through the search and archive features on the blog itself. So you actually do want that correction in the blog. I have left the text the same so as to not distort the record that I was incorrect–I do not attempt to re-write history but I do like to correct misinformation.”

Bob Dunning is largely correct on the history of his comments and my blog was incorrect in stating that he opposed Measure J.

On Sunday March 5, 2000 the “No on J” people paid for a full page ad in the Davis Enterprise. One of the blurbs was from Bob Dunning.

“We have too many people living here right now. What I propose is Measure O. Measure O will actually decrease the population.”

This ad implied Dunning’s opposition to Measure J. Dunning believed that ad to be a distortion that was flat out wrong. In his words he was extremely “pissed off” that his name was in the ad. So, Dunning then took the unusual step of having a Monday column on March 6, 2000 to respond. He writes:

“[W]orse yet, anyone who has read anything I’ve written over the last two months of this bitter campaign knows that… “No on J” is the exact oppose of how I am likely to vote in tomorrow’s election…

Basically, what I’ve said in several columns is that we have nothing to fear from letting people vote on issues of this magnitude, that Measure J is neither anti-growth nor pro-growth, but simply a measure that allows people to vote on growth…”

Having waded through two months of Davis Enterprises from January 2, 2000 until March 6, 2000, I would say that statement is somewhat accurate. Notice he said it was the exact opposite of how he would “likely” vote in the election.

Moreover he added:

“Unlike some commentators . . . . I refuse to endorse anyone for City Council or much of anything else.”

In any event, I was clearly in error on Dunning’s position on Measure J, though it seems clear that he was far from a clear-cut support of Measure J.

Nevertheless, I decided to try to do the right thing here and make an effort to clarify the record. I took the unusual step of sending Mr. Dunning a draft of this blog entry. I was roundly criticized for doing this by some close to me. They correctly point out neither Bob Dunning nor Debbie Davis would ever send me a draft for my review as a courtesy. And while that is unequivocally true, I want to do business differently than Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise.

One reason that a blog can be valuable to a community is that it allows information, including updates and corrections to be posted as they become available unlike newspapers that may report incorrect information only to “possibly” have a small correction printed on some obscure page.

Unfortunately my gesture of good will as well as my attempt to correct the record was returned with a hard slap in the face. In response to a draft of this blog, I received a two-page, single-spaced, diatribe from Bob Dunning.

“All of that was, of course, available to you as part of the public record. Everything I have ever written is out there for scrutiny. You don’t need a secret code to access it. And yet you, you who claims to be presenting the real story you won’t read in The Davis Enterprise, did no research at all to validate the facts.”

The public record as Dunning refers to it required me to go down to the library for two hours to wade through the ancient microfilm technology.

“A simple phone call (I’m listed) or email (my email is in the paper five days a week) would have yielded the truth, as if the truth would have mattered to you, because, let’s face it, it didn’t fit your argument that I flip-flopped on Measure J and cannot be trusted. You maligned my honesty and my integrity with a bald-faced lie. And, if you think I’m biting your head off again, it’s because you deserve it.”

Perhaps the tone of this response suggests why I might be reluctant to contact Mr. Dunning. Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?

I made an honest mistake, sincerely attempted to correct it, and he calls this “A bald-faced lie.”

He finishes:

“Are you, in the spirit of truthfulness, going to reveal your shoddy “research” methods to your readers and explain to them who these “couple of people” were and why their memories were so bad on the most pivotal Davis election in the last 30 years?

The theme of that piece and most of your pieces is that “Bob Dunning cannot be trusted,” and “we can’t believe a thing Bob writes,” yet that conclusion, which has not been “corrected” in your piece, was based on a lie repeated over and over until it became “fact.”

You and your friends, because your knees jerk always to the left on all issues, simply can’t understand someone who takes issues one at a time. “Oh yeah, Bob Dunning was against Measure J, he led the charge, I remember it well.” What garbage.

I can be charitable and say you didn’t remember this important election. Maybe you had other things going on in your life. But, since you were about to malign someone’s honesty and integrity and make a definitive statement about them, it seems to me you owed your readers more than asking “a couple of people.” Especially when the hard facts were so readily available.

It’s hard for me to believe that everyone, including you, “remembered” it the exact opposite of the truth. And if you did “remember” it wrong, how can we trust anything YOU say?

Seems like a convenient excuse so facts didn’t get in the way of a good story.

You violated a critical rule of both journalism and the law by assuming facts not in evidence. And let’s be honest, you wanted the “facts” to be that way. You wanted me to have flip-flopped.

Your after-the-fact correction is silly, irrelevant and woefully inadequate. Your conclusion remains, Bob Dunning can’t be trusted because he flip flops, even though what you just told your readers is completely and maliciously false.

It seems as if you and your sources are the ones who can’t be trusted. I wonder if you’ll point that out to your readers as you seek to print the truth that The Davis Enterprise won’t. We obviously have a harder job than you do. We have to use facts to reach our conclusions. You, on the other hand, can just make stuff up. Or maybe it was a lie and you knew it all along.

Many, many people disagree with my point of view. That’s fine. You can call me crazy, misguided, “conservative” – though I’ll match my true “liberal” credentials and substantial field work for true liberal causes against yours any day – but making up complete, absolute lies that present just the opposite of what I have written and very publicly stood for is inexcusable. Based on the “comments” posted after your lie, many of your readers obviously believed your lie, which means you accomplished your purpose.

Fortunately, since you won’t do it in an adequate manner, I have a column of my own where I can set the record straight. The bottom line is, you didn’t do any research at all, you simply made it up.”

Next time, I’ll simply let Mr. Dunning use the feature on this site that is available to everyone else—the comment feature. If he has a problem with something I have written, he can respond instantly using the comment feature. Many people use it. It works. There will be no further communications between myself and Mr. Dunning.

I leave you with a parable that teaches us all an important lesson:

A scorpion, being a very poor swimmer, asked a turtle to carry him on his back across a river. “Are you mad?” exclaimed the turtle. “You’ll sting me while I’m swimming and I’ll drown.”

“My dear turtle,” laughed the scorpion, “if I were to sting you, you would drown and I would go down with you. Now where is the logic in that?”

“You’re right!” cried the turtle. “Hop on!” The scorpion climbed aboard and halfway across the river gave the turtle a mighty sting. As they both sank to the bottom, the turtle resignedly said:

“Do you mind if I ask you something? You said there’d be no logic in your stinging me. Why did you do it?”

“It has nothing to do with logic,” the drowning scorpion sadly replied. “It’s just my character.”

This is a lesson indeed I will take to heart.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Davis Enterprise

128 comments

  1. And, now, if we didn’t already know, we understand why Dunning still writes for a smalltown, greensheet newspaper like the Enterprise.

    The telling thing is the imperial arrogance. Dunning could start walking down the street in royal garb like Emperor Norton did in San Francisco in the 1860s, but, then, he would have actually have to be likeable, and that might prove difficult.

    The hilarious thing is Dunning’s utter lack of understanding of how blogs work. Visitors post corrections and elaborations about content all the time, just yesterday someone did it on the blog where I post. It’s how they work, there’s a give and take without gatekeepers that one doesn’t experience with newspapers like the Enterprise.

  2. And, now, if we didn’t already know, we understand why Dunning still writes for a smalltown, greensheet newspaper like the Enterprise.

    The telling thing is the imperial arrogance. Dunning could start walking down the street in royal garb like Emperor Norton did in San Francisco in the 1860s, but, then, he would have actually have to be likeable, and that might prove difficult.

    The hilarious thing is Dunning’s utter lack of understanding of how blogs work. Visitors post corrections and elaborations about content all the time, just yesterday someone did it on the blog where I post. It’s how they work, there’s a give and take without gatekeepers that one doesn’t experience with newspapers like the Enterprise.

  3. And, now, if we didn’t already know, we understand why Dunning still writes for a smalltown, greensheet newspaper like the Enterprise.

    The telling thing is the imperial arrogance. Dunning could start walking down the street in royal garb like Emperor Norton did in San Francisco in the 1860s, but, then, he would have actually have to be likeable, and that might prove difficult.

    The hilarious thing is Dunning’s utter lack of understanding of how blogs work. Visitors post corrections and elaborations about content all the time, just yesterday someone did it on the blog where I post. It’s how they work, there’s a give and take without gatekeepers that one doesn’t experience with newspapers like the Enterprise.

  4. And, now, if we didn’t already know, we understand why Dunning still writes for a smalltown, greensheet newspaper like the Enterprise.

    The telling thing is the imperial arrogance. Dunning could start walking down the street in royal garb like Emperor Norton did in San Francisco in the 1860s, but, then, he would have actually have to be likeable, and that might prove difficult.

    The hilarious thing is Dunning’s utter lack of understanding of how blogs work. Visitors post corrections and elaborations about content all the time, just yesterday someone did it on the blog where I post. It’s how they work, there’s a give and take without gatekeepers that one doesn’t experience with newspapers like the Enterprise.

  5. Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest. I “love” this piece.. Dunning uses emails to take “pot shots” at readers who contact him in the belief that their communications are confidential…
    The difference here is that Doug has not distorted or selectively edited the material.. It is all there exactly as written and it
    reads like a morality tale.

  6. Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest. I “love” this piece.. Dunning uses emails to take “pot shots” at readers who contact him in the belief that their communications are confidential…
    The difference here is that Doug has not distorted or selectively edited the material.. It is all there exactly as written and it
    reads like a morality tale.

  7. Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest. I “love” this piece.. Dunning uses emails to take “pot shots” at readers who contact him in the belief that their communications are confidential…
    The difference here is that Doug has not distorted or selectively edited the material.. It is all there exactly as written and it
    reads like a morality tale.

  8. Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest. I “love” this piece.. Dunning uses emails to take “pot shots” at readers who contact him in the belief that their communications are confidential…
    The difference here is that Doug has not distorted or selectively edited the material.. It is all there exactly as written and it
    reads like a morality tale.

  9. If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.

  10. If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.

  11. If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.

  12. If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.

  13. “Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?”

    David,

    I’m amazed by your very strange reaction to criticism. “Who, me?”

    You often write scathing (and in my opinion unfair) attacks on Dunning and other public figures in town — and in at least one instance against a person who simply works for the city of Davis, but is not otherwise a public figure — and then you are taken aback when the people so attacked react harshly.

    (In most cases, I am the only reader of your blog who will stand up against these attacks on others, even when I don’t know them. And for that I get called a toady or a sycophant.)

    I grant that, when compared with the coward who calls himself “Davisite” — if he were not a coward, he would tell us his name — your level of calumny on this blog is minimal. But, nonetheless, you ought to be smart enough to realize that just about everything you express on your blog comes across as a vicious attack on the character and integrity of real live human beings. If you don’t want to have so many people react so defensively, then maybe you should try to be more civil in this blog. And a big part of civility involves thoroughly checking and sourcing your facts, and using a more understanding or sympathetic tone.

    It is one thing to be a muckraker, when there is clear and provable evidence of corruption or malfeasance. But it’s abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective.

    As the proprietor of this site, you should be held acccountable whenever defamatory remarks are posted. And you deserve especial condemnation when such defamation is made by your hand-picked editor, “Davisite,” who is a champion of name-calling.

    Now go ahead, “Davisite,” tell me what an a**hole I am.

  14. “Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?”

    David,

    I’m amazed by your very strange reaction to criticism. “Who, me?”

    You often write scathing (and in my opinion unfair) attacks on Dunning and other public figures in town — and in at least one instance against a person who simply works for the city of Davis, but is not otherwise a public figure — and then you are taken aback when the people so attacked react harshly.

    (In most cases, I am the only reader of your blog who will stand up against these attacks on others, even when I don’t know them. And for that I get called a toady or a sycophant.)

    I grant that, when compared with the coward who calls himself “Davisite” — if he were not a coward, he would tell us his name — your level of calumny on this blog is minimal. But, nonetheless, you ought to be smart enough to realize that just about everything you express on your blog comes across as a vicious attack on the character and integrity of real live human beings. If you don’t want to have so many people react so defensively, then maybe you should try to be more civil in this blog. And a big part of civility involves thoroughly checking and sourcing your facts, and using a more understanding or sympathetic tone.

    It is one thing to be a muckraker, when there is clear and provable evidence of corruption or malfeasance. But it’s abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective.

    As the proprietor of this site, you should be held acccountable whenever defamatory remarks are posted. And you deserve especial condemnation when such defamation is made by your hand-picked editor, “Davisite,” who is a champion of name-calling.

    Now go ahead, “Davisite,” tell me what an a**hole I am.

  15. “Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?”

    David,

    I’m amazed by your very strange reaction to criticism. “Who, me?”

    You often write scathing (and in my opinion unfair) attacks on Dunning and other public figures in town — and in at least one instance against a person who simply works for the city of Davis, but is not otherwise a public figure — and then you are taken aback when the people so attacked react harshly.

    (In most cases, I am the only reader of your blog who will stand up against these attacks on others, even when I don’t know them. And for that I get called a toady or a sycophant.)

    I grant that, when compared with the coward who calls himself “Davisite” — if he were not a coward, he would tell us his name — your level of calumny on this blog is minimal. But, nonetheless, you ought to be smart enough to realize that just about everything you express on your blog comes across as a vicious attack on the character and integrity of real live human beings. If you don’t want to have so many people react so defensively, then maybe you should try to be more civil in this blog. And a big part of civility involves thoroughly checking and sourcing your facts, and using a more understanding or sympathetic tone.

    It is one thing to be a muckraker, when there is clear and provable evidence of corruption or malfeasance. But it’s abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective.

    As the proprietor of this site, you should be held acccountable whenever defamatory remarks are posted. And you deserve especial condemnation when such defamation is made by your hand-picked editor, “Davisite,” who is a champion of name-calling.

    Now go ahead, “Davisite,” tell me what an a**hole I am.

  16. “Most of my communication attempts with Mr. Dunning have likewise received this sort of response. So why would I feel comfortable calling him or emailing him to ask?”

    David,

    I’m amazed by your very strange reaction to criticism. “Who, me?”

    You often write scathing (and in my opinion unfair) attacks on Dunning and other public figures in town — and in at least one instance against a person who simply works for the city of Davis, but is not otherwise a public figure — and then you are taken aback when the people so attacked react harshly.

    (In most cases, I am the only reader of your blog who will stand up against these attacks on others, even when I don’t know them. And for that I get called a toady or a sycophant.)

    I grant that, when compared with the coward who calls himself “Davisite” — if he were not a coward, he would tell us his name — your level of calumny on this blog is minimal. But, nonetheless, you ought to be smart enough to realize that just about everything you express on your blog comes across as a vicious attack on the character and integrity of real live human beings. If you don’t want to have so many people react so defensively, then maybe you should try to be more civil in this blog. And a big part of civility involves thoroughly checking and sourcing your facts, and using a more understanding or sympathetic tone.

    It is one thing to be a muckraker, when there is clear and provable evidence of corruption or malfeasance. But it’s abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective.

    As the proprietor of this site, you should be held acccountable whenever defamatory remarks are posted. And you deserve especial condemnation when such defamation is made by your hand-picked editor, “Davisite,” who is a champion of name-calling.

    Now go ahead, “Davisite,” tell me what an a**hole I am.

  17. “Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest.”

    Davisite, are you Bill Kopper?

    For what it’s worth, Dunning responded to this charge, first made by Kopper and here repeated by “Davisite,” the coward.

    Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    Here is what Dunning wrote:

    Said Kopper’s e-mail to Davis: “Mr. Dunning’s May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column.”

    Continued the e-mail: “Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.”

    Kopper then went on to argue why “statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly’s conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant.”

    Added Kopper: “I consider Mr. Dunning’s article professional slander of the three attorneys who wrote the Op. Ed piece, because Mr. Dunning knew the information was false before he wrote the column.”

    I think maybe the word

    Kopper was searching for was “libel,” but he’s the attorney, I’m not.

    Kopper’s charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It’s hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you’d have to agree that the information I allegedly “received” was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.

    Now, unless Kopper has tapped my phone, received an illegal recording of our conversation or happened to be peering over the fence from my neighbor Al’s back yard with some sort of high-tech listening device, I’m not sure how he knows the contents of my phone conversation with Mel Trujillo. And yet he uses terms like “precise reasons” as if he were there.

    Kopper also seems to know the exact time I wrote my May 12 column, since he claims I wrote it after allegedly receiving some contrary information from Mel Trujillo. It makes me wonder if maybe a little bell sounds in Kopper’s downtown office at the precise moment I have put the last period at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of my column.

    Furthermore, Kopper didn’t contact me in any way to ascertain either the content or the timing of the phone conversation with Mel Trujillo or the exact time I finished writing my column.

    But that didn’t stop Kopper from reporting the alleged contents of that conversation to my employer and using those alleged contents to claim I had knowingly written a column with false and defamatory information.

    In other words, he tried to convince my employer I was an unethical and untrustworthy employee. And believe me, in the current climate of journalistic scrutiny, those can be fatal words to a columnist’s future.

    Just for the record, Kopper’s charge is false. It’s also defamatory. The fact he made the charge to my employer makes it all the more defamatory because it strikes at the heart of my livelihood.

    As for Mel Trujillo, a nice enough sort who unwittingly became a mole for Kopper and his false charges to my employer, Mel now says (in an e-mail to me yesterday): “In retrospect,

    I believe that your column may have been written and submitted before my first phone call.

    I am lousy with days and dates. I could be mistaken about the days of the week that I called you.”

    Sounds like your star witness just went south on you, counselor.

  18. “Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest.”

    Davisite, are you Bill Kopper?

    For what it’s worth, Dunning responded to this charge, first made by Kopper and here repeated by “Davisite,” the coward.

    Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    Here is what Dunning wrote:

    Said Kopper’s e-mail to Davis: “Mr. Dunning’s May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column.”

    Continued the e-mail: “Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.”

    Kopper then went on to argue why “statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly’s conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant.”

    Added Kopper: “I consider Mr. Dunning’s article professional slander of the three attorneys who wrote the Op. Ed piece, because Mr. Dunning knew the information was false before he wrote the column.”

    I think maybe the word

    Kopper was searching for was “libel,” but he’s the attorney, I’m not.

    Kopper’s charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It’s hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you’d have to agree that the information I allegedly “received” was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.

    Now, unless Kopper has tapped my phone, received an illegal recording of our conversation or happened to be peering over the fence from my neighbor Al’s back yard with some sort of high-tech listening device, I’m not sure how he knows the contents of my phone conversation with Mel Trujillo. And yet he uses terms like “precise reasons” as if he were there.

    Kopper also seems to know the exact time I wrote my May 12 column, since he claims I wrote it after allegedly receiving some contrary information from Mel Trujillo. It makes me wonder if maybe a little bell sounds in Kopper’s downtown office at the precise moment I have put the last period at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of my column.

    Furthermore, Kopper didn’t contact me in any way to ascertain either the content or the timing of the phone conversation with Mel Trujillo or the exact time I finished writing my column.

    But that didn’t stop Kopper from reporting the alleged contents of that conversation to my employer and using those alleged contents to claim I had knowingly written a column with false and defamatory information.

    In other words, he tried to convince my employer I was an unethical and untrustworthy employee. And believe me, in the current climate of journalistic scrutiny, those can be fatal words to a columnist’s future.

    Just for the record, Kopper’s charge is false. It’s also defamatory. The fact he made the charge to my employer makes it all the more defamatory because it strikes at the heart of my livelihood.

    As for Mel Trujillo, a nice enough sort who unwittingly became a mole for Kopper and his false charges to my employer, Mel now says (in an e-mail to me yesterday): “In retrospect,

    I believe that your column may have been written and submitted before my first phone call.

    I am lousy with days and dates. I could be mistaken about the days of the week that I called you.”

    Sounds like your star witness just went south on you, counselor.

  19. “Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest.”

    Davisite, are you Bill Kopper?

    For what it’s worth, Dunning responded to this charge, first made by Kopper and here repeated by “Davisite,” the coward.

    Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    Here is what Dunning wrote:

    Said Kopper’s e-mail to Davis: “Mr. Dunning’s May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column.”

    Continued the e-mail: “Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.”

    Kopper then went on to argue why “statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly’s conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant.”

    Added Kopper: “I consider Mr. Dunning’s article professional slander of the three attorneys who wrote the Op. Ed piece, because Mr. Dunning knew the information was false before he wrote the column.”

    I think maybe the word

    Kopper was searching for was “libel,” but he’s the attorney, I’m not.

    Kopper’s charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It’s hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you’d have to agree that the information I allegedly “received” was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.

    Now, unless Kopper has tapped my phone, received an illegal recording of our conversation or happened to be peering over the fence from my neighbor Al’s back yard with some sort of high-tech listening device, I’m not sure how he knows the contents of my phone conversation with Mel Trujillo. And yet he uses terms like “precise reasons” as if he were there.

    Kopper also seems to know the exact time I wrote my May 12 column, since he claims I wrote it after allegedly receiving some contrary information from Mel Trujillo. It makes me wonder if maybe a little bell sounds in Kopper’s downtown office at the precise moment I have put the last period at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of my column.

    Furthermore, Kopper didn’t contact me in any way to ascertain either the content or the timing of the phone conversation with Mel Trujillo or the exact time I finished writing my column.

    But that didn’t stop Kopper from reporting the alleged contents of that conversation to my employer and using those alleged contents to claim I had knowingly written a column with false and defamatory information.

    In other words, he tried to convince my employer I was an unethical and untrustworthy employee. And believe me, in the current climate of journalistic scrutiny, those can be fatal words to a columnist’s future.

    Just for the record, Kopper’s charge is false. It’s also defamatory. The fact he made the charge to my employer makes it all the more defamatory because it strikes at the heart of my livelihood.

    As for Mel Trujillo, a nice enough sort who unwittingly became a mole for Kopper and his false charges to my employer, Mel now says (in an e-mail to me yesterday): “In retrospect,

    I believe that your column may have been written and submitted before my first phone call.

    I am lousy with days and dates. I could be mistaken about the days of the week that I called you.”

    Sounds like your star witness just went south on you, counselor.

  20. “Of course, Bob Dunning conviently forgets that HE was contacted by phone by Kopper et al(and ignored by him) before he wrote his column about the legal issues of the Buzayan arrest.”

    Davisite, are you Bill Kopper?

    For what it’s worth, Dunning responded to this charge, first made by Kopper and here repeated by “Davisite,” the coward.

    Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    Here is what Dunning wrote:

    Said Kopper’s e-mail to Davis: “Mr. Dunning’s May 12th column lambasting Ms. Wormeli, Mr. Gerowitz and myself about our May 7th Op. Ed. is particularly offensive because Mel Trujillo had informed Mr. Dunning that he was incorrect on the law (and the precise reasons Mr. Dunning was incorrect) prior to Mr. Dunning writing the column.”

    Continued the e-mail: “Officer Ly was not permitted to take Halema down to the police station, question her, and arrest her without an arrest warrant under the auspices of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.”

    Kopper then went on to argue why “statutory law and case law absolutely prohibits Officer Ly’s conduct toward Halema without an arrest warrant.”

    Added Kopper: “I consider Mr. Dunning’s article professional slander of the three attorneys who wrote the Op. Ed piece, because Mr. Dunning knew the information was false before he wrote the column.”

    I think maybe the word

    Kopper was searching for was “libel,” but he’s the attorney, I’m not.

    Kopper’s charge, basically, is that I wrote a column knowingly using false information. He makes this contention based on the alleged timing and the alleged contents of a phone conversation he was not a party to. It’s hearsay at best, and an outright falsehood at worst. Plus, you’d have to agree that the information I allegedly “received” was accurate, on point and overwhelmingly conclusive.

    Now, unless Kopper has tapped my phone, received an illegal recording of our conversation or happened to be peering over the fence from my neighbor Al’s back yard with some sort of high-tech listening device, I’m not sure how he knows the contents of my phone conversation with Mel Trujillo. And yet he uses terms like “precise reasons” as if he were there.

    Kopper also seems to know the exact time I wrote my May 12 column, since he claims I wrote it after allegedly receiving some contrary information from Mel Trujillo. It makes me wonder if maybe a little bell sounds in Kopper’s downtown office at the precise moment I have put the last period at the end of the last sentence of the last paragraph of my column.

    Furthermore, Kopper didn’t contact me in any way to ascertain either the content or the timing of the phone conversation with Mel Trujillo or the exact time I finished writing my column.

    But that didn’t stop Kopper from reporting the alleged contents of that conversation to my employer and using those alleged contents to claim I had knowingly written a column with false and defamatory information.

    In other words, he tried to convince my employer I was an unethical and untrustworthy employee. And believe me, in the current climate of journalistic scrutiny, those can be fatal words to a columnist’s future.

    Just for the record, Kopper’s charge is false. It’s also defamatory. The fact he made the charge to my employer makes it all the more defamatory because it strikes at the heart of my livelihood.

    As for Mel Trujillo, a nice enough sort who unwittingly became a mole for Kopper and his false charges to my employer, Mel now says (in an e-mail to me yesterday): “In retrospect,

    I believe that your column may have been written and submitted before my first phone call.

    I am lousy with days and dates. I could be mistaken about the days of the week that I called you.”

    Sounds like your star witness just went south on you, counselor.

  21. Anonymous –

    As a loyal follower of the Vanguard I kindly remind you that newspapers did not out “Doug Paul Davis,” a.k.a. David Greenwald. He chose to be interviewed by the Sacramento Bee.

    Might I also add that that the Bee did a very good job of interviewing him and getting to the root of the reason why he started the blog in the first place. The one-sided view presented by the Enterprise has been a diservice to this community for a long time.

    I think I speak for many in Davis and surrounding areas when I say, “thank you for all the work you do maintaining the Vanguard Doug Paul Davis. You take a more in depth look at issues than the local paper.”

    Keep up the great work!

  22. Anonymous –

    As a loyal follower of the Vanguard I kindly remind you that newspapers did not out “Doug Paul Davis,” a.k.a. David Greenwald. He chose to be interviewed by the Sacramento Bee.

    Might I also add that that the Bee did a very good job of interviewing him and getting to the root of the reason why he started the blog in the first place. The one-sided view presented by the Enterprise has been a diservice to this community for a long time.

    I think I speak for many in Davis and surrounding areas when I say, “thank you for all the work you do maintaining the Vanguard Doug Paul Davis. You take a more in depth look at issues than the local paper.”

    Keep up the great work!

  23. Anonymous –

    As a loyal follower of the Vanguard I kindly remind you that newspapers did not out “Doug Paul Davis,” a.k.a. David Greenwald. He chose to be interviewed by the Sacramento Bee.

    Might I also add that that the Bee did a very good job of interviewing him and getting to the root of the reason why he started the blog in the first place. The one-sided view presented by the Enterprise has been a diservice to this community for a long time.

    I think I speak for many in Davis and surrounding areas when I say, “thank you for all the work you do maintaining the Vanguard Doug Paul Davis. You take a more in depth look at issues than the local paper.”

    Keep up the great work!

  24. Anonymous –

    As a loyal follower of the Vanguard I kindly remind you that newspapers did not out “Doug Paul Davis,” a.k.a. David Greenwald. He chose to be interviewed by the Sacramento Bee.

    Might I also add that that the Bee did a very good job of interviewing him and getting to the root of the reason why he started the blog in the first place. The one-sided view presented by the Enterprise has been a diservice to this community for a long time.

    I think I speak for many in Davis and surrounding areas when I say, “thank you for all the work you do maintaining the Vanguard Doug Paul Davis. You take a more in depth look at issues than the local paper.”

    Keep up the great work!

  25. I think what we have here are columnists who have never been questioned or challenged on their writings other than an occassional letter that may be printed in the Letter to the Editor section.

    I agree with Dunning hardly ever, but sometimes. Rich Rifkin…hmmm..sometimes, but rarely. I think it’s good to have a broad range of issues addressed and now that the Vanguard is giving us that opportunity.

    It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.

    Here’s some honey…be a little kinder Dunning & Rifkin.

  26. I think what we have here are columnists who have never been questioned or challenged on their writings other than an occassional letter that may be printed in the Letter to the Editor section.

    I agree with Dunning hardly ever, but sometimes. Rich Rifkin…hmmm..sometimes, but rarely. I think it’s good to have a broad range of issues addressed and now that the Vanguard is giving us that opportunity.

    It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.

    Here’s some honey…be a little kinder Dunning & Rifkin.

  27. I think what we have here are columnists who have never been questioned or challenged on their writings other than an occassional letter that may be printed in the Letter to the Editor section.

    I agree with Dunning hardly ever, but sometimes. Rich Rifkin…hmmm..sometimes, but rarely. I think it’s good to have a broad range of issues addressed and now that the Vanguard is giving us that opportunity.

    It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.

    Here’s some honey…be a little kinder Dunning & Rifkin.

  28. I think what we have here are columnists who have never been questioned or challenged on their writings other than an occassional letter that may be printed in the Letter to the Editor section.

    I agree with Dunning hardly ever, but sometimes. Rich Rifkin…hmmm..sometimes, but rarely. I think it’s good to have a broad range of issues addressed and now that the Vanguard is giving us that opportunity.

    It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.

    Here’s some honey…be a little kinder Dunning & Rifkin.

  29. “Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    According to both Kopper and Trujillo, this is not correct. I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this. Trujillo spent a good deal of time explaining the law to Dunning. Trujillo did say it was possible that Dunning had already written his column, but he also had ample time to change it.

  30. “Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    According to both Kopper and Trujillo, this is not correct. I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this. Trujillo spent a good deal of time explaining the law to Dunning. Trujillo did say it was possible that Dunning had already written his column, but he also had ample time to change it.

  31. “Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    According to both Kopper and Trujillo, this is not correct. I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this. Trujillo spent a good deal of time explaining the law to Dunning. Trujillo did say it was possible that Dunning had already written his column, but he also had ample time to change it.

  32. “Kopper’s charge was based on information he received from Mel Trujillo, who later told Dunning that Trujillo had mixed up the dates and times.

    According to both Kopper and Trujillo, this is not correct. I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this. Trujillo spent a good deal of time explaining the law to Dunning. Trujillo did say it was possible that Dunning had already written his column, but he also had ample time to change it.

  33. “It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.”

    In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.

  34. “It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.”

    In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.

  35. “It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.”

    In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.

  36. “It sounds like long-standing Enterprise columnists have some sour grapes to chew on.”

    In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.

  37. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Information like this from anonymous sources is worse than useless.

    I think Bob has good reasons to be upset with various of the folks on this blog. I appreciate that you were trying to make a correction, Doug, but I can’t imagine why you were surprised by Bob’s reaction or chose to make a big deal about it.

  38. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Information like this from anonymous sources is worse than useless.

    I think Bob has good reasons to be upset with various of the folks on this blog. I appreciate that you were trying to make a correction, Doug, but I can’t imagine why you were surprised by Bob’s reaction or chose to make a big deal about it.

  39. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Information like this from anonymous sources is worse than useless.

    I think Bob has good reasons to be upset with various of the folks on this blog. I appreciate that you were trying to make a correction, Doug, but I can’t imagine why you were surprised by Bob’s reaction or chose to make a big deal about it.

  40. “I have spoken with both extensively on this issue, and neither one have said this.”

    Information like this from anonymous sources is worse than useless.

    I think Bob has good reasons to be upset with various of the folks on this blog. I appreciate that you were trying to make a correction, Doug, but I can’t imagine why you were surprised by Bob’s reaction or chose to make a big deal about it.

  41. Does it take one to know one?

    Rich Rifkin states that this blog is dedicated almost exclusively to personal attacks, and yet, being familiar with both this blog, and the Enterprise, there is no question that David engages in a thorough analysis of public policy issues facing the city of Davis and Yolo County that one rarely finds in the Enterprise.

    Methinks Rich doth protest too much. The loss of a local media monopoly hurts, I guess.

    But, let’s go back to the beginning. David made a mistake, acknowledged it, and communicated with Dunning and the Enterprise as to how to correct it (a kind of mistake, by the way, that is usually prompted identified in comments to a blog entry and readily acknowledged by the blogger), going far beyond the call of duty.

    And how did Dunning respond? He acted like a belligerent, arrogant bully, which is no surprise to long time residents of Davis.

    Meanwhile, if you will recall, Dunning posted something false about Lamar Heystek? Did Dunning acknowledge the error? No. Dunning claimed that he got the information as a result of a meeting with Lamar that Lamar says never happened. Dunning then went sideways with it by using it the error to further ridicule Lamar through the auspices of Noreen Mazelis.

    Rich, my advice to you is to separate yourself from this guy, and stop defending him so rabidly, it just makes both of you look bad. Unless, of course, you want to join Dunning in wearing those Emperor Norton outfits in the Farmer’s Market.

    –Richard Estes

  42. Does it take one to know one?

    Rich Rifkin states that this blog is dedicated almost exclusively to personal attacks, and yet, being familiar with both this blog, and the Enterprise, there is no question that David engages in a thorough analysis of public policy issues facing the city of Davis and Yolo County that one rarely finds in the Enterprise.

    Methinks Rich doth protest too much. The loss of a local media monopoly hurts, I guess.

    But, let’s go back to the beginning. David made a mistake, acknowledged it, and communicated with Dunning and the Enterprise as to how to correct it (a kind of mistake, by the way, that is usually prompted identified in comments to a blog entry and readily acknowledged by the blogger), going far beyond the call of duty.

    And how did Dunning respond? He acted like a belligerent, arrogant bully, which is no surprise to long time residents of Davis.

    Meanwhile, if you will recall, Dunning posted something false about Lamar Heystek? Did Dunning acknowledge the error? No. Dunning claimed that he got the information as a result of a meeting with Lamar that Lamar says never happened. Dunning then went sideways with it by using it the error to further ridicule Lamar through the auspices of Noreen Mazelis.

    Rich, my advice to you is to separate yourself from this guy, and stop defending him so rabidly, it just makes both of you look bad. Unless, of course, you want to join Dunning in wearing those Emperor Norton outfits in the Farmer’s Market.

    –Richard Estes

  43. Does it take one to know one?

    Rich Rifkin states that this blog is dedicated almost exclusively to personal attacks, and yet, being familiar with both this blog, and the Enterprise, there is no question that David engages in a thorough analysis of public policy issues facing the city of Davis and Yolo County that one rarely finds in the Enterprise.

    Methinks Rich doth protest too much. The loss of a local media monopoly hurts, I guess.

    But, let’s go back to the beginning. David made a mistake, acknowledged it, and communicated with Dunning and the Enterprise as to how to correct it (a kind of mistake, by the way, that is usually prompted identified in comments to a blog entry and readily acknowledged by the blogger), going far beyond the call of duty.

    And how did Dunning respond? He acted like a belligerent, arrogant bully, which is no surprise to long time residents of Davis.

    Meanwhile, if you will recall, Dunning posted something false about Lamar Heystek? Did Dunning acknowledge the error? No. Dunning claimed that he got the information as a result of a meeting with Lamar that Lamar says never happened. Dunning then went sideways with it by using it the error to further ridicule Lamar through the auspices of Noreen Mazelis.

    Rich, my advice to you is to separate yourself from this guy, and stop defending him so rabidly, it just makes both of you look bad. Unless, of course, you want to join Dunning in wearing those Emperor Norton outfits in the Farmer’s Market.

    –Richard Estes

  44. Does it take one to know one?

    Rich Rifkin states that this blog is dedicated almost exclusively to personal attacks, and yet, being familiar with both this blog, and the Enterprise, there is no question that David engages in a thorough analysis of public policy issues facing the city of Davis and Yolo County that one rarely finds in the Enterprise.

    Methinks Rich doth protest too much. The loss of a local media monopoly hurts, I guess.

    But, let’s go back to the beginning. David made a mistake, acknowledged it, and communicated with Dunning and the Enterprise as to how to correct it (a kind of mistake, by the way, that is usually prompted identified in comments to a blog entry and readily acknowledged by the blogger), going far beyond the call of duty.

    And how did Dunning respond? He acted like a belligerent, arrogant bully, which is no surprise to long time residents of Davis.

    Meanwhile, if you will recall, Dunning posted something false about Lamar Heystek? Did Dunning acknowledge the error? No. Dunning claimed that he got the information as a result of a meeting with Lamar that Lamar says never happened. Dunning then went sideways with it by using it the error to further ridicule Lamar through the auspices of Noreen Mazelis.

    Rich, my advice to you is to separate yourself from this guy, and stop defending him so rabidly, it just makes both of you look bad. Unless, of course, you want to join Dunning in wearing those Emperor Norton outfits in the Farmer’s Market.

    –Richard Estes

  45. Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised? The email that Doug Paul Davis received was obviously written by someone in a state of rage, quite inappropriate to the circumstances.

  46. Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised? The email that Doug Paul Davis received was obviously written by someone in a state of rage, quite inappropriate to the circumstances.

  47. Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised? The email that Doug Paul Davis received was obviously written by someone in a state of rage, quite inappropriate to the circumstances.

  48. Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised? The email that Doug Paul Davis received was obviously written by someone in a state of rage, quite inappropriate to the circumstances.

  49. Mr. Rifkin,

    Sure, nobody likes to be criticized, but you and Mr. Dunning who write commentary for a living evidently have very thin skins. Your many posts on this blog today in response to the Doug Paul Davis article on Mr. Dunning are quite revealing. You accuse others of “attacking,” of being “cowards,” of writing “vicious attacks,” that Doug Paul Davis is being “abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective and of defaming people.” You make assertions, yet offer no evidence to support them.

    You continue: “In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.”

    You accuse others of being “champions of name calling.” Frankly, Mr. Rifkin nobody is more of a champion of name calling than yourself.

    The People’s Vanguard of Davis is a credible source of articles and opinions based upon facts and research whether penned by an identified or anonymous author. It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.

  50. Mr. Rifkin,

    Sure, nobody likes to be criticized, but you and Mr. Dunning who write commentary for a living evidently have very thin skins. Your many posts on this blog today in response to the Doug Paul Davis article on Mr. Dunning are quite revealing. You accuse others of “attacking,” of being “cowards,” of writing “vicious attacks,” that Doug Paul Davis is being “abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective and of defaming people.” You make assertions, yet offer no evidence to support them.

    You continue: “In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.”

    You accuse others of being “champions of name calling.” Frankly, Mr. Rifkin nobody is more of a champion of name calling than yourself.

    The People’s Vanguard of Davis is a credible source of articles and opinions based upon facts and research whether penned by an identified or anonymous author. It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.

  51. Mr. Rifkin,

    Sure, nobody likes to be criticized, but you and Mr. Dunning who write commentary for a living evidently have very thin skins. Your many posts on this blog today in response to the Doug Paul Davis article on Mr. Dunning are quite revealing. You accuse others of “attacking,” of being “cowards,” of writing “vicious attacks,” that Doug Paul Davis is being “abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective and of defaming people.” You make assertions, yet offer no evidence to support them.

    You continue: “In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.”

    You accuse others of being “champions of name calling.” Frankly, Mr. Rifkin nobody is more of a champion of name calling than yourself.

    The People’s Vanguard of Davis is a credible source of articles and opinions based upon facts and research whether penned by an identified or anonymous author. It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.

  52. Mr. Rifkin,

    Sure, nobody likes to be criticized, but you and Mr. Dunning who write commentary for a living evidently have very thin skins. Your many posts on this blog today in response to the Doug Paul Davis article on Mr. Dunning are quite revealing. You accuse others of “attacking,” of being “cowards,” of writing “vicious attacks,” that Doug Paul Davis is being “abusive when almost every story you write is written with invective and of defaming people.” You make assertions, yet offer no evidence to support them.

    You continue: “In English there isn’t such a good word for someone who attacks other people anonymously. I could say you lack balls, but that’s too vulgar. In Yiddish I would just say your pusillanimity makes you a shnook.”

    You accuse others of being “champions of name calling.” Frankly, Mr. Rifkin nobody is more of a champion of name calling than yourself.

    The People’s Vanguard of Davis is a credible source of articles and opinions based upon facts and research whether penned by an identified or anonymous author. It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.

  53. “Anonymous said…
    If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.”
    3:59 PM

    Hey anonymous, aka Bob Dunning,

    You really ought to look in the mirror before casting stones within your glass house.

    Bob, once again you misrepresent the truth by accusing others such as David Greenwald of using writing methods which you regularily employ. And for the record, neither the Sacramento Bee nor other newspapers outed David Greenwald. Reading the articles it was apparent that Greenwald had met and worked with credible reporters and editors who were interested in writing on why blogs are fast becoming both a source of news and a way to hold traditional newspapers and their columnists accountable. It is quite evident that this medium and the truthfulness of it is threatening to you.

  54. “Anonymous said…
    If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.”
    3:59 PM

    Hey anonymous, aka Bob Dunning,

    You really ought to look in the mirror before casting stones within your glass house.

    Bob, once again you misrepresent the truth by accusing others such as David Greenwald of using writing methods which you regularily employ. And for the record, neither the Sacramento Bee nor other newspapers outed David Greenwald. Reading the articles it was apparent that Greenwald had met and worked with credible reporters and editors who were interested in writing on why blogs are fast becoming both a source of news and a way to hold traditional newspapers and their columnists accountable. It is quite evident that this medium and the truthfulness of it is threatening to you.

  55. “Anonymous said…
    If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.”
    3:59 PM

    Hey anonymous, aka Bob Dunning,

    You really ought to look in the mirror before casting stones within your glass house.

    Bob, once again you misrepresent the truth by accusing others such as David Greenwald of using writing methods which you regularily employ. And for the record, neither the Sacramento Bee nor other newspapers outed David Greenwald. Reading the articles it was apparent that Greenwald had met and worked with credible reporters and editors who were interested in writing on why blogs are fast becoming both a source of news and a way to hold traditional newspapers and their columnists accountable. It is quite evident that this medium and the truthfulness of it is threatening to you.

  56. “Anonymous said…
    If there’s one thing you and your ilk are known for, David Greenwald, it’s distorting facts – when you bother with facts at all – and for selectively editing every event to conveniently leave out the parts that don’t suit you.

    I for one am happy to see the newspapers “out” your identity because your only shred of a chance of maintaining any credibility here was to remain anonymous.”
    3:59 PM

    Hey anonymous, aka Bob Dunning,

    You really ought to look in the mirror before casting stones within your glass house.

    Bob, once again you misrepresent the truth by accusing others such as David Greenwald of using writing methods which you regularily employ. And for the record, neither the Sacramento Bee nor other newspapers outed David Greenwald. Reading the articles it was apparent that Greenwald had met and worked with credible reporters and editors who were interested in writing on why blogs are fast becoming both a source of news and a way to hold traditional newspapers and their columnists accountable. It is quite evident that this medium and the truthfulness of it is threatening to you.

  57. Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.

  58. Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.

  59. Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.

  60. Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.

  61. “Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised?”
    Not really. There are 27 or so links to Bob on the People’s Vanguard, and many of them contain characterizations that I think anybody would find offensive. It’s clear there is personal animus between Bob and Doug.

    This blog is very useful and continues to gain credibility as Doug does in-depth research on numerous topics. But Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise are viewed, by Doug and many respondents, through an ideological prism that IMO distorts them. It is that prism that led to assumptions about Bob’s position on Measure J. I have no idea how Bob voted on Target, but I knew his position on Measure J.

  62. “Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised?”
    Not really. There are 27 or so links to Bob on the People’s Vanguard, and many of them contain characterizations that I think anybody would find offensive. It’s clear there is personal animus between Bob and Doug.

    This blog is very useful and continues to gain credibility as Doug does in-depth research on numerous topics. But Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise are viewed, by Doug and many respondents, through an ideological prism that IMO distorts them. It is that prism that led to assumptions about Bob’s position on Measure J. I have no idea how Bob voted on Target, but I knew his position on Measure J.

  63. “Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised?”
    Not really. There are 27 or so links to Bob on the People’s Vanguard, and many of them contain characterizations that I think anybody would find offensive. It’s clear there is personal animus between Bob and Doug.

    This blog is very useful and continues to gain credibility as Doug does in-depth research on numerous topics. But Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise are viewed, by Doug and many respondents, through an ideological prism that IMO distorts them. It is that prism that led to assumptions about Bob’s position on Measure J. I have no idea how Bob voted on Target, but I knew his position on Measure J.

  64. “Don… I appreciate your conciliatory inclinations ,however,your statement-why surprised at Bob’s reaction- is perplexing. Were’nt you surprised?”
    Not really. There are 27 or so links to Bob on the People’s Vanguard, and many of them contain characterizations that I think anybody would find offensive. It’s clear there is personal animus between Bob and Doug.

    This blog is very useful and continues to gain credibility as Doug does in-depth research on numerous topics. But Bob Dunning and the Davis Enterprise are viewed, by Doug and many respondents, through an ideological prism that IMO distorts them. It is that prism that led to assumptions about Bob’s position on Measure J. I have no idea how Bob voted on Target, but I knew his position on Measure J.

  65. Don.. so you were not surprised to see someone who makes his living shaping words lashing out in what looked like an outburst of literary rage in response to being sent an explanatory draft correcting an error that he took as an affront. Quite frankly, it appeared to me like his cheese had, at least for the moment, slipped off his cracker.

  66. Don.. so you were not surprised to see someone who makes his living shaping words lashing out in what looked like an outburst of literary rage in response to being sent an explanatory draft correcting an error that he took as an affront. Quite frankly, it appeared to me like his cheese had, at least for the moment, slipped off his cracker.

  67. Don.. so you were not surprised to see someone who makes his living shaping words lashing out in what looked like an outburst of literary rage in response to being sent an explanatory draft correcting an error that he took as an affront. Quite frankly, it appeared to me like his cheese had, at least for the moment, slipped off his cracker.

  68. Don.. so you were not surprised to see someone who makes his living shaping words lashing out in what looked like an outburst of literary rage in response to being sent an explanatory draft correcting an error that he took as an affront. Quite frankly, it appeared to me like his cheese had, at least for the moment, slipped off his cracker.

  69. and Don… There are at least 27 people in Davis who have been publicly ridiculed, their motives maligned and their character
    made the butt of derision in the Wary I. What goes around.. comes around.
    … but I agree, Bob Dunning is of no importance to the future of this blog and the less space about him the better.

  70. and Don… There are at least 27 people in Davis who have been publicly ridiculed, their motives maligned and their character
    made the butt of derision in the Wary I. What goes around.. comes around.
    … but I agree, Bob Dunning is of no importance to the future of this blog and the less space about him the better.

  71. and Don… There are at least 27 people in Davis who have been publicly ridiculed, their motives maligned and their character
    made the butt of derision in the Wary I. What goes around.. comes around.
    … but I agree, Bob Dunning is of no importance to the future of this blog and the less space about him the better.

  72. and Don… There are at least 27 people in Davis who have been publicly ridiculed, their motives maligned and their character
    made the butt of derision in the Wary I. What goes around.. comes around.
    … but I agree, Bob Dunning is of no importance to the future of this blog and the less space about him the better.

  73. “It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.”

    This is just false. I appreciate being held accountable. If I make a mistake, I like being told so. If someone sees a flaw in my argument, I want it pointed out. Almost all learning is done by a process of trial and error. I am a committed student of life. I’m always trying to learn, to improve myself.

    However, I do get angry when I am attacked, or frankly when anyone is attacked, by someone who does so anonymously. I find that weak and cowardly. If that is name calling, so be it. Or as we say in Hebrew, amen.

  74. “It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.”

    This is just false. I appreciate being held accountable. If I make a mistake, I like being told so. If someone sees a flaw in my argument, I want it pointed out. Almost all learning is done by a process of trial and error. I am a committed student of life. I’m always trying to learn, to improve myself.

    However, I do get angry when I am attacked, or frankly when anyone is attacked, by someone who does so anonymously. I find that weak and cowardly. If that is name calling, so be it. Or as we say in Hebrew, amen.

  75. “It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.”

    This is just false. I appreciate being held accountable. If I make a mistake, I like being told so. If someone sees a flaw in my argument, I want it pointed out. Almost all learning is done by a process of trial and error. I am a committed student of life. I’m always trying to learn, to improve myself.

    However, I do get angry when I am attacked, or frankly when anyone is attacked, by someone who does so anonymously. I find that weak and cowardly. If that is name calling, so be it. Or as we say in Hebrew, amen.

  76. “It is also a mechanism by which the community can hold you, Bob Dunning & The Davis Enterprise accountable. It is obvious you do not like that.”

    This is just false. I appreciate being held accountable. If I make a mistake, I like being told so. If someone sees a flaw in my argument, I want it pointed out. Almost all learning is done by a process of trial and error. I am a committed student of life. I’m always trying to learn, to improve myself.

    However, I do get angry when I am attacked, or frankly when anyone is attacked, by someone who does so anonymously. I find that weak and cowardly. If that is name calling, so be it. Or as we say in Hebrew, amen.

  77. “Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.”

    You may be right. I grew up hearing Yiddish, but I cannot speak the language, and may misunderstand how “shnook” ought to be used. I learned it, from my grandfather, who was born in Poland in 1886 (yes, that long ago) to use shnook for a sad sack, someone who is pathetic. It’s not as cutting or negative as shmuck, which is perhaps the word I should have used.

  78. “Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.”

    You may be right. I grew up hearing Yiddish, but I cannot speak the language, and may misunderstand how “shnook” ought to be used. I learned it, from my grandfather, who was born in Poland in 1886 (yes, that long ago) to use shnook for a sad sack, someone who is pathetic. It’s not as cutting or negative as shmuck, which is perhaps the word I should have used.

  79. “Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.”

    You may be right. I grew up hearing Yiddish, but I cannot speak the language, and may misunderstand how “shnook” ought to be used. I learned it, from my grandfather, who was born in Poland in 1886 (yes, that long ago) to use shnook for a sad sack, someone who is pathetic. It’s not as cutting or negative as shmuck, which is perhaps the word I should have used.

  80. “Yiddish expressions of derision are remarkably focused and descriptive. I’m afraid Rifkin missed the mark with shnook which is a quite benign(and forgiving) way of calling someone “stupid” and lacks the venom that Rifkin is trying to express.”

    You may be right. I grew up hearing Yiddish, but I cannot speak the language, and may misunderstand how “shnook” ought to be used. I learned it, from my grandfather, who was born in Poland in 1886 (yes, that long ago) to use shnook for a sad sack, someone who is pathetic. It’s not as cutting or negative as shmuck, which is perhaps the word I should have used.

  81. I don’t understand why it matters if it is anonymous or not. Most of the people on this blog you probably don’t know and have no idea who they are. David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations. If you look at other blogs–most of them people post under monikers of some sort that are not their own name. It’s the new means of communication and I think it is healthy and it promotes honest discourse. People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.

  82. I don’t understand why it matters if it is anonymous or not. Most of the people on this blog you probably don’t know and have no idea who they are. David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations. If you look at other blogs–most of them people post under monikers of some sort that are not their own name. It’s the new means of communication and I think it is healthy and it promotes honest discourse. People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.

  83. I don’t understand why it matters if it is anonymous or not. Most of the people on this blog you probably don’t know and have no idea who they are. David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations. If you look at other blogs–most of them people post under monikers of some sort that are not their own name. It’s the new means of communication and I think it is healthy and it promotes honest discourse. People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.

  84. I don’t understand why it matters if it is anonymous or not. Most of the people on this blog you probably don’t know and have no idea who they are. David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations. If you look at other blogs–most of them people post under monikers of some sort that are not their own name. It’s the new means of communication and I think it is healthy and it promotes honest discourse. People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.

  85. Rifkin… missed again.. but closer. the Yiddish word sch….k is literally the working end of the male reproductive organ, a dismissive expletive with a little more bite but still without the venom you seek. These Yiddish expressions reflect a culture that
    does not easily find mean-spiritness or evil as motivation in its community but rather sees ignorance and stubborn refusal to recognize the truth as the problem.

  86. Rifkin… missed again.. but closer. the Yiddish word sch….k is literally the working end of the male reproductive organ, a dismissive expletive with a little more bite but still without the venom you seek. These Yiddish expressions reflect a culture that
    does not easily find mean-spiritness or evil as motivation in its community but rather sees ignorance and stubborn refusal to recognize the truth as the problem.

  87. Rifkin… missed again.. but closer. the Yiddish word sch….k is literally the working end of the male reproductive organ, a dismissive expletive with a little more bite but still without the venom you seek. These Yiddish expressions reflect a culture that
    does not easily find mean-spiritness or evil as motivation in its community but rather sees ignorance and stubborn refusal to recognize the truth as the problem.

  88. Rifkin… missed again.. but closer. the Yiddish word sch….k is literally the working end of the male reproductive organ, a dismissive expletive with a little more bite but still without the venom you seek. These Yiddish expressions reflect a culture that
    does not easily find mean-spiritness or evil as motivation in its community but rather sees ignorance and stubborn refusal to recognize the truth as the problem.

  89. “David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations.”

    By permitting anonymous postings, it is an invitation to character attacks. (I would not say assassinations.) That does not make this blog unique. Most of them suffer from this problem.

    But because of anonymity, all of the character attacks are one way: from the anonymous folks to the people who have the courage to honestly represent themselves or against public figures.

    Even if “anonymous” were disallowed, people could still use fake names. So this problem is not easily solved. However, that does not excuse Greenwald from using a nom de plum when he discusses issues that he or his family have a personal stake in.

    “People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.”

    I don’t get this. When is it a must? I think anonymity invites incivility. The guy who calls himself “Davisite,” for example, accuses other people, by name, of being unethical, even though his charges are complete nonsense. He would never have the guts to say such a thing to the person’s face. But by hiding under the skirt of anonymity, Davisite feels empowered to take pot-shots at innocent people.

  90. “David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations.”

    By permitting anonymous postings, it is an invitation to character attacks. (I would not say assassinations.) That does not make this blog unique. Most of them suffer from this problem.

    But because of anonymity, all of the character attacks are one way: from the anonymous folks to the people who have the courage to honestly represent themselves or against public figures.

    Even if “anonymous” were disallowed, people could still use fake names. So this problem is not easily solved. However, that does not excuse Greenwald from using a nom de plum when he discusses issues that he or his family have a personal stake in.

    “People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.”

    I don’t get this. When is it a must? I think anonymity invites incivility. The guy who calls himself “Davisite,” for example, accuses other people, by name, of being unethical, even though his charges are complete nonsense. He would never have the guts to say such a thing to the person’s face. But by hiding under the skirt of anonymity, Davisite feels empowered to take pot-shots at innocent people.

  91. “David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations.”

    By permitting anonymous postings, it is an invitation to character attacks. (I would not say assassinations.) That does not make this blog unique. Most of them suffer from this problem.

    But because of anonymity, all of the character attacks are one way: from the anonymous folks to the people who have the courage to honestly represent themselves or against public figures.

    Even if “anonymous” were disallowed, people could still use fake names. So this problem is not easily solved. However, that does not excuse Greenwald from using a nom de plum when he discusses issues that he or his family have a personal stake in.

    “People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.”

    I don’t get this. When is it a must? I think anonymity invites incivility. The guy who calls himself “Davisite,” for example, accuses other people, by name, of being unethical, even though his charges are complete nonsense. He would never have the guts to say such a thing to the person’s face. But by hiding under the skirt of anonymity, Davisite feels empowered to take pot-shots at innocent people.

  92. “David set this blog up so that people could speak freely without having to worry about threats, allegations, or character assassinations.”

    By permitting anonymous postings, it is an invitation to character attacks. (I would not say assassinations.) That does not make this blog unique. Most of them suffer from this problem.

    But because of anonymity, all of the character attacks are one way: from the anonymous folks to the people who have the courage to honestly represent themselves or against public figures.

    Even if “anonymous” were disallowed, people could still use fake names. So this problem is not easily solved. However, that does not excuse Greenwald from using a nom de plum when he discusses issues that he or his family have a personal stake in.

    “People who not be calling names of real people or fictitious people, but honest discussion under the cloak of anonymity is a must at times.”

    I don’t get this. When is it a must? I think anonymity invites incivility. The guy who calls himself “Davisite,” for example, accuses other people, by name, of being unethical, even though his charges are complete nonsense. He would never have the guts to say such a thing to the person’s face. But by hiding under the skirt of anonymity, Davisite feels empowered to take pot-shots at innocent people.

  93. “… but still without the venom you seek.”

    You’re off-base, here. That must be why you think I don’t understand how to use Yiddish words. I didn’t intend to be venomous. I simply intended to say that the person in question was pathetic. And for what it’s worth, I called a cousin of mine (actually a first cousin, twice removed) who speaks fluent Yiddish. And she said that my understanding of “shnook” was correct — it can mean “a sad, pathetic fool.”

    As far as shmuck goes, I know exactly what that means. It’s interesting that there are about 5 words or variants in Yiddish which for the penis: shmuck, shmo, shmendrick, shmeckle and putz, the last of which seems the harshest.

  94. “… but still without the venom you seek.”

    You’re off-base, here. That must be why you think I don’t understand how to use Yiddish words. I didn’t intend to be venomous. I simply intended to say that the person in question was pathetic. And for what it’s worth, I called a cousin of mine (actually a first cousin, twice removed) who speaks fluent Yiddish. And she said that my understanding of “shnook” was correct — it can mean “a sad, pathetic fool.”

    As far as shmuck goes, I know exactly what that means. It’s interesting that there are about 5 words or variants in Yiddish which for the penis: shmuck, shmo, shmendrick, shmeckle and putz, the last of which seems the harshest.

  95. “… but still without the venom you seek.”

    You’re off-base, here. That must be why you think I don’t understand how to use Yiddish words. I didn’t intend to be venomous. I simply intended to say that the person in question was pathetic. And for what it’s worth, I called a cousin of mine (actually a first cousin, twice removed) who speaks fluent Yiddish. And she said that my understanding of “shnook” was correct — it can mean “a sad, pathetic fool.”

    As far as shmuck goes, I know exactly what that means. It’s interesting that there are about 5 words or variants in Yiddish which for the penis: shmuck, shmo, shmendrick, shmeckle and putz, the last of which seems the harshest.

  96. “… but still without the venom you seek.”

    You’re off-base, here. That must be why you think I don’t understand how to use Yiddish words. I didn’t intend to be venomous. I simply intended to say that the person in question was pathetic. And for what it’s worth, I called a cousin of mine (actually a first cousin, twice removed) who speaks fluent Yiddish. And she said that my understanding of “shnook” was correct — it can mean “a sad, pathetic fool.”

    As far as shmuck goes, I know exactly what that means. It’s interesting that there are about 5 words or variants in Yiddish which for the penis: shmuck, shmo, shmendrick, shmeckle and putz, the last of which seems the harshest.

  97. Moderator’s comment: As before, I suggest that this blog comment section try and remain on topic and not be diverted by Rich Rifkin. Tit -for-tat comments may feel good but offer little in the way of meaningful dialogue. Self-absorbed ranting is easily recognizable and can be left to stand for itself, “naked” before the readership.

  98. Moderator’s comment: As before, I suggest that this blog comment section try and remain on topic and not be diverted by Rich Rifkin. Tit -for-tat comments may feel good but offer little in the way of meaningful dialogue. Self-absorbed ranting is easily recognizable and can be left to stand for itself, “naked” before the readership.

  99. Moderator’s comment: As before, I suggest that this blog comment section try and remain on topic and not be diverted by Rich Rifkin. Tit -for-tat comments may feel good but offer little in the way of meaningful dialogue. Self-absorbed ranting is easily recognizable and can be left to stand for itself, “naked” before the readership.

  100. Moderator’s comment: As before, I suggest that this blog comment section try and remain on topic and not be diverted by Rich Rifkin. Tit -for-tat comments may feel good but offer little in the way of meaningful dialogue. Self-absorbed ranting is easily recognizable and can be left to stand for itself, “naked” before the readership.

  101. Mr. Rifkin states: “I think anonymity invites incivility.”

    Rifkin & Dunning have proven that identifying oneself is no guarantee that incivility will not occur. Both are frequently uncivil. Much of the time, they are acerbic, accusatory and down right nasty, especially when being questioned or challenged by others. And they share in the mistaken belief that by identifying themselves they are more honorable than others who write anonymously.

    When King George ruled America it was by anonymous writings that many of the patriots worked to overthrow the monarchy and that tyrannical ruler who wanted no dissenting views expressed. Hear, hear to anonymous writers and the protection that the Constitution gives freedom of expression whether the authors choose to be identified or not.

    Ultimately, anyone’s writings whether anonymous or not will be judged by the opinions expressed and the facts given to support those opinions. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis has become so effective and respected as a source of news, facts and alternative opinions. The Vanguard’s articles are well written, informative and factually supported. The Vanguard also covers many topics that The Davis Enterprise and their columnists do not. And when an occasional mistake is made, the Vanguard writers are open to correction and in fact welcome it. The Vanguard is not afraid of criticism.

  102. Mr. Rifkin states: “I think anonymity invites incivility.”

    Rifkin & Dunning have proven that identifying oneself is no guarantee that incivility will not occur. Both are frequently uncivil. Much of the time, they are acerbic, accusatory and down right nasty, especially when being questioned or challenged by others. And they share in the mistaken belief that by identifying themselves they are more honorable than others who write anonymously.

    When King George ruled America it was by anonymous writings that many of the patriots worked to overthrow the monarchy and that tyrannical ruler who wanted no dissenting views expressed. Hear, hear to anonymous writers and the protection that the Constitution gives freedom of expression whether the authors choose to be identified or not.

    Ultimately, anyone’s writings whether anonymous or not will be judged by the opinions expressed and the facts given to support those opinions. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis has become so effective and respected as a source of news, facts and alternative opinions. The Vanguard’s articles are well written, informative and factually supported. The Vanguard also covers many topics that The Davis Enterprise and their columnists do not. And when an occasional mistake is made, the Vanguard writers are open to correction and in fact welcome it. The Vanguard is not afraid of criticism.

  103. Mr. Rifkin states: “I think anonymity invites incivility.”

    Rifkin & Dunning have proven that identifying oneself is no guarantee that incivility will not occur. Both are frequently uncivil. Much of the time, they are acerbic, accusatory and down right nasty, especially when being questioned or challenged by others. And they share in the mistaken belief that by identifying themselves they are more honorable than others who write anonymously.

    When King George ruled America it was by anonymous writings that many of the patriots worked to overthrow the monarchy and that tyrannical ruler who wanted no dissenting views expressed. Hear, hear to anonymous writers and the protection that the Constitution gives freedom of expression whether the authors choose to be identified or not.

    Ultimately, anyone’s writings whether anonymous or not will be judged by the opinions expressed and the facts given to support those opinions. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis has become so effective and respected as a source of news, facts and alternative opinions. The Vanguard’s articles are well written, informative and factually supported. The Vanguard also covers many topics that The Davis Enterprise and their columnists do not. And when an occasional mistake is made, the Vanguard writers are open to correction and in fact welcome it. The Vanguard is not afraid of criticism.

  104. Mr. Rifkin states: “I think anonymity invites incivility.”

    Rifkin & Dunning have proven that identifying oneself is no guarantee that incivility will not occur. Both are frequently uncivil. Much of the time, they are acerbic, accusatory and down right nasty, especially when being questioned or challenged by others. And they share in the mistaken belief that by identifying themselves they are more honorable than others who write anonymously.

    When King George ruled America it was by anonymous writings that many of the patriots worked to overthrow the monarchy and that tyrannical ruler who wanted no dissenting views expressed. Hear, hear to anonymous writers and the protection that the Constitution gives freedom of expression whether the authors choose to be identified or not.

    Ultimately, anyone’s writings whether anonymous or not will be judged by the opinions expressed and the facts given to support those opinions. That is why the People’s Vanguard of Davis has become so effective and respected as a source of news, facts and alternative opinions. The Vanguard’s articles are well written, informative and factually supported. The Vanguard also covers many topics that The Davis Enterprise and their columnists do not. And when an occasional mistake is made, the Vanguard writers are open to correction and in fact welcome it. The Vanguard is not afraid of criticism.

  105. “Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?”

    That was the point made by “anonymous,” not me. He/she suggested that the term shnook, which roughly means “pathetic,” lacks venom.

  106. “Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?”

    That was the point made by “anonymous,” not me. He/she suggested that the term shnook, which roughly means “pathetic,” lacks venom.

  107. “Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?”

    That was the point made by “anonymous,” not me. He/she suggested that the term shnook, which roughly means “pathetic,” lacks venom.

  108. “Calling someone pathetic is not venomous?”

    That was the point made by “anonymous,” not me. He/she suggested that the term shnook, which roughly means “pathetic,” lacks venom.

  109. I’ve lived in Davis since 1977 which makes me a relative newcomer. I am certainly a newcomer in the eyes of someone like Bob Dunning. I never really paid much attention to him as a columnist and regarded him as a sort of class clown trying to bring a little levity to Davis society through the local newspaper.

    It wasn’t until he wrote a very cynical and hurtful column on the death of Rachel Corrie in 2003, just four days before the invasion of Iraq, that I realized Bobs’ column is not just a benign diversion but is destructive or at best counterproductive to real understanding on any given issue about 95% of the time.

    He has a very deep need to support authority and prove his allegiance to it. This is why he becomes so unhinged when the big father figures like the police, the pope, military authority or any other institution that fills that kind of role, is attacked.

    In his column, he questioned Rachel’s motives and good sense about risking her life to protect the weak and powerless against overwhelming physical terror and violence that Bob can’t even contemplate. His article indicated a very superficial understanding of what Rachel was doing in Palestine, why she was there or anything about her. I had heard her speak on the radio in a live telephone interview just a few days before her death at the age of 23, crushed by an Israeli armored bulldozer that slowly ran over her. Rachel was a hero doing serious work on behalf of us all, but Bob portrayed her as fuzzy headed liberal cartoon. Her death was grist for his class clown act.

    I criticized Bob in a letter to the Enterprise editor. The letter was printed and it was one of Bob’s daughters, a 27 year old, who wrote to defend her father and say that he is really a good guy and not as bad as he sounds in his column.

    After reflecting on this four years later, I now see him as an insecure and frightened person who desperately needs affirmation and approval. I see no reason to single him out for special treatment or attack. It’s like making the drug lord’s guard dog into the enemy instead of who the dog is protecting.

    Bob’s schtick is to lampoon everybody, but not do real damage to those in authority and thus appear to be even-handed. Multiple column hatchet jobs are reserved for impertinent cop watchers.

    In my opinion, he doesn’t really care that much about developer watchers/haters. This measure J thing only suggests to me that he got his fanny whacked by the master and is hurting from it. He had an opinion at variance with the local elites, and was punished for it. He feels he should have your love, not your vituperation. He feels righteously dissed. I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Enterprise and praise him for his stance on Measure J and give him some positive recognition. We’ll need all the help we can get in the next Measure J vote.

    Just don’t criticize the big father.

  110. I’ve lived in Davis since 1977 which makes me a relative newcomer. I am certainly a newcomer in the eyes of someone like Bob Dunning. I never really paid much attention to him as a columnist and regarded him as a sort of class clown trying to bring a little levity to Davis society through the local newspaper.

    It wasn’t until he wrote a very cynical and hurtful column on the death of Rachel Corrie in 2003, just four days before the invasion of Iraq, that I realized Bobs’ column is not just a benign diversion but is destructive or at best counterproductive to real understanding on any given issue about 95% of the time.

    He has a very deep need to support authority and prove his allegiance to it. This is why he becomes so unhinged when the big father figures like the police, the pope, military authority or any other institution that fills that kind of role, is attacked.

    In his column, he questioned Rachel’s motives and good sense about risking her life to protect the weak and powerless against overwhelming physical terror and violence that Bob can’t even contemplate. His article indicated a very superficial understanding of what Rachel was doing in Palestine, why she was there or anything about her. I had heard her speak on the radio in a live telephone interview just a few days before her death at the age of 23, crushed by an Israeli armored bulldozer that slowly ran over her. Rachel was a hero doing serious work on behalf of us all, but Bob portrayed her as fuzzy headed liberal cartoon. Her death was grist for his class clown act.

    I criticized Bob in a letter to the Enterprise editor. The letter was printed and it was one of Bob’s daughters, a 27 year old, who wrote to defend her father and say that he is really a good guy and not as bad as he sounds in his column.

    After reflecting on this four years later, I now see him as an insecure and frightened person who desperately needs affirmation and approval. I see no reason to single him out for special treatment or attack. It’s like making the drug lord’s guard dog into the enemy instead of who the dog is protecting.

    Bob’s schtick is to lampoon everybody, but not do real damage to those in authority and thus appear to be even-handed. Multiple column hatchet jobs are reserved for impertinent cop watchers.

    In my opinion, he doesn’t really care that much about developer watchers/haters. This measure J thing only suggests to me that he got his fanny whacked by the master and is hurting from it. He had an opinion at variance with the local elites, and was punished for it. He feels he should have your love, not your vituperation. He feels righteously dissed. I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Enterprise and praise him for his stance on Measure J and give him some positive recognition. We’ll need all the help we can get in the next Measure J vote.

    Just don’t criticize the big father.

  111. I’ve lived in Davis since 1977 which makes me a relative newcomer. I am certainly a newcomer in the eyes of someone like Bob Dunning. I never really paid much attention to him as a columnist and regarded him as a sort of class clown trying to bring a little levity to Davis society through the local newspaper.

    It wasn’t until he wrote a very cynical and hurtful column on the death of Rachel Corrie in 2003, just four days before the invasion of Iraq, that I realized Bobs’ column is not just a benign diversion but is destructive or at best counterproductive to real understanding on any given issue about 95% of the time.

    He has a very deep need to support authority and prove his allegiance to it. This is why he becomes so unhinged when the big father figures like the police, the pope, military authority or any other institution that fills that kind of role, is attacked.

    In his column, he questioned Rachel’s motives and good sense about risking her life to protect the weak and powerless against overwhelming physical terror and violence that Bob can’t even contemplate. His article indicated a very superficial understanding of what Rachel was doing in Palestine, why she was there or anything about her. I had heard her speak on the radio in a live telephone interview just a few days before her death at the age of 23, crushed by an Israeli armored bulldozer that slowly ran over her. Rachel was a hero doing serious work on behalf of us all, but Bob portrayed her as fuzzy headed liberal cartoon. Her death was grist for his class clown act.

    I criticized Bob in a letter to the Enterprise editor. The letter was printed and it was one of Bob’s daughters, a 27 year old, who wrote to defend her father and say that he is really a good guy and not as bad as he sounds in his column.

    After reflecting on this four years later, I now see him as an insecure and frightened person who desperately needs affirmation and approval. I see no reason to single him out for special treatment or attack. It’s like making the drug lord’s guard dog into the enemy instead of who the dog is protecting.

    Bob’s schtick is to lampoon everybody, but not do real damage to those in authority and thus appear to be even-handed. Multiple column hatchet jobs are reserved for impertinent cop watchers.

    In my opinion, he doesn’t really care that much about developer watchers/haters. This measure J thing only suggests to me that he got his fanny whacked by the master and is hurting from it. He had an opinion at variance with the local elites, and was punished for it. He feels he should have your love, not your vituperation. He feels righteously dissed. I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Enterprise and praise him for his stance on Measure J and give him some positive recognition. We’ll need all the help we can get in the next Measure J vote.

    Just don’t criticize the big father.

  112. I’ve lived in Davis since 1977 which makes me a relative newcomer. I am certainly a newcomer in the eyes of someone like Bob Dunning. I never really paid much attention to him as a columnist and regarded him as a sort of class clown trying to bring a little levity to Davis society through the local newspaper.

    It wasn’t until he wrote a very cynical and hurtful column on the death of Rachel Corrie in 2003, just four days before the invasion of Iraq, that I realized Bobs’ column is not just a benign diversion but is destructive or at best counterproductive to real understanding on any given issue about 95% of the time.

    He has a very deep need to support authority and prove his allegiance to it. This is why he becomes so unhinged when the big father figures like the police, the pope, military authority or any other institution that fills that kind of role, is attacked.

    In his column, he questioned Rachel’s motives and good sense about risking her life to protect the weak and powerless against overwhelming physical terror and violence that Bob can’t even contemplate. His article indicated a very superficial understanding of what Rachel was doing in Palestine, why she was there or anything about her. I had heard her speak on the radio in a live telephone interview just a few days before her death at the age of 23, crushed by an Israeli armored bulldozer that slowly ran over her. Rachel was a hero doing serious work on behalf of us all, but Bob portrayed her as fuzzy headed liberal cartoon. Her death was grist for his class clown act.

    I criticized Bob in a letter to the Enterprise editor. The letter was printed and it was one of Bob’s daughters, a 27 year old, who wrote to defend her father and say that he is really a good guy and not as bad as he sounds in his column.

    After reflecting on this four years later, I now see him as an insecure and frightened person who desperately needs affirmation and approval. I see no reason to single him out for special treatment or attack. It’s like making the drug lord’s guard dog into the enemy instead of who the dog is protecting.

    Bob’s schtick is to lampoon everybody, but not do real damage to those in authority and thus appear to be even-handed. Multiple column hatchet jobs are reserved for impertinent cop watchers.

    In my opinion, he doesn’t really care that much about developer watchers/haters. This measure J thing only suggests to me that he got his fanny whacked by the master and is hurting from it. He had an opinion at variance with the local elites, and was punished for it. He feels he should have your love, not your vituperation. He feels righteously dissed. I suggest you write a letter to the editor of the Enterprise and praise him for his stance on Measure J and give him some positive recognition. We’ll need all the help we can get in the next Measure J vote.

    Just don’t criticize the big father.

Leave a Comment