Friday, November 10, 2006

Designated Gloaters & Adios, Anonymous

When I re-launched this blog on November 1st using the Blogger platform I did so knowing that, among the tools available, was the "comments" section. That tool was not available with my previous platform. I looked forward to the views of readers, pro and con, and still do.

However, one of the things that really annoys me is the use of the ubiquitous identity, "Anonymous". Because so many writers use that mask, following the threads of comments can be cumbersome at best and down right impossible in some cases.

So, new rules apply for A Bubbling Cauldron. As of this date I will no longer post any comment sent from a person identified as "Anonymous", regardless of the literary merit or relevance to the issue at hand. This is not a real problem, is it? All you have to do is pick out some other fictitious identity and use it. It gives you an opportunity to display your creative streak and gives other readers the chance to follow your logic - or lack thereof.

Of course, I will not accept any profanity, so don't think you can slip that past me. I don't expect you to tell me who you are, or even give me a clue, I just want the posts on this site make a little sense. (Some would say they already make "little sense".)

With all that in mind, please keep writing. I'm always eager to hear an opposing viewpoint and will post those right along with the few who like what I write in an attempt to provide readers with a well-reasoned debate. As a result of the election this week, there will be no shortage of subjects to examine here.


On that subject, a couple of so-called "Improvers" (see photo above) have taken on the assignment of being the designated gloaters following the election on Tuesday. A cuddly old furr ball who signs his messages WestsideCM has hurled himself into practically every venue available to him - except this one, strangely - to harangue about the "mandate" our young jailer/mayor has now. He tells us that the people of Costa Mesa have spoken. Well, last count shows that 8156 voters have spoken on behalf of the mayor - more than anyone else who received votes. Between him and his running mate they received half of the votes cast for Costa Mesa City Council candidates. In a city with more than 54,000 registered voters, 8,000 votes is hardly a mandate.

The other "gloater" is a guy who runs his own blog here in town and who very much resembles my theoretical character, Your Neighbor. He was posting with a vengeance just before the election and has kept the pace up ever since. One curious feature on his blog, which uses the same platform as this one, is that "comments" never seem to appear. All we get are obviously fabricated "letters", which he uses to set the scene for his rant of the day. What a poor, pathetic guy! I suspect we will now see him at council and commission meetings again. He had been underground for a couple months before the election, clearly part of the mayor's strategy to avoid even more controversy.

One of his postings following the election takes on the Costa Mesa Police Department, claiming that some are "against citizens and for illegal aliens". He went on to say, "We have too many cops who don't even live in this city who are treating citizens like dirt and who are trying to run this city into the ground for their own benefit." Now, is that really a good idea? I don't think so. This guy, who claims to be a Mensa member, sometimes just isn't very smart.


Anonymous watchur6 said...

>50% voted for 2 out of 6 candidates=mandate
>no one should gloat,except those who cannot stand Foley, Dixon and Snowden (probably equals a lot of gloaters but stop it) Good people ran for office, put out their positions, some won and some lost.
>Garlich had first position on the ballot, got creamed anyway, and had the fortitude to say as much. Too bad he hung his hat with R2R which was full of very haughty people who could not control their vicious attacks on the victors and alienated many voters that way ("lily white" from Dixon, "bigots" from Snowden, and everyone who called those who do not like illegal felons "divisive". The illegals are the divisive ones. Without them there is no divisiveness)
>The main issue was illegal immigration, obviously, and the citizens of Costa Mesa want help. Why spit in their face and defend illegals? Oh, I know, ALL were supposedly against illegal immigration but only 2 wanted to do something about it.
>Police and Fire Assoc. should stay out of it! They are all about more pay, less work, and fatter retirements. They should not help elect candidates who decide their paychecks. Perhaps the police deserve more since recruiting is tough. But lines of people form for a firefighter job. Let's put our money where most needed.

11/11/2006 05:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Witty/2 said...

First of all – I want to send a salute to all veterans on this November 11th, Veterans Day!
My new friend James who moved to Costa Mesa in 1982 made a very astute comment in the Pilot. He was reacting to a quote by your old friend Foley. He said, “Although voter turnout is frequently mentioned as a cause for the failure of one candidate over another, I would argue that we have 100% voter turnout in every election. In the case of Costa Mesa we had 46,235 votes of indifference, and 7765 votes by those who chose to understand the issues and mandate change. We want our city clean, safe and progressive. Our schools are a disgrace and our parks in serious need of upgrading. "
This guy has it figured out. I just looked at the current vote totals and both Mansoor and Wendy’s totals are climbing as the outstanding absentees and provisional votes are tallied.
The current totals for our city are:
Mansoor 9257 (26%)
Wendy Leece 8691 (24.4%)
Bruce Garlich 7538 (21.1%)
Mike Scheafer 6653 (18.7%)
Mirna Burciaga 2432 (6.8%)
Chris Bunyan 1072 (3.0%)
I hope my simple statement of the facts won’t put me into your gloater list.

11/11/2006 10:28:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Opinions differ. Witty/2, as a veteran, I appreciate your kind thoughts. We served to perpetuate, among other things, our ability to debate important issues. I'm not sure I get your numbers comparison - 7765 represents what?. I agree that Mansoor and Leece got more than 50% of the votes cast. My view of the events of last Tuesay were published today in the Daily Pilot. I'll post another entry today, too.

Thanks to you and Watchur6 for participating.

11/12/2006 11:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Witty/2 said...

So you’re a veteran, a WWII guy or was your service more recent? I can explain the numbers you were questioning. It was from an exact quote from a COMMENT section in the Daily Pilot. The figures that James, the writer used are likely from the early returns that showed Mansoor starting with out with 7765 votes. He simply subtracted these from the approximate total number of registered voters (54,000 or so) to come up with his 46,235 indifferent Costa Mesa voters. By focusing on the actual numbers you seemed to miss the point that he was making. You mentioned having some involvement with a MENSA neighbor. Perhaps, you could get him to help you understand that many in our city actually voted by not voting. This is essentially the “who cares” vote, the most of which are the people who don’t know the issues. These are voters, at least in my book, we probably don’t want voting as their uninformed votes aren’t useful to a valid conclusion to an election as important as this last one.

11/12/2006 01:53:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Viet Nam era vet. I'm a geezer, but not a member of the "Greatest Generation".

I understand the numbers now. Out of context, and not having read the "comment" to which you referred, my addled old brain couldn't follow.

Yes, voters who don't vote do impact any election. We can speculate all day about their impact on this one. However, what is, is.

My "neighbor" is "Your Neighbor", the theoretical character of some of my posts who resembles an activist in town. I'm sure you know the name.

Thanks writing. I imagine you'll have a contribution to make for my enlightenment on my most recent post, too.

11/12/2006 02:04:00 PM  
Anonymous witty/2 said...

I went back to the Pilot on-line and found the article by Alicia Robinson published on Nov 9th on the web page and on the 10th in the printed edition. It is in the Politics Section and is titled "Vote Sets Tone" and the concluding quote is from your pal, Foley. It states: "Councilwoman Katrina Foley, who backed Garlich and Scheafer, blamed low voter turnout for the results. With only 7,765 people out of 54,000 registered voters casting ballots for Mansoor, she said, 'that's not even close to a mandate'." The single COMMENT posted is from James and he used the counts listed in the article for the basis of his reply. This should make everything clear regarding my earlier comments.

You said you were a Viet Nam era Vet. Did you actually serve in Viet Nam? We have a family member that served over there in the Army and survived the experience in the late 60's.

I am interested in providing my expected reaction to your latest posting and I'll send it along after finishing reading it. So far, it looks like a pretty negative, pessimistic view you offer. That seems like much of what you always write on your blog. I can't remember you ever saying anything positive about Mansoor. And in a time, long ago, you had some good things to say about Bever - now never anything any more. You once wrote that you were a Republican, yet you always seem to align yourself with the views and ideas of our two Democratic councilwomen. Dixon's infamous letter in the Pilot warning us to beware of Mansoor seemed like it might have been written by you. She spoke of a string of puppets and used the term "lily white" that left many people wondering about her warning.

I know some people that told me that they don't even care to read your blog, as it is so one-sided in the views you present. Even your mentor, Byron DeArakal just wrote in his blog that he was a supporter of many of Mansoor's ideas, but only turned against him because of his stance on farm field lights. He called it a “deal breaker”. I hate to keep you on the edge of your seat, but I will go back and finish reading your most recent post and offer my reaction in that article’s comment section if you care to publish it.

11/12/2006 07:33:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Thanks for the clarification... I appreciate your tenacity.
No, I was one of the lucky guys who served in the military in the 60s who didn't get sent to Viet Nam. No first hand battle stories, but know enough friends and relatives who served in southeast Asia to understand just how lucky I was.

Sorry you don't care for the tone of the blog. Obviously, our viewpoints differ. You apparently think the tactics and plans Mansoor and his cronies pursue are just fine.. I don't. Of course, that doesn't mean I don't appreciate hearing your views. Yes, long, long ago I had some good things to say about Bever. For example, after he stepped aside and allowed Mike Scheafer to be appointed to the city council rather than put the city through a costly special election I speculated that, perhaps, the wrong man stepped aside. Times change. I admit that I misread him. He's proven to be an arrogant, cocky, devious councilman - a man not to be trusted.

You're acquaintances are free to read this blog, or not. Just as are you. One of the interesting ironies of the past campaign was the fact that both Bever and Mansoor professed such displeasure with the Daily Pilot that they said they didn't read it any more. Then, lo and behold, commentaries from them on the pages of the Pilot appear in response to previous letters and commentaries.

I can't and won't attempt to address whatever motivation Byron de Arakal has. The folks who supported Mansoor and Leece's candidacy were a diverse group, with differing backgrounds. As you certainly know, I was a supporter of Return to Reason. That group, which was comprised of a diverse group of concerned citizens, most of which were Costa Mesa residents or business owners, shared a common view - that Mansoor and Leece were the wrong choice.

I will look forward to your analysis of my most recent blog entry. If you don't like it, that will be your choice. Thanks, again, for writing.

11/12/2006 08:31:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home