San Francisco Super Bowl: crooked accounting, mass surveillance and a screwjob for taxpayers & homeless people

I fully support the way you run your blog, sounds like a good set of rules for you.

Frankly, Scarlet, I don’t give a damn.

It’s Cory’s blog and he can say whatever the fuck he wants.

Sometimes I shake my head at what he posts or why he does, but the good outweighs the bad in this regard. Anyway it ain’t my circus, nor are they my monkeys.

The BBS, on the other hand, is where we get to tell the writers if and why we disagree. They engage or don’t; it’s completely voluntary. The bulk of conversation here doesn’t usually feature them. That’s why you probably won’t hear directly back from @doctorow.

You’re expecting objective truth from your heroes (or, those you elevate to “speakers in public discussion”). This is incredibly naive.

You came here for a viewpoint and you got it. The fact that it doesn’t match your own doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t exist.

Maybe it’s ok for other people to think differently than you do, and write about it. Lots of threads here. It’s also ok to read only the ones you agree with. (Y’know. If you wanna live like that.)


on the former, nobody will remember tomorrow, and we’re a bunch of haters anyhow. On the latter, don’t mistake a challenging tone for dislike of you. Do come back!


We don’t think he’s lying…so your strawman question doesn’t matter.

and, no, we don’t need to argue it with you because why the hell bother?


Isn’t someone maintaining a list - whose various names elude me at the moment (the different names the list has been given) - for agitated new members?


Yes, @jlw does.

1 Like

No, we have nothing that sounds like this.

You are now the official keeper of non existent lists.


I have seen the Google doc that was such a list.

In fact…

and I have “view only” access to this list


If it makes you go away, sure, dude bro.

Not even this?

Here, try these, and look again? How does it appear now?


It’s generally not a good idea to publish distorted information. Even if the distortion is in the direction you agree with.

In long term, it impairs the source’s credibility. Which is kind of a fairly important factor.

If you value a source, its accuracy is in your own interest.

1 Like

nothing like what was described above. That list is for disappointed persons, not agitated new users.

I can help you land on Michael’s list, if that’s where this is going.

1 Like

My bad - it was in the periphery of my memory - it does seem like a fair destination for where this seems to be going. Not mine to call. Just… a thought out of right field.

Edit: whacked “send” too soon

Why would we care? Why are you still talking about this?

That’s why I asked him if he was disappointed above… and he replied that he was disappointed.

nor was it suggested that you suggested so, at least by me.

That is not an accurate summary, that was literally @enso

What I said was try putting on some different glasses (a metaphor for changing your expectations and chilling out a bit).

You got that right. That is one groovy cat. Be like groovy cat.


So, Cory really needs to work on his accuracy and truthfulness was your point?

Do you know about Muphry’s Law?

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.