Editor:
Shame on you, Richard Salzman (Mailbox, “Anoint Susan,” March 22). You told me you wouldn’t do that again and then you went and did it. You agreed that there was a question of ethics, and yet you done went and did it again. You wrote that long letter filled with your reasons to vote for Susan Adams but you left one critical piece of information out. You wrote that letter like you were just another John Q. Public voicing his free and honest opinions.
But, is it free and honest when you fail to point out that you are Susan Adams’ paid employee, her campaign manager for Humboldt County? I would like to believe that you know the answer to that, but then why did you do it?
I was amused and fascinated by your decision to sell Ms. Adams by depicting her as safely middle of the road enough to please everyone. Those are the very reasons why most people with progressive values will not be voting for Huffman. Why is it a virtue for a candidate to be backed by a conservative and by a progressive? What does that say about that candidate?
You say that no one can question Norman Solomon’s progressive credentials, but then say those very credentials make him unelectable in Humboldt County. I think you underestimate Humboldt County and misread the tenor of the times. I think this county has an awful lot of people who are hurting and who understand that the only way out of this hurt is with a truly progressive candidate who has years of experience in fighting the good fights and that’s Norman Solomon. (I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of Norman Solomon.)?We, sadly, live in an era when ethical behavior is critically lacking in government, in business and more. I expected better of you, Richard.
Sylvia De Rooy, Westhaven
This article appears in The Death of Redevelopment.
To Sylvia and the readers of the NCJ,
Please accept my sincere apology for using the word “support” in my letter to the editor when stating the reasons I believe in Susan Adams, as I should have said those were the reasons I “joined her campaign”.
Having first met and listen to all of the front runner candidates I felt Susan was the best choice of options to the status quo that Huffman presents and as I stated in my letter, I feel she is the only alternative candidate with a credible chance of winning a November run off against Jared. For this reason I offered her my support and to join her campaign and accepted the position of Northcoast Field Organizer. I would only ever work for someone I support and if I support someone I work on their behalf, whether I’m offered a paid position or not. It was wrong for me not to have been clear that I do have a position with her campaign, something of which I am most proud.
At least Richard is finally posting under his real name. At least sometimes.
Here’s who he is, Susan, as if you don’t know. Richard Salzman and other email phonies The Journal won an award for uncovering his little game.
What is he going to do for you exactly? Does it include scurrilous defamation under anonymous pseudonyms on the many forums throughout Humboldt County? Blogs? Times Standard? (Well, they kinda threw him off his game there by requiring Facebook log in… but you can bet he’s found a way around that by now.) What, exactly is he going to do for you? And are you ok with it?
As far as I am concerned, any candidate who uses Richard’s services does not deserve to hold any office anywhere.
Rather funny that you have any say at all to what happens around here, since you don’t after all, work around here Mister SF/NYC man.
One of the things that has always intrigued me about that “Web Of Lies” story is what else it inadvertently reveals.
“The “R. Johnson” letters give the address of a Eureka home that turns out to belong to 93-year-old Ruth Johnson. On Monday afternoon, the Journal reached Ruth Johnson’s caregiver, who said that there was no way that she could have written the letters.
“She can’t even sign her own name,” the caregiver replied.”
How did he come to use the name of someone who can’t even sign her own name? How many more? Who gives him that info? In the fullness of time, we have come to see the ACORN operations elsewhere, do we have our own local operative? – good reporters would be asking if there is a connection. Figure this out. Did he come by this information as part of his GOTV machinations? Does he have a friend who was a caregiver? Or has access to that info?
Richard, since you’re talking openly, sorta, here….
Let’s remember that when it comes to Richard’s sleazy tactics, we’re not talking about ancient history. Last year I discovered him anonymously posting vile comments on a local blog. He made the mistake of attacking someone using the exact same words that he had previously used to attack the person while talking to me on the phone. With his words, and other information, I was able to verify that the anonymous commenter was, in fact, Richard.
I made repeated calls and sent several emails to Richard asking him to explain himself. I wanted to hear him try to justify his actions. I wanted him to explain how low he would sink to attack those he disagrees with. Is there any ethical boundary he won’t cross? I never heard back from him.
I suspect that Richard wouldn’t call me back because he knows that what he did was wrong. That’s why he did so anonymously. When using his real name in public, Richard chooses his words carefully. When working anonymously behind the scenes, the ethical veneer comes off.
Susan Adams seems like a reasonable candidate, but it concerns me greatly that she has someone like Richard representing her in Humboldt County. I’ll keep this in mind when I go to the polls.
Jack, your experience replicates my exactly. He used the same tactics in the last DA race, spreading suggestions that Gallegos’ opponent had an alcohol problem. He told that to me and then the same smear started appearing on blogs. It’s what he does – to help us stomp and smear our way to a more progressive and principled world, of course. Any candidate that pays this character money to throw the discussion into the ditch isn’t worthy of a vote. I wrote the Adams campaign asking why they had to resort to the likes of Salzman, with links to his storied history. No response.
Richard Salzman’s popularity is based largely on his talent to financially balance a local political system that has been fundamentally corrupted by the development community’s dominance over political contributions….forever.
That’s the beauty of corruption.
Challengers that dare campaign against it, must play by the corrupt rules to compete effectively…undermining their credibility!
“You cannot play with the animal in you without becoming wholly animal, play with falsehood without forfeiting your right to truth, play with cruelty without losing your sensitivity of mind. He who wants to keep his garden tidy does not reserve a plot for weeds”.
? Dag Hammarskjöld.
That’s the typical justification for using sleazeball tactics – the opposition is unethical, so we’re justified in being unethical too. That’s pretty lame reasoning.
In the case of Salzman, that argument ignores reality. The people that Salzman targets are often fellow progressives. His opposition to these individuals is not based on principle. It’s based on politics. Anyone who opposes the candidate that Salzman supports, or who Salzman is being paid by, is fair game for scumbag tactics. He’ll gladly spread dirt, mostly fabricated, about a candidate’s personal life, family, spouse, etc.
This is bad for liberals. It’s bad for moderates. It’s bad for conservatives. It’s bad for the entire community.
It’s the remarkably versatile and adaptive Ti Quoque logical fallacy again.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/tu-quoque/
My goodness! That comment, alas, sounds so very much like THIS ONE:“Editor: So it looks like Mr. Salzman was right all along. I don’t expect the North Coast Journal will be running any apologies for its editorial that criticized him for the (private) e-mails he sent out …”
“The people that Salzman targets are often fellow progressives”.
You can’t hang that on Salzman, this town’s liberals have been losing for decades thanks to bitter personal vendettas.
The republicans always pull together in the end.
Alas wrote: You can’t hang that on Salzman, this town’s liberals have been losing for decades thanks to bitter personal vendettas.
Jack responds: So your first argument was that it’s OK for Richard Salzman to use sleazy, asshole tactics because the conservatives do it. Your second argument is that that it’s OK for Salzman to use sleazy, asshole tactics because they’ve been used by liberals for decades. That’s nonsensical.
You also acknowledge that such tactics have resulted in liberals losing for decades. That’s an admission that Richard Salzman’s tactics are damaging to the liberal cause.
It should be noted that there are many liberals and conservatives who refuse to play Richard Salzman’s sleazy game. Too bad there aren’t more of them.
“Alas” is probably Richard Salzman as he rarely uses his real name when opining. An apologist for sleaze politics… awesome.
But that’s the typical argument from local progs who use and defend Salzman’s employment… that’s how politics works. The reason that this is how politics work is because local progs continue to hire him and allow him to employ sleaze tactics. And they wonder why voters become cynical about politics. They could, were they to stick to their guns and ethics, perform reform.
Candidates claiming to “reform” politics while employing Salzman to do their dirty work are not being truthful about their intentions. Generally when referring to Susan Adams folks lead with “she’s a very nice person.” I met her and she did seem like a very nice person. I had expressed my concern about her use of Richard Salzman. She said that she had no idea about his checkered past. She assured me that he was not on her campaign staff, that he was simply introducing her to local people. So either she was lying about his level involvement then or upon learning about his checkered past, decided to hire him as a lead campaign staffer. Either way, I no longer think that she is a “reform” candidate. I think that she may not be all that nice of a person, either.
So… that didn’t work out very well, did it Richard Salzman… this letter to the editor thing. Didn’t quite advance the Adams campaign like you figured… putting your good name behind the movement and all. Apparently not enough time has passed and local folks still recall recent history. Had you accepted my facebook friendship request I would have happily advised you to move on out of local politics.
Best not piss off Dicky Salzman, Terrence, otherwise he’ll have Everett Peck draw a nasty picture of you!
People run, and win, or lose, Richard, perfectly fine without you.
Your bullying tactics, trying to control who does and doesn’t run are not only well known, but they are flat out WRONG. whether it is a Eureka City Council race or a Supervisors race, they have a right to throw their hat in the ring.
The other thing people need to know is what happens AFTER the race is won – and what Salzman want does then.
Don’t do what he wants? The he turns the guns on you. It starts with gentle admonitions…. Poor Susan may not know what will be expected of her – either that or he knows she is a willing tool.
erggh, typos. Editing my own comment, so much to say, but it’s too much for people to hear.
Comment portion above should read: The other thing people need to know is what happens AFTER the race is won – and what Salzman does then.
Was going to go into what happens if he doesn’t get what he wants, or what can happen when he does, but that’s a story for another time.
Richard Salzman
Northcoast Field Organizer
Susan Adams for Congress
Post Office Box 4429
San Rafael, CA 94913
HQ: 707.376.8683
Direct: 707.822.5500
Fax 707.825.6600
Richard@SusanAdamsForCongress.com
http://www.SusanAdamsForCongress.com
Are you getting paid Dear Richard, or is this Pro Bono?
Rose and anon.r.mous: get a room!
Just an insult there Buzzy? That’s all you have? No response to the substantiated shit that your boy (or you, Dick) Dick Salzman has done? Do you want Jack and Kevin to join them in said room?
How about a response, based upon logic and facts, as opposed to the poor whoa is me, the ends justify the means, ala alas…
Quark sure started drinking early, but what the hell, happy Sunday.
When I think of “asshole” or “sleazy” on a scale from 1-10, Salzman’s antics are….well…antics.
Even today, the republicans are busy strong-arming a competitor to drop out of the supervisor’s race, while engaging in the usual disappearance of competitor’s campaign signs.
To me, local media gets a “10” for its self-censorship of issues relevant to residents amid the worst economic collapse in 80 years, a planet melting like a Popsicle, no more “negative” front page reminders of perpetual wars, AIDS, or the uninsured cancer epidemic, etc, etc…(a very, very long list).
A censorship so ubiquitous and effective, that even well-known experts in the field of local progressive politics…like Durham and Hoover, see no compelling need to support local progressive organizations, events, protests, fundraisers, or candidates.
At least Salzman shows up…and has actually won some good fights.
But please, don’t let me stop you from slathering over the Salzman “speck”, while so much is collapsing around us.
Your justifications for Richard Salzman’s sleazy tactics keep changing. Now you’re justifying them by claiming that his tactics are OK because at least he show’s up? That doesn’t make any sense.
Then you try to cloud the issue by complaining that we don’t cover international strife or the global AIDS epidemic. You forget that both the Press and the Eye are local papers.
We cover environmental issues, economic issues and health issues, but all from a local angle. We also provide space on our editorial pages for folks to weigh in on these issues.
What you’re saying is that it’s OK to be sleazy and unethical as long as the scumbag tactics advance your own cause.
I would argue that it hurts your cause in the long run. It hurts the entire community.
I don’t remember Humboldt County politics being so sleazy until Salzman came to town. As for the sign stealing, that has always been a thing, over-reported and mostly kids. I wish the sign stealing would go on after the elections, so maybe the assholes who leave their signs up 5 years after the elections would have their stuff cleaned.
There was sleazy stuff before. It’s a continuing thing. One of the reasons that it continues is that people allow it to continue, which is how this discussion started.
“Alas,” I’ve got this idea about advancing Humboldt County politics in a way you and I will both be really happy about in the end. So if you could just reveal your actual name (which, concurrently, will add credence to your blog post arguments) I’m gonna engage in a campaign of character abuse and say some things on the interwebs which may not be entirely true. Or nice.
But it will totally work out for local progressives. You just have to be patient about the means to the end.
And if any of it hurts your feelings or you’re like: hey, that’s totally untrue! just remember that there are AIDS and cancer, which is comparatively worse.
Just your name and we’ll get started.
How cute Terrence, but you of all people, have my name already!
Anyway, while you are trying to figure out my name, why don’t you figure out why someone on the staff of the NCJ has been using a fake name for awhile now.
Makes you wonder what kind of bullshit is going on. I mean really. Doesn’t anyone check the background of anyone anymore?
Anon-r-Mouse is worried about fake names? Tsk tsk, what’s the world coming to?
I think it’s great that Durham, Hoover and Derooy are taking on the local pandemic of editorials, journalists, and others lacking disclosure of affiliations.
But, like most moral high-grounders, their star of righteousness always always seems to eclipse with one guy they just don’t like!
Hilarious.
Is that you Richard? How’s it hanging? Whaz up?
How dare we poke our anonymous noses into the “liberal circular firing squad”!
Shame on Durham and Hoover for taking all the fun out of having ruthless right-wing adversaries inflating the severity of issues from which to demand atonement from liberals…
No sooner did Salzman apologize for the disappointing (if not common) practice of separating one’s affiliations in editorials from one’s personal feelings, ….did his liberal enemies betray their own bitterness with unsubstantiated, childish epithets of “asshole” and “sleazy”.
“Salzman says bad things about people”.
Does the pettiness never end?
Many of the human beings you’ve elected locally do exactly the same, if not worse, among their confidants. “Electability” and “professionalism” includes the timeless, indistinguishable ability to publicly fake a grateful, kind and positive sincerity…that gets very little accomplished.
Meanwhile, NO “community newspaper” in this county features routine front-page coverage of the New Gilded Age, and the readily available statistics on home affordability, foreclosures, bankruptcies, poverty, divorce, suicides, uninsured illnesses, the cancer epidemic, homelessness, the planet melting like a Popsicle, extinction, resource depletion, AIDS, etc, etc, IE, a local “Human Cost Index” to balance the “positive” Dow Jones megaphone of far greater irrelevance.
Therefore, I’m very interested to read more about Mr. Durham’s comment:
“We don’t cover international strife or the global AIDS epidemic. You forget that both the PRESS and the EYE are local papers.”
Is Mr. Durham’s “forgetfulness” willful?
Simple phone calls to HSU or CR professionals can help him remember local linkages and statistics regarding national and worldwide issues of record economic, environmental and social collapse…..
…that aren’t being headlined nationally either.
Wow, excellent points.
Maybe Derooy, and her team of moral ethicists, can explain why they also bothered to publicly condemn Eureka’s Occupy protest, before trying to organize groups of non-homeless protesters to balance-out the crowd?
Despite its appearance, Occupy Eureka protesters have every Constitutional and God given right to be there without a group of “moralists” with offended sensibilities trying to disassociate themselves and condemn the very people most victimized by an imperial economy!
Maybe that’s why NONE of her team joined the hundreds of others at the recent First Amendment forum at the Women’s Club in Eureka. No local elected representative or media were in attendance, except Linda Atkins, KMUD, and supervisor-elect Cheryl Seidner.
Never mind!
Salzman “failed to disclose his association”.
God help us all!
Love ’em or hate ’em, Salzman and Cobb are among the few that have successfully fought for progressive causes.
Best of luck to both of you on the Arcata lawsuit and in attaining a Constitutional Amendment to address the Citizens United ruling.
Despite the liberal circular firing squad.
Is that a choice, yet-another-strongly-opinioned-but-not-quite-capable-of-managing-to-put-these-strong-opinions-with-a-name-attached person?
Where’s the “dislike” button on this page?
So the argument is:
Your newspaper has inadequate coverage, therefore it’s OK for a political operative to engage in sleazy behavior as he hides behind a veil of anonymity.
That’s a logical fallacy. Since I’m a nice guy, I’m going to help you out. This is what you’re trying to say:
The ends justify the means. It’s OK to be a douche bag because the world is falling apart.
dude… that was totally a scene from Mad Max.
Amy,
The tactics we’ve been criticizing are different than what De Rooy wrote in her letter.
Let’s pretend that you decided to run for political office, or get involved in politics in some other fashion. Then let’s pretend that some douche bag goes on the internet and write nasty things about you anonymously. Maybe he’ll call you a drunk. Maybe he’ll say that you cheated on your spouse. Or beat your spouse. Maybe he’ll make up some other false allegations. The only important thing is that the allegations are really nasty.
I think you would agree with me that such tactics would be very wrong. I think we would agree that this is unethical behavior. Right? Of course we would.
Salzman supporters, on the other hand, would disagree. Whatever it takes to beat Amy is fair game, they’d say.
I can’t blame Mr. Durham for weaseling around my point that he has NEVER before, and probably never will again, take on the pathetic non-issue of “outing” local notable’s widespread and common practice of separating their affiliations from their personal feelings in editorials.
The point, again, is that it’s an extraordinarily petty thing, except to those who seek to discredit an individual they despise.
Despite Durham’s insistence, there is no honor in it.
It’s a curious thing to read Durham’s protestations over “unethical behavior” and those who say “nasty things” having just spewed his own bile of unsubstantiated epithets against Salzman, adding “douche-bag” to “asshole” and “sleazy”!?
Many people will point out, (if Durham is correct about Salzman), that Durham is among good company with Richard Salzman.
On my scale of 1 to 10 in local issues worthy of outrage, the pandemic of local media self-censorship is a “10”.
It’s harm is extreme, ubiquitous, and corrupt, due to the ad sales the censorship generates.
“yet-another-strongly-opinioned-but-not-quite-capable-of-managing-to-put-these-strong-opinions-with-a-name-attached person?”
Despite your unverifiable real name, you have nothing to add to the debate.
Sad.
Oh, but I did… you might have just scrolled to the bottom. I’m easy to find, too.
It’s not sad. It’s happy!
What’s your name anonymous person? Are you Richard Salzman?
Media folks are the ones who will inform you what and who to be outraged by, what is significant ethical deviance and what is not….
Back to your dark netherworld anonymous whiners.
well, all’s I know is that we’re all talkin about if Richard Salzman is a weenie and how anonymous blog posters are proving to be real weenies instead of the qualities of the congressional candidate Susan Adams, which was the purpose of Richard Salzman’s original letter to the editor.
That must be frustrating to hire someone who ends up detracting from your mission of getting elected to congress.
Alas=Richard Salzman
Susan who? Oh, the candidate. I forgot about her in this discussion. I don’t actually have anything bad to say about her politics, except for the fact that she hired Salzman. That concerns me. Does it concern Susan Adams? Is she worried about the tactics her field rep might use?
Not really that funny Durham, having just spent numerous posts defending your unethical, self-serving use of DeRooy’s letter for your personal vendetta.
Such fools…Richard posts using his real name! I am not Salzman…
Maybe you’re new to the blogs, they are largely about content from anonymous sources. Most proper names are hardly authentic, as if anyone cares.
I would place the attacks on citizen’s right to anonymity alongside those attacking citizens Constitutional right to protest at occupy Eureka, or those who would use ethics as a shield for their childish, sanctimonious vitriol.
which is precisely what this string turned out to be.
Those who elect to separate their affiliations from their editorials are not “douche-bag, asshole, sleezy, unethical, immoral” enemies of all that is right and good, in fact, it hardly merits, nor do we ever read, similar attacks on this common omission.
If Durham were serious, he would have been shouting long ago for a “life-sentence” for Humboldt State University’s public relations professional Paul Mann who widely publishes “positive” propaganda about his campus, as a “journalist”, never alluding to his full-time job.
A “serial omitter”.
Honey, grab the children and run like Hell!!!.
Now you’re confusing my beef with Salzman and his tactics with De Rooy’s complaint about his failure to disclose his affiliations. Two different things.
My complaint is with the anonymous sliming.
what’s your name, Alas, so we know who we’re talking to?
Salzman is under no obligation to disclose his affiliations any more than Paul Mann.
Hardly a breach of character worth mentioning in an editorial. Which explains why we’ve seen nothing like it before (especially from you) nor will we see anything like it since, (especially from you).
But you know that already…you’re work is done here.
Since I’ve informed you about “journalist” Paul Mann’s serial-subterfuge, you’ll be investigating and firing-off an editorial right away, right?
Ha Ha Ha.
Serious breach of character my ass.
No one will take you seriously 10:59 after revealing how you obviously must sound-out the words you type on a blog. Best to change into another name and start over.
Nope… that’s definitely me, anon.
You can call me on the phone and everything. I’ll be in the office at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday and you can phone me and we can talk.
What’s your name? I think you’re really smart and I’d like to know you better.
Alas,
You’re off your rocker. First of all, you’re arguing with me about something that De Rooy is concerned about. I wasn’t commenting about undisclosed affiliations.
As for Paul Mann, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. When he submits something to my newspaper he identifies himself as Paul Mann, HSU’s News & Information dude.
In the off chance that I use his material, I include his byline (which is his real name). Under the byline I put the words “Humboldt State,” which identifies who he represents. So both his real name and his affiliation are listed.
Maybe you’re referring to some other media out or issue that I’m unaware of. Either way, that’s not part of what I’ve been debating.
Oh no! The Humboldt County Facebook Friends Reporter Squad is upset! I haven’t seen such a boys club since Calvin and Hobbs G.R.O.S.S. club.
“I wasn’t commenting about undisclosed affiliations.” (Durham)
Yet, in ALL my posts I made it perfectly clear that I was!
Thus, the “lunacy” clearly belongs to Durham for not conceding, long ago, that this “undisclosed affiliation” on it’s own, never merited his childish epithets, never warranted accusing me of “defending douche-bag, sleazy, asshole, scumbag tactics”, never merited his claim that I’m “defending winning at all costs” or that “the end justifies the means”.
With any self-respect at all, Durham would either graciously apologize for his endless misrepresentations of my point, or reconsider his quote above.
Like many of Salzman’s purported escapades, there’s no way to know if Durham’s early accusation against Salzman is accurate. Everyone is an asshole from time to time, as evident in Durham’s own childish epithets and misrepresentations of my clearly repeated point.
Individuals like Salzman and Cobb, have actually been effective at advancing progressive values with action, a much clearer criteria for judgment than “he said, she said”.
Thank you for this experience, I feel I know far more about Durham’s character than I do of Salzman’s, who, btw, was apparently correct about outing an alcoholic candidate.
Also, thank you for publishing Paul Mann’s affiliation, absent in his editorials, in his articles published on blogs, and in HSU’s “magazine” articles that have no attributing writer.
Alas wrote: Thus, the “lunacy” clearly belongs to Durham for not conceding, long ago, that this “undisclosed affiliation” on it’s own, never merited his childish epithets, never warranted accusing me of “defending douche-bag, sleazy, asshole, scumbag tactics”, never merited his claim that I’m “defending winning at all costs” or that “the end justifies the means”.
Jack responds: I was describing Richard Salzman anonymous slime tactics, which are well known. My language was mild in describing those tactics, which are truly scummy. I’m not concerned about offending a person who engages in such tactics, or defends such tactics.
Apparently, we’re talking over each other. I’m commenting on Salzman’s anonymous slime tactics. You’re concerned about the PR guy at HSU. We seem to be having two separate conversations.
So, Jack, how did your “accusation” on March 29, now morph into the plural “accusations” above? Did you have another to offer?
This editorial, and my posts, clearly have had NOTHING to do with your early accusation against Salzman.
I have been REPEATEDLY referring SOLELY to his “affiliation omission” in every single post!
That this was not clear to you in your numerous responses is inexplicable.
Either you are blinded by bitterness, or you lumped Salzman’s petty omission together with other alleged “transgression” to make it indistinguishable…for your own convenience.
To the contrary, Salzman’s tactics are not “widely known”. (In fact, the ONLY example YOU’VE provided here reads like one-sided squabbling between a married couple. The other complaint lodged by Hoover would be “ruthless gossip”….except that it’s true, IF it actually happened!!).
“Since I’m a nice guy, I’m going to help you out”, (Jack Durham).
No, you are not a “nice guy” Jack, you’re not even a careful reader before you fabricated endless misrepresentations of my singular point regarding the basis of this editorial!
Let me help YOU out! EVERYBODY is an asshole from time to time.
That’s why reasonable people judge others by their actions. Salzman, Cobb, Meserve, and a handful of others do more to successfully and actively advance progressive causes and candidates in this area far more than most….in an era when most citizens are so chronically misinformed they don’t bother voting.
Despising anyone on the basis of two “he said, she said tactics” is hardly convincing, nor sufficient confirmation to repudiate anyone’s character.
Again, you already know that.
The Paul Mann segue was consistent in further illustrating how DeRooy’s editorial criticized a common occurrence, occasionally disappointing to be sure, but hardly meriting epithets or an editorial as I’ve repeatedly pointed out.
“Lunacy” indeed.
Richard, alas, loves a good fight. Can’t walk away. And, he hasn’t answered my question – what does your Dad think of you doing this? The nasty smearing invective, Richard? The layers of lies, laid out just so, in order to sway public opinion. Ever so careful, you, Richard, trying to figure out ways to do it without people knowing it is you, sneaking around in the dark of night putting stickers on parking meters so you can say it is a mysterious “grassroots” effort…. Do you lay awake at nights cooking up the attacks? I know you do.
For those of you trying to defend him, he laughs at you, so easily led down the garden path, and weighing in without knowing or understanding that there’s way more to the story than you can ever imagine.
Ask him who is paying him… just for starters.
Alas, aka Richard Salzman, Aka R.Trent, the ends most certainly do NOT justifiy the means.
That line of thinking will have alas….errrrr Richard justifying rounding up all those evil developer/conservative types and throwing em into camps where they can best be controlled.
It’s complete bullshit that the developers have controlled politics for all these year – if that were true, how does it explain two decades of Bonnie Neely? Larry Glass? Linda Atkins?
Melinda Ciarabellini and Lance Madsen are certainly not in league with any developers, though if memory serves, she was appointed to her council seat.
Only Salzman would go on at length like this… the marathon man of quivering ethics.
No one else cares about Salzman’s reputation. Other than the folks who are charged with verifying the accuracy of submissions (journalists) or the victims of the rumor mill (competing candidates).
Money’s on: Alas = Salzman.
“EVERYBODY is an asshole from time to time.” Some’s bigger assholes all of the time.
Regardless, Alas, thank you for helpings push the the question at hand yet higher up the Google analytics.
Like this blast from the past: http://www.northcoastjournal.com/090105/cover0901.html
The proof in the pudding that Alas is Salzman is from one of his recent posts:
” I feel I know far more about Durham’s character than I do of Salzman’s, who, btw, was apparently correct about outing an alcoholic candidate.”
Wow…just wow, still going after the lie, an especially egregious one, given that she lost family member to a drunk driver.
You are shit, Richard Alas Salzman.
Despite a long, tiring string of conjecture against an effective individual…there’s still only two vague examples provided here against Salzman!
Astounding.
I am not Richard Salzman, and it would take one Hell of a lot more than two bitter and vague accusations to outweigh my respect for anyone’s accomplishments.
Nevertheless, if the 4 bitter critics and 2 examples above are correct, and Salzman is a “scummy, sleazy, asshole, douche-bag, ruthless end-justifies-means tactician”…they’ll be knocking down his door, and the doors of those like him, to do whatever it takes once another 10-20 million Americans join the current 48 million working in full time poverty.
I too have lost family to drunk drivers, and I know many more families that experienced the identical result: it did absolutely nothing in slowing down other family member’ suicidal addiction.
Soooo ignorant….
Alas wrote: I am not Richard Salzman,
Jack responds: Being that you are anonymous and afraid to use your name, you are basically a nothing. Nothing at all. No character. No person. Nada.
You could be Salzman, or you could be a 400 pound sex offender from Peoria, Iowa. Or maybe you are a little old lady from Winslow, Ariz.
Maybe you are an upstanding citizen, or maybe you’re a deadbeat on parole. Maybe you live in Humboldt, maybe you don’t. Maybe you’re Salzman, maybe you’re not. Right now you’re nothing.
I can’t make claims for or against your character, because you don’t have any. You’re anonymous.
Despite a long, tiring string of conjecture against an effective individual…there’s still only two vague examples provided here against Salzman!
Astounding.
Unlike you, Jack Durham, I would defend anyone’s right to anonymity, even yours, despite your obviously questionable character.
“Despite a long, tiring string of conjecture ”
Which is exactly what salzman did in the last da race against jackson and you brought up, you piece of shit.
While my character is obviously questionable, I’ll wager that you’re a really awesome person. Unfortunately, because of your anonymity, I’ll never get to know you and enjoy your presence. I’ll never get to buy you a beer at a local saloon. We’ll never get to wave at each other across the Plaza, or laugh at each other’s jokes. With anonymity, we have nothing. There’s no community in anonymity. So sad.
What’s REALLY sad, Jack, are the folks who spend days on anonymous blog venues, only to complain that they’re anonymous! You might want to try a dating website? (Or, try being married for 35 years, raise a few children, and learn how to forgive common human imbroglios and character flaw you also admit having, to your credit)
As the authors of the Federalist Papers would remind you; use your anonymity, defend it for others, because it is among the first rights people have that’s always taken away, if history is any indication.
Sadder yet, is the time local reporters spend on the blogs when they could be engaging in modest investigative reporting focused on the readily available, unreported, statistics documenting the chronic decline of every measurable category of the economy, environment and society, that directly effects every local resident.
“Quack” also protests too much about outing alcoholics. One-in-four Americans suffer the epidemic, voters should have a right to know. Our local governments are inundated with them. They are often promoted to top levels of corporate and government power due to their decisiveness, which is commonly mistaken for leadership qualities when, in fact, their drug addiction suppresses their conscious, and they cannot care about the results of their decisions, they will find reasonable excuses and others to blame and to fire. (The Mask of Sanity, H. Cleckly, University of Georgia).
What’s that about drinkin’ booze, Alias?
I remember what we were talkin’ about.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/090105/cover0901.html
“Salzman’s change of story came after he met with the Journal in our offices Monday morning to review the information supporting Meehan’s case that this newspaper collected Friday afternoon and over the weekend.”
Sorry about the interruption. Continue posting about a misreading of the Federalist Papers, do.
““Quack” also protests too much about outing alcoholics”
Not so fast you shitstain Salzman…
First you allege (falsley) that the candidate was involved in an alcohol related traffic accident that involved major injuries…when bullshit is rightly called, you resort to just labeling her an alcoholic.
Alas=Salzman, and Salzman, you are a reprehensible piece of shit.
Short memory Quack? I never posted that the candidate was involved in a DUI.
No matter how you “read” them, the Federalist Papers were authored by the Founding Fathers anonymously! Using your real name doesn’t automatically make you historically literate, or even a competent reader!
Both you guys must be teenagers.
Only in Humboldt County would a hired fundraiser make front page news for doing what “Quark” and hundreds of millions of others do every day on these blogs!
Maybe one day he’ll sleep with an intern and it can go national.
Only Dick would defend himself so vociferously, alas for your self, you’ve outed yourself, Richard, thus you posted that shit last election cycle.
Go wipe yourself.
Quark is so disturbingly fixated (“piece of shit…substantiated shit…that shit …piece of shit…you shitstain”), he must be a huge Santorum supporter.
Typical of you Scatman Salzman, to dodge and deflect from the issue at hand and focus on an apt description of your character…
You forgot the “shit,” you pathetic clown.
My bet would be that Alas=Mitch. He’s a well known water carrier for Salzman. The reference to historical material seems similar to the ways of Mitch. Both like to reach for sophistication in their arguments. Both have a propensity for overly long posts with repetitive content that seems to indicate an obsessive trait.
Always amusing to read anonymous posters squirming over the identity of anonymous posters.
Thank you.
I am not Mitch, He’s far more credentialed than I.