RESPONSE to "Keith" -- Mee, too

Note: Not a mocking of the Mee Too Movement. Just plain old, "Mee, too"

So, here's another comment that the Vanguard refuses to post (in regard to their latest advocacy for DiSC). As a side note, Tim Keller has already publicly shared the information below (e.g., regarding his current landlord) on the Vanguard itself.

This is the second time that this has occurred today, alone:

Ron O May 23, 2022 at 10:01 am

Tim Keller: "This will be a lot of my own focus after DiSC passes - to ensure that in the subsequent planning process, that we get a lot of smaller flex spaces with lots of power and utilities, which are easily re-configurable like our current space on Pena - and not a bunch of big tilt-ups that really only work for huge companies."

"My response: "Interesting that this hasn't already been spelled-out in advance. Apparently, you're "hoping" that's the case.

As a side note, farmland also takes a lot of resources to "convert". Any word on the amount of rent you'd be paying (at DiSC')? (And, how that compares to other sites - including those outside of the city?) As a non-profit which depended upon a loan from the city, I would think that you'd be quite concerned about that.

For that matter, any word on the natural gas pipeline that you'd prefer be available at the site?

Seems to me that you'd already have all of this worked out with your current (and hoped-for) "future" landlord, given that it's the same guy. Especially if you're going to continue to advocate for it, on his behalf.

And what are you going to do if DiSC fails? Is your entire non-profit business model dependent upon its approval?"

SUBJECT: Response to Ron O. on Vanguard not publishing his comment.

The fact that the Davis Vanguard (DV) didn't publish your comment is proof positive that the DV is not longer interested in discussion or opinions outside of its woke echo chamber. I don't even think that Greenwald wanted this; however, I was told his board voted 9-0 a few weeks ago to make all comments have to go through the moderation portal via their biased, partisan, puritanical, botanical moderator who screens out comments he doesn't like yet fails to screen out some comments from people clearly personally insulting other people who's political views or personality he doesn't like, and yet more closely share his political beliefs. So now the DV comments section has degenerated into a bore and a joke.

Seriously, does anyone here agree with the decision of screening out of Ron O.'s comment from the DV comment section? How about you Cecelia, Cress, Joshua, Juan, Tia, Nora, Elizabeth, Morgan, Julea, Nancy and Geneviéve is that what you are all about, is THIS what you believe in: CENSHORSHIP, QUASHING discussion and dissenting opinions, and stomping all over the First Amendment? Yes, I know you CAN do this as a private non-profit --> but that's not the question, Oh Holy DV Board. The question is WHY do you do it??? Why are the WOKE so scared of other people speaking their minds? The DV has degenerated into a WOKE JOKE!

God Bless America!

"So, here's another comment that the Vanguard refuses to post"

Ron O.

I don't understand why you subject yourself to putting in the time and effort to post there when it all comes down to the whim of some overseer as to whether to post your comment or not. I will not subject myself to that.

Keith O., I'm posting your Q, however, I'd like to focus on Davis/Local-Issues/Media here. Higher-level politics can quickly go down a rabbit-hole of the same ol' us vs. them and go nowhere. Could you maybe tie a national politics issue to local somehows? We'll see if anyone takes the bait and see how it goes . . . Me? No comment.

Well, OK, I'll comment. Remember when they said Trump was losing it? When Bush was losing it? When Regan was . . . oh, never mind . . . oh, ouch, bad choice of words.

Keeping it local I would like to know if the city is ever going to do another poll where it rates local news services? Remember the last poll, taken in May, 2019 where
"The Davis Vanguard blog" had a useful rating of +22% and a not useful rating of -38% for a net useful rating of -16. The Davis Vanguard rated the lowest of all the local news services surveyed. I wonder how the ratings would stack up today and how the Davisite would do?

https://www.cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=13878

"The Davis Vanguard blog" had a useful rating of +22% and a not useful rating of -38% for a net useful rating of -16."

Sounds like the Davis Vanguard is (was) even less popular than Kamala Harris

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFWh25eIuw

Considering how many people the Vanguard has pissed off since that last poll was taken, well . . .

Good point again, Keith.

It does seem as though the Davisite is picking up a little steam, perhaps partly because the Vanguard's focus is increasingly on nationwide criminal justice/court issues (and sometimes other national issues, much of which is covered elsewhere as well).

(Well, that - plus guest reviews of movies and TV shows, etc.)

In any case, the Vanguard is a business (seeking funds from various sources, including the government), while the Davisite is more of a community bulletin board.

The Vanguard does have a more logical/organized website, though. And yet, they're seeking funding to improve that, as well.

"The Davis Vanguard blog" had a useful rating of +22% and a not useful rating of -38% for a net useful rating of -16."

Sounds like the Davis Vanguard is (was) even less popular than Kamala Harris

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koFWh25eIuw

Considering how many people the Vanguard has pissed off since that last poll was taken, well . . .

Emailed message to David/Don (at the Vanguard) below, regarding the announcement/article that Schilling Robotics will be staying in Davis. It appears that they won't be posting my comment, nor will they be explaining their "reason" for not posting it.

Just thought I'd provide you with an opportunity to explain (or post) the following comment, as I see that you've now posted other comments from me (and another commenter).

Ron O May 25, 2022 at 1:01 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

And here I thought they (Schilling) already left.

I thought there was “no space” for them?

In any case, here’s an article from 2020:

"The development of a new factory to manufacture deep-water submersible robots at the Port of Sacramento has stalled again because of the pandemic.

The largest customers for TechnipFMC’s submersibles are in the oil and gas industry for exploration and maintenance operations. In the past, when the oil industry slowed, so did operations at Schilling Robotics."

Is this one of those “planet-saving” companies? I guess the surge in oil/gas prices is helping them.

I dunno, I’d think that locating next to a deep-water port would help them with their business model. But maybe it’s just as easy to put the submersibles on a truck, and deliver them at Oakland’s port?

In any case, I’d be curious as to the (actual) reason that the deal fell-apart, in West Sacramento. By “actual”, I mean “factual” – not “political spin”. West Sacramento strikes me as the type of city that would not easily allow this deal to falter, thought it’s usually/ultimately up to private businesses to arrive at a “deal”.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2020/06/22/west-sacramento-robot-factory-delays-start-fall.html

SUBJECT: Ron O. & Vanguard Comments

This is jaw droppingly shocking on two levels:

1) The Vanguard Moderator Responded to You.

2) The response itself: ""You have a long history of attacking Schilling because of the type of work they do. We won't tolerate that any more."

I am truly baffled. What reason would the Davis Vanguard have for not allowing someone to comment on ("attack") the work a multi-national company with a site in Davis? It's not like he's attacking a local plant shop owner or something that could be considered personal maybe. This is a giant corporation, not a female student barely in their 20's. What possible reason would the Vanguard have to protect Schilling Robotics from a single person commenting on a blog?

I remember years ago when I was doing environmental cleanup/monitoring work at FMC's site in Santa Clara. They were on the site constructing 100's of tanks for the military, being repainted from green to brown in order to serve in Iraq. So apparently FMC works for the military and oil companies. Talk about Davis Values!!!

But apparently the Davis Vanguard is concerned that FMC/Schilling might cry when men in the 50's and 60's 'attack' it, or otherwise get upset like one of Jordan Varney's* adult interns.

A big, giant corporation, FMC/Schilling is crying. "Whaaaaaa! Whaaaaa! Whaaaaa!" Why does the Vanguard care, what-so-EVER!

*Jordan Varney received a masters from UC Davis in Psychology and a B.S. in Computer Science from Harvey Mudd. Varney is editor in chief of the Vanguard at UC Davis. [as per bio in Davis Vanguard]

Unbelievable Ron. There was absolutely nothing wrong with your comment. You adhered to the Vanguard comment rules as far as I can tell.

Ron, why do you bother? They can always come up with some reason as to why they won't allow a comment, whether legit or not. I remember often emailing the Vanguard when a comment got deleted asking for exactly what rule I broke. I often received no reply. When I was replied to I was told I didn't do it the other guy did, I'm not the moderator, I'm busy or they contrived some reason for having to delete it, among other responses. There were a few times where I was successful in getting a comment reinstated. I guess in those cases the censoring was too blatant.

Just thought I'd note the following, as well:

Keith Echols made this comment to me today, regarding the latest DiSC advocacy article: "You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you?"

I then responded that this seemed like a personal attack. (That's all I said about that.)

The moderator then deleted that portion of my response, but left Keith Echols' comment intact.

This might be a somewhat insignificant example, but one of the reasons that I continue posting on the Vanguard is to show what's occurring on there.)

Quick, before they take it all down! :-|

I am completely baffled by why the Vanguard is protecting Schilling in such a way. I'm not even stating an opinion about Schilling, just baffled. Is it as simple as literally they have a site here and provide tax revenue, so don't rock the boat? Is that a progressive view, now? I realize the woke progressives are now in the pocket of BIG DEVELOPER, which is the exact opposite of how left-leaning people used to think, but are they now also protecting corporations who's mega-profits are military and oil company based? I mean, I honestly don't think so, but I can come up with no logical reason why Don "Cen" Shor would answer Ron O. in such a way. I mean, Monsanto just makes pesiticides, not tanks and oil exploration equipment. But Monsanto also provides tax-base for the County. So what is the reason? I'm not being a smart arse or being rhetorical. I really don't get it.

But this is just how it is. I asked why a comment was omitted and was told by the Censhor that 'if you don't understand I can't help you'. But of course, if I understood, I wouldn't have posted something that would be deleted, as that's a waste of time to write. I have tried to explain to the Don many times that he and I don't think remotely alike, our brains don't work the same way, so he should consider that and tell me what the issue is. But . . . no.

So is it any wonder I don't understand what the motivation is to answer Ron O. in this way. So Donzy won't tell us, clearly. So what, dear readers, do you think is the reason? Again, as one DV commenter used to say . . . 'honest question' ?

"Don . . . can no longer read what Ron says objectively, assuming that he ever could."

He never could. Well, maybe a long time ago . . . in a galaxy far, far away :-|

SUBJECT: Davis Vanguard: "Schilling Announcement a Big Win But a Fortunate Break For Davis"

Quote, Barry Broome: " . . . we always consider the city of Davis like the front porch of the region.”

Get off our front porch, Barry :-|

Below is another comment that the Vanguard has declined to post, without explanation. (I usually wait until other comments subsequently appear, to arrive at that conclusion.)

They have been (unexpectedly) posting my other comments today (so far). But I think it's safe to assume that they continue to completely forbid comments for articles written by student authors (including the article in which this comment was submitted):

Ron O May 26, 2022 at 11:06 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Cited reference from student author: "But Twitter has speech limits for a reason. During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many users took to Twitter to share their own conspiracy theories of where the virus came from and how to best treat it. Twitter has had restrictions since its inception, and it added specific bans to misinformation regarding COVID-19."

My response/comment: "If anyone is taking medical advice from someone on Twitter, perhaps the result is an example of “Darwinism” in action.

We’ve already seen that attempts to suppress this don’t work, and are at the root of conspiracy theories. (It might work in a totalitarian society, but not in the U.S.)

We don’t need any form of media attempting to control messages for the “good of society”. (It’s disappointing when the government or mainstream media attempts this, as well.)

Ultimately, it’s an insult to everyone’s intelligence and judgement to attempt this. And again, it doesn’t actually accomplish the supposed objective.

It also pushes unsupported (or worse) views into the darker corners, where it’s not even challenged.

Hell, we can’t even control school shootings. (Let alone the day-to-day ones in high crime areas, which are hardly even reported at this point.)"

SUBJECT: Davis Vanguard piece "LAFCo Approves Land-Use Actions That Would Accommodate DiSC 2022"

"LAFCo (Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission) voted on Thursday to approve an amendment to the Davis sphere of influence (SOI) that would accommodate the proposed DiSC 2022 project, should the voters pass Measure H next month."

They could have just waiting for the voters to vote.

"LAFCo staff said in its recommendation to approve the proposal, it is “an appropriate expansion of the City’s future boundary…(that) would result in orderly development and an efficient extension of City services.”"

They seem to favor Measure H, methinks :-| And thankfully the development would be 'orderly'. Had LAFCo not taken this move, we could have had disorderly development. And we can't have that.

"The unanimous vote by the commission amends the city’s SOI to add a 118.5-acre area east of the current city limits that includes both the DiSC site and adjacent land to the south that includes the existing Ikeda’s Market, city water tank, and a park-and-ride facility. "

Not the water tank! What will become of our water tank if this happens? And it's a good thing they voted to bring the 'existing' Ikeda's market into the SOI. The will allow the future Ikeda's market to be exempt.

"The SOI Amendment’s approval sets the stage for the area’s annexation, which would come before LAFCo for a separate action if Davis voters approve Measure H in the June 7 election."

This is why LAFCO is the LAF-ing stock of the County, and why the SOI will be SOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfOqXFcycB8

Roberta: "But hey, who wants facts? Just throw some words out there and pretend you've done your job."

The Vanguard's "job" is to promote development proposals.

And to accomplish that, one of the latest tactics is to delete (not post) comments that they don't like.

For the few even willing comment on there, anymore.

SUBJECT: Response to beg-a-thon "The Story of the Vanguard – Exposing Everyday Injustices through Innovative Journalism"

LINK: https://www.davisvanguard.org/2022/05/the-story-of-the-vanguard-exposing-everyday-injustices-through-innovative-journalism/

First, check out the picture. Some interesting easter eggs there. And a question: which one of those pictured is Craig Ross?

And now, ladies and germs, I felt it was time to have a similar article for Al's Corner:

"The Story of the Corner – Pouring Gasoline on the Dumpster Fire of Davis Politics"

Here's the story: Alan Miller got banned from the Davis Vanguard. He started a comment space in the Davisite so he and others could continue to comment online. That happened a couple weeks ago. End of story.

And if you click on the picture of Al's Corner, it doesn't ask you for money. BTW, if you click on the picture with the article, it also gives you an interesting list of donators. I tried to donate 1¢ so I could post the note, "I donated 1¢ because it's a joke donation and the Vanguard is a joke." But it wouldn't let me donate less than $1.

Alan M. "First, check out the picture. Some interesting easter eggs there. And a question: which one of those pictured is Craig Ross?"

Some of us have suspected that it's the guy in the blue shirt, on the left side of that photo. But that's been officially denied (by the "moderator").

Personally, I've suspected another commenter as an even stronger possible candidate (regarding the guy in that shirt), but haven't heard from him in awhile.

Alan M. "if you click on the picture with the article, it also gives you an interesting list of donators."

If you donate to the Vanguard, you might as well just write a check to a developer. Either way, they have the same goal.

But what's more disturbing is when government funds are sought-out (e.g., grants) to support it. I'd also include any indirect support that the Vanguard receives as a result of recruiting university students (e.g., if they receive any academic credit for their participation).

There's also the troublesome support the Vanguard demonstrates for (and against) political candidates (regardless of one's view of those candidates). They've been challenged on that, already.

Alan M. "BTW, if you click on the picture with the article, it also gives you an interesting list of donators."

Indeed. There also seems to be quite a few "anonymous" donations, with undetermined donation amounts. I'm not going to review the entire list, but why is the "San Francisco Public Defender's Office" listed as a donator (in the amount of $900)? One might also question the $200 that Cynthia Rodriguez donated, and another $100 "in support of" Ms. Rodriguez. Not earth-shaking amounts, but still . . .

https://davisvanguard.networkforgood.com/

Only one comment on the Vanguard today. It appears that interest seems to be waning, at least as far as commenter participation. Not surprising, that's what happens when policies clamp down on comments.

"Naw, if the mean people are banned, the scared daisies will flourish in their safe comment environment. That's the theory, anyhow. The theory of the stupid."

"Mean people", as in people who commented with a different view of the world than left leaning progressive/liberal views?

Oh I get it now, after reading the comments "Virtuous" agrees with the Vanguard's beliefs so that's probably why the comments were allowed.

In reference to today's Vanguard article, in which David continues "shilling for Schilling" (and by extension - DiSC), I suspect that they won't allow me to post the following comment. (Schilling is now apparently named "TechnipFMC", due to its acquisition by that multi-national corporation).

Matt's comment: "I suspect that most people do not know what the term “novel companies” means. I personally don’t know what Barry Broome means when he uses that term."

My response: Looks like David isn’t going to respond to your question.

I’d assume that it means/includes companies which are involved in the gas and oil industry, such as this:

"In 2010, the company’s Paris-based predecessor (Technip) was fined $240 million for paying bribes to win contracts to build a liquefied-natural-gas plant in Nigeria.

In June 2019, TechnipFMC agreed to pay around US$300 Million to resolve allegations it bribed government officials in Iraq (FMC) and Brazil, including at the country’s state-controlled oil-and-gas company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., also known as Petrobras.[17]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechnipFMC

As a side note, I'm not seeking to uncover this type of information. I found the information above simply by looking at the Wikipedia website to learn more about TechnipFMC (and the company it acquired - Schilling). I'm only noting it because these types of companies have been presented as "green" (in reference to the DiSC proposal), by David Greenwald. And until recently, the Vanguard hasn't even allowed me to post comments regarding what FMCTechnip actually does.

Schilling was not "green" even before its acquisition, as it made (and continues to make, under TechnipFMC ownership) submersibles for the oil and gas industry.

TechnipFMC is a multinational corporation based in the U.K., with operational headquarters in Houston.

https://www.technipfmc.com/en/contact/#

SUBJECT: Novel

I didn't know this word until people kept calling the Covid-19 a 'novel' coronavirus. After like a year I finally got tired of not knowing what it meant and googled it. It means 'new'. So this is a new development. yippie.

SUBJECT: Vanguard posts RO's comments

Ok, so after the Vanguard doesn't post RO's posts because they criticize Schilling for what they do, the Vanguard posts RO posts that criticize Schilling for what they do. From my perspective either 1) They are bonkers; or 2) They read the comments here, and thus Al's Corner is serving as a watchdog of the Davis Vanguard, a public service.

SUBJECT: Cheryl Essex Letter to Editor in Enterprise Makes me Hurl!

I couldn't believe anyone could actually take the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the Davis Food COOP and use it as a launching pad to promote DiSC. As many of you know, I supported DiSC, barely, until Dan Carson face-planted himself on the Davis political path of pointy rocks. This letter is nothing but a friendly poke in the eye with a long stick to those who treasure the COOP.

I couldn't find the article today in the Vanguard honoring our fallen veterans. Could someone send me the link?

I don't run a blog, I just stand on a corner.