A New Comment, From an Ignorant Person

Here is the comment left on my Ponte Vista Blog for the post titled, "No Title Required".

"Agent Orange has left a new comment on your post "No Title Required!":

From the title of this blog I must assume that it is another Latino propaganda blog like Pedroza's Orange Juice.

It is amazing to me that Latinos are so happy when when successful entrepreneur must restructure his busyness.

You Latinos are looser you can't go into the chapter 11 because you are perpetually in chapter 7.

Enjoy"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, Agent Orange, if you have found this and you are reading it, congratulations.

Second, how ignorant are you? "Ponte Vista" is not Spanish. There is no such word in the Spanish dictionary for "ponte" or "Ponte". It's and Italian word. It's primary meaning is 'bridge'. It can also be thought of as 'bridge', as in the bridge of a ship. It also means 'scaffolding' and 'crane', but all in Italian and not Spanish.

I read your blog and tried to understand your site, but it was just too incomprehensible for me to follow.

You may have a beef with Art and the Orange Juice Blog, but they are very different from what I write about.

If you are trying just to be funny, I know more about humor and comedy than you do and you are not funny or comedic in any way.

As for your comment, I hope you at least try to spell correctly or know that there are online dictionaries at your service when you write your comments. It is easier than you think to check your spelling and you don't appear to be the fool you just might really be when you actually type words with proper spelling. Writing clearly to get your point across should be you business and not your 'busyness' as you wrote.

Anyway, I have to get back to matters that are important, because you are not.

And yes, I did enjoy writing this. Thank you.

Shemp's Comment

"Shemp53" left a comment on a post on my Ponte Vista blog that would surely be found to be slanderous and would have done harm to an innocent individual.

"Shemp53" also doesn't seem to realize that others may be put in jeopardy for publishing items that cannot be proven by this blogger, nor do I wish to use unfounded statements.

However, I have always stated that I would publish all comments. I never stated on which blog I would publish those statements.

I decided to edit the comments from "Shemp53" because that individual offered no actual, verifiable proof or statements from particular individuals to support the allegations made in the comments.

"Shemp53 has left a new comment on your post "A Political Endorsement Specifically Relating to Ponte Vista":

I played football under XXXXXX at XXXXXXX He was a XXXXXXXX there and was having sex with XXXXXXXX another student in my class!

XXXXXXXX is scum."

Was You Know Who really You Know Who?

I may have been royally had, but I am not that upset about it.

I really continue to think and feel that you know who is not the you know who other people are telling me that you know who really is.

I have written directly to you know who, but I haven't received a reply yet. Perhaps I'll try to comment on you know who's blog and see if it get printed or rejected.

It could be that you know who is no longer going to write because of a certain intermediary's recent passing away. Then that would give you know who a reason to have folks think he really is the recently departed, but I am thinking and feeling that the two persons are not one in the same.

I could be very wrong, and that makes me sad. Not because I would have been proven wrong, but I was able to talk and discuss many issues with the fellow who recently passed away.

And boy, could he and I share some unbelieveable stories, with the conditions we both had and how certaing things were almost too tough to control. But that is another story.

So if you know who is still out there, I hope he is not hiding behind the fact that an acquaintenance to both of us has met his untimely end, with so many more things to consider, debate, and discuss.

I Guess I Need Help

I think I am going to probably need to hire a consultant to help me try and understand what the other blogger writes.

Here is a passage of the most recent attack on me:

Way back in one of my very first posts on May 29, 2007 I went into great detail about how we could no longer environmentally afford R1 homes in a major metropolitan area. I wrote about the wasted time in commuting, the wasted gasoline and oil, the wasted water in maintaining their scaled-down versions of a vast prairie homestead, right here in an urban area. That it just is not feasible any longer. We needed to look to our European roots and look to their cities. Why should one house have a lawn the size of a park which is rarely used, instead of the homes having no lawns and having extensive use of the parks?

First I must surmise that the blogger was against the nice R1 zoned lots and single-family homes built overlooking Playa Vista.

What I am still being confused about is, if up to 735 single-family dwellings would result in "wasted time in commuting, the wasted gasoline and oil, the wasted water in maintaining their scaled-down versions of a vast prairie homestead", then why wouldn't 1,950-units, with 1,100 units being for non-age restricted residents, cause even more of a problem than just leaving the zoning as it is?

Now I know the other blogger will probably let us know that if up to 735 single-family houses are built at Ponte Vista, that would still more water than the 1,950 units combined with the 40% of open spaces. I can probably imagine that the grass growing on the roofs of the buildings will be watered by the outflow of condensers for the air conditioning.

I did forget the address where I sent the R1 button. But if the request was contained in an Email to me, it will be found somewhere in my software or in one of the backups I have done.

Again I must remind folks that LEEDS Certification, as wonderful as it could be, has not been seen being built yet, at Ponte Vista. That is because nothing has been approved of to build at Ponte Vista. Remember when Bob promised that Eastview Little League would be welcome to a new home at Ponte Vista? Remember the survey that Bob admitted he helped construct stated there would be "single family homes, town houses, and condominiums..."?
Remember when Bob spoke up at one of the CAC meetings and said, "We are not building any single-family homes at Ponte Vista! Does that help you, Chuck?"

I am sorry folks, but I can't believe everything I hear coming out of Bob or his representatives and/or his advisory board members. Remember when Bob stated many, many times that he would be building 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista?

I agree that things change. That is not a bad thing. But why should we believe that Bob would provide construction that would comply with LEEDS Certification since he has already changed his application? I would hope, but can not be certain that Bob would actually provide for compliance for LEEDS Certification just because he said so, or has worked on plans for it.

If I know the other blogger as I think I now do, I can imagine that the other blogger is not totally supportive of everything that Bob wants. I also can imagine that the other blogger has enough feelings for OUR community that they are truly disgusted by the divisions that have cropped up in OUR community, WHEN THEY NEEDN'T HAVE DONE SO IN THE FIRST PLACE!

I am also quite disturbed that the other blogger broke their own word by publishing name(s) on their blog that we agreed would not be mentioned. I am not going to mention those names on this blog because of something I learned recently. There is no need for me to speculate further on who I believe is the other blogger's true identity.

There seems to be a really good person who feels they need to resort to their lowest levels and attack me and others who just wants what is reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful in OUR community.

Here is another issue that I want to clarify from the other blogger's most recent post.

The write: "Of course he posted under the name of "Mack Panoramic". But the comment was saved and logged along with the IP address. According to pacbell.net it belongs to Mark Wells."

I must tell you that if this was a true statement, the author of it broke the law IF they can specifically identify that any I.P. address is issued to me.

In comments I receive, I only get most of the I.P. addresses of people who comment and then I have to find that out by looking at my site meter and bash it against the time the comment was posted. I don't ever do that anymore because I don't want to, it is a waste of my time.

For the other blogger's quote to be factual, they would have to know whether I have a "Static I.P. address" or if I have a "Dynamic I.P. address".

Of course the other blogger knows that I have an account on pacbell.net. It doesn't take a very smart person to know that I have worked for the company that is now called AT&T for over 27 years, and it would be foolish for me to have DSL from a "CLEC" or have broadband via cable.

The other blogger knows my @pacbell.net Email address. No matter what browser or Email service I use, I do just like folks who have @sbcglobal.net do and have my routing through the same routers. That is no secret.

If you want to have a look at the site meter on my main blog, please feel free. Not only will you see a partial I.P. address, you will also see the server I use. Even if I use Internet Explorer to browse the Internet, it still goes through routers owned by AT&T.

All I would need is a comment from the other blogger on my main site, and I could tell you whether they actually have @sbcglobal.net or not, for instance.

Well I'm done for now. Let us see if I am offered any consulting services by the other blogger. It seems they know so much more about computers and computing than I do. I bet they have a good resume of education on that stuff.

P.S. It took about ten minutes for me to find the Email with the address. Using the reverse lookup on www.whitepages.com, I got a name and phone number. This really means nothing though because the other blogger could have moved out since 2/27 or just asked the resident of that address to hold on to any mail with the name of you-know-who on it.

I wouldn't expect the other blogger to reveal the street knowing how easy it is to find other information. I doubt the other blogger is that stupid. Deceptive, lacking in accomplishing agreements and promises, yes. Being stupid, no.

Humor From Mac or Channel

Well the fellow has created quite a funny piece this time where not only does she mess with what I have written, she has continued to mislead everyone who reads that troublesome blog.

I still don't know if you-know-who is Mac Panoramic or perhaps someone who possibly could have had a channel with a similar name.

It really doesn't matter though. It seems she is one of my regular readers, so thank you for that.

Of course I am not opposed to Mike Rosenthal's building three single-family houses on the three lots currently zoned as R1. T. is having fun and I got the joke.

But as a supporter of Bob, how come Mike can offer three wonderful multi-story, single-family houses, with two-car garages, and sitting on lots not less than 5,000 square feet, for only just over $406.35 per square foot, when Bob will charge at least $500.00 per square foot for his smallest unit where the only interior walls will be for the indoor personal stress relieving unit?

Even the Senior units at Arlington and Sepulveda, in Torrance are going for just about $466.67 per square foot. Bob doesn't seem willing to sell his smallest unit for even that low of a price.

T. is really the only one who seems to be writing anything in favor oh a large development of condos on Western Avenue. Where are all the sites where people have guts enough to identify themselves and their support for Bob's weapon of mass development?

Well, I continue to find that I am having such an effect on "Mac" or "channel", or whoever it is who is writing as a gutless, fearful, sarcastic, and diminished capacity author.

So here I am, Mark Wells, the real person. I do not object to Mike R. building at least three beautiful single-family houses on the property he owns in San Pedro.

I suppose IF Mike gets at least part of his way, a certain supporter of Bob's may even buy yet another condo to rent out, as he has done for years.

Of course you all know that San Pedro's own Rudy Svornich has lobbied for both Bob and Mike, it appears. I guess once you serve the public as a Councilman, you can be served by the same folks once you leave office, and for the rest of your life.

Sorry to have to cut this short, "Mac", "Channel", or whoever, but I have better things to do and I shouldn't waste any more of my time.

I Guess I Am Gullible

I guess I am the most gullible person around. But I don't mind.

I am taking someone's word as the truth, even though I am about the only one I know who has believes this fellow.

Perhaps I want people to be honest and I am thinking that this one person has been honest with me, even though it seems more likely than not that I have been played.

I am still having some fun, though. If I am the jester, the fool, the believer of the unbelievable, then that is my own issue.

I'd like to consider most people as being honest. With some dealings at length with a certain person, I have always tried my best to believe him. So many others have stated to me that I am a fool, and perhaps I am. But I still hold out a small bit of hope that this particular fellow is honest with me.

This fellow needs to be thought of as honest, because of the business he is in. If I have been suckered, I hope others haven't been suckered, to. Especially if it deals with large sums of money.

I am going to continue to believe that this particular fellow is on the up and up. I hope for both of our sakes, he is truthful.

Happy New Year!

The Thin Plot Thickens

Once upon a time there was a fellow. This fellow claimed to have fed "Tom Field" information when "Tom" was not at CAC meetings.

This fellow claimed to me that he was asked directly by Bob Bisno if he was, in fact, the real "Tom Field". This fellow told me directly that he stated to Bob that he was NOT "Tom Field".

Also this fellow claimed to me that he was going to end his duties at supplying "Tom" with information at meetings "Tom" did not attend.

Well, what a surprise to be able to read information, on a particular blog, that could only have come from "Tom" or via information written down in note form by this particular fellow.

Now folks, I have, so far, kept my promise to not name the particular fellow in ANY blog. If anyone places this person's real name on any comment to any of my blogs, I will copy all the information EXCEPT that person's name and occupation and place the comments on the particular blog.

This fellow I am writing about promised me he would discontinue feeding information to "Tom" and "Tom" has also kept this fellow's name out of print.

But it looks like this fellow and "Tom" have decided to continue their pattern. This is not only sad, but it goes against the agreement I made with the fellow.

It also seem reliable to me that the fellow I am writing about actually knows the true identity of "Tom" even though he claimed on several occasions not to actually know who "Tom" really is.

I have continued with my promise not to write about this fellow. This fellow assisted me in one manner and I acknowledged my appreciation. However, I continue to believe that this fellow should not be feeding "Tom" information as he promised me he would discontinue doing.

"Tom" continues to use my name in posts that really have nothing to do with me and he attributes "ranting elitist" to me, which is a term first used by Bob Bisno.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!