N&R on City Manager Mitch Johnson: "He has the unwavering support of the City Council, the majority of whose opinions range from 'people will look back and say he’s one of the best city managers we’ve ever had' (Tom Phillips) to 'I feel affirmed every day in my decision to hire him' (Florence Gatten).

"Johnson says he gets regular affirmation from police officers, who he thinks are quietly displaying loyalty to him."

Comments

[Bubba]

Watch out, folks!

We now have ample evidence of the "Circle the Wagons" mentality being instituted.

[The CA]

From the N&R:

"It concluded Wray had "crippled" the force when he gave black officers stiffer punishments than white counterparts in similar situations and by intimidating white captains who opposed some of his decisions."

This is an outright fabrication.

[David Hoggard]

Watch out, folks!

We continue to have ample evidence that some people feel the need to assign conspiracy theories to every aspect of local politics.

Bubba, the members of our city council are a far cry from being monolithic in their thinking.

When you can get both Tom Phillips and Dianne Bellamy-Small (among other pairings) on the same page with something like the Wray saga, you'd do well to accept that perhaps you aren't privvy to how many shoes have yet to drop.

[Ed Cone]

The report published online says it was Wray's "cover up" and "management failures" that "crippled the good order of the Greensboro Police Department."

The as-yet unreleased City report provides considerable detail on alleged unequal discipline for black officers, and "intimidation" of captains, along with document tampering and other fun stuff.

[The CA]

Maybe Ed, I haven't seen the report- but that is not what this story says. This is misleading journalism that is supposed to be news. Instead, the writer has taken a combination of things contained in the RMA report and fashioned her own conclusion by selecting terms from differing parts of the report, and some conclusions that are not even in the report.

See full analysis here.

I'm happy to see that you also reviewed the report to determine the accuracy of this statement in the N&R. They should know better, or perhaps they do but just don't care.

Also, how are you privy to what is contained in the unreleased city report?

[The CA]

When I said "I haven't seen the report", I was referring to the city report you mentioned, not the RMA. FYI

[Ed Cone]

I have a copy of a substantial leaked document that was not posted on GSO101. I think it was prepared by City staff, not RMA. My understanding is that it was not posted because it contains the names of many people who cooperated in the investigation.

I have no favorite in this fight. I've been asking for more evidence all along, and accumulating evidence from multiple sources, including Bledsoe, the N&R, the reports, and off-the-record interviews. I believe John Hammer got it right when he wrote:

The Police Chief David Wray resignation story isn't about a black book, although there is a black book in it. It isn't about Greensboro Police Lt. James Hinson or drug dealers, although they are in it. And most importantly it isn't just about race although there are some racial factors that cannot be ignored.

This story is about honesty and trust, and it can be summed up simply: City Manager Mitch Johnson, Mayor Keith Holliday, and [the rest of the Council members] didn't trust former Police Chief David Wray and don't believe Wray was honest with them.

[Bubba]

"When you can get both Tom Phillips and Dianne Bellamy-Small (among other pairings) on the same page with something like the Wray saga, you'd do well to accept that perhaps you aren't privy to how many shoes have yet to drop."

Let's try another combat analogy.

When the Romulans have you outnumbered, and the disrupter blasts and the myotronic beams are flying fast and furious, the Federation and the Klingons join forces for the common good.

No surprise there.

Or perhaps you want to argue there's a newer and sinister round of Wray revelations yet to come?

Was today's N&R puff piece the first step in these new revelations?

How many shoes have you got in the privy?

[Bubba]

"I have a copy of a substantial leaked document that was not posted on GSO101. I think it was prepared by City staff....."

So?

"I have no favorite in this fight."

Could have fooled the rest of us, Ed.

[Ed Cone]

Bubba, you seem to have made your mind up early, and decided as well that anyone who does not cheerlead for Wray must have been against him all along, and in the tank for the City. But your saying so, repeatedly, does not make it so.

As for the City report, I was answering Sam's question.

Beyond that, facts matter, and if the allegations in the report are factual, they will influence any objective assessment of Wray's management of GPD.

[mebloginm]

Ed,

I was wondering why you went quiet for a few days....

How does it feel to have information that you are not suppose to have?

[Fred Gregory]

Large gulps of Kook-Aid by the CC and their pals the N & R. This bunker mentality is pathetic.

[greendog]

Parle inglese, Right Said Fred?
Methinks that you should be in the bed.

[Fred Gregory]

Who are you oh nocturnal perro verde ? A keyboard coward who uses a mutts name.
Do you work at a 24 hour WalMart cleaning the restrooms . I'll bet you don't reside anywhwere near Greensboro and are just a shit stirring liberal with nothing better to do than kibitz about our problems. I saw Bubba challenge you to come over to his blog but declined since you apparetly you feel safe here in Coneland, huh ? Your IP address is showing , pal.

[Ed Cone]

Fred, why is it a problem for you that Greendog, who disagrees with you, writes anonymously, but not a problem when Bubba does it?

Meb, I received the additional report at the same time I received the RMA report, as did, I believe, many others.

[mebloginm]

Now that the opinion is that posting is ok...why has the balance not been posted for all to review?

...then again...you being tossed on the witness stand has its advantages.. :-)

I would guess that if someone posted anon to 101 that Roch would post again...(with background soundtrack of the Lone Ranger...grin)

[Ed Cone]

I've seen no indication that people think posting it is OK. I think everyone who got a copy of the RMA report got this report, too. Whoever posted the RMA report to 101 seems to have decided not to post this one.

People have been reporting from this document for some time, though.

[Bubba]

"Fred, why is it a problem for you that Greendog, who disagrees with you, writes anonymously, but not a problem when Bubba does it?"

Did you ever stop to think that it's because Fred knows WHO Bubba is, as do you?

We don't know who greendog is....yet.

[Bubba]

"But your saying so, repeatedly, does not make it so."

Your constant inference that it is otherwise do not make the opposite case either.

[Ed Cone]

Fred knows who you are, Bubba, and so do I, but that doesn't change the fact that you post anonymously, and that many other people do, too.

The outing game sucks. Pretending to do it on princple, while being glaringly inconsist in doing so, sucks worse.

[Bubba]

"The outing game sucks. Pretending to do it on princple, while being glaringly inconsist in doing so, sucks worse."

Then why have you taken digs at me (and others) previously for posting under a pen name?

On several occasions, you have essentially challenged me (and others) with what you criticize Fred for saying.

And don't use your standard "who, me?" response, Ed. It won't play.

[Ed Cone]

I have no beef with you posting anonymously, Bubba, only with the double standard. I have mocked the outrage about anonymity from people who don't mind your anonymity.

Sorry, but this is just a comical sentence: "Bubba, I wouldn't take very seriously the rantings of an anonymous blogger who is too afraid to reveal his or her true identity."

And I've teased you for pretending that because some people know who you are, and that your name is in the phone book -- presumably not under "Bubba" -- that you aren't an anonymous poster.

You know I protect your identity, and I do it gladly, as I've guarded the idenities of other people who choose to write without using their own names.

[The CA]

One difference is that unlike greendog (who WILL be outed very soon), Bubba does not curse at people and call them names and then make comments about how they perform their day jobs while not subjecting himself to the same scrutiny by letting others know what he/she does for a living.

Greendog jumps in here every now and then and says something highly insulting about a person, picks fights, curses, and then makes jabs at what people do for a living (e.g. "Sam, you obviously have no business with a law degree..") and then runs back into anonymity without subject his/her own resume to scrutiny.

Bubba can certainly be confrontational but he doesn't do what Greendog does, and more importantly, he has a blog which contains personal information about him- something that Greendog does not do.

But no worries, the outing of Greendog is a story I'm currently working on.

[The CA]

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the N&R story was very misleading or is it just me and possibly Ed?

[Ed Cone]

Sam,

Anonymity should not be contingent on your approval of comment content. That's a recipe for constant outing, because everyone pisses off someone.

This outing thing is a dangerous road to go down. You are introducing something poisonous into the local blog scene, and I hope you will reconsider it.

[greendog]

Yee haw! The boys are back. Through licking your wounds gentlemen? I'm rested and ready to deliver more justice. Bring it on! and no more girly whining and soap opera exits, Spagnola.

[The CA]

I will not have people casting personal aspersions about what I do for a living and how well I do it while hiding behind anonymity. If you want to play that game, then you need to be prepared for others to scrutinize your job and how well you do it. All it would take is one libel suit, and you (Ed) would have to reveal the ponidentity of the person who made the libelous comment on your blog. There have been a number of recent cases involving this type of thing, and the courts have made the host turn over the information. That isn't a position a blogger wants to be in, nor one that I am particularly interested in.

But people like greendog who often leave the focus of the main discussion to make personal remarks about the professional reputation of others better beware. That's why I am going to expose greendog- so everyone will know what greendog does for a living and decide whether attacking his/her reputation is fair game and deciding whether all of his/her past postings might come back to haunt him/her.

In short, if you are going to play that anonymous game, you better be prepared for the fact that your anonymity may not last forever and everything you do and say may come back to haunt you. Anonymity is not a license to libel.

This isn't about merely pissing people off. I agree with you on that. This is about leveling the playing field and holding people accountable for their statements about the education and professional reputation of others. People who use their real names and provide real information about themselves take a risk. That information should not be used against them by anonymous cowards unwilling to subject themselves to public analysis.

[The CA]

"ponidentity" = obviously a new word I invented by not editing my remarks. Shoule be simply "identity".

[Ed Cone]

Sam, you have already outed another local blogger without cause, so your justifications in this case ring a little hollow.

Your own comments here, which often include personal aspersions, have done more to sully your reputation than anything said about you by others.

[PotatoStew]

Serious question Sam, no snark intended: Do you really think your professional reputation is that severely threatened by comments from a single, abusive (as greendog him/herself has admitted) anonymous poster? Or are you merely letting greendog be incredibly successful at pushing your buttons?

[jw]

I blog anonymously and expect my words to be given the appropriate level of weight based on whether they makes sense, not from whom they are coming. If I read something that makes sense to me, I don't have a burning need to know who said them. A curiosity perhaps, but not a need.

I ignore people who sign their name and make no sense as I ignore those who do not sign their name. In fact, I will scroll to the bottom of a comment, particularly LENGTHY comments, to see who it's from before deciding whether to read the comment or not. It doesn't take long to figure out who the serious players are, anonymous or not.

[The CA]

Ed, I reversed that "outing" three days after I posted it, and you would have had to look real hard to find it in the first place.

Second, you state "Your own comments... which often include personal aspersions". Please provide evidence of where I ever made a comment about somebody's professional abilities- anonymously. Never have done it, Ed. It's not the same thing. People who use anonymous names while attacking others personally/professionally aren't fighting fair.

As far as sullying my reputation for personal aspersions, then I won't be alone because you'd be right there with me. Not to mention that I believe my reputation is doing quite well, even among some of my critics, present company excluded of course.

[The CA]

Stew, no I don't think that my reputation has been affected by greendog- I just think it should be a fair fight. It is one thing to blog anonymously about issues. Quite another to disparage people with personal information that they were kind enough to provide in the first place and then hide. Fine, you want to do that, we'll find out your personal information and make smart ass comments about you. After that, you will probably stick to the issues.

Part of the reason I am after greendog is that he/she is particularly condescending to people and has essentially challenged me to out him/her- I am gladly accepting that challenge.

JW, you have provided some good advice, much of which I already follow.

[Ed Cone]

Got it, Sam. You have granted yourself absolution for doing something nasty.

But this time you've got a reason for doing it -- your professional reputation has been sullied by a handful of scabrous anonymous comments.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[PotatoStew]

I dunno Sam - you chose to put your personal info out there. To complain that someone isn't fighting fair because they're playing off of it - anonymously or not - rings a bit hollow, in my opinion. Again, not trying to pick a fight with you, just telling you how it sounds.

"Fair fight" doesn't really come into play, because as you've pointed out, greendog is not sticking to the issues, but instead going for personal attacks, which aren't legitimately part of any of these discussions anyway, if you see what I'm saying. If you start poking back at greendog's newly revealed profession, you haven't made the fight fair, you've only furthered the digressions from the actual conversation.

As far as greendog's "challenge" - if greendog did indeed challenge you to out him/her, then fine, all bets are off. If you were only "essentially challenged", then it just seems kind of petty and underhanded to publicly out him or her.

[The CA]

My original outing was done as an illustration to show that I wasn't going to play games with your crowd Ed, and make no mistake, greendog is part of your crowd. The hit and run tactics by anonymous lefties will not go unchallenged, it's that simple.

I can go back and undo my decision to "un-out" certain people if you'd like...

And Potato- I didn't put my personal information "out there", I simply used my real name.

[Bubba]

Greendog is a bottom feeding scum sucker who loves to dish it out, but can't take it in return.

Watch him/her/it crawl back under a rock when someone gets in his/her/it's face.

One more time, greendog:

Here's the link.

I'm still waiting, but I do not expect you to show up.

People with big mouths and little minds, and no substance to back their crap up, like you, never have anywhere enough courage.

[Ed Cone]

I really don't have a crowd. That is one of your fundamental misconceptions. I understand that saying it gives you something to define yourself against, but it's just not the case.

The whole labeling thing, the cable news/Limbaugh division of the world into discrete ideological camps, is so tired, and harmful, and it's something I would love to get away from, in local blogging and national politics.

I don't know, or care, who GD is. I know some of the people who post here, most of my readers are unknown to me. Some of them I agree with some of the time, others argue with me sometimes and agree sometimes, and so on..

And I know that my saying this will have precisely no impact on your view of things.

[greendog]

You guys must get 34 hours in a day, cause every day you spend on this blog you seem to waste about 10.

Bubba, did you say your crap is backed up and is coming out your mouth, or did I read that wrong?

Sam, who you callin' a leftie, leftie?

I can't believe you guys really want to start this up again. Isn't there anything else to talk about? Corruption in government? Tax code reform? Strategies for North Korea?

I done told you once and now I'm telling you twice.
You'll never see me again if you can learn to be nice.

[The CA]

"And I know that my saying this will have precisely no impact on your view of things."

I do actually listen to what you say, Ed. Some times it even makes sense enough that I agree with it. There are numerous examples of this in your archives if you look.

[Ed Cone]

That's great. I agree with some of the things that many people say, even when I disagree with them about other stuff.

Which is what I'm trying to say about this whole us/them labeling thing.

It's broken. It's counterproductive.

And local blogs especially don't have to be that way.

[Bubba]

When I think of greendog, I think of this quote from Houseman:

"Nature not content with denying him the ability to think, has endowed him with the ability to write."

[David Hoggard]

I do as JW suggests when I encounter many posts... I look to see who authored the comment. Then I decide if I'll read it or not. If greendog is the author, I usually pass because of predictability. Ditto Bubba to a lesser extent (I may be the only participant who doesn't know, nor care to know, who he is or isn't)

Sam, let me add my voice to Ed's about how wrong it would be to 'out' commenters just because you can.

Part of the reason this local blogging thing has become so successful is because we have so many participants from so many divergent views. One sure way to kill the free exchange fo views is by just such threats as yours.

Why do you care who greendog is? I know I don't and your 'outing' will make no difference to me. It would accomplish nothing but make you somehow feel better about yourself.

I got over anon posters/commenters a long time ago (unless one of them criticizes another anon poster for being so.) They are part of the game - the rules of which were set long before you entered the scene.

Leave it be. Please.

[mebloginm]

...sounds like Hogg and Bubba have some unfinished business-- :-)

My guess is that Greendog is really Pee Wee Herman. (he writes like he only has one free hand...)

Sam is nicer at his blog than at Ed's.
(98% of the lawyers...give 2% a hmmm...was it a good or bad name...hmmm)

You folks that blog using your real name...do you still attract the folks that want to continue the debate/argument outside of the blogworld? I have been thinking about adding my real name information at my blog...thoughts?

Weather it is an Ed Cone or a Greendog....(rofl)..does it really matter?

[PotatoStew]

"I can go back and undo my decision to "un-out" certain people if you'd like..."

Now that just sounds thuggish and bullying to me. Between that, and the original outing on your site, this is sounding more and more petty.

"And Potato- I didn't put my personal information "out there", I simply used my real name."

Come on Sam - when a simple Google search will turn up your own website that contains your name and personal information, it's the exact same thing.

[David Hoggard]

"You folks that blog using your real name...do you still attract the folks that want to continue the debate/argument outside of the blogworld?"

As for me, yes. I think people feel more comfortable knowing exactly who you are and where you stand. And, believe it or not, 95%+ of the people I associate with don't read my blog - or any blog - on a regular basis.

We are a very small, but self-important, lot.

[The CA]

"Part of the reason this local blogging thing has become so successful is because we have so many participants from so many divergent views. One sure way to kill the free exchange fo views is by just such threats as yours."

David, my "threat" is specifically targeted at those people who make disparaging comments about how other people perform there job when it has nothing to do with the topic that is being discussed. Because they contribute nothing of substance to the discussion, outing them will make the blogosphere a better place. Maybe then they will shut up unless they have something productive to say. Maybe the threat of being outed alone is enough to keep them on course. It is one thing to trade barbs with known people, quite another to say whatever you want about someone's professional reputation without fear of retribution.

I made a mistake when I "outed" a known blogger last week. Of course, the "outing" was not publicized and I have no intentions of doing that again to that person who for good reasons, wishes to stay anonymous and who does contribute to the discussion usually in a productive manner. I fixed that problem after hearing from several other bloggers. I can take all the partisanship, criticism and smart ass remarks about what I say without feeling the need to out someone. What I won't take is potentially libelous and overly smart ass comments that refer to my professional reputation or anyone else's from people who then run and hide.

It seems to me that this is an ideal that bloggers should agree with and will lend greater credibility to these discussions.

[Bubba]

"...sounds like Hogg and Bubba have some unfinished business-- :-)"

Everyone knows where I can be found.

He's no exception, if what you say is indeed the case, meb.

[mebloginm]

What exactly is "outed" and how is it done?

thanks

[The CA]

"Come on Sam - when a simple Google search will turn up your own website that contains your name and personal information, it's the exact same thing."

That's exactly my point. I used my name, anyone can easily find out whatever they want to about me. That is not a license to use that information to make potentially libelous remarks about how I do my job. It's one thing to say "Sam doesn't know what he's talking about", quite another to do a google search, find out I'm a lawyer, and say "he probably loses all of his cases". Not only is this false but usually not germane to the conversation and if you want to comment on how I do my job, I will find out who you are and comment on how you do yours.

Just because I can.

Don't confuse an open discussion of events with personal attacks about one's professional reputation. I have no problem with people who blog anonymously while commenting on the subject at hand, but there is a line that should not be crossed unless it is relevant to the discussion.

When I first started my blog, I was outed within 24 hours by Ed Cone. It didn't matter to me because I wasn't trying to hide anything to begin with. However, I didn't see the kind of concern about that as I am reading now. And quite frankly, it is well known that Ed and I have traded a number of personal barbs- that's fine, I know who he is and he knows who I am. That's a fair fight. GD isn't the only anonymous blogger that I have butted heads with- just the only one who has repeatedly crossed the line and needs to be taught that he/she will pay for that behavior. I have no plans to out anyone regardless of how bad they piss me off. Outing someone is not a proper response to someone you disagree with, but I think it is a fair response to someone who says potentially libelous things about your professional reputation.