I tried to get a response to Guffanti's inaccurate post. The NCTimes editor refused to post my response. Below are my first (8:08 am)and second attempts (11:30 am) neither of which were posted by the blog editor.
In the evening, I checked back in on the comment blog (at 6:06 pm), the blog editor had taken down the Guffanti slander, but did still had not posted either of my comments correcting Guffanti.
However at 6:06pm the Guffanti post had been removed.
Did Guffanti think better of his rudeness and ask the blog editor to take down his post? Or was the blog editor embarrassed by my comments and decided to take down Guffanti's slander on his own initiative? Who knows why the Guffanti big lie about Carol was taken down. But at least it was. There appears to be a very distinct bias on the part of the blog editor. Why else would Guffanti's slander have been posted on the blog in the first place?
Here is what Guffanti posted at 7:19. The post is an exact copy including Guffanti's name. He posted it to refute a previous post about problems that Gibson had brought to the school board.
Dr. Guffanti[-] wrote on Sep 30, 2008 7:19 PM:Gibson brought peace and unity to a board that had been divided for 8 years. Herrera was displaced as president and got her feathers ruffled. She also voted against opening the new high school at any different site. If Herrera had been willing to compromise the high school would be running by now. It isn't open because the district ran out of money to run it. We are hoping the money will be available in 2009.
This is not the first time the Guffanti has posted an endorsed for Gibson on a nctimes article comment blog about the Oceanside City Council election. Several weeks ago Guffanti posted a laudatory if factually incorrect set of comments about Gibson following an article. He posted as Dr. G. I did not try to copy and save the comments until a day or two later by then the blog editor had removed the comments that he had originally allowed to be posted. Seems the blog editor is doing a lot of clean up of the blog comments to protect Guffanti.
My first post to dispute the above lies should be posted here but darn it all I seem to have lost it. I may have had a premature deletion problem.
Second post:
So your rules allow Stephen Guffanti to slam a fellow school board member with "creative" facts, but mentioning that Gibson and Guffanti cost the VUSD millions of dollars is not allowed.
FACT the strawberry hill new high school site would have cost VUSD just ONE million dollars.
FACT Gibson and Guffanti refused to be the fourth vote needed for condemnation and acquisition of the strawberry hill property.
FACT At least nineteen sites were looked at for the third VUSD high school. Only two sites met all the requirements--strawberry hill and the highway 76 site.
FACT The highway 76 site where the new high school ended up, because Gibson and Guffanti refused to be the fourth vote, cost the district 17 million dollars--a difference of 16 million. Delays in construction schedule and increased construction costs added millions more.
What is wrong with facts on this blog? (Meaning the nctimes comment blog, not this one of course)
1 comment:
your right about editor bias on the nctimes. Very few of the comments opposing the editor's selection of candidates (nctimes oct 2,2008) were posted. I put in one which was not posted. And a couple of friends said their comments were not posted.
Post a Comment