Hank -

No one wants to see censorship. But maybe - just maybe - the items you post on might receive more respect (and defense by others) if you would stick to the point and followed the terms of use.

Too often you seem to make personal attacks rather than sticking to the issue. You would have better grounds to complain if you didn't have "unclean hands."

So how about cleaning up YOUR act. Then people might stand with you if there are still such concerns. Hard to blame Gibboney or his staff or substantiate complaints about "unfair censorship" when so many of your posts blatantly violate the terms of use.

Take resonsibility for your own piece of this - it's the only part you have control over anyways.

Hank,

You wrote that the Almanac is incapable of objectivity.

You are right. The Almanac made the irresponsible choice of recommending candidates in this past election. It is impossible to be objective if the very paper you are working for recommended the election of certain candidates. I take the Almanac for what it is worth...

Aw, the old Main Stream Media bias hits Menlo Park, per Hank "Michael Savage, Jr." Lawrence.
You could only HOPE to be banned from Britain, Hank, like Chainsaw Savage was.
And if it wasn't for all the libs like Kelly, you probably would have been banned from council meetings long ago.
So cry me a river, bud!

Dear Grow Up,

It is ironic that you accuse me of the same tactics you have just engaged in. You did not comment on the story. Instead you engaged in a personal attack on me to deflect interest from the story at hand.

I gave facts to substantiate my claim. You engaged in a personal attack. So grow up perhaps you should tak some of your own advice.

Prince wrote: "The Almanac made the irresponsible choice of recommending candidates in this past election. It is impossible to be objective if the very paper you are working for recommended the election of certain candidates. I take the Almanac for what it is worth..."

Don't most/all newspapers take positions on initiatives and endorse candidates during elections?

Gern

Hank,

I'll offer one of many possible reasons why the "Tempers flare in debate over Public Pay" thread was moved from the Home page: it was insidiously boring and the whole issue is merely the latest chattering point of Lee Dubiousoc and her angry cabal. Don't kid yourself that it merited more attention than one gives the backside of a sheet of toilet paper.

Gern

"I gave facts to substantiate my claim," sez the put-upon Hank. Facts? Shall we look at Hank's "facts"? A thread is rotated off the front page for fresher material. This means, with all the certainty that is characteristic of Hank, that the Almanac is hiding information from the public and showing its "bias against mainstream values." And this we're supposed to take seriously as "fact"?

Hank, you need to get a grip on reality unless all you intend to do is give the rational among us a good laugh.

Hank, it's not that bad. If you post something critical of Atherton (esp. the police dept.), Gibboney won't just move it; it gets deleted.

Dear Gern,

Who is kidding Whom,

The "Tempers flare in debate over Public Pay" Blog had a huge amount of interest. Fifteen people responded in less than two days and was pulled by the Almanac while older blogs with fewer respondents remained. Please don't be disingenuous. Perhaps the SEIU membership does not care whether it bankrupts the City; but I assure you most Menlo Park residents do.

This next election cycle will be a referendum on fiscal responsibility and even your heroine Gail Slocum won't be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat this time. The tide is turning and we are going to sweep in fiscally responsible people on to the City Council and close this sordid chapter on fiscal recklessness.

Dear Hank,

If you read the messages in message view (vs main view) then the most current messages will be at the top. That's what I do, and you can do it too! Let the people decide which topics have legs and which should fade away.