No, Jessica doesn't know. We have IP addresses and can tell if someone is posting under different names, but that's about the extent of the information we have.

And I guess it's a good thing I took the name out because it was, in fact, incorrect. Mr. Flint apologized.

Dear Gina,

As long as we have your attention, let us review what you know as a Goggle Republisher.

At present, you know the identity of Mary's campaign supporters and you are part of distribution of such supporters' e-exchanges. You know how many Informed Resident authors there are and the supporters of that group as a result of such e-distribution. You specifically know the IP addresses of Informed Resident's commentators so you have comparison to know who is the individual posting commentator.

Discovery of e-distributions coming to you by researchers provides a very clear picture of EMCEB's political role. Within such distribution is validation that Mary's campaign message is being brought to your Express Forum by many authors including the designated commentators that post using IP addresses separate from campaign computers.

Don cannot fully know the progression of Mary's campaign messaging so his apology will be corrected by providing him fact-checking to confirm his reasonable knowledge of fact.

Your prejudice and sponsorship is showing and volumes of fact-checking is building against you.

There is no such thing as a "google republisher".

The "reality of this forum" is that it is a place for local residents to post and respond to local news of interest, hence the name Town Square Forum. It is not editorially driven nor is it an opinion feature overseen by editors. Hal/removed/etc, by addressing your comments to the editor, as if they were in fact being overseen,edited or commented on by the editor (other than for accuracy or for objectionable content), is an attempt to make this forum something it is not. If you are not aware, there is a link on this page to submit letters to the editor if that is truly what you want to do. I know I am shouting into the wind here, but I feel that you are tainting this site's ability to truly host a Town Square that reflects the interests of the community and are driving away (truly) local readers.

Very well put Oh!Riley.

Unfortunately the people you refer to don't get it & probably never will. They troll from website to website attacking elected individuals and then cry foul when they are not getting their way. Their tactics are always the same; a hit and run post of innuendo and then they complain that they are getting personally attacked when their opinion/innuendo is questioned. It always ends the same, with them attacking the website/webforum and then editors.

They are caught in a revolving door of self-made frustration.

We all see it........too bad they don't.

Dear Editor,

It would be exceptional if a town square forum existed or could be created based on "Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion." It would be exceptional if such respect overrode the desire by Informed Resident(s) and other authors to simply defame commentators rather than contribute to the news process.

In the goals of my association with news service members, our postings to your attention is pursuing a respectful return to contribution to the news process, including the difficult issues of candidates, campaigns and contributive content. For nearly three months we have seen commentary without content specifically developed from political dogma meant only to distract your readers and avoid any review of political campaigns.

As you review the commentary on your site, there is little inviting about the attacks, disrespect, defamation and prejudice posted by Informed Resident(s) authors that would invite the majority of your readers to post commentary. There is simply no content to warrant response.

You are left with a forum that is tabloid entertainment for most of your readers and that is labeling your home page stories' credibility. The forum referenced in this exchange above is occurring in various social media and e-exchange commentary in communities and neighborhoods. The very good news is those exchanges are respectful in their in-depth consideration of Contra Costa economics and politics.

Certainly, we could welcome earnest contribution and responses without the repetition of attacks. If that was the result, I would conclude my participation and simply enjoy in-depth content and consideration as an Express reader.

Hal,

I will spell it out for you; There is no campaign....unless you count your efforts to sling mud on existing Supervisors and prospective ones. Oh, I almost forgot East County Watch and Mr. Flint's efforts in concert with yours. But I really would not call that much of a campaign.

Here is another “news flash”. I don't believe Tomi or Candice have started "Campaigning" since filing has not opened and Mary does not have an opponent.

Check every posting on this site (yeah it is a challenge) to see where supporters of Tomi or Mary have started a thread. I can save you some effort, it has NOT happened. That is right my Hal pal, all I am doing is exposing your innuendo and attempts to sling mud. Do you really think anyone here does not see right through the efforts by you and East County Watcher, to deliberately defame either of those two ladies? In an opinion forum you can’t do that without being challenged or having your motives or character called into question. It is simple; Stop attacking and I will stop defending.

Let’s remember we are both entitled to our opinions. That is reality and why an opinion forum exists in the first place.

Hal probably just got confused in the message he got from Hal #2 who was actually relaying a message from Hal #6, who in turn was just repeating a rumor started by Hal #8.

Sometimes it hard to keep track of all the voices in one's head.

If someone steps into the ring with the intent to look for support from this bunch, I'm going to start a legislative effort to make psych evaluations a prerequisite to filing.

Dear Readers and Editor,

And so it begins.

Volume II, The Complete Works of Informed Resident(s) authors and friends (pals).

For your reading and dancing pleasure in tabloid form, batteries not included.

What the HAL, Smile, it has a nice beat and you can dance to it.

Ralph, moving on

And with that, we all thank you for "moving on"...

(and the crowd goes wild with applause).

Oh I spoke too soon……you started another topic (thread), “Candidates' Evaluations”.

… why am I not surprised?

Dear Editor,

We move on and on and on in reflection of the willingness of your sponsored commentators to make attitude, absence of content and derespect their basis of comment without reflection to challenge. We quite well know that distraction from review of politics in Contra Costa County is the goal and deflection of review of candidates is the goal.

As we in media research realize, the goal is to keep political history out of campaign consideration by voters and to keep voter commitment in place for the status quo of untalented elected officials.

Does anyone expect that to work? Care to explain?

Hal [removed],

Like a revolving door...you keep spinning and turning, but never seem to go anywhere except to repeat the same actions over and over. You have been doing it here for years.

Your claims of being in “Media research” fall flat when you obsessively post things which suit your agenda, and use phrases like “untalented elected officials”. I do a fair amount of research myself and yet, seem to find much more positive with these elected officials than the disparaging remarks that you post. I find that for the most part what they are doing is to make things better and they have many more factors to consider than just your “selective” needs. Making educated decisions on what is best for the majority explains why they continue to get elected by the majority. Maybe you are just not in that group?

Explanation? I see your accusations as an accurate description of your own behavior and frustration. Someday you may come to realize you are caught in your own revolving door. Until that day arrives, you are going to keep running in place. It must be frustrating.
I believe this to be truthful and I mean no disrespect.

Dear Editor,

This commentary by Informed Resident(s)’ designated author states an opinion as noted with respect. As CDSI news media members alerted me to the post, they noted a need for a small correction: Mary Piepho won re-election in 2008 with 22% of eligible voters. That is not a majority of voters or any mandate for her representation of a majority in district 3.

One reflection by Lorraine, Sr. Research Editor, focused on “Like a revolving door...you keep spinning and turning, but never seem to go anywhere except to repeat the same actions over and over. You have been doing it here for years.” It was Lorraine’s review of Informed Resident(s)’ commentary on the Express Forum and in e-mails to Alamo region neighborhood reps that clearly illustrated such repetition combined with lack of content. With that said, Informed Resident(s) respectful commentary certainly adds to the news process and to the purpose of the town square forum.

Let’s be hopeful that content is the next edition of Informed Resident(s)’ contributions to the Express Forum

Applause!!

Hal [removed],

Are you somehow trying to blame Supervisor Piepho for the amount of registered voters that vote? You do realize that Supervisorial elections are held in Primary election cycles, right?

I checked the County Elections website and as you can see, Supervisor Piepho won with 52.83 percent of the vote against Mr. Houston’s 45.51 percent. Sorry Hal, but 50 + 1 is a MAJORITY no matter how you try to “unjustify” it.

Mary Nejedly Piepho- 52.83 percent
Guy Spencer Houston-45.51 percent

This being the case, Mary Piepho won with a MAJORITY of the vote. Last time I checked, that is how elections work.

Although it may be frustrating for you, I do hope you enjoyed the content.

Dear Editor,

Although Informed Resident(s)' choice of author moved away from respectful commentary, the content was very welcome. The reality between such content and majority representation is a minority of voters cannot express the will and interests of the majority. It can be agreed that voters do not exercise their right to vote, but in the matter of the district 3 campaign in 2008 the nature of the campaigns, especially by unions, corporations and other independent groups, simply was a turn-off to voters that saw no choice at all.

With the point of voters exercising their majority choice, we can hope that a competitive race in district 3 will offer more invitation to a majority of voters.

Might we all agree?

Hal [removed],

Once again you have your opinion, I have mine.

As evidenced by the real election numbers (not assumed, mine seems to be aligned with the "Majority" and yours with the "Minority". Once again that must be very frustrating for you.

That much we can agree on...

Perhaps you might consider not always "reverse-engineering" the results of that outcome.

Dear Editor,

Let's return to the reality that you know the political commentators that are sponsored on the town square forum. As a Google republisher, you have the services of your provider to know the address, and subsequently the identity, of your commentators.

With that reality, the question becomes yours to explain the political sponsorship of the Express.

Hal [removed],

Ironic that you post as [removed] and with a handful of pseydomyms, yet you are suddenly concerned about others identities. I think that elevates your hypocrisy to a whole new level. It is getting difficult to ignore. Lets not forget the rules of the forum "...you may use any "member" name you wish". It is obvious there are many reasons for doing so.

What is intriguing (and revealing) is why you jump to identity revelation, when you are the first to cry foul over perceived personal attacks. Why would it matter who is posting, unless you are trying to find yet another angle to try to justify your position? It is simple Hal; the same rules apply to everyone.
No one likes a cheater.

This whole identity issue is only overshadowed by your ongoing infatuation with Mary Piepho; especially since she no longer represents your district. Maybe we should be demanding an explanation for your behavior. I think that might be fair…..

You are a master at changing the subject when your accusations falter. I have no doubt you are already looking for a way to deflect, so let me help you out;

Kindly explain to me, and the rest of the world, what is a "google republisher"?