So... who is behind the No on 695 site?

They tell us who they AREN'T:

"Note: The creators of this web site are not politicians or government employees. While we have been in contact with and received support from politicians and government employees, we do not work for the city, state or county. We are not a mighty political organization with a lot of money (wouldn't we have a nicer web site, with our own name?) We are simply two concerned citizens who want to get the word out against Initiative 695."

But they don't tell us who they ARE.

Now... why is that?

Do any of you believe that this is pure altruism? That whoever these people are they're doing this for the sake of those principles they're broadcasting? I don't.

Tim and the others involved with the initiative have come clean... so why don't those behind the "no" site identify themselves?

In short... what do they have to hide?

Westin

"A 'special interest' is a 'special interest' until they're on YOUR side. Then they become enlightened allies."

Ferrell "The Start of the Union 'B' Movement" 1973-Aschaffenburg Press

-- Westin (84se4sp@my-deja.com), August 23, 1999

Answers

Have you asked them? I note that although the co-chairs of the initiative have their bios listed, the webmaster of this site doesn't list his/her background and political motives behind backing the initiative. I don't particularly care either, but if I did, I would send that person an e-mail asking. They do have an e-mail address listed on their site. Have you sent them an e-mail and received a "none of your business" reply? Note that not receiving a reply is not the same thing, as I sent them an e-mail a month ago and never received a response.

Why is it so hard to believe that someone can be just as opposed to 695 as some people are supportive WITHOUT being part of the so called "establishment?" And by the way, I believe the actual chairmen of the No-On-695 campaign are Don Brunell and Rick Bender. The website, for all I know, is not affiliated with them.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

"Have you asked them?"

Nope. My whole point is that I shouldn't HAVE to ask. Given that Tim, et al, tell the whole world who they are with out being asked, while these people provide no clue... well, I happen to think that means something.

"I note that although the co-chairs of the initiative have their bios listed, the webmaster of this site doesn't list his/her background and political motives behind backing the initiative."

Clearly, you note only what you WANT to note. I don't give a damn about the "webmaster" of either site, unless they are affiliated with their advertised position. Who the webmaster is, is very secondary to who the people backing him/her are.

It is altogether possible that whoever runs this site is one of the people listed in the bio. But, that is not (and never was) the point.

"I don't particularly care either, but if I did, I would send that person an e-mail asking. They do have an e-mail address listed on their site. Have you sent them an e-mail and received a "none of your business" reply?"

No... nor do I intend to. Nor should I have to.

"Note that not receiving a reply is not the same thing, as I sent them an e-mail a month ago and never received a response."

It is to me. "Why is it so hard to believe that someone can be just as opposed to 695 as some people are supportive WITHOUT being part of the so called "establishment?"

Patrick, can you be this naive?

NOBODY does ANYTHING for NOTHING. And, the fact that whoever these people are, they remain hidden from view does send a message.

"And by the way, I believe the actual chairmen of the No-On-695 campaign are Don Brunell and Rick Bender. The website, for all I know, is not affiliated with them."

And THOSE two have NOTHING to gain by defeating this initiative... do they? Yup. Pure altruism.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 23, 1999.

Well this has to be one of your biggest reaches yet. You wonder publicly about who these people are, but you aren't willing to even ask them? You claim that you shouldn't have to. Why? Where is it written that if someone puts up a web site for a cause that they should post their life story for your review? They posted the information about themselves that they wanted to post. Just because they didn't post the information that YOU wanted to see, doesn't mean that they are hiding something. The act of hiding something means that you are concealing the information on purpose. There is NO evidence that they are keeping this info from you. If you really want to find out more information then ask them. Otherwise you are just being really really lazy just so you can continue your own consipracy theory.

I also didn't say that the people who put the site up DON'T have their own reasons to oppose I-695. I just said that it is possible for them to be opposed to the idea WITHOUT being part of the so called "establishment." This may be a hard concept for you to grasp, but it is quite possible for an average citizen to be opposed to 695 WITHOUT being a government employee, labor union activist, or large business owner. Their reasons may be quite diverse, and the only way for you to know what those reasons are is TO ASK THEM!

I also didn't say that Brunell and Bender don't have a stake in the defeat of 695. But you asked "what does 'No on 695' have to hide?" The campaign by that name is headed by those two people who are quite visible. The website of the same name is probably a privately owned site by private individuals with no relation.

Gee Westin, I noticed that you haven't posted your personal information here although you are quite the rabid supporter. What are YOU hiding? Oh wait, I should probably just go to another web site and pose the question to other people. I shouldn't ask you because then I might get an answer that doesn't fit in with my "hidden agenda" theory. But then again, I don't care who

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 23, 1999.

You wonder publicly about who these people are, but you aren't willing to even ask them?

Nope. Well... maybe.

You claim that you shouldn't have to. Why?

How about this:

If you were to run for office, and someone were to put a web site that supported you that cost them money, their is certainly an argument that such an effort is an In-Kind contribution. The fact is that this web site DOES cost someone money, and I want to know whos behind it for the same reason the PDC wants to know whos sending someone campaign contributions. If you must know.

Now, Patrick... how many times and in how many different ways do I need to answer this question? Ive TOLD you why. If you disagree with me, well, bully for you. GET OVER IT.

Sheesh.

Where is it written that if someone puts up a web site for a cause that they should post their life story for your review?

Well, I think its written right next to where I asked for their life story.

Patrick, while I recognize, based on your positions here that you have a propensity to exaggerate, try to control it when it comes to what I say, think, or write. I NEVER asked for their life story. I think they should identify themselves WITHOUT me having to ask them. I think they have something to hide because they dont. YOU my feel free to disagree, if you like.

But if you think that someones just doing this out of pure altruism then you also believe in the Tooth Fairy; the Goodness of Man and the Easter Bunny.

They posted the information about themselves that they wanted to post.

Very meaningful. And, very obvious. As in, No shit, Sherlock.

Just because they didn't post the information that YOU wanted to see, doesn't mean that they are hiding something. The act of hiding something means that you are concealing the information on purpose.

OK, Patrick, I tell you what. If you REALLY believe this, I WILL email them and ask them the following questions:

Names, nature of employment, what connection they have to anyone who stands to gain by this initiatives defeat, how much theyve spent on this website, and if theyve reported it to the PDC.

There. Feel better now?

And, as I absolutely believe they will, when they ignore my request for information, will that constitute proof to you that they have something to hide?

No... of course not. Nothing is proven to you unless it comes out of a court. I forgot.

I also didn't say that the people who put the site up DON'T have their own reasons to oppose I-695.

How nice of you to CYA, Patrick. That way, you can continue to hold their coat, not dirty your skirts, and win no matter which way it turns out.

I just said that it is possible for them to be opposed to the idea WITHOUT being part of the so called "establishment."

Bull. No one does anything for nothing. It is simplistic and naive to believe what youve just written. And, of course, with an alleged 2-4 million-dollar war chest, God knows the no side is going to need all the help they can get... right?

This may be a hard concept for you to grasp, but it is quite possible for an average citizen to be opposed to 695 WITHOUT being a government employee, labor union activist, or large business owner. 

Sure it is. Its quite possible that OJ didnt kill Ron and Nicole; that Bill smoked but didn't inhale, that Love Story is about Al and Tipper; George didnt blow snow when he was a kid and Gore really did invent the Internet.

But its all damned unlikely.

Their reasons may be quite diverse, and the only way for you to know what those reasons are is TO ASK THEM! 

And, so what do we do when they dont answer ME, like they didnt answer YOU?

I also didn't say that Brunell and Bender don't have a stake in the defeat of 695.

What?!?!?!? You mean to say that members of the establishment cant act against an initiative just because its the Right thing to do?

Im shattered.

But you asked "what does 'No on 695' have to hide?"

Obviously, a great deal.

The campaign by that name is headed by those two people who are quite visible. The website of the same name is probably a privately owned site by private individuals with no relation.

Spiffy. Then let them come out and say so.

Gee Westin, I noticed that you haven't posted your personal information here although you are quite the rabid supporter. What are YOU hiding?

My life is an open book, Patrick. But then, I dont run the go to "no" site on a major initiative either, do I?

Please get to an opthamologist, Patrick. If you cant see the difference between their web site and my posts, you are in worse shape then I thought.

Westin

"I know I left my glasses around here, somewhere."

T.A. Edison

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 25, 1999.

Okay Westin, Where is this no on 695 website you are talking about? Is it the one on Angelfire? Or is there another one. If it's Angelfire they are paying anything because Angelfire is a free service. The site isn't put together by professionals either. It's amateurs who probably haven't done any web authoring before.

The thing I don't like is the fact that you can't find I-695 by going to search engines. I've tried to submit this site to several of them by '695' referenes so many things that it's a waste of time

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

I couldn't find the pro 695 web site on my own either, but did through www.conservativeusa.org. This is a very good web site with useful links. Webmaster Art Harman was very helpful. Hope this helps.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), August 25, 1999.

I'm the one who needs glasses when Westin never actually reads what I say.

SIDEBAR- Hypothesis Testing 101: Step 1. Observe something. Step 2. Develop a hypothesis based upon the observation. Step 3. Develop and implement a test of the hypothesis. Step 4. Based upon the results, either reject hypothesis or do not reject hypothesis.

I didn't ask why you wanted to know this information, I asked you why you thought this information needs to be presented to you without asking. Is this THAT hard of a concept to grasp? You have a hypothesis that the authors of the No site are hiding their personal information on purpose. The evidence that you provide is that the personal information is not readily available on the site (steps 1 and 2). I asked if you had any more evidence to back up your hypothesis, specifically, if you had asked them for their personal information and been refused (step 3). When you said no, I then explained how you have not convinced me of the validity of your hypothesis since it is based upon speculation (you went from step 2 to 4). Other people may be willing to accept your hypothesis based upon your single piece of evidence. That is up to them. And you can feel free to refuse to provide anymore evidence to bolster your hypothesis. That is up to you.

"And, as I absolutely believe they will, when they ignore my request for information, will that constitute proof to you that they have something to hide?"

Actually, I agree that it would in fact bolster your hypothesis and give it more credibility (as long as you don't start complaining 5 seconds after you send the message). However, as I already stated, it won't 100% PROVE it, since I HAVE e-mailed them in the past, and they also did not respond. IF they do respond with a "none of your business" type reply, then that will certainly make your hypothesis very credible. But you can't just make a claim based upon your hypothesis, assume the claim to be true, then draw your conclusion.

I'm going to ignore your further comments that I believe they have the site up for altruistic purposes. I've already said that I don't believe it is true, nor did I ever say it.

Let me repeat myself. I am not, let me say that again, NOT saying that you SHOULDN'T know who is behind that web site or the reasons why they are. I believe that sort of information is always helpful. I am also NOT saying that they AREN'T hiding anything. WHAT I AM SAYING (this is something you should really try to comprehend) is that IMHO you have drawn your conclusion "No On 695 site is hiding something" prematurely given the evidence that you have.

Am I losing everyone else here too, or is it just Westin?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 25, 1999.

See how easy it is?

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 25, 1999.

Is someone having trouble finding Initiative 695 sites? I do a search for "Initiative 695" on Excite, and this one is number 2. The others are listed in the following pages of related sites. Have I missed the thread of the issue?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 25, 1999.

What? To explain something to you? Well if you think that explaining something to you three times before you comprehend it is easy, then ye

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 25, 1999.

"What? To explain something to you?"

Patrick, let me explain something to YOU.

1. Your messages are getting cut off some how. Fix it.

2. You need to set up your web browser and do a search on:

a. Fish b. Shooting c. Barrel

What I was demonstrating as being easy is best illustrated by a quote from the Foreman thread:

"THAT'S 'entertaining?' No, Patrick... you have it all wrong. Nothing beats sheer comedy value in manipulating you into yet another vapor- lock. The level of indignation you reach here when I bust your chops with your illogical and unsupported opposition to 695 has most of us in stitches!"

THAT was easy.

Westin

Since you asked.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 26, 1999.

1. I'm not the only one in which the forum decides to cut off the end of the message. It happens to a number of people. How do you suggest I fix it? I'm not in charge of the site. But I'll keep your laughable demand in mind.

2. Uh, whatever. You can't even RESPOND to the concepts I raise and instead turn to claims that I either don't even have an argument, or that apparently my argument is SO easy to disprove that you don't even NEED to respond. If "busting my chops" in this debate is like shooting fish in a barrel, then why is it that you almost never pull the trigger? Even when you do, it's always at something I never said.

Yeah, it's easy to make personal attacks and never address the comments that someone has made.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 26, 1999.