Just so we can get some kind of head-exploding feedback situation going here, I'm pimping Destiny's pimping of msteger's pimping of "Bill's" new site.
Although I frequently disagree with Mr. McCalpin, I generally find his presentation civil and substantive. He's a smart guy and knows his way around a keyboard. Do I worry he may be, effectively or actually, a mouthpiece for the established powers? Sure. I'm not completely gullible.
I think a factcheck.org-style site for local issues would be a great thing, and I think Bill alludes to that on the site and with the rumorcheck domain. Will rumorcheck really follow up on leads no matter where they go? Or will it be a PR tool (effectively or by design) for COR? I hope for the former and have had my heart broken enough times that I would not be greatly surprised at the latter.
You know, if the DMN would do some fuh-reaking investigative journalism rumorcheck.org would simply be unnecessary. It will be interesting to see what Bill does with the site. I hope for the best.
[see the later comments -- my 12:30pm comment needed correction]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Thanks, bloggermouse. Yes, I will take the rumors where they lead. In fact, when I started the article on Gary Slagel and the DRMC, I had assumed, based on what I had heard, that he had made a mistake of some sort. I was quite surprised when I talked to the people I list (Harris, Keliher, and McCarley) that they were, if anything, angry at the rotten treatment Gary had gotten. These are 2 former officeholders and the former Plano Chief of Police saying that CBS got it wrong - these are no lightweights.
The reaction from the usual suspects has been perfectly predictable - lots of name-calling and no evidence at all, versus signed statements from three pretty serious and well-known people in the Metroplex...well, who would you believe? That's what lot of people should be asking themselves when they read the cut-and-paste-the-latest-rumor "news" that we too often get.
Anyway, shoot me a public rumor and let's see where it goes...
Bill
Bloggermouse, you are kinder than I. I read through his stuff and had a hard time continuing to read due to fits of laughter.
But, Wild Bill - rumor check these two items:
1) You claim Slagel paid in full the rent due when he had his company house in startech. Your previous claims also stated that he not only paid rent in full, but paid about market price. Rumor check that.
2) The pay for play with Blago - Capitalsoft came in 4th, then made a check out for Blago and then won the contract. Pay for play? Who told him to do that? Whose signature is on the check? Why did his company get fired? And how do these events play into the NTTA? I am looking forward to your version of the truth on that and your sources.
After you get that done, we will go for some more.
Here's to not holding my breath while waiting on answers.
Try not using suppositions (your suppositions make your claims suspect).
The 10x article was handled well and fairly, I thought:
http://rumorcheck.org/PropertyOnArapaho.html
The 100 Central article:
http://rumorcheck.org/100NCentral.html
would have been more compelling if it identified what property *is* the one in foreclosure (preferably with a picture). That would really have put a bow on it. Maybe the real foreclosed property is the Richardson Heights strip mall:
http://tinyurl.com/oktczt
will holds the delightful Masami and the excellent Taj Mahal market.
Also see:
http://www.loopnet.com/Texas/Richardson_Malls-For-Sale/
Bill, I'd be willing to make posts like this on rumorcheck if there was functionality to do so. I think now we can only send fb directly via the contact form.
bloggermouse, I did identify the property in foreclosure - see the second paragraph (it's the whole shopping center). Did I misunderstand you?
While I agree that a picture would be more compelling (and I didn't think of that), I wonder if some of the businesses operating there would rather not be in the picture, lest people think that the businesses themselves are in trouble (what I read in the Morning News, I think, was that the bankruptcy was as much a ploy to force some refinancing as shortage of funds), and, besides, the landlord having money trouble shouldn't imply that tenanets are having money trouble.
Perhaps if there is a picture for the shopping center itself without any businesses in the shot (I'll look at your stuff and then look around)...thanks!
Bill
Yes, there is no blog at the moment on Rumorcheck.org, and I don't know that there will be. I am perfectly willing to post non-abusive comments submitted via the feedback form - I am sure that this is not clear and I should consider how to improve it. However, I am not going to open up a free-for-all blog, because that is exactly how many of the rumors get created and propagated in the first place. I really don't want to spend the little time I have for doing research by wasting time moderating a blog full of abusive and fact-free posts - which I know I would get, based on what has happened in other forums over the last year.
Bill
I misread; thanks for the correction. I think I stopped in mid-paragraph to google and resumed at the next para. D'oh!
The picture thing was mainly a "help the reader understand" thing before I decided it must be the easily-identifiable shopping center. If it had been some largely-unknown tucked-away muffler shop or something then the pic would have been helpful. I'll alter the original post.
David, I am sad that your posts follow the pattern of other negative posts. You laugh at what I say, but provide no evidence at all that anything I said was untrue. Then, I "suppose" because of lack of evidence, you change the subject to say, "What about these other things?"
I am not going to play this game. If I said something untrue or I have some fact in error, instead of abusing me, just provide hard evidence of your point through the site's feedback form. If you don't, then I have no reason to respond to you...we're not going to play the game anymore of letting people ignore hard evidence in preference to name-calling and flaming. Name-calling doesn't serve the interests of the people of Richardson; reason and facts do.
Bill
I sense a dodging of the question there Wild Bill, much like you did in November on my site. At least you are consistant.
By the way, I did offer you an opportunity to use [sic] above. Did you spot it? :)
Bloggermouse:
Check out Destiny's site @anon, January 10,2010, 7:37.
The FACTS on the Arapaho lot purchases - without Mr. McCalpin's SUPPOSITION and mental meandering - appear there.
Post a Comment