Berta, "Search others for their virtues, thy self for thy vices." I have told this to my wife, Bridget, many a times, but she never listens. She is much like you. You two should get together for tea sometime.

Berta, I am not misspelling your name; it is my handle. Get your ego out of it. Yes. I know why you want my identity. You hope to get from it something to change "the discussion" and make a personal attack based on something other than the "discussion" at hand. You are refusing now to give facts regarding the accusations you have made because you do not know the identity of one of your blog commenters? Sad reason to let yourself be silenced...Afraid of a slander suit, or of just looking ridiculous?

AuntieBertie (NOT) "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Your true identity is relevant and we both know why. You can continue to misspell and disrespect my name, make snide remarks and try to make it about me, and say whatever else you want; it still does not change the facts regardless of whether you acknowledge them or not. The truth remains the truth and will always stand on its own merits. I am ending my participation in this now pointless “discussion” since I am not interested in trading insults with you nor will I give your comments any further respect by responding.

Bertha, you have presented no facts, so there's nothing to rebut. You have chosen to group adulterers, immature "sexting" politicians, whisperers, and disgruntled meeting audience members and tied them together with the phrase "unethical behavior" to exaggerate the annoyance you experience when people you disagree with make sounds. My identity does not change the meaning of my words; my identity is irrelevant. Why do you pretend here, as you often have elsewhere, that one's words have no meaning unless you can identify the author? Do you need the crutch of personal information as a weapon to hurl when you are stuck for an answer? Besides you seem to be able to make assumptions about anyone without knowing their identities. An unethical behavior is to accuse people of lying but not saying what those lies were, or demonstrate that what was said was false. Unless you can do that, you are the one guilty of unethical behavior.( Unless, in your moral reality, you are granted absolution because you attached your name to the defamation? Is that your excuse?)

AuntieBertie (NOT) you can challenge anything you want but unless you can prove that my facts or statements are incorrect, which you cannot, your challenge fails. I additionally conclude that any further “discussion” on the topic of ethics is pointless with someone who does not possess the personal integrity to reveal their own true identity. I am sure there is a very good reason you snipe at me while remaining anonymous...See you soon.

"We both know you are not interested in seeking the truth since you are already aware that what I assert is the truth."---Berta So if I wanted to know the truth, I would just agree with you because you knowth the truth...And you can read my mind. Seems that you think yourself quite omniscient. I would never group people who speak out of turn with adulterers. But you know it all. So I shouldn't challenge you on this point.

AuntieBertie (NOT) your insults do not interest me and clearly illustrate that you have no substance to support your argument. I do not have to name names for anyone genuinely interested to connect the dots on their own, including you. The FACT remains that these folks lie when they say they speak for others and me without obtaining our permission or involving us in the discussion. My OPINION is that they have lost all credibility for doing so. The FACT remains some of them chatter incessantly throughout meetings. My OPINION is that they should be ejected from said meetings. I understand the difference between fact and opinion. I also understand your frustration. My tenaciousness is well documented. Throughout these numerous exchanges you have highlighted your own “challenges” in several areas including critical thinking skills, cannot produce anything to refute what I say because it does not exist, and therefore try to make me the issue instead. Of course, all the while hiding behind an assumed name. Nice try. I think the other readers, if any remain, are bored with this “discussion” by now. We both know you are not interested in seeking the truth since you are already aware that what I assert is the truth.

It is sad that you do not know what a fact is. All you have presented are events filtered through your subjective imaginings. If someone "cites a falsehood" then name that someone and that falsehood, and prove the falsehood to be false. If you fail to do that, then you are just spewing venom disguised as an opinion based on what you claim to be facts. (Now of course this is just an opinion because you have provided no reference point for anyone to prove or refute, and our definition of "spewing venom" may be different.) But spew on; I do not think you are capable of critical thinking.

AuntieBertie (NOT) my name is B-E-R-T-A. You only prove what I suspected all along. You do not really care if what I say is true or not or you would review the evidence corroborating the facts as I present them. If the evidence did not support my claims you could them legitimately refute them. Even with my ability and willingness to write lengthily posts, without personally reviewing all of the items I mentioned or physically attending the meetings referenced and witnessing the events personally, you would still say it is only my opinion. There is no reason for anyone to do my research for me. I physically witnessed the events I reference and there is plenty of audio/video to attest to the facts. You are the one questioning the facts I presented so you are the one who needs to disprove them, not me. I provided all the independent unbiased sources for you to review for yourself. If you do not choose to, that is your prerogative. We are not in a court of law. If we were, presenting eyewitness testimony, which I provided, or any corroborating evidence to support my case is what a judge would expect. The Judge/jury would listen to the witness, review the evidence, and arrive at his/her/their conclusion(s)/verdict(s). Perhaps you are already very familiar with these issues and are in fact guilty of these offenses yourself. Moreover, it is very simple to identify the person(s) talking throughout the formal proceedings of the Council Meeting. Most folks who attend or view meetings regularly are very familiar with the cadre of complainers. However, even if I did not already know them all personally which I do, I can clearly hear them talking behind me, have turned my head enough times, made eye contact, placed my index finger over my lips requesting silence, and been ignored, that I would be able to easily identify the culprits. And thanks for giving me the opportunity to continue to add to my word count.

Bertha, Sorry, but I have no intention of doing your research for you. Nor do I, or should anyone else, accept your subjective remembrances as facts. It is a pity that everyone you come in contact with, does not agree with you. But you have a right to your opinion, and everyone knows you will not be silenced. It is unlikely that anyone is trying to do so. You should not assume that they are. Maybe their opinions are not the same as yours. Or in the odd case, perhaps their facts have a testable not so subjective basis, and their opinions derived from those facts differ substantially from yours. (Saying so often you will not be silenced makes you seem paranoid, not gutsy.) BTW, sitting in the front rows as you do, how do you know so accurately who is talking out of turn behind you at meetings?

AuntieBertie (NOT) I am a member of more than the two committees mentioned. The two individually referenced are the ones with the issues discussed, and the facts are as presented. What is not presented is the evidence to corroborate the facts. Something you can easily determine for yourself if you desire. Attend, watch on SCVTV, read submitted public comment letters, or approved minutes of any Council or Planning Commission meeting going back as far as you want. Take note of the individual speakers/authors who claim they represent the particular groups I mention. Attend, watch on YouTube, or read approved minutes of any CCAC meeting you choose going back as far you want. Compare them for items discussed, positions voted on or otherwise approved in committee as implied by speaker/author comments. With CAG, repeat same process except there is no YouTube to view. As for the disruptive chatter throughout meetings, those conversations are not captured on camera as they take place out of camera range. If you watch the replays of Council meetings, pay attention and watch the council members, how often their attention goes to a particular area where the public is seated, or admonishes members of the audience. Alternatively, attend any meeting, sit in the front rows as I do and listen for yourself.

Berta, Other than that you belong to two committee, and that there are certain behaviors you consider unethical, where are the facts above?

AuntieBertie (NOT) please do try to keep up, obviously with the facts. I have and will.

I mean with facts.

AuntieBertie (NOT) you have not been paying close attention if you think I have not rebutted comments, named names etc. A process sure to continue... Thanks for adding to the word count.

I am not sure what conversation you think you have launched here. "Several of these same persons complain about alleged disrespectful and unethical behavior on the part of the Council and City Manager yet never offer any substantiated proof to back up their claims. Taking it even further, several spew their venom at the podium, return to their seats and TALK throughout the rest of the proceedings without the courtesy of listening to the response to their “concerns”. The behaviors exhibited by this cadre of complainers is extremely disrespectful of the democratic process by usurping each person’s individual right to have their voice heard on an issue without these folks falsely claiming they speak for them. They are also disrespectful of approved meeting norms and of those persons in attendance who actually want to hear all of the speakers and not just these critics.” After using an ad hominem attack to describe those at the podium (with whom you disagree) engaged in free speech you follow with the implication that all of these folks return to their seats and jabber on for the purpose of disruption. And the point of your article seems to be that such behavior is ethically equivalent to the Governor sleeping with his made. But all of this is nothing more than you opinion. Fact less. No names, dates, times, or statements. No comparing and contrasting their spoken words about the actions of the Council to things the Council actually said and did. The next time these ethically challenged dissembling denizens of disrespect spew forth, why not step forward with facts, not opinions, and respectfully rebut them?

I am not sure what conversation you think you have launched here. "Several of these same persons complain about alleged disrespectful and unethical behavior on the part of the Council and City Manager yet never offer any substantiated proof to back up their claims. Taking it even further, several spew their venom at the podium, return to their seats and TALK throughout the rest of the proceedings without the courtesy of listening to the response to their “concerns”. The behaviors exhibited by this cadre of complainers is extremely disrespectful of the democratic process by usurping each person’s individual right to have their voice heard on an issue without these folks falsely claiming they speak for them. They are also disrespectful of approved meeting norms and of those persons in attendance who actually want to hear all of the speakers and not just these critics.” After using an ad hominem attack to describe those at the podium (with whom you disagree) engaged in free speech you follow with the implication that all of these folks return to their seats and jabber on for the purpose of disruption. And the point of your article seems to be that such behavior is ethically equivalent to the Governor sleeping with his made. But all of this is nothing more than you opinion. Fact less. No names, dates, times, or statements. No comparing and contrasting their spoken words about the actions of the Council to things the Council actually said and did. The next time these ethically challenged dissembling denizens of disrespect spew forth, why not step forward with facts, not opinions, and respectfully rebut them?

MrsSilenceDogood I use as many words as I feel necessary to express myself properly when writing my articles and response(s). You may use however few or many words you feel appropriate for your own articles and response(s). I would not be so petty as to make an issue of it. I either read or skip it, my choice. You are free to do the same. Do you feel that freedom of speech has a word count limit? If so, what is that limit? You and AuntieBertie both obviously have lots of extra time on your hands if you are counting my words. Maybe you should get together, share all Berta posts, and count each of the words. You are welcome to these additional words to add to your entertainment. As to your snarky comment about me being right, I am sure that depends on whether the reader concurs with my opinion(s) or not, but suffice to say I would not intentionally say something I believe is untrue since that would be a lie and therefore unethical. The actual point of the article, remember. I welcome discussion since that is the purpose of posting here. I do not have to agree with you or anyone else, anymore than you do. However, I do not concern myself unduly with criticism coming from people who hide behind phony names. Moderate my comments? Not my style. How many more words was that? My grand total? I am trying for a new record...

Someone called my name! A tidbit from one of my past blogs... "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."

Oh Berta! It so upsets me to see you get you so upset! I perspire just reading your words. I, myself counted the words, and after taking away all the dates and times and such, there were 2018 words in both the article and the comments. You my dear, (of course), did write all of the 451 words in your article. And an outstanding attempt it was! In the comments, other people used only 366 words while you wrote the other 1201 words (all by yourself I do not doubt) to tell those misguided misanthropes that they were wrong and you were right. This means that you did write 82% of all the words in both the article and the comments, and you wrote 77% of the words in the comments. Good for you. So, so many words. But you must know that AuntieBertie is not anyone’s imaginary friend. She is kind and generous and often gives a bread and sometimes even cakes to Poor Richard. And I heard you yell at Ben this afternoon, telling him to go a fly a kite, and I just saw him running down the street with kite in hand and a bunch of keys. A storm is coming. How I hope he doesn’t get struck by lightning! How will you feel then? You should try to be more moderate in you remarks, someone might get hurt.

AuntieBertie (NOT) you comment, “A little more than 80% of the words in the comments and the column were written by Berta. And just under 80% of the comments to her own article were written by Berta. (Those are verifiable facts.) She will not be silenced.” You are mistaken, 100% of the comments in the article or as you say column were written entirely by me so your so-called verified facts are wrong, or your written language skills are poor. You are however correct that I will not be silenced. Not even by anonymous people who surface only to insult but otherwise add nothing to the conversation.

Cash based upon your response to my question it is evident you did not understand the question.

Cash, when you got nothing, you got nothing to lose. A little more than 80% of the words in the comments and the column were written by Berta. And just under 80% of the comments to her own article were written by Berta. (Those are verifiable facts.) She will not be silenced. (That is an opinion substantiated by facts and observation of Berta in public places.) Berta seldom demonstrates that she understands the difference between opinion and facts. A subjective opinion based on observation that could be tested by analysis of her written articles and spoken public comments.

continued...John Ramírez To excoriate someone for doing that which you are guilty of yourself such as, “you do not listen to us, your mind is already made up, you people are unethical, you criticize us, call us names, you do not care about the residents, you have your own agenda” etc is dishonest and therefore in my opinion is unethical. I care that some of these speakers say that their comments represent ME, and others on the committees, who were never asked their opinion, were not able to discuss the issue (s), or provide or withhold their consent or approval for the position (s) misrepresented as mine. As self identified “community leaders” they are lying to the Council and others and that is the essence of unethical behavior. Additionally John, when they make an unsubstantiated accusation or cast an aspersion and then refuse to listen to the explanation, response, or disclaimer because they are too busy making snide remarks and running commentary, then yes I do believe that is unethical behavior. In my opinion, an ethical person has the courtesy to allow another person to clear his/her name, and would respect the formal proceedings and those in attendance by stepping outside to conduct personal conversations while the meeting is in process. Therefore, I will respectfully have to agree to disagree with you on what constitutes unethical behavior since in my opinion all of the issues I raised represent unethical behavior under my value system. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts with you and have a great weekend!

John Ramírez thanks for the taking the time to respond. My response is longer than the original post, but discussion of this issue is what I was trying to encourage anyway. While I agree with you that the examples of talking during the entire meeting are rude and disrespectful, I also find the conduct unethical. I do not care if they are listening when I personally address the Council, as I understand that the facts or opinions others and I present never get in the way of their discussions, which is a verifiable fact. I care that these folks disrupt the proceedings for all of us within hearing range who took the time to attend and want to participate. Their constant chatter prevents the rest of us from focusing our attention and clearly hearing so that we can afford the other speakers the respect they deserve, whether we agree with them or not. My personal comments to Council usually include references to comments made by previous speakers, city staff or consultant presentation information, or individual Council members so this disruptive behavior prevents me and other members of the audience from participating during a formal public hearing during which, important issues are discussed and decided. This cadre of complainers cites the City Code of Ethics and the approved meeting norms as applicable to the Council, but fails to mention, let alone adhere to, the approved meeting norms applicable to the public in attendance or any kind of code of ethics I have seen. Those watching from home or on the Internet are hearing the complaints regarding Council ethics but may be unaware of the cadre of complainers’ behavior.

Berta, I believe the main problem I have is what your definition of unethical is. I find your examples to be rude or disrespectful. Unethical brings in a whole new spectrum of conduct. You wrote "Taking it even further, several spew their venom at the podium, return to their seats and TALK throughout the rest of the proceedings without the courtesy of listening to the response to their concerns” That in my opinion is rude. Not Unethical. If you are expecting an agreeing attentive audience every time you speak you may want to look for a bingo caller job.(but they get yelled at too so nevermind) I usually agree with about 30% of what you write. That is a pretty good number. I mean no disrespect nor am I being unethical. I just don't agree sometimes. I applaud your civic volunteering and admire your patience and self control on the other board. You are quite a bit more tolerant than I will ever be. Have a great day!

John Ramírez I am truly perplexed how you arrived at your apparent conclusions after reading my comments. There is a vast difference between ethics or the lack of ethics, and agreement or disagreement on an issue. Ethics refers to a set of moral principles and values, such as telling the truth which those folks are not. Agreement refers to complete accord usually attained by discussion and adjustment of differences such as you believe you are intellectually superior to most people and I do not concur with that assessment therefore we disagree since there is no accord. I have many friends who are very ethical people and yet we disagree on multiple issues such as illegal immigration, the role of the Catholic Church, etc. I have also agreed on specific issues with unethical people, including the folks I reference in my post. I have read many of your comments under your various aliases Adams, Tatonka etc, frequently disagreed with you, but never felt it a waste of my time since it helped me understand a different perspective. I do not know whether you are an ethical person or not but I do know you understood something other than what I wrote above.

That was a complete waste of 2 minutes of my life. I always thought democracy was respecting what others had to say even though you would spend a lifetime opposing their viewpoint? Just because you don't agree with others does not mean they are wrong. Unless you are ALWAY RIGHT??

Bob, Frank, Laurie, Bertha, Joe...

Petz, Cash, and Carol, please notice that the title of my article is a Matter of Ethics, not I am calling you out. Since the focus of your comments is on who I am calling out I feel I have failed to properly focus the attention and discussion on the point I was trying to make regarding the frequent breeches of ethical behavior both locally and elsewhere. I believe that mentioning the venue, City Council meetings, and the organizations I have personal knowledge are being misrepresented, the CCAC and the CAG, are more than sufficient to illustrate my points. I am sorry that you disagree but will not be goaded into making this a personal fight but insist on the focus remaining on the issue, ethics. As I said, those responsible for misrepresenting themselves and these organizations, and those watching and/or attending meetings clearly know whom I am referring to. To imply anything less is disingenuous at best so I will turn this discussion back to all of you. Based upon the information I provided, whom do you think I am talking about?

My point exactly, Carol ;)

If they know who they are, and you are not naming them, how is that calling anyone out?

Cash thank you for taking the time to read, and your comments. As a long time scvtalk.com reader, you are well aware I have posted the names of folks who in my opinion have consistently misrepresented on whose behalf they actually speak. As to losing credibility, I doubt it since anyone who attends or watches City Council meetings including you clearly knows whom I am referencing. If you prefer, you can contribute names and I will confirm or deny however, I am confident those genuinely interested in the topic clearly know whom I am referencing. Cash I believe that I have plenty of credibility with most fair-minded folks and I am well aware plenty dislike me too. I do not live my life or make my comments based upon what other folks chose to believe about me. I answer to an infallible higher authority.

You lose a little credibility, Bertha, when you don't name these so-called "perpetrators."

Petz they know who they are.