Mar 22, 2018

Blogosphere Censorship

Yesterday Bernie O'Hare had a post on Charlie Thiel. In the comment section at 4:20pm, someone essentially stated that Ray O'Connell ran as a write-in to block Hyman, so that he(O'Connell) could replace Pawlowski by appointment, after the conviction. Those who know O'Hare know that when he supports someone, he isn't beyond spinning the obvious, and bashing the opposition. I commented yesterday after Bernie tried to negate the 4:20 comment about O'Connell. When I awoke this morning, I discovered that O'Hare deleted my comment. Like Popeye, I ain't taking that!!!! Bernie and I have gone around on this topic before, and while I will not make my own post on this subject until after the appointment of the interim mayor, I will reprint my deleted comment here today.
Considering how most of the comments on O'Hare's blog are anonymous, you would think that he would allow a signed comment like mine to remain, but apparently not, if it's contrary to the narrative that he is promoting.


Scott Armstrong said...

Bernie is an otherwise very bright and talented guy, he makes himself look less so through his behavior of name calling, slandering, deleting and impugning even reasoned opinion he disagrees with.

In many regards he mirrors the main stream media.

Fire the incompetants said...

How true! The O'Connell/Hendricks plan worked that it prevented Hyman from winning; it got O'Connell back into the thick again; and he had another swing at the ball. That being said, I do not think he will back into the job. He has too much opposition on council and will lack the sufficient four [4] votes to be confirmed; if he applied.

It seems they both suffered set backs with their unscrupulous plan. Good for them.

As far as BOH, for how much he calls Trump a dictator, he is a biased dictator with his own blog.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I did not delete you intentionally, but may have deleted you accidentally.

Unlike you, I allow comments on my blog, both anonymous and without moderation. This opens me up to several trolls. One of those trolls is the reason why you yourself went to moderation and banned anonymous comments. I still like the spontaneity of anonymous comments and so do most readers.

Several times a day, I have to weed out those off-topic comments posted by trolls. Yesterday, I was hit with about ten of them on different posts, attacking a local judge and his family, calling him a Muslim, etc. I deleted those comments. Sometimes, while doing that, I delete a comment that is on topic and would not have otherwise been deleted.

If I deleted you yesterday, that is why. Just a few days ago, you used your blog to call me a liar. This would not be the first time you have done that, so I would have thought about that had I noticed your comment. Why post on the blog ofsomeone you think ois a liar? But I never saw or noticed your comment.

When I was alerted to your post this morning, I at first thought your comment was still in my spam folder, which I do not check enough. Sometimes, a comment goes into spam for reasons known only by the blogging gods. But your comment is not there. So your comment probably posted. Frankly, I never saw it. Had I seen it, I probably would have allowed it or I would have deleted it and said I refuse to accept comments from you because you call me a liar.

Now let me get to the substance of your argument instead of your petty nonsense, which you could have avoided with a simple email.

My response is to reiterate that the claim that Ray O'Connell went to the trouble of waging a write in campaign, hoping he would lose it bc he would later get the appointment, is utterly false. This was the story put out by Nat Hyman supporters during the campaign. I called Ray about it.

"I'm in this to win it," he told me. He did not wage a write-in, hoping to draw enough votes to doom Nat. He ran the write-in to win. My feeling at the time, and now,is that his write-in doomed Nat.

I wrote a post about it in September.

Ray did acknowledge that, if he lost, Plan B was to get the appointment. But he dod not block Hyman from winning. The people did.

I do believe that if people want to run for office, they should do so. They should not be required to kiss anyone's ring first. I realize that in a winner-take-all electoral system, that means a candidate can win with a plurality of votes. That is why I would support instant runoffs. But Republicans in Harrisburg are hardly reform-minded.

michael molovinsky said...

scott@8:30, bernie is essentially now a member of the local MSM. last year Bill White omitted bernie's name when he recapped his annual hall of shame members. when I noted it, he claimed that it was an oversight. this year he listed bernie in the recap, but used the adjective controversial, instead of the pejoratives he used for everyone else.

bernie has removed this blog from his local blogroll, and instead substituted another, whose author is anonymous and bernie previously expressed low regard for.

as bernie states, it is his blog and he can do as he wishes, but his bullying does not go unnoticed.

michael molovinsky said...

bernie@8:43, I know that you threaten to sue people who call you a liar. so you didn't delete this post, but may have, if you had seen it????

i have no issue with ray O'Connell's strategy, my issue is with your spinning. although ray may said that he ran to win, his chances of doing so as a write-in were very small to nil, and he knew it, but the chance of propelling pawlowski into victory were very high, and so it turned out.

never the less, you have bashed and impugned people for pointing this out, including me.

even here you continue with your utterly false line and write But he dod not block Hyman from winning. The people did.

you're so arrogant and have so little respect for your readers

Huck Weaver said...

Unless Mr.O'Connell is a nincompoop (which He is not) the only logical way he could become mayor was to spend other people's money to wage a write-in campaign to split the anti-Pawlosky votes.It was a solid plan however he was no longer Council President because He didn't run to get re-elected to council.Why he never ran for re-election was a major miscue that can't be logically explained.Perhaps Police Chief in Waiting Hendricks will explain this error

Bernie O'Hare said...

I commented here to correct the misimpression that I intentionally deleted you. I did not censor you, as you falsely claim in your headline. I did not comment here to field your numerous other complaints. I could answer them, and we can go round and round, but most readers have no interest in these petty squabbles. They take me away from what I like most. That is local government, not you. I decline to play. You can talk to yourself.

michael molovinsky said...

bernie@11:42, I will surely take the last word, because that is something which you usually never allow. (I suspect that you will attempt the "last word" elsewhere.) you have deleted my comments previously on numerous posts at your blog, despite your denial. you attempt to impugn my integrity with your rambling distractions, such as the difference in our comment policy. the other day I did not call you a liar, on the contrary, you called me a liar because I suggested that Ray indeed knew what the outcome of his write-in would be.

I think that readers do have an interest in this squabble, because you have bullied a lot of people for a long time.

Scott Armstrong said...

For the record, I am friends with people who were instrumental in Ray's campaign. I have known them for many years and remain friends. I also know several people of impeccable credentials who were told by Ray himself he understood he could not win. Therefore I actually know what I am talking about. I also know Ray. It really isn't clear what Ray believes from moment to moment. Not sure he knows. That doesn't make him a bad guy but perhaps it explains the various things he has said to various people.

michael molovinsky said...

Despite bernie's long rambling explanation of how he accidentially deleted my comment, readers should know that bernie and I use the same blogging platform. when you delete a comment a message appears stating that the comment has been removed by a blog administrator. If you then want to delete that message, you must confirm that indeed you want to permanently delete comment XXX from XXX. Only then, as a failsafe will the message be deleted. in the case of my comment, even the message was deleted, indicating that bernie did indeed go through the two step process to avoid the type of accidental deletion which he claims.