tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post4557130038525464863..comments2023-11-11T03:34:32.826-05:00Comments on HoCo Hayduke: What's going on...Haydukehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09770056537577811703noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-86681591589014926592009-01-04T21:19:00.000-05:002009-01-04T21:19:00.000-05:00any update on this??any update on this??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-73575463909284331462007-03-11T09:21:00.000-04:002007-03-11T09:21:00.000-04:00Anon 5:24 aka “Sherlock”- Don’t quit your day job ...Anon 5:24 aka “Sherlock”- Don’t quit your day job to be a detective. Anon 1:55 was me. I was in an office that was not mine using a computer that was not mine when I posted the comment, so I didn’t want to log in. <BR/><BR/>Hayduke- you are much too nice of a person.FreeMarkethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12640525471233108791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-29013099497666271742007-03-10T17:24:00.000-05:002007-03-10T17:24:00.000-05:00There now! A major conflict has been resolved for...There now! A major conflict has been resolved for the long term. <BR/><BR/>I've not ever responded to N Grl prior because her arguments are fraught with irritating nonsense like calling someone a name, and then finger pointing that someone else called someone a name. Makes me wince to read it.<BR/><BR/>Anon 1:55 is N Grl, that's why she had the same finger pointing and name calling as the identified N Grl. She just posted as anon on that comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-18780757513853296372007-03-10T16:09:00.000-05:002007-03-10T16:09:00.000-05:00OK - so here will be my last comment on this so th...OK - so here will be my last comment on this so that the merry-go-round can be turned off if for just a bit.<BR/><BR/>ANON 1:55 - I don't see why you responded to ANON 12:19 the way you did. You're making the same void argument that Numbersgirl makes. All you do is say that my facts are not facts that they are just opinions - but you do not demonstrate how, so doesn't that make your statements just opinions?. You and the my other detractors can't just say that facts are not facts. But, I doubt you'll ever see it that way, so I will move on.<BR/><BR/>HAYDUKE - Thank you for responding. 1. I can see now how this can be construed as an endorsement in total of the site, especially to supporters of Merdon. I could have been clearer by just coming out and saying "I don't know if the site is right or wrong." <BR/><BR/>I agree and had you said it that way, I would not have labeled you as I did. <BR/><BR/>2. Related to the first, I tend to dance around issues and my writing follows that. I try not to take a hard line on anything and often find myself writing like a lawyer. There is a lot of nuance in my opinions and, therefore, my writing. Again, an area I can clarify by writing more explicitly (even if it means less flowery language) or just making up my mind more quickly (yeah, that'll never happen).<BR/><BR/>Agree again - about it being better to be clear. I have no problem with your positions and opinions developing or shifting over time. I think everyones' do to some degree. <BR/><BR/>3. There is a pretty clear distinction between my blog and some of the others. Basically, I'm trying to share my thought process and how it evolves over time. I tend to be a little indecisive and I use this blog and the feedback I get to reach a position on something, if at all. Which is why one could probably go through my archives and find numerous inconsistencies. I like to think I'm at least consistent in my principles, but not so much in my opinions. And because of this, I try not to advocate too much on the blog. But I realize that this aspect of my blogging isn't always clear.<BR/><BR/>See above comment.<BR/><BR/>4. What I say matters. I'm actually kind of flattered by your claim that my "endorsement" of and link to the site had a countywide impact. I've always thought that the blogs only mattered to a very small percentage of people and our impact on most things was negligible. Perhaps that's true and perhaps it's not. Regardless, I should be cognizant of the fact that what I write does have an impact outside the small group of people -- friends and family -- that comprised my audience in the beginning.<BR/><BR/>I don't know that it did have a county wide effect. The point was simply that... well you know what point was so I don't need to re-hash it.<BR/><BR/>6. This isn't something I learned during this exchange but it's importance was further solidified. As my boss is wont to say, quoting Ghandi: "Become the change you seek in the world."<BR/><BR/>Good advice.<BR/><BR/>"I truly hope this list does not come off to you (or anyone else) as patronizing or elitist. I don't mean it to; rather, I'm sharing as a means of fostering better understanding between me and everyone who reads this blog. Take it as an honest and sincere commitment on my part to improve my writing and participation in discussions."<BR/><BR/>I don't take it as patronizing or elitist. I wish you would have made more of a mea culpa since I thought I was at least demonstrated the foundation of my position, even though the debate about facts versus opinions could go on forever. When I was scrolling through post after post and comment after comment, I honestly was worried that maybe I had mispoken and gotten my story wrong - in which case I would have had major egg on my face and would have owed you a SERIOUS apology. <BR/><BR/>I will close by saying this. I value TRUTH/HONESTY above all else, because without it everything else becomes warped and skewed, and injustices are created. I think of the quote from the movie Excalibur when Merlin says that Truth is the most important virtue because "Every time a lie is spoken, a small piece of the world is murdered." <BR/><BR/>Since you sort of put things to rest, I'll make the concession to tone down my comments in the future. I won't back down, but I'll try to keep y'all happy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-35413688542126225822007-03-10T15:35:00.000-05:002007-03-10T15:35:00.000-05:00numbers.girl said "Keelan, a fervent supporter of ...numbers.girl said <BR/>"Keelan, a fervent supporter of Merdon, would of course come up with anything to refute an attack on Merdon. To say he is a reliable source of information on Merdon's record is pure partisanship."<BR/><BR/>First, you are seriously questioning the credibility of Mr. Keelan. Knowing Mr. Keelan, I know that he's at least as honorable and possess at least as much integrity as the next person. While mudslinging appears to be common on the blogs (and in the comments on this post) I don't think it is fair to basically call Keelan a partisan hack.<BR/><BR/>If you do insist that because Keelan was a close supporter of Merdon he is not a reliable source, I have to ask who you would trust to provide information about a candidate. Your comment indicates that anything coming from a person associated with a campaign or a candidate is unreliable. Did you not believe anything coming from Merdon's campaign? Did you not believe anything coming from Ulman's campaign? <BR/><BR/>Moreover, both liberals and conservatives can point to enough examples of misleading stories in papers and network news to say that the news isn't always reliable. Blogs can be fairly reliable or wildly partisan (and so can the people who post on them). <BR/><BR/>So who is left to be a reliable source?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-3882639944779851392007-03-10T13:55:00.001-05:002007-03-10T13:55:00.001-05:00God, this is getting really old.Anon 12:19- please...God, this is getting really old.<BR/><BR/>Anon 12:19- please refrain from commenting until you can think of something intelligent to say. Your innuendos and unsupported accusations are ignorant. <BR/><BR/>Tom, you are basically saying two things, both of which are your opinions. However, you are trying to sell them as proven fact. The first of your opinions that you are trying to pass of as fact is that the website was false. If you think the falsity of the website has been proven, why hasn’t Merdon sued Ulman for libel? Could it be that it is just your opinion that the website was false? Secondly, you are asserting that HD was endorsing the website. Tom, the guy has a blog that discusses local politics. He asked that the merits of the site be discussed, not the motivations of posting it. How is that an endorsement? Bty, Keelan was trying to divert attention from the points the site made by calling the site an “act of desperation” by Ulman. In other words, he was doing his spin job on it. All HD was asking is that the merits of the site be addressed. <BR/><BR/>Tom, please don’t be so narrow-minded. Even though you don’t live in Howard County, you are entitled to have an opinion about what goes on here. Please be respectful of others who have their own opinions. And for Christ’s sake, Tom, please understand that your opinions are not facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-55426381932983743712007-03-10T13:55:00.000-05:002007-03-10T13:55:00.000-05:00Tom,With respect to your proof, I tend to agree wi...Tom,<BR/><BR/>With respect to your proof, I tend to agree with Numbersgirl's take, as my intention in writing that post was to help redirect the conversation away from whether Ulman was desperate to whether the information it contained was accurate, to start seeing some substance behind the screaming.<BR/><BR/>But if you're happy, I'm happy. Can we end this now? If not, we'll continue to go around in circles, each one getting tighter and less relevant.<BR/><BR/>To try to bring this whole affair to a close, here are a few things I've learned over this past week:<BR/><BR/>1. When perception is reality -- as it is in this imperfect medium -- clarity in language is essential. I thought the post in question took a pretty soft line on the website. In fact, I said I wasn't going to discuss the details and that "the site speaks for itself." I can see now how this can be construed as an endorsement in total of the site, especially to supporters of Merdon. I could have been clearer by just coming out and saying "I don't know if the site is right or wrong." That still might not have been enough to completely mollify the most fervent, but it would have been clearer, I think.<BR/><BR/>2. Related to the first, I tend to dance around issues and my writing follows that. I try not to take a hard line on anything and often find myself writing like a lawyer. There is a lot of nuance in my opinions and, therefore, my writing. Again, an area I can clarify by writing more explicitly (even if it means less flowery language) or just making up my mind more quickly (yeah, that'll never happen).<BR/><BR/>3. There is a pretty clear distinction between my blog and some of the others. Basically, I'm trying to share my thought process and how it evolves over time. I tend to be a little indecisive and I use this blog and the feedback I get to reach a position on something, if at all. Which is why one could probably go through my archives and find numerous inconsistencies. I like to think I'm at least consistent in my principles, but not so much in my opinions. And because of this, I try not to advocate too much on the blog. But I realize that this aspect of my blogging isn't always clear.<BR/><BR/>4. What I say matters. I'm actually kind of flattered by your claim that my "endorsement" of and link to the site had a countywide impact. I've always thought that the blogs only mattered to a very small percentage of people and our impact on most things was negligible. Perhaps that's true and perhaps it's not. Regardless, I should be cognizant of the fact that what I write does have an impact outside the small group of people -- friends and family -- that comprised my audience in the beginning.<BR/><BR/>5. I need to have more faith in my readers, whether they believe me or not. Most, I would hope, take what I say with a grain of salt and also take what is said about me the same way. Not every battle is worth fighting and the act of fighting alone helps legitimize things that weren't necessarily consequential to begin with.<BR/><BR/>6. This isn't something I learned during this exchange but it's importance was further solidified. As my boss is wont to say, quoting Ghandi: "Become the change you seek in the world."<BR/><BR/>I truly hope this list does not come off to you (or anyone else) as patronizing or elitist. I don't mean it to; rather, I'm sharing as a means of fostering better understanding between me and everyone who reads this blog. Take it as an honest and sincere commitment on my part to improve my writing and participation in discussions.Haydukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09770056537577811703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-39208220604657805632007-03-10T12:27:00.000-05:002007-03-10T12:27:00.000-05:00NG - you did absolutely nothing to refute the proo...NG - you did absolutely nothing to refute the proof I provided. Not everyone shares your opinion of me. And now you're taking pot shots at Keelan. And you did nothing to refute the content of Keelan's refutation then, or now. I could easily say that most of your statements are pure conjectural generalities. "My personal contempt for Ulman has no basis in fact." Your opinion. Again, I did back up my assertions/accusations about Ulman with facts. Just because you and others won't accept anything less than a confession directly from Ulman's mouth, does not refute the facts that I have continually provided. <BR/><BR/>I asked for you and others to address this most recent issue (that I lied about Hayduke). I used Hayduke's own quotes specifically so how do you refute that? <BR/><BR/>"...you will remain a laughingstock." Again, your opinion, and your entitled to it.<BR/><BR/>""You all have made such a stink about my delivery versus my content." I am surprised at the presence of your double standard. Oh wait, no I'm not." So you and everyone else has never had a delivery issue? Just because you feel your delivery is one shade less vile than mine does not make a monster, nor does it make you saints.<BR/><BR/>I would still like to hear from Hayduke on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-33685877268746177602007-03-10T12:19:00.000-05:002007-03-10T12:19:00.000-05:00Girl:Get down off the high horse and quit calling ...Girl:<BR/><BR/>Get down off the high horse and quit calling people names. You just gave Tom more ammunition and proved some of his points!<BR/><BR/>What are you doing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-2599254794396759172007-03-10T10:26:00.000-05:002007-03-10T10:26:00.000-05:00Yes, Tom, you have been lying. You've also been r...Yes, Tom, you have been lying. You've also been rude and a total ass. That Hayduke has put up with you for this long is as clear a sign as any that he is as moderate as they come in the blogosphere. <BR/><BR/>You claimed Hayduke was guilty of smearing Merdon. The ONLY "proof" you could provide was a short sentence in which Hayduke questioned the focus on the source of the website, as opposed to the content. You, sir (and I use that term loosely), use that argument repeatedly as a defense for your vile behavior. "You all have made such a stink about my delivery versus my content." I am surprised at the presence of your double standard. Oh wait, no I'm not.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, just because Keelan posted a "refutation" of the website does not bind Hayduke to rescind his statement regarding the focus of the website. Keelan, a fervent supporter of Merdon, would of course come up with anything to refute an attack on Merdon. To say he is a reliable source of information on Merdon's record is pure partisanship.<BR/><BR/>Tom, as entertaining as your diatribes may be at times, more often than not, they are exhausting. No one listens to your message when you post as Tom Berkhouse, because we know they are comments filled with rage and an indefensible personal contempt for Ulman with no basis in fact. <BR/><BR/>Stick to the topic, lay off the namecalling, and people will listen. Keep up your current tactic, and you'll remain a laughingstock.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-74027719675898054452007-03-09T21:32:00.000-05:002007-03-09T21:32:00.000-05:00I would also like to ask all the other Anons and H...I would also like to ask all the other Anons and Hayduke supporters to weigh in on this since you all have made such a stink about my delivery versus my content. Will any of you step up and address the content? Did I miss the mark? Have I been lying about Hayduke's position? Numbersgirl? Freemarket? Bueller? Bueller?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-39587836550936485012007-03-09T19:57:00.000-05:002007-03-09T19:57:00.000-05:00Anon - true, this is his blog. However, he asked ...Anon - true, this is his blog. However, he asked for me to prove my statement that he has made smears against Merdon. My last comment was simply meant to address his request and I think I kept it tempered quite a bit. <BR/><BR/>I would like to hear what Hayduke has to say in response now that I took the time to wade through countless posts and comments to provide his requested proof.<BR/><BR/>Depending on his response, I may offer a promise of some sorts as to my future delivery. Ball is in his court.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-11454450324402939892007-03-09T17:46:00.000-05:002007-03-09T17:46:00.000-05:00How did this situation degenerate to this point?To...How did this situation degenerate to this point?<BR/><BR/>Tom, I'm anon 5:51 from the other day. Please consider changing your delivery. Hayduke is perfectly within rights to say what he has said. He is also responsible for this blog and his reputation. Please consider the loss if you cannot post here any longer.<BR/><BR/>Hayduke: You've been exceedingly patient. Please be patient a bit longer. Readers do not believe things Tom says about you, give us a little credit. Your reputation is safe. Please do not barr him, he has opinions that need to be aired (with a tad more temperance, albeit)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-62205478592998247362007-03-09T13:54:00.000-05:002007-03-09T13:54:00.000-05:00Hayduke - I'm highly disappointed in your ultimatu...Hayduke - I'm highly disappointed in your ultimatum and your statement that I have used "lies" against you. <BR/><BR/>I've found the source of my statement. Exhibit A - your post from October 16, 2006, titled Monday Round Up. You talked about about several items, but the one that is pertinent is your excerpt on the post that Dave Keelan did titled The Website That Shall Not Be Named. Ring any bells? <BR/><BR/>The website in question was the anonymous website purported to have been created by Ulman back during the campaign. In it, there were many falsities (dare I say LIES) about Merdon and his record during his tenure on the Council, including his votes on rezoning applications and Comp Lite. <BR/><BR/>You went on to say in your post: "I'm disheartened to see so much emphasis being placed on the source of the site {who created it} and whether its negative and not the information contained within it." And you said: "If there is a cogent, well-sourced refutation of the website, I would love to see it." And finally: "I'd like to echo the sentiments of at least one commenter: If there is a cogent, well-sourced refutation of the website, I (and many other voters) would love to see it. However, if the only response is to attack Ulman for negativity (something we all share responsbility for) and to claim it an act of desperation, this should be viewed as a tacit admission of the site's accuracy." <BR/><BR/>I short, you were touting the website as being FACTUAL. Even though you did not make the statements yourself, you were endorsing them and spreading them around the County. Now do you understand my "issue" with you and even more so, my "issues" with Ken?<BR/><BR/>David Keelan did respond and refuted many of the lies contained in the webiste. Yet, you never rescinded your endorsement of the website or its contents. In fact, you never responded to David's comments. <BR/><BR/>This, my good man, is the basis for my statements. So I do not feel that I lied or owe you an apology. And, I don't always disagree with you or bash on you, although I admit I am certainly not coddling toward you either. <BR/><BR/>Maybe some day in the future we could have a beer. But not today. <BR/><BR/>What say you now Sir Hayduke?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-7134560574524755742007-03-09T08:10:00.000-05:002007-03-09T08:10:00.000-05:00Ugh. Tom, this is exhausting and pointless. It see...Ugh. Tom, this is exhausting and pointless. It seems to me we have two choices: We can come to a common understanding on some things (not necessarily agreement, mind you) or I'm going to ask you to stop posting here. The latter has nothing to do with your opinions or insults. It has to do with the lies you have told about me and the fact that you refuse to rescind them.<BR/><BR/>If you choose the former, we should meet for a beer. You pick the place, and I'll buy. You can even bring David Keelan along to moderate. If you can't agree to this and you can't find proof of those things you've said about me, I will first ask you to stop posting. If you continue to post, I will physically remove your comments.Haydukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09770056537577811703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-21301969197335874782007-03-08T22:22:00.000-05:002007-03-08T22:22:00.000-05:00It was a jab, not an insult. And,isn't that what ...It was a jab, not an insult. And,isn't that what you and Hayduke seem to do whenever your tactics are turned around at pointed at you? Got to love you double standarders, or is it hypocrits? <BR/><BR/>You call it an insult, yet it is true that Hayduke just flat out turned a blind eye to the leads I provided. In fact, I gave him most of the info, all he had to do was corroberate the info - which would have been quite simple and easy to do. Why did he choose not to? The answer is clear - he was too committed to helping Ulman at any cost and just couldn't stand the thought that the guy he was supporting is not the protector of the common good that he thinks he is.<BR/><BR/>I LOVE HAYDUKE!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-52086685344690800942007-03-08T21:07:00.000-05:002007-03-08T21:07:00.000-05:00Reminds me how Steve Fine called people anti-Semit...Reminds me how Steve Fine called people anti-Semites for criticizing Ulman's creative job titles.<BR/><BR/>If you can't contribute to the substance of the conversation, don't lob an insult. It just weakens your position.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-7201921793497910322007-03-08T17:37:00.000-05:002007-03-08T17:37:00.000-05:00"When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always..."When a man is wrong and won't admit it, he always gets angry"<BR/><BR/>-Thomas HaliburtonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-44383464222948231932007-03-08T14:50:00.000-05:002007-03-08T14:50:00.000-05:00So when he can’t produce the evidence to back up h...So when he can’t produce the evidence to back up his claims, Berkhouse instead lobs an insult. Very nice tactic. You get an A+ for all your effort, Tom.FreeMarkethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12640525471233108791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-7431073169658503232007-03-08T13:40:00.000-05:002007-03-08T13:40:00.000-05:00Hayduke - I'll do as much research into it as you ...Hayduke - I'll do as much research into it as you did for comp lite and all of the other examples of Ulman's misdeeds I provided, but which you ignored. I'll operate by your standards, unless you don't like how you operate.<BR/><BR/>I may actually try to research it when I have some "free" time since I'm fairly confident about what I said. Some people don't have time to blog all day and night.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-80528897426922603542007-03-08T08:52:00.000-05:002007-03-08T08:52:00.000-05:00I'd hardly call a post from a blogger linking to a...I'd hardly call a post from a blogger linking to a documents which may or may not be related to the meeting in question an explanation. It wasn't sufficient to explain your questions about Ulman, why is it sufficient as a defense for Merdon?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps to those with a double standard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-19220544768804805922007-03-07T23:29:00.000-05:002007-03-07T23:29:00.000-05:00Where is the double standard? It seems there is an...Where is the double standard? It seems there is an explanation for Merdon less than a week later, while there has been no explanation from Ulman about his resume for about 1 year (it came up in March 2006).<BR/><BR/>The Washington Post had an article today about lying. It mentioned lying in a resume. Everywhere but Howard County is it viewed as negative.<BR/><BR/>The double standard would be giving a Democrat a pass for conduct that would not be overlooked by anyone else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-66167619069737224972007-03-07T18:44:00.000-05:002007-03-07T18:44:00.000-05:00Hmm... Double standard?Hmm... Double standard?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-63449313785234881192007-03-07T18:35:00.000-05:002007-03-07T18:35:00.000-05:00So it seems there is an innocent explanation for M...So it seems there is an innocent explanation for Merdon's conduct.<BR/><BR/>As opposed to Ulman's resume. Anyone have anything on that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16483028.post-27291482218955827122007-03-06T23:43:00.000-05:002007-03-06T23:43:00.000-05:00No, not those. These, from Berkhouse:Again, he acc...No, not those. These, from Berkhouse:<BR/><BR/><I>Again, he accuses Merdon of wrong doing (I believe he accused him of improperly approving individual zoning applications - without citing how those favorable votes did not pass the legal qualifications for re-zonings)...<BR/><BR/>...I did not falsify his behavior or lie about his actions, and you can't refute that.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe it's becoming too personal, and I just need to let it go. But it seems if he's going to continue to attack and taunt me the least he can do is back up his statements with something approaching fact.Haydukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09770056537577811703noreply@blogger.com