Senum incident help lifts veil off of NC Scooper

The Union has praised the Nevada County Scooper for its satire, but I’m not as impressed, largely because the attacks are highly personal and anonymous.

Others have similar concerns, and it’s heating up. This week, I noticed an interesting exchange on Facebook this week between “Delaney Faris,” who writes he is a “staff reporter/writer” at the Nevada County Scooper on his own Facebook page, and people who support Reinette Senum.

Like others, I noticed that NC Scooper was among the biggest instigators of the “piling on” on  Senum, even after her offending words were removed from Facebook, and she apologized for her words about national law enforcement (twice).

NC Scooper’s “satire” article — “City Councilwoman: The Dallas Police Got What They Deserved” — also raised suspicions about a more coordinated effort against Senum, not an “organic” one. For her part, Senum complained that NC Scooper twisted her words, greatly exacerbating the situation. Many people didn’t understand the article was satire.

Here’s what Senum wrote this week on Facebook that led to a heated exchange between her supporters and “Feris,” the NC Scooper reporter.

“Dear Community, I simply wanted to give a shout-out to the dozens upon dozens of people who have flowed through the doors of Los Mineros, arms wide open, hugs ensuing, supporting me and my business/employees, and coming to a deeper understanding of my words,” Reinette wrote. “Business has never been so brisk, the conversation so engaging, and the love felt so strongly. Your empathy and compassion is so greatly appreciated. As you can all well imagine, I have much to say on this topic and am penning my thoughts that I will soon be sharing. In complete gratitude.”

Reinette’s post generated 430 “likes” and 60 comments — most of them supportive.

But in the Facebook thread, Faris (the self-proclaimed NC Scooper staff reporter/writer) blurted out: “Apparently being an a**hole is good for business.”

This was a typical response to his comment: ‘”Delaney,’ I think a**holes are people who hide behind pseudonyms and write for Nevada County Scooper,” and added, “Satire is supposed to be funny, not cruel and destructive.”

Faris responded: “I write despicable articles, true. But I haven’t written any about her. There are many Scooper writers. Most of us don’t even know each other.”

The response: “Congratulations. How proud you must be.”

I look forward to learning more about the “many Scooper writers — most of whom don’t know each other.”

About jeffpelline

Jeff Pelline is a veteran editor and award-winning journalist - in print and online. He is publisher of Sierra FoodWineArt magazine and its website SierraCulture.com. Jeff covered business and technology for The San Francisco Chronicle for years, was a founding editor and Editor of CNET News, and was Editor of The Union, a 145-year-old newspaper in Grass Valley. Jeff has a bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley and a master's from Northwestern University. His hobbies include sailing and trout fishing.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

90 Responses to Senum incident help lifts veil off of NC Scooper

  1. Rachel French says:

    I think it’s a good time to bring all this speculation to an end. The NC Scooper is a Badger-run operation and many of the articles you read are written by myself and other high level badger operatives. We are well known in the skeptic community for our tireless efforts battling pseudoscience and those who promote dangerous propoganda, like Reinette Senum. If you are interested in meeting with us you can find us at one of our Facebook groups….Worldwide False Flags or Agenda 21: Chemtrails, Depopulatoon, and the New World Order.

    We look forward to meeting with you.

    • jeffpelline says:

      What a hoot “Rachel”! Home much money is the NC Scooper making from the ads that display on their site when people read the articles?
      I love it: making money at the expense of ridiculing others. (Looking forward to printing the names of the NC Scooper writers and their P&L balance sheet).

      • Rachel French says:

        *Depopulation

        We can discuss anything you want, in real time, in an open forum and I assure you that you won’t be subjected to harsh treatment.

        My income is not really your concern and this is my real name.

      • jeffpelline says:

        In “discovery,” your names and income all become public information! Life can be a “beach,” can’t it? ROFLOL.

    • Judith Lowry says:

      Rachel,

      I read with great interest the NCS story about a Nisenan Casino going into the Alpha building.
      It has been empty for almost a decade so it would be nice to fill it up, but it isn’t nearly large enough for gaming.

      • Judith Lowry says:

        Rachel,
        In light of your article, I would like to invite you to meet with the Nisenan of the Nevada City Rancheria and some members of CHIRP.
        Please speak with Tribal Secretary, Shelly Covert, so that we may arrange a time for you to visit us at CHIRP, that we may share more of the tribe’s history with you.

      • jeffpelline says:

        Judith,
        Fat chance of that. Nointegrity.com

      • jeffpelline says:

        Judith, Judith. The NCScooper is in a league by itself with it comes to no integrity! For openers, I’d like to see some signed names. Let me know if the Scooper takes you up on your offer. Write up how the meeting went, with a picture to go with it. If you can “bring me that broomstick,” I’ll happily donate $100 to CHIRP. Meanwhile, have a great weekend!

      • Judith Lowry says:

        Jeff,

        Actually, I don’t know what “bring me that broomstick” means.
        Explain?
        And what if I manage to get the Publisher or Editor of the Union to come to the meeting too, $200.00?

      • jeffpelline says:

        Judith, Judith. “Bring me the broomstick” is this: https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/1f48959b-9c5b-43bc-87f6-f3b0863ec05a
        No, I will not make a contribution if you get the Publisher or Editor of The Union to show up. It’s their job. In fact, they should be coming to you. Good luck on both counts!

      • Judith Lowry says:

        Oh, I see, “Wizard of Oz” quotes.
        I like the parts where the little man behind the curtain is revealed and the wicked witch screams, “I’m melting! I’m melting!” and Dorothy finally gets to go home.
        Metaphor, good stuff.

      • stevefrisch says:

        I am always amazed when people apply ‘journalistic standards’ to satire.

        The fascinating thing is that the NCS, as a satire site, actually reported real news with the filter of what passes for modern journalistic standards, thus engaging in a triple entendre–critiquing Senum’s conspiratorial world view, journalistic standards through its application of a sensational headline, and its role as satire site, simultaneously–and managed to go right over the head of most readers. Sorry, to me that is still art!

      • jeffpelline says:

        I guess it all depends whether you think it is well executed — or not. For me, the main issue with the Scooper is attacking people while hiding behind anonymity. It’s like a sock puppet. There’s no accountability. That’s not something to praise.

    • Judith Lowry says:

      Steve,

      There is a bit of journalism in the Alpha Building article, as it actually refers back to a time when the Taylorsville Rancheria from Plumas County was to be one of the big players in the to-be-restored Alpha.
      Never happened.
      Ever wonder why?
      I thought you were about bringing money to this county.
      This county has missed out on millions the NCR could have brought into the local economy.
      How did this get past you?

  2. jeffpelline says:

    And here’s more background on outfits like the NC Scooper: “A small group of morally-challenged individuals have discovered that there is a great deal of money to be made by publishing fake news articles. The owners of these sites make money from ads that display on their sites when people read the articles. It appears that the more inflammatory and unbelievable the headline, the better it spreads through social media. Debunking these stories can be almost impossible, as the “facts” they contain are unverifiable and therefore unfalsifiable.” http://www.fortliberty.org/hoax-sites.html

  3. Don Pelton says:

    Jeff: My impression of the FortLiberty website to which you link above is that it’s criticizing websites that propagate fake news stories, with an implied motive to deceive, but they are not criticizing obviously satirical news stories. That, to my mind, is an important distinction. The Onion, a national treasure-load of satire, also does straight advertising. My impression of The Scooper is that it’s like a “local Onion.” I’ve never made an effort to verify The Scooper’s stories, any more than I would The Onion’s stories, because I don’t expect them to be true. So, I don’t see how one can accuse The Scooper of moral terpitude merely for the production of satire, or for running ads, for that matter.

    But I was surprised when they reported Reinette’s comments at all … since their report on her was more like straight news. And I’ve never understood Reinette’s claim that The Scooper distorted her words. If they did, I missed that.

    https://www.ncscooper.com/city-councilwoman-the-dallas-police-got-what-they-deserved/reinette-police-facebook-post/

    My criticism of The Scooper tends to be confined to individual articles, and then my worst criticism is that they are sometimes not funny.

    • depelton says:

      And for what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s is anything funny at all in the Reinette/police story, or anything fir for satire. So, I’d criticize them on that account.

      • depelton says:

        “fit for satire” I meant to say.

      • Stella Mayfair says:

        It wasn’t meant to be funny. It was an actual story based in fact.

      • jeffpelline says:

        Oh, OK. Then is it OK to sue the NC Scooper for libel, challenging whether it was “an actual story based in fact” or not, and initiate discovery proceedings to identify the writers and income derived from this website? Ha!

      • jeffpelline says:

        Here’s another example worth pondering: In this “review” of the buffet at Boomtown, did Boomtown give the NC Scooper reporter permission to take a photo on private property to include in the article on a commercial website? https://www.ncscooper.com/scooper-review-boomtown-famous-lobster-buffet/
        I wonder if NC Scooper has insurance?

      • Stella Mayfair says:

        She’ll be hard pressed to prove libel, since the article actually quoted her post word for word. Does she plan to sue the Washington Post, LA Times, and CNN as well?? It will be interesting to see how well that won’t pan out.

        It seems like someone who works for an online publication would have a better understanding of how these things work.

    • Susan Nance says:

      Don- How can you claim that the Scooper “report on her was more like straight news”? Their headline was “City Councilwoman: The Dallas Police Got What They Deserved”. That was a flat out lie. She never said those that or anything that a rational person would construe to mean that.

      • jeffpelline says:

        Yes, the headline often reads like straight news. The Scooper once wrote a story about me that read: “Jeff Pelline announced as new copy editor for The Union.” It was making fun of my routine editing of the newspaper from afar (LOL), but I had many people ask me why I was returning to the newspaper. Ha!

      • depelton says:

        Yeah, that headline is bad, and I’m not actually defending The Scooper for even writing about this. But, strictly speaking, the headline is not a quote of her actual words, it’s an implication taken from her actual words. In fact, the Scooper article stated that what she said could be taken to ” …imply that murdered and injured Dallas Police Officers got what they deserved.” I wouldn’t have drawn that implication, but others could, and many did. Her actual words are displayed in The Scooper article in the form of a snipped image from her Facebook page. Her actual words (referring to the Dallas shootings) were:

        “This was completely incited by America’s police force. They have obviously been given directives to go out there and kill. It’s insane and it’s meant to create mayhem.”

        These words are just imprecise and general enough that they could be — and were — taken to imply something worse than what Reinette intended, which is no doubt why she sensibly retracted and apologized for them.

  4. Joe Koyote says:

    How does one debunk satire? The purpose of satire is to ridicule stupidity. Scooper is obviously satire and, personally, I don’t see how anyone can confuse what they print with reality. What needs debunking are organizations like Fox news, the Drudge report, the Heritage Foundation, and numerous other websites that pretend to be news but in actuality are bought and paid for propaganda. Does the Borowitz Report need debunking? Is Borowitz morally challenged by writing satire?

    • jeffpelline says:

      It is a stretch to compare the artfulness of Borowitz to NC Scooper. And it is not obvious to a lot of people that the Scooper is satire. A lot of the humor is “inside baseball.”

      • Joe Koyote says:

        “not obvious to a lot of people that the Scooper is satire” — I hope these people don’t vote or work in positions where people’s lives are at stake. Isn’t art in the eye of the beholder? Is a paperback novel any less of a book than any other?

  5. jeffpelline says:

    Anna Haynes’ aggregation website http://www.ncvoices.us/ handles “NC Scooper” well. It’s description reads: “sometimes humor.” Humor requires artful execution.
    The more insidious part is the NC Scooper business model: making money from ads (a lot of them pretty creepy) that display the fake news articles.

  6. Ben Emery says:

    From what I can tell the NC Scooper highlighted the parts of her statement while leaving the remainder of the statement absent. In that remainder was the explanation of her opinion. Reinette’s opinion is an ongoing opinion that has evolved over years. One doesn’t qualify every new statement by summarizing all past statements.

    Personally what we have going on here is the same with the global “terrorism” push back, chickens are coming home to roost bringing with them the same violence they have been met with for decades, generations, and in some cases centuries. When there are no other legal avenues to redress their grievances, sadly violence is the only way to be heard.

    Where are poor people in the middle east to go for justice?
    Where are people of color in the US to go to complain about police violence/ abuse and a tiered justice system stacked up against people of color and the poor? To the police and courts?

    “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
    -John F. Kennedy

    • Rachel French says:

      Really Ben?? I seem to remember engaging with her at great length…in fact, I still have my copy of the entire thread archived. She went to great lengths to defend her position that police had been given orders or permission to murder citizens at will. I’d be happy to mail that to you if you need your memory refreshed.

      • Ben Emery says:

        Then please Rachel share the entire thread with us instead of picking and choosing what to share.

        The headline wasn’t meant to poke fun it was meant to damage. If I remember correctly there was a qualifier paragraph giving some explanation to the opinions but reading through the NC Scooper piece those comments were absent. Also as Reinette explained in her apology letter to local law enforcement if they were offended these opinions are years in the making not just a couple of sentences you guys chose to use.

        It appears NC Scooper has prostituted itself out for advertising and has crossed over from satire to wannabe king/ queen makers. I like wit but don’t like weasels and unfortunately it appears the NC Scooper has blurred that line.

      • Annie Fox says:

        I understand business is brisk at Los Mineros. Sounds like there’s a silver lining among the dark clouds after all.

  7. reinettesenum@gmail.com says:

    Murder citizens at will? Are you quoting me?

    • Rachel French says:

      No, I’m paraphrasing. The following are actual quotes Reinette.

      “….the behavior of our nation’s police force is what’s getting people killed.”

      “Whether the directives are cultural, verbal, or simply implied in the “no wrong doing” found in many of these trials, a message has been sent to many police forces throughout this nation.”

      “When police are not held accountable for these killings it gives permission for it to continue.”

    • Rachel French says:

      But it’s already been proven thst many police have been held accountable for their actions and that you’ve based your opinion on the actions 0.1% of the law enforcement population in this country. Attitudes like yours have directly contributed to the deaths of 16 officers nationwide this month alone.

      • Chip Wilder says:

        “Attitudes like yours have directly contributed to the deaths of 16 officers nationwide this month alone”. Rachel- You just can’t shut up can you?
        Rachel your on the wrong blog with this blather- please take your hate somewhere else –

      • Rachel French says:

        You always have the option to not read my comments.

      • Ben Emery says:

        Rachel,

        ” Attitudes like yours have directly contributed to the deaths of 16 officers nationwide this month alone.”

        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/the-counted-police-killings-2015-young-black-men
        Or the actions of the police and the lack of accountability for those actions caused the backlash we are seeing.

        http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/2015/
        Black people were more likely to be killed by America’s largest city police departments:

        Police departments disproportionately killed black people, who were 41% of victims despite being only 20% of the population living in these cities.
        41 of the 60 police departments disproportionately killed black people relative to the population of black people in their jurisdiction.
        14 police departments killed black people exclusively in 2015, 100% of the people they killed were black. For only 5 police departments were 100% of those killed white.

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/new-york-nypd-stop-frisk-lawsuit-trial-charts

        In NYC 83% of those who were Stopped and Frisked were either black or hispanic.

        I would call this a systemic problem not bad apple problem, wouldn’t you?

      • Rachel French says:

        Is it a systemic problem Ben. Using the figures in the source you provided for the year 2015 of 1,143 citizens killed by police (including justifiable and excessive force) and contrasting that to the 1.1 million people employed by law enforcement for that same year we get the shockingly low figure of 0.001%.

        If 0.001% of an entire population has a problem does that make it a systemic problem or pretty isolated?

        I never said black people weren’t being targeted and I’ve never once said that racism isn’t an issue. What I have always said is that law enforcement as a whole should not be held accountable for the actions of 0.001% of the entire workforce.

        And they certainly do not deserve to be executed.

      • Ben Emery says:

        Rachel,
        You can’t see the forest for the trees.

      • Ben Emery says:

        Rachel,
        You are defending character assassination based on cherry picked statement attached to an inflammatory headline. The targeting of police didn’t just come out of nowhere for no reason. It came from no where else to turn and this false idea of wild west justice. Violence only begets more violence. By going after the police in this fashion it gives justification for the state to come down with an even stronger iron hand.

      • Steve Frisch says:

        Ben, if you believe that Rachel’s statement that, ”Attitudes like yours have directly contributed to the deaths of 16 officers nationwide this month alone,” are unfounded because there is no link between the ‘attitude’ and the action, then isn’t Reinette’s statement that, “They have obviously been given directives to go out there and kill,’ equally as unfounded and indefensible in its logical construct because there is no link between the ‘killing’ and any identified ‘orders’?

        The problem i have with sloppy inconsistent thinking driven by ‘opinion’ without applying logic and fair standards is that it makes our ‘progressive’ friends look like kooks, charlatans, and conspiracy theorists, and in so doing diminishes the kernels of truth and good policy embedded in their dementia.

        That you could reject Rachel’s and embrace Reinette’s without applying the same standards says it all.

      • Steve Frisch says:

        The last sentence in the first paragraph should read ‘directives.’

      • Ben Emery says:

        Unfounded possibly but actions from urban area after urban area as evidence show these aren’t isolated incidents, these are systemic policies. Policies that either hire specific type personalities, are learned through training, incentivized by ignoring the bad behavior, or most likely a mix and match of all three .

        Stating a small town city council member of a week directly contributed to 16 deaths of officers thousands of miles away would fit under Rachel’s own category of “derp”. To try and gloss over the hundreds of years of oppression/ suppression to blame those who are pointing it out is very intellectually dishonest.

      • stevefrisch says:

        “Unfounded possibly….”

        Either something is unfounded, which means having no basis in fact, or it has a basis in fact.

        The quote was, “They have obviously been given directives to go out there and kill.”

        Can you point to a substantiated case in recent history where police officers have been given a “directive to go out there and kill” in non-deadly force situations?

        Is it obvious? Obvious means easily seen, recognized, or understood; open to view or knowledge; evident.

        I do not doubt that such a thing could have occurred in the recent past, but one would have to present the cases for Reinette’s statement to be accurate. I certainly don’t think it is “obvious.” As a matter of fact the point that the issue is very much in dispute is de facto evidence that it is not “obvious.”

        It is entirely possible that your observation that there are training practices that need to be addressed or new training techniques that need to be deployed is correct, and that Reinette’s statement is simultaneously incorrect.

        My point is that addressing the issues of selection, training, culture, the systemic issues as you pointed out, would have been a much more productive way to approach the issue.

        Instead we got a window into Reinette’s mind—it is “obvious.”

        You might note that I did not defend Rachel’s statement; as a matter of fact I put the two statements in the same category—unfounded. If you wish to debate it I suggest you address her.

      • stevefrisch says:

        But let me make it clearer, I completely agree with you Ben that we need to address what are perceived to be systemic problems.

        First we need to know if they are systemic. As recently pointed out as result of an investigation by the Washington Post the amount of research in this area is surprisingly thin and spotty.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/wp/2015/12/26/2015/12/26/a-year-of-reckoning-police-and fatally-shoot-nearly-1000/

        We should be expanding research into police shootings, their causes, and training and tactics to minimize them.

        Anecdotally, police shootings have been on the rise, but as pointed out again here by criminologists reporting is not required, and that practice should stop.

        http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/11/police-killings-hundreds/18818663/

        We should be requiring reporting.

        A substantial number of shootings occur after police pursuits, a practice that in all but the most dangerous situations might be curtailed to minimize shootings. With todays technology we could probably lose the pursuit and just pick someone up when they step out their door the next day when we have the resources to control the situation.

        Finally a good article on ‘de-escalation’ and the practices.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/01/29/police-chiefs-consider-dramatic-reforms-to-officer-tactics-training-to-prevent-so-many-shootings/?utm_term=.8416ee2382aa

  8. mariannagreenberg says:

    But in the Facebook thread, Faris (the self-proclaimed NC Scooper staff reporter/writer blurted out: “Apparently being an a**hole is good for business.”
    lol, they would know.

  9. reinettesenum@gmail.com says:

    Thank you… more words put into my mouth. Perhaps you should look into public sentiment a little more if you don’t understand what I am referring to. And, btw, I suggested you meet me in person, “Rachel French,” and until you do NOTHING you say has meaning as you continue to hide behind a false name. At least I have the courage to put my name to my statements.

    • Rachel French says:

      Reinette, before you unfriended me you had complete access to my page including the names of my relatives, photographs of myself and all of my children, access to information on where I work, etc, etc. Instead of looking at all of that, you accused me of being a paid operative for some shady government organization. Remember that?

  10. Rachel French says:

    And those words were direct quotes. I have the evidence to support that statement.

    • brucelevy says:

      Actually those three quotes don’t come close to your “paraphrase”. And I don’t see anything to dispute the truth about them either.

      • brucelevy says:

        Yeah, I would but, you know, I’ve scheduled a root canal that I’m really looking forward to.

    • brucelevy says:

      My above reply is irrelevant since the statement by Stella was removed. So please ignore or remove.

  11. stevefrisch says:

    Y’all do realize that your just giving The Scooper material don’t you?

    • Stella Mayfair says:

      Doesn’t take much with this crowd.

      • brucelevy says:

        You’re clearly a real gem Stella.

      • brucelevy says:

        And we all know that “Stella” is your own sock puppet and non-too-much-alter ego. You both have the same shallow, testosterone laden BS spewing from your pie hole, as they say. You really don’t make much of a believable “female” persona. I think you are just a sad, very damaged individual.

      • brucelevy says:

        Meaning Stella=Rachel. Sort of like the sociopath Trump’s fake alter egos. And I’m not at all surprised that there are people in town who support you. There’s no dearth of morons in this neck of the hillbilly woods.

      • Rachel French says:

        Bruce baby, you seem to be triggered right now. I invited you to come chat with me you sweet, little man, but you had some dental work you were excited about. Remember that? Would you like to talk to me on the phone? Video chat or Skype? Then you can verify for yourself that I’m neither a man nor vertically challenged.

      • brucelevy says:

        No, thanks for the invite. But I really don’t like you. Why would I waste my time. And it doesn’t matter to me what your gender or species is. I can see by your posts you’re not my kind of person. Rant on.

      • It should be surprising that you’ve made claims against me and when presented with the chance to review actual evidence you’ve declined…..but I deal with dozens just like you every day.

        The thing about being the bigger person (tough concept for you I’m sure, given your diminutive stature) is that you can actually converse with people you don’t like. I do it every day. I’m doing it right this moment.

      • jeffpelline says:

        “diminutive stature”? I already warned about the dental work remark. I’m going to go grab a beer with some friends at the lake, so let’s do a Rachel “time out” for the rest of the day. Your comments are being moderated now. Cheers!

      • brucelevy says:

        To be fair Jeff, I was the one who first mentioned dental work in a fectious manner.

      • jeffpelline says:

        Well whatever you can do to keep the conversation issue oriented is much appreciated.

      • Rachel French says:

        It’s not really relevant of you aren’t letting me comment is it?

      • jeffpelline says:

        Yes, it is. We have house rules. Think of yourself inviting yourself into my living room.

    • brucelevy says:

      You know, in trying to trace these scooper people there are no citations. I’m beginning to think their names are pure BS.

      • Stella Mayfair says:

        You’ve already been told who the real scooper people are…you just refuse to listen.

    • Annie Fox says:

      It takes even less with other local blogs

    • jeffpelline says:

      Dental work? Let’s keep this discussion issue oriented. Thanks! I really don’t want to babysit my blog all day.

  12. stevefrisch says:

    Oops, that should be “you’re.” 🙂

  13. stevefrisch says:

    Yeah, I may be deleted too.

    I think that Reinette’s original comment that, “They have obviously been given directives to go out there and kill,’ is still the operative comment. For someone to ‘give directives’ there must be premeditation, and sans presented proof of premeditation is irresponsible talk, especially for a public official who oversees a law enforcement agency. It was an ill-conceived inflammatory and conspiratorial comment, which is indicative of deeper oft demonstrated thought processes.

    With that said, and as I said here, I don’t believe the response against Reinette’s business and her person was warranted and are bordering on disgusting. People should be secure in holding even unpopular beliefs.

    But then again, I don’t think chem-trails are real, there is almost no evidence that genetically modified food is inherently dangerous, I don’t think there is a conspiracy to control the media, I vehemently disagree with recommending that people not get vaccinated, and I don’t believe that the profit motive is inherently corrupt or that it inherently corrupts people or processes.

    I do question people (un-named) left, right or center, male or female, of any race, creed or color, who make factually unsupportable statements and then defend them with nonsense like the idea that “all opinions are equal” which I have seen all to often here and on other Nevada County forums.

    Thinking all ‘opinions’ are equal is the same thing as thinking science does not exist, evidence is irrelevant, facts and knowledge are irrelevant. It is sloppy, undisciplined and irrational thinking.

    An opinion by definition is “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”

    All opinions are not equal; opinions supported by evidence, fact and knowledge are superior.

    If you don’t want your ‘opinions’ deconstructed don’t post them on public forums. If you state an ‘opinion’ you should be prepared to support it with facts, knowledge, research, logic, etc.

    I also question the practice of, after stating an ‘opinion’ publicly, painting people who deconstruct that ‘opinion’ as bullies. We should be responsible for what we believe and even more responsible when we state it publicly. We should also have the ability to say without shame, “upon further evidence and reflection I have changed my opinion.”

    Facts exist, science exists, and there is such a thing as truth. Granted truth may change as new facts come in, and we should be constantly searching for new facts, but in the mean time we can only act on the facts we have, and seek more.

    Belief without facts is actually emotion. Lampooning such beliefs is not libel it is art.

  14. brucelevy says:

    I agree. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own “facts.”

  15. jeffpelline says:

    Wow! 41 comments. I was in Sacramento this afternoon with our teenage son, who is taking a class at Sacramento State in the “academic talent search” program. I apologize for not monitoring the comments.

    Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing more about NC Scooper’s “staff” and business model. Judging from what “Rachel” and “Stella” wrote here, the original article in The Union about the Scooper was vastly under-reported.

  16. jeffpelline says:

    BTW, here’s the link to this post on Facebook:
    https://www.facebook.com/reinettesenum?fref=nf&pnref=story
    There are 107 “likes” and 25 SIGNED comments. These people are recognizable locals. As a result, the dialog is more thoughtful and civil.

  17. jeffpelline says:

    Here’s one interesting comment:
    “Dione Gardner — So it sounds like just anybody could submit an article to the Scooper, and they will publish it!? That means any of us are possibly subject to slander if someone is pissed at us or what we post on FB.”

    • Joe Koyote says:

      “So it sounds like just anybody could submit an article to the Scooper, and they will publish it” Not so. Writing satire is very entertaining and I have written and submitted articles to Scooper on three occasions none of which have ever been published. All of which were totally fake and contained no mention of local people, slander, or anything else.

      • jeffpelline says:

        Oh, I get it. The NC Scooper is a platform that provides cover for anybody to “slime” their neighbor under a nom de plume, and then makes money off the largely sleazy ads that are displayed on the site. What fun!

  18. steve cottrell says:

    After watching the recent council meeting on my computer –– twice –– and reading ongoing media and blog reports for the past week, here’s what concerns me the most:

    Duane and Evans made it clear that they believe Reinette should resign. And I didn’t hear either of the other two councilmembers actually support Reinette at the July 13 special meeting.

    Absent a formal vote of confidence/no-confidence, the council seems, at best, split 2-2. And since the council’s Code of Conduct appears to be inconsistent with a person’s freedom of speech, I guess formal sanctioning or other action is not an option –– even if one or both of the other councilmembers publicly agreed with Duane and Evans.

    It’s easy to say, “Come on, Steve, she’s apologized twice. It’s time to move on.” Some might even say that that’s the “adult way” to handle the situation. But when the relationship between councilmembers is as publicly strained as it appears to be right now, there’s a serious internal problem that goes beyond someone saying, “I’m sorry.”

    For sure, I had some internal ups and downs during 16 years on the council, but at least none of my colleagues ever said I should pick up my nameplate and take a hike. (At least not publicly).

    Community input at the recent meeting was extraordinary in many respects, but as someone who sat at the council table for 16 years, my main concern these days centers on how the five councilmembers will interact going forward.

    I will be watching from a distance with fingers and toes crossed, hoping for the best.

    • jeffpelline says:

      Oh I get it Steve. If Paul or Sally had asked you to resign from the Council, you would have gladly obliged. LOL.

      • steve cottrell says:

        No, not at all. That wasn’t my point.

        I didn’t suggest that Reinette resign –– I merely said that two of her council colleagues have made such a suggestion and that it is a bad situation right now.

        Sorry it caused you to laugh. That wasn’t my intent.

      • jeffpelline says:

        Duane didn’t even go to the meeting, and Evans made the now infamous “Reinette’s little friends” remark. It will pass, Steve. Stay tuned.

    • brucelevy says:

      Yeah, sort of like the functional grownups in Congress. And don’t even dare with the both sides do it BS.

      • Judith Lowry says:

        What?

      • brucelevy says:

        Judith, I was referring to : “It’s easy to say, “Come on, Steve, she’s apologized twice. It’s time to move on.” Some might even say that that’s the “adult way” to handle the situation. But when the relationship between councilmembers is as publicly strained as it appears to be right now, there’s a serious internal problem that goes beyond someone saying, “I’m sorry.”

  19. jeffpelline says:

    TGIF to “Bradley Jackson”!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s