SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
June 11, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Where did David Galvan graduate high school?

By NickelDime — John B.

Santa Clarita City Council Candidates 2010

More of a footnote to the impersonating an officer of the law allegation, but a note nonetheless:

City Council candidate and likely Gauny spoiler David Galvan says on his campaign website that he graduated from William S. Hart High School in 2004.

Image not recoveredDavidVotePage.jpg

But his MySpace page says he graduated from Templeton High School in Templeton, CA – and even served as the ASB treasurer during his graduating year.

Image not recoveredGalvanHS1.jpg

This just gets more and more strange.  Does anyone have an ’04 Hart yearbook?

Comments (107)

  1. DamageincJune 11, 2010 at 1:36 pm
    HAHA!
  2. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm
    Neither, I’m sure. Must be Canyon or worse. Valencia?
  3. DamageincJune 11, 2010 at 2:02 pm
    Trying to show is SCV cred…
  4. Berta González-HarperJune 11, 2010 at 4:13 pm
    Hey, watch it with the Canyon (Country) cracks. I am sure Crystal Bustos (Olympic medal winner) and many other great Canyon High alumni would take great exception to your remark. Let us just say David Galvan is a jerk, wherever he graduated from, ok? I said all along no way this guy has 1,000 relatives who are registered voters in Santa Clarita. He never attended any forums or meetings to acquaint the residents with him or what he stood for so how could anyone even know what he proposed to do for the residents if elected to Council. He never attended a Council or Planning Commission meeting. No one had ever heard of the guy. Come on. He was a plant.
  5. Berta González-HarperJune 11, 2010 at 7:54 pm
    ND: David Galvan’s name was put on the ballot to do exactly what he did, cause enough name confusion to siphon off some votes. As I said, Galvan does not have 1,000 relatives registered to vote in Santa Clarita and no one else knew who he was. If even 34 people chose his name by mistake, well you get the picture. As to who was behind this dirty rotten trick, I cannot prove it but my money is on one particular guy. You are a smart man so I know you can figure out whom I mean. He fancies himself a power broker/kingmaker and any confusion to lead astray a few votes would certainly help all of “his” candidates and hurt Gauny’s chances. I cannot tell you how many times I had to remind people that David Gauny’s was the second name on the ballot since lots of people said, “I’ll consider voting for David (no last name)”. Some people I spoke with knew nothing about either “David’s” last name or any of the other candidates either!
  6. Saugus SplasherJune 11, 2010 at 8:37 pm
    Yes, anyone who would vote (or want to vote) for David Gauny is a person of questionable decision making ability, but I don’t think someone is so stupid to confuse “Galvan” for “Gauny.” And if someone was stupid enough to confuse “Galvan” for “Gauny” they would likely hedge their bets and vote for both. At any rate, Gauny LOST so just hush up and move on.
  7. Berta González-HarperJune 11, 2010 at 8:52 pm
    Splasher: My decision-making abilities are just fine, thanks. In fact, I will make the decision to tell you to buzz off. I’ll move on when I feel like it! You can think and say whatever you want and so can I.
  8. Berta González-HarperJune 11, 2010 at 8:53 pm
    ND: I believe it happened. You can decide for yourself.
  9. Berta González-HarperJune 11, 2010 at 9:20 pm
    ND: You have written some great articles for scvtalk.com. and have shown you can keep an open mind. Perhaps you could do a follow up investigation since TMS will not.
  10. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 11:23 am
    So stupid. Galvan was on the ballot beige Gauny had a dime and as much support as anyone. When Galvan came on TBB was the front runner and only real Challeneger. David Galvan 985 Daniel Henriquez 921 Kenneth W. Mann 772 Johnny Pride 346 Henriquez almost got he same and it came out he lied about his education and possibly his military service. Johnny pride got 350 and was arrested and released for rape then ran off to europe! Give me a break Gauny lost fair and square.
  11. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 11:36 am
    But all but Galvan actually campaigned!
  12. Saugus SplasherJune 12, 2010 at 1:08 pm
    Although I don’t believe it was a set up for one second, even if it was it is not legal to encourage someone to run for Council. So even if the conspiracy theorists are right (and they are almost always wrong about everything) it’s not prohibited. So move on, your phony candidate lost by 32 votes. He can now return to what he does best – lambasting this wonderful city and running businesses into the ground.
  13. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 1:29 pm
    I think you meant to say it is not ILLEGAL… In any event, “my” candidate was not a phony candidate and near as I can tell is the only challenger except Henry Shultz who is not tainted in some way. A whole bunch of other people voted for Gauny and he came pretty darn close his first time up to bat. You obviously have something against David that goes beyond the Council race. I do not think David lambasts the City nor do I believe he runs businesses into the ground. Moreover, I will say again, I will move on whenever I am darn good and ready and not one nano second sooner! Splasher, you should stop peeing in the water and swallowing…
  14. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    None of them campaigned and all three of the others had negative things come to light. Galvan’s came out after the fact. Berta you need to quit making things up. Your guy lost and that is the end of it. He should have thought about some of the association he made the months leading up to the vote. Might have kept Or earned the 32 votes he needed.
  15. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 9:09 pm
    All but Galvan campaigned. I met each of the rest but Pride and heard them all speak about their plans if elected to Council and answer questions at different forums. I make nothing up. I don’t have to since I have the facts to prove what I say.
  16. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 9:33 pm
    Really Galvan didn’t campaign? You don’t consider a website campaigning? None of the other 3 had a campaign website, they also all had some kind of major gaffe or scandal. Where are all these facts about the plant? I would like one “fact” that proves supports your lame conspiracy theory. Just one BERTA. We are a waiting.
  17. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 9:45 pm
    Keep up with the program kid. Pride’s website was hacked and he appeared at the Chamber forum the very day he was arrested, ignoramus. Mann and Henriquez appeared at the CCAC forum and answered questions from the public. All of the above did interviews with the Signal. To the best of my knowledge, Galvan did none of the above. I had never heard of him or seen him at ANYTHING before the Council race. As usual, you talk through your backside.
  18. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 9:52 pm
    Yeah so he says, even so Prides website wasn’t a campaign website. Regardless of whether Galvan showed up to the little Q & A sessions. He did campaign and you don’t know the extent nor strategy of his campaign. Try again. I am also still waiting for one just one fact that would prove your conspiracy theory. Oh just so the count is clear you have now called me 3 names, yet you were the only one whining about it.
  19. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 10:12 pm
    I really do believe you are obsessed with my hair and me. You and Saugus Splasher should get together for a date since you share the hair thing. Good night sweetheart!
  20. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 10:25 pm
    HAHA who said anything about your hair? Saugus Splasher want to get coffee?
  21. gregory molineriJune 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm
    He’s not in the Hart USD yearbook as a 2004 grad. But didn’t reporter Jonathan Randals say he researched this guy completely? Remember that there was the quasi-humorous op-ed piece from Randles that the TMS ran on the front page for some strange reason. How can this be coming out now?
  22. DamageincJune 11, 2010 at 2:03 pm
    Who would have thought! I am sure Randle will learn to be a bit more thorough
  23. JeffJune 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm
    We should have an elected Chamber Jester, just like the medieval courts of old had a jester. Henriquez, Pride and galvan would be good candidates.
  24. Berta González-HarperJune 11, 2010 at 9:22 pm
    Add Katz and Boydston too.
  25. jboyyyyyyJune 12, 2010 at 1:00 am
    What did Katz and Boydston do?
  26. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 10:05 am
    In an email, which I had access to and forwarded to the Signal, Harrison Katz claimed that TimBen Boydston had promised him a Santa Clarita Parks Commissioner position in exchange for Harrison getting his supporters to vote for TBB. Harrison says: From: harrisonekatz@xxxxx.com ] Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 2:09 PM To: davidgauny@xxxxxx Subject: per our conversation earlier David, I just wanted to make sure you knew I have absolutely nothing against you. I made sure each of my family members votde for you, timben, and myself. I still have close to 2000 voters who haven’t returned there ballots yet, I know you will not co-endorse, and in all honestly that wouldn’t probably help me anyway, but I’m not going to see my political career end at 19. Mr. Boydston and I have an agreement, if he gets elected I will be appointed to the parks commission. If you let me know you’d consider me for that same spot, i’d be happy to put you on our emails, robo calls, live calls, etc and make sure the voters cast their third vote for you. Its much easier than telling them to only use two votes. If that sounds like something you’d be interested in, let me know because our calls are being recorded tomorrow and the election is coming up. – Harrison Elliott Katz In other words, Harrison attempted to make the same deal with David Gauny in order to hedge his bets and gain some influential position sensing he would not win a Council seat. David Gauny did not agree to or make any deal with Harrison. I felt it important the voters have this information and come to their own conclusions before voting. I took a lot of heat for exposing this issue. I would do it again no matter whom the candidates involved were, even David Gauny. After the story broke, Harrison’s camp said it was “someone else” who sent out the email, and TimBen and his supporters of course denied any deal was ever made. Both camps said “new information” would be provided to clear both candidates but to date none has been forthcoming.
  27. Alan FerdmanJune 12, 2010 at 12:20 pm
    Katz continued to state that it was a campaign worker that sent the email and no deal was ever made. TBB also stated that he had not made a deal with Katz. Katz sent an explanation to the Signal which they never published.
  28. Saugus SplasherJune 12, 2010 at 1:10 pm
    A campaign worker. Bullpoopy.
  29. jboyyyyyyJune 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm
    I’m not sure if harrison sent that email or not, but I can tell you that that isn’t his personal email. His personal email (the one associated with his fb is harrisonek@*****.com.
  30. jboyyyyyyJune 12, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Berta, did you ever call Katz and ask him yourself about the email? Or email him? It seems like you played judge, jury, and executioner.
  31. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 9:24 pm
    You attribute power to me I do not possess. I only have the power to judge for myself. I cannot be the jury when no evidence was ever presented to refute the contents of the email in defense of the alleged perpetrators. I might add, an email I simply forwarded.Only TimBen and Harrison know the truth regarding this matter. Moreover, I cannot be an executioner when no execution occurred or for that matter any retribution for those particular candidates. If anyone was punished it was me by all the nasty cracks made by others regarding my character, integrity, motives, etc. I follow my conscience and do what I believe is right. I do not seek nor require your approval for my actions. I have enough confidence in others that they are capable of making up their own mind whether they agree with my conclusions or not.
  32. jboyyyyyyJune 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm
    But I ask again… did you ever ask Katz about the email? you had his email address. You say he has never given any evidence to his defense, have you ever asked for it? I’m not saying Katz is innocent or didn’t write that email, but if you are going to accuse him you should at least ask him yourself for his side of the story. It seems you were to eager to indict Mr.Boydston.
  33. Berta González-HarperJune 13, 2010 at 1:05 pm
    No, I did not ask anyone if the contents of the email were true and correct. Others had those conversations. Nevertheless, I would not expect anyone who would enter into such unethical behavior to be honest enough and above board to answer truthfully anyway. I forwarded the email to the Signal, nothing more. I never said the email was true. I personally believe both persons mentioned are capable of such actions but only they know the truth. I thought it was especially ironic since they questioned the ethics of elected officials they wanted to replace since “they” were better. The voters made up their own minds and this issue came out well after most mail in ballots had already been sent in so I doubt it had much impact. I was not eager to indict anyone although I am on record as not supporting TimBen even before this issue. Some have argued I hurt my candidate, David Gauny, but I reject that as untrue since he did not agree to the deal and he was stronger at the polls after this issue was revealed than in the write in votes. As I have said many times, I believe the voters have the right to know what those who have attained or aspire to elected office are about albeit they make the decision to believe or not. I would have taken the same action regardless of the source. All parties have had many opportunities to set the record straight on this and other forums. Since so much time has elapsed, I am not sure there is any point anymore but if I were in their position, you could not shut me up about clearing my name. Since you apparently are a TBB supporter, I suggest you direct your questions to him.
  34. DamageincJune 13, 2010 at 1:51 pm
    “but I reject that as untrue since he did not agree to the deal and he was stronger at the polls after this issue was revealed than in the write in votes. What polls are referring too. I was not aware there any polls done during this election? Perhaps you can educate me.
  35. Alan FerdmanJune 13, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    After this story broke, I spoke directly with TimBen and had email conversations with Harrison. TimBen consistently told his campaign staff before and after the incident in question, that he did not even want to strategize what might occur after the election. After the incident he emphatically stated that no deal had been made with Harrison or anyone else. Based on his consistent position on this issue, I am convinced no deal was offered by him. When this news broke, I also emailed Harrison. He consistently stated that no deal was offered and/or accepted. The email in question was sent by a campaign worker and he would take corrective action. Harrison sent an explanation to the Signal. I followed up, called the Signal and was told that Harrison’s statement had been received. The Signal chose to not publish it. So much for non-biased reporting in Santa Clarita. The situation of an embarrassing email being sent by a staff member from someone else’s email account is not new to Santa Clarita. This scenario will repeat itself time and again until individuals come to understand that giving others access to your email account is a recipe for disaster. It is time to stop beating this ”dead horse” unless there is something new to add.
  36. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 10:59 am
    My response has been blocked!
  37. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 11:38 am
    Thanks for releasing my comments from hold.
  38. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 9:28 pm
    Bossert can be Shrek and Gauny can be the Donkey.
  39. Need for Involved CitizenryJune 11, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    Sometimes I wonder if the incumbents put these sorts of less than serious candidates up to running to try to spread out the votes of those unwilling to vote for incumbents. Kind of like this guy on this link: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/conspiracy-theories-no-surprise-547122.html Would Gauny and TBB have won if the votes for Henriquez, Pride and Galvan were split between them?
  40. Saugus SplasherJune 11, 2010 at 8:38 pm
    TBB lost by a decisive margin. He got hammered.
  41. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 11:26 am
    You are ASSuming pride, galvan and other canidates voters didn’t already vote for tbb and Gauny.
  42. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 11:38 am
    No, I believe TBB and Gauny supporters are those persons who follow local issues and educate themselves regarding the candidates. They probably did not vote for the Three Stooges. The only one ASSuming is you, Nate.
  43. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    Hey smart guy, you get three votes. If Pride voters wanted Gauny, they voted for him as well. TBB wins under no scenario.
  44. scvtruthsquadJune 11, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    Galvin was a shill, he was put on the ballots by the incumbents to confuse people, my wife came close to voting for Galvin isntead of Gauny. She had marked Galvin not even paying as much attention as she should.. she looked at David and started with G… wonder how many people did that too and actually voted for Galvan….wife noticed mistake at the booth. Gauny lost by only 32 votes… Galvin got over 900 without even campaining…sounds kind of fishy
  45. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 3:05 pm
    don’t let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
  46. Saugus SplasherJune 11, 2010 at 8:40 pm
    Booooo-hooooo-hoooooo.
  47. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 11:28 am
    Maybe your wife was drunk.
  48. Timothy MyersJune 13, 2010 at 8:20 pm
    Only on her wedding day!
  49. BusterJune 11, 2010 at 2:47 pm
    Hey, sounds like this POS would fit right in with 3 out of the five City Council People already sitting.
  50. ReaderMamaJune 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    This is both funny and depressing. Is it any wonder this country is in such sorry shape with bozos like this running for public office and uninformed citizens voting for them . . . . The Signal needs to step it up a notch. A few hundred dollars to a P.I. would be money well spent prior to any election.
  51. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm
    Would seem like a waste of time to confirm the high school records of an insignificant candidate.
  52. ReaderMamaJune 11, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    Galvan may have had little chance of winning, but as has been pointed out, Gauny lost by a mere 32 votes. Galvan’s candidacy may have cost Gauny the election. Perhaps a PI may have turned up the truth about all three of these ridiculous candidates: that Galvan runs around pretending to be a cop; that Henriquez was not a war hero or government operative, or even a CPA for that matter; and that Pride had a thing for “partying” with young girls. And perhaps if the local yokels had a clue that someone would be taking an in-depth look at them, they would be less likely to waste the community’s time. In order to get a job working with the school district I had to be fingerprinted and have my background checked. It is standard procedure for many employers, in addition to drug testing. Why should there be less stringent requirements for someone seeking public office?
  53. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 3:56 pm
    The facts don’t back up your speculation. There is no correlation in either direction between the votes received by Gauny and Galvan on a precinct-by-precinct basis. If people were making the mistake, you would see higher totals for Galvan in Gauny’s strong precincts. There is very good science showing that name placement makes a difference. Gauny was listed above any other major candidate. If any candidate benefited artificially from the ballot, it was Gauny. Besides, if votes for Galvan were accidental, as you allege, how would an exposé of his high school records prevent that accident from happening?
  54. ReaderMamaJune 11, 2010 at 6:10 pm
    I am not arguing the name placement issue, mike. I am arguing that had Galvan not been on the ballot at all, Gauny may have had enough votes to win. And sorry, as keen as your analytical powers are, I am not persuaded that they are so accurate as to rule that possibility out in the case of a 32 vote margin of difference. There needs to be a better system for filtering out the wackos and the plants before we place them on the ballot.
  55. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 8:59 pm
    If such a thing were happening, there would be an observable trend. I’m just saying that if you are going to whine about one artificial factor swaying the election, the greatest benefit of artificial factors was Gauny. Any losses suffered from the conspiratorial candidacy of Mr. Galvan were certainly offset by Gauny’s advantage in ballot position. In fact, his ballot position nearly negates any chance of voter error happening. On top of that, let’s not forget the overwhelming majority of vote-by-mail voters. On a single-question ballot, with all the time in the world, they aren’t making that mistake.
  56. ReaderMamaJune 12, 2010 at 7:39 am
    You keep carrying on about “ballot position” and “mistakes.” I’m not arguing that angle. If someone is not on the ballot, that someone gets no votes. Those votes are divided amongst the other candidates. To say that Gauny could not have garnered enough of the 900 that went Galvan to win is simply no more than an unsupportable assertion on your part. I say those who were willing to vote for a non-incumbent would more than likely have voted for another non-incumbent.
  57. mikeJune 12, 2010 at 10:02 am
    Important distinctions: All that matters is that Ferry got more votes than Gauny. If those 900 people voted for Galvan did so out of anti-incumbent animus* that it stands to reason that they would have also voted for the challengers most likely to succeed. As it were, there were only two serous challengers in a three-seat election. On such a ballot, where voters will regularly mark just one or two candidates, it isn’t a zero-sum game. Also, to argue that Gauny would have done better if candidate X weren’t on the ballot, whether or not their names sounded similar, is just idle speculation. Galvan had every right to be on the ballot, no more or less than Frank Ferry, David Gauny or Henry Shultz. When it came down to it, more people wanted Frank Ferry. *I think it’s hard to ascribe a vote for Galvan or any super-minor candidate as a strong statement along that axis. It’s an odd choice. A rational voter is going to vote in a way that best accomplishes their objectives. If their objective is to unseat the incumbents, then they have already voted for Gauny. I know this is hard to comprehend, but Gauny also turns a lot of people off. Some people don’t like slick salesmen as a rule. Some people think mortgage brokers are especially slippery. Some people dislike his use of the race card. Perhaps people voting for an Hispanic candidate (Galvan) wouldn’t be so eager to instead vote for a candidate that demonized Hispanic residents. Maybe a city that is 35% Democratic includes voters that wouldn’t vote for the candidate that positioned himself to the far right of the field. Maybe they think a city councilman ought to have more than a semester of college under his belt? This election wasn’t just some binary incumbent/challenger question. If it were, TBB wouldn’t have lost so badly, and it wouldn’t have been so tight for Ferry.
  58. ReaderMamaJune 12, 2010 at 12:14 pm
    You claim that a “rational voter” who is unhappy with the incumbents would vote for the challenger with the best chance of winning. I certainly didn’t base my vote on who had the best chance of winning. I based it on what the candidates had to say and their qualifications for the job. I dislike Kellar, but not enough to vote for Pride or Henriquez, even if they had been designated the favorites. Other people, who are rational enough in their private lives, may use far more questionable criteria. I spoke with an 86 year-old lady on Tuesday who voted for people this last election based on how well she liked their names. She wasn’t familiar with the candidates at all. BTW, I have no difficulty in understanding why someone may choose not to vote for Gauny. I think it is perhaps your distaste for him that drives you to argue so strenuously against the notion that his 32 vote loss may not have occuured had Galvan not been on the ballot.
  59. mikeJune 12, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    Likewise, maybe it’s your blind support for this guy that leads you to believe strange conspiracy theories and prevents you from accepting his loss.
  60. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 1:01 pm
    Mike, I agree with Readermama except for the comment regarding Bob Kellar. I like Bob and find him to be very receptive to what the residents have to say and the issues important to them. I supported David Gauny but not on blind faith. I spoke with him, watched how he conducted himself before Council, etc, listened to what he had to say, and came to respect and like him. Just because someone supports a candidate that does not mean they do so blindly. I understand that David lost and Frank won. I also still believe there were forces at work to siphon of votes as happened. I have nothing against Frank Ferry. I have had very cordial conversations with Frank and agreed with him on many issues. I have also disagreed on issues such as illegal immigration but have never felt disrespected by Frank Ferry. I even agree with his comments regarding some people just looking to stir things up to serve their own interests and complaining without offering real solutions.
  61. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 9:00 pm
    everything is possible, and it cuts in every which way. It would have to be a very strong tendency to move than many votes, net.
  62. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm
    You can believe whatever you want, we all know how much of a vivid imagination you have, like the time you rewrote the mean of a Spanish word from guy who was being harrassed by your minuteboys or when you believed the same guy was flashing gang signs. You were wrong both time. Classy Berta classy. Gauny lost like he should have and all is right with the world.
  63. CoastalSageJune 11, 2010 at 4:23 pm
    So folks, we’ve all learned something with this experience. It also happened in South Carolina last week in the Democratic senatorial nomination campaign…plus what appears to be outright tampering with voting machines. And now a local elected official’s computer has been hacked, twice, using a very sophisticated computer program which sucks everything out of the computer and sends it off somewhere. The people behind all of this are playing for millions of dollars. No one should be surprised by “aggressive conduct” by land developers with holdings in the community.
  64. mikeJune 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm
    who was hacked?
  65. GangFangJune 12, 2010 at 7:18 am
    Wow. Berta has jumped the shark.
  66. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 10:07 am
    I’ll take on anyone including those who call me the “B” word like you did.
  67. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 11:30 am
    Can’t read either Berta Gangfang, I think Berta thinks you flash a gang sign that means BITCH.
  68. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 11:41 am
    That is the only thing you do well, call names and hurl insults. Grow up little Nate.
  69. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 3:38 pm
    Hey Bertha, you have real trouble English and spanish.
  70. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 9:29 pm
    I have no problem with either language. At least I can spell and remember a person’s name dipshit.
  71. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 9:38 pm
    Quote of the day. June 12, 2010 at 11:41 am “That is the only thing you do well, call names and hurl insults. Grow up little…” Berta? I am shocked it seem you are the only person calling names around here. What is next out of the Berta play book… threats?
  72. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 10:14 am
    Sorry Gangfang that was not you. That was Spineflower2! Please accept my apology.
  73. mikeJune 12, 2010 at 10:40 am
    close call. Berta almost *became* the shark.
  74. GangFangJune 13, 2010 at 9:03 pm
    Apology not accepted. Bitch.
  75. Berta González-HarperJune 13, 2010 at 9:36 pm
    I’ll meet you anywhere anytime so you can say that to my face. Or would that interfere with that yellow streak running down your back!
  76. GangFangJune 13, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    Take an extra large candy coated conspiracy theory injected chill pill there, Berta. It was a joke. But it’s lookin’ like the shoe fits, so go ahead and keep the insult.
  77. Berta González-HarperJune 13, 2010 at 10:33 pm
    Your “joke” reflects more on you than on me. My offer stands.
  78. GangFangJune 14, 2010 at 6:52 am
    WOW. You are one nutso broad. Why in the hell anyone would make time to be anywhere near you is beyond me. So take yer “offer” and cram it down that paranoid pie hole of yours. Hahaha “Meet me in the KMart parking lot at 5pm and bring two super soakers, a jar of vaseline, and a copy of the Bible. We’ll call each other names, and try to figure out why the seagulls like that area of town so much.” Psycho.
  79. DamageincJune 14, 2010 at 9:06 am
    I am coming and bringing Ritz crackers and the third season of knight rider on DVD.
  80. Berta González-HarperJune 14, 2010 at 9:29 am
    On City time, Nate?
  81. Berta González-HarperJune 14, 2010 at 9:29 am
    I did not think you would have the guts to say it to my face. Fits your MO. That is the problem with cowards; they will say anything as long as they think they are safe. You are not as safe from being identified publicly as you think posting using your pseudonym. If you really think I am a psycho, I would be worried… My offer stands anytime.
  82. GangFangJune 14, 2010 at 9:33 am
    Ok, Berta. Why don’t you tell me where and when. I’ll let you buy me a beer and massage my shoulders. Don’t be a coward now.
  83. Berta González-HarperJune 14, 2010 at 9:55 am
    You pick since I know you will not show up anyway. In the interest of full disclosure (as TBB likes to say), I will not be buying you a beer or massaging your shoulders either. I have something else in mind. Unless of course you apologize…
  84. GangFangJune 14, 2010 at 10:14 am
    Let’s see…..how about Wednesday @11am. I was gonna say on front of a local massage parlor, but let’s make it something you aren’t used to. How about in front of the library? I’ll be in drag. Something else in mind? OH!! I’m gonna get the full body rubdown! Toss in a happy ending for old times sakes, eh Berta?
  85. Berta González-HarperJune 14, 2010 at 10:32 am
    Which Library? By the Sherriff Station so you feel protected? You won’t show chickenshit. I’m in the phone book if you really want to arrange a meeting. As to the other, not worth commenting since you know what would happen if we met and you said it to my face…As to the drag part…
  86. Oh, democracyJune 12, 2010 at 12:17 pm
    To whomever suggested keeping crazies off local ballots: You can’t just go weeding out who can or can’t run for political positions. There are going to be crazies putting themselves on the ballot as long as both the democratic process and craziness coexist. Who would be in charge of weeding out suspicious/disengenuous/just-plain-ridiculous candidates anyway? And how would we vet THOSE judges? Bad, bad idea. What’s supposed to happen, traditionally, is that the Fourth Estate steps in and does that job for the public (and often with the public’s help via tips and such to the press, hat-tip to Berta). Unfortunately, time/budget/experience constraints at TMS prevents this from being carried out. Thank goodness for blogs like SCVTalk bringing out the truth …two months later. Conspiracies to siphon votes, voting for the wrong person, letting stupid people get on the ballot in the first place: these all come with the democracy package. Which, as Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others.
  87. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 1:30 pm
    Thanks!
  88. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    I guess Berta concedes whatever point she thinks she had
  89. ReaderMamaJune 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm
    A simple background check, drug check and fingerprinting process, with the results made public before candidates can be placed on the ballot might do a lot in the effort to keep the wackos to a minimum. Alvin Greene has a felony charge pending. Had that been made public before the election in South Carolina, I doubt he would have garnered 60% of the vote. He might even have had second thoughts about running if he knew that information would become public.
  90. mikeJune 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm
    Seems the city requires bachelor’s degrees or higher for many of the jobs at city hall. That might be a good place to start
  91. damageincJune 12, 2010 at 5:50 pm
    I agree. Education is way important. BTW. Berta where did you get your degree from?
  92. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 9:33 pm
    Gee, Nate by your several posts above I think you have become obsessed with me. I have no desire to share ANYTHING with a little disrespectful punk like you…
  93. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 9:42 pm
    It is disrespectful to ask where you got your degree? NO. It is however disrespectful to call someone a “punk”. So in true Berta fashion.. HYPOCRITE.
  94. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 10:04 pm
    You are quite boring and you are a disrespectful punk. I do not need to threaten you. I can effectively deal with you anytime I want to. On or off the clock the City frowns on employees calling residents the “B” word and other choice names as you have done on several occasions including today. If you could get your head out of your a$$ long enough to think about that, you would phrase your comments more carefully. Aside from that, I can whoop your skinny little punk ass any time. You had the opportunity to come up and introduce yourself at the rally and say whatever you wanted to my face but I notice you did not have the guts to do that. Only from a distance and under an assumed name, huh tough guy. You cannot prevail in any discussion based on logic or the facts, so you throw a tantrum and hurl insults. Go play with yourself…
  95. DamageincJune 12, 2010 at 10:22 pm
    hilarious you think I am someone else, and If I was ever at the same rally as you, which I doubt would ever happen. I wouldn’t waste my time talking to you. Oh, I sure didn’t call you a BITCH, no one here actually called you a BITCH. You might want to have someone else re-read and explain the statement. Can’t decide if I like this quote better “You cannot prevail in any discussion based on logic or the facts, so you throw a tantrum and hurl insults. Go play with yourself…” -Berta I haven’t insulted you once unless you count asking where you got your degree… but that is a question one apparently you are very sensitive about. You might consider going back to school and taking care of that, I am sure it would be a blast for you to argue with the teachers. So the count is right that is 5 insults from Berta and 0 from me. Keep going Berta let’s see if we can get in double digits.
  96. Berta González-HarperJune 13, 2010 at 1:41 pm
    Nate, one of the problems with telling lies is that it becomes a challenge to remember what you said and to whom. Honesty is the best policy. Not only did you lie about not attending the rally and walking right in front of me when you knew who I was and could have said whatever you wanted to me in person (chicken) but until you and “Olenka” posted those videos, I did not know what you look like sweetheart. Another problem you have is that you consistently insult the same person using the same language (mullet, etc) and with the same style. No matter how many names you use, Blazing Monk, Damage Inc., Nate Imhof, etc you reveal yourself. I have no reason to try to help you out but I will anyway. You are young and full of yourself. As you mature perhaps, you will learn to quit while you are ahead instead of pushing until someone has enough and pushes back. As I have cautioned you before, stick to the issues no problem. Keep up the crap and you are messing with the wrong old lady. Now, I’ll go and enjoy my Sunday afternoon…
  97. ReaderMamaJune 13, 2010 at 10:44 am
    Dishonesty and criminal activity concern me more than lack of a college degree. There are many people who have achieved a lot more without a B.A. than I (and others) have achieved with one.
  98. mikeJune 13, 2010 at 10:52 am
    And some people have achieved more on drugs than either of us have without, no?
  99. ReaderMamaJune 13, 2010 at 8:13 pm
    Oh puhleeze. Drug addiction or illegal use of drugs can hardly be placed in the same category as a college education. You disappoint me, mike.
  100. DamageincJune 13, 2010 at 9:17 pm
    It applies.
  101. gregory molineriJune 13, 2010 at 11:11 am
    I agree wtih ReaderMama on this. People with advanced degrees from the nation’s best schools just ran our country and the global economy into the toilet. What’s lacking are ethics, integrity and a moral code. These are not things that college degrees measure or validate.
  102. Berta González-HarperJune 13, 2010 at 12:37 pm
    Damage Inc, Blazing Monk, Nate Imhoff and all his other aliases does not care about my degree or lack thereof. He assumes I do not have one and arrogantly infers that he is intellectually superior to me based on his assumption and therefore free to disrespect my opinions and me accordingly. He is obsessed with insulting me, takes every opportunity when I post to do so, and over a few months time has said among many other choice comments that I am a bad mother when at the time did not even know if I am a mother at all let alone what kind. He has called me a liar several times, infers I am a racist, etc anyway, you get the picture. I realize I am controversial particularly when I share my heartfelt opinions, and that others frequently disagree with me. I am fine with that. I just cannot abide a young punk who hides behind multiple aliases to take his cheap shots. There is no honor in that. I will discuss, debate, etc any topic with anyone as long as they stick to the issues and do not insult and disrespect me when we do not agree. If they chose to attempt to demean and disrespect me, I will come out swinging and without apology. I respect or do not respect people for what they represent as human beings not for where they went to school, how much money they have, what their religious beliefs are, etc. Have a nice Sunday and thanks for reading my post.
  103. DamageincJune 13, 2010 at 1:45 pm
    It funny you think you know who I am… But with all the assumptions you make, I am not surprised. What a load of crap Berta. Perhaps you can point out one insult? You have called me dipshit, ignoramous, and punk several time. It is always the people that attack the most who are the first to complain. I have asks for these Facts you claim to have, we all know you are making another ASSumption and don’t have Jack squat for evidence, so you get you panties in wad and claim you are being attack. Justbe honest and admit you are guessing and have no facts.
  104. ReaderMamaJune 14, 2010 at 6:56 am
    I have asks for these F acts you claim to have, w e all know you are making another ASSumption and don’t have Jack squat for evidence, so you get you panties in [a] wad and claim you are being attack . It is an interesting “coincidence” that Damageinc and Nate share a certain “writing style.” Maybe they share the same proofreader.
  105. Berta González-HarperJune 14, 2010 at 9:16 am
    Readermama: Damage Inc., Blazingmonk, Fan of Blazingmonk, Nate Imhof are all the same person. He uses these aliases regularly. He has a couple of others but they only surface occasionally. It is easy to spot him because as you say the style and errors are the same. I also especially notice and recognize him because he goes after me using all of his “personas”.
  106. DamageincJune 14, 2010 at 9:23 am
    Readermama, Your full name is again?
  107. Berta González-HarperJune 12, 2010 at 9:35 pm
    Thank you for your comments, ND.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support