Carolina North - The First Phase Soon To Begin

"The people currently under investigation have not been rude or disruptive." Writes Terri. Go back and read J. Nicholls' and Tim Mullins' comments about me in some of their posts. or better still think how you would feel if I said was "ashamed" of you. On one thread "Cam Hill's take on Carolina North" these two were single handedly responsible for misrepresenting things I had said and steering the course of the thread in a tangential direction.
Terri's comparison to checking immigration status on a traffic violation is off base. A more accurate comparison would be asking for ID when accepting someone's check. Verifying that you are who you say you are-pretty simple.
I think Ruby should take down all of these posts.
BTW I am Gregor Samsa.
Cam Hill

I apologize for not including my last name on the previous post.
Actually, Chilton is Gregor Samsa.
Cam Hill

Four years ago the Chapel Hill Herald printed a letter that was critical of me that was authored by Darla Starr. When I complained to Ray Gronburg (or Neil Offen I forget which) that Darla Starr was a fiction, they claimed to have called the phone number provided and so wouldn't print a retraction. Darla Starr got lots of play up until then.
Will Raymond wishes he was Grego Samsa.
Cam Hill

Cam, I'm sure that kind of public criticism is hard to take. But isn't that part of the job you sought, won, and are now asking to have extended?

If asking for ID was all that was needed to verify checks, we wouldn't have so much financial fraud and identity theft. In this case, a valid email has been required to post content. Going beyond that to track down IP addresses is a research project. Plus, checking an IP address doesn't tell the whole story. Someone could have a teenager in the house who thinks it's funny to log in and be a jerk (has happened on another list I participate in). Lots of people live with roommates (to say nothing of spouses/partners or other family members). A friend could come over and use your computer. In other words, there are many explanations for two posters having the same IP address and yet not being the same individual. Shall we penalize one for the sins of the other?

Mark, What do you think the enlightened self-interest is in this case?

"Cam, I'm sure that kind of public criticism is hard to take. But isn't that part of the job you sought, won, and are now asking to have extended?"

To have fictitious people say made up stuff about me is not part of the job I sought or at least not a part that I wouldn't try and limit.

To have real people refuse to accept my point of view on a regular basis, that I accept.

One option here is certainly not to do anything and decide "stuff happens." One foolish anonymous poster outed himself by using two IDs and forgetting which one he was using. In fact, if he'd only used one fake ID throughout and his posts been less inflammatory and objectionable to some people, the case could be made that he had the right to choose whatever nom de plume he wants so long as he wasn't "impersonating" someone.

The guidelines don't actually say you must use your real or full name -- as they are written, someone could post under the name "40352#%#"

But if the object here is to revise rules/guidelines, perhaps we should be careful how we ask the editors to approach that project. Are we really saying, "you must use your full, real name if you are going to hurl criticism, esp. at people here or in office"? Or are we saying, "it's time to consider asking for verified identities"?

The eds could do what the newspapers do -- flawed and unevenly applied though it may be: ask for telephone numbers that will be unpublished but kept by the editors. Even then, though, what is it that the editors would then do in the case of someone like Nicholls/Mullin? Call and say "you're both the same person and you shouldn't say those things about Council Members"?

From Ruby (and other authorized editors, maybe), perhaps we should wait to hear her thoughts on: 1. what (if anything) you think actually went wrong here that needs some different action than what you did? and 2. what would be the goal of a change in guidelines and procedure -- assuming it's needed?

"To have fictitious people say made up stuff about me is not part of the job I sought or at least not a part that I wouldn't try and limit."

I believe that everyone who posts here, on STP, OrangeChat, and any other public forum should take full responsibility for their words by signing their full, real (commonly known) names. But there are some people who aren't comfortable doing that for whatever reasons (for example, George C). Using a pseudonym or nickname or initials doesn't make them fictitious people and may or may not discount the fact that they believe what they write.

I checked my IP address yesterday (all-day connection) and again this morning. The network address (the first two sections of the IP address) for Bellsouth remained the same. The next two sections (machine name) changed as I suspected (not sure how often they change).

On the basis of this limited experiment, in conjunction with Will's report on his home network, using IP address to ban individuals seems like a very imperfect solution. I doubt if Ruby or Mark or anyone else wants to ban everyone who uses a particular ISP, even if they would like to ban an individual who uses that ISP. And if they restrict access based only on the addresss, they could ban someone that's never posted here before (when that machine address is recycled) while allowing the person they want to keep out to continue posting.

This post from Yesh back in 2003 confirms my suspicion that I am not alone in my concerns about using IP addresses to track people.

Meanwhile, in re the Innovation Center, the September 6 dated notice from the Town Planning Department arrived in the mail. Those with property located within 1,000 feet of the property owned by the applicant get notified, the letter states. It notifies us of the September 19th Community Design Commission meeting AND the TENTATIVELY scheduled Town Council meeting on January 23, 2008.

Other details are included: 85,000 square feet, 3 story building on approximately 7.4 acres. The notice has a map on the reverse side.

UNC's concept plan for the Innovation Center is scheduled on Wednesday (Sept. 19th) night's CDC agenda from about 7:10-8:10 PM.

Since Nicholls/Mullin has been duly and appropriately banished, it apparently falls to me to note the article in Saturdays' Herald-Sun (I look at it on line, so I don't know whether it was published specifically in the CHHerald insert -- assume so):

Doctors, Pilots Fight Airport Closure http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-881346.cfm

It's old news, but for that very reason I'm wondering why it appeared this weekend. Is there something happening in the GA cloakrooms or committee rooms? Or is it just the lobbyists keeping up the pressure? Or a seriously slow news-weekend?

In any case, Cam Hill is quoted as follows:

"It's a unique occurrence that an existing airport is probably being closed and I think these guys can't believe it," Hill said. "I haven't seen any indication that this lobbying group is any match for UNC's lobbying group."

My own take is that the lobbying group has been more than a match for UNC's lobbyists, else the closure of the airport wouldn't have been blocked repeatedly by legislative action. AOPA has a long and stunning history of successes in keeping airports open, regardless of local and even state government wishes. The only failure that comes to mind is Chicago's Meigs field, which entailed having Mayor Richie Daley get the city's earthmovers to carve up the runway in the middle of the night.

Sure don't see that happening here!

I've been tied up with family lately (not literally, of course), so I'm out of touch. A while back it was proposed that UNC would use (I think) 250-300 acres of the 900 or so that they claim as "theirs".

There was a proposal that they PUT IN WRITING that they would NOT use the rest. Having become very distrusting, shall I assume they still haven't signed such a document? If I were on the City Council, I would definately NOT allow any construction until UNC did the right thing.

PS: I remember the Daley midnight bulldozer incident; I was in Chicago at the time. I think nobody ever got punished for that, either. Daley was (is?) a powerful force in Chicago. At least he's not a Nazi, like his dad, who will be forever remembered as the guy that sent police with nightsticks down to beat up peace demonstrators in the Viet Nam era. And still got re-elected. Those stiffs resting in Roseland Cemetery used to vote a lot...

Will, know they're to approve (or not) the CN design plan next week, as it says in the article. If I were a lobbyist, I'd probably be watching more closely whether bids for construction of the RDU AHEC facility were being solicited or, in fact, had been received -- but since I'm not a lobbyist OR a contractor, I'm not sure where to look for that.