Guest jim Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Here's a paragraph from Gary's comments: The controversy over messages from Jonathan Rees continues and gets more complex all the time. In the last issue of themail, I published an E-mail from “Tony Fisher,” who claimed that Jonathan Rees is really the “Ramon Rivera” who created a blog that is a personal attack on Bob Summersgill, because Summersgill criticized Rees in themail. Now “Ramon Rivera” has written an E-mail claiming that “Tony Fisher” is really Bob Summersgill; Jonathan Rees has written me that there really is a “Ramon Rivera” who has worked for him and who created the blog and that "Tony Fisher" is spreading lies about him; and it appears that “Tony Fisher” may also really be Rees himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jonathan R. Rees Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 I have no idea who Tony Fisher really is. His email address given themail was bogus in that all emails sent to it bounced back saying no such account. Ramon Rivera works for me and he is definitely opposed to any special rights for glbt people but I also have two lesbians working with me as I do not discriminate. As for Bob Summersgill, he is a radical within the glbt community, does not speak for the majority of glbt people and is totally obsessed with his gay life to the point it is abnormal. People like Summersgill are intollerant of those who are intollerant of his kind, and thus he lives a never ending life of being on the defensive. It is this constant tug of war between those in opposition and support of glbt rights why I put it on the back burner of what I feel is important for the District. GLBT rights have gone as far at it can in the District based upon what we know Congress will agree to, and I think both sides need to sit their asses down and shut up. Here's a paragraph from Gary's comments: The controversy over messages from Jonathan Rees continues and gets more complex all the time. In the last issue of themail, I published an E-mail from “Tony Fisher,” who claimed that Jonathan Rees is really the “Ramon Rivera” who created a blog that is a personal attack on Bob Summersgill, because Summersgill criticized Rees in themail. Now “Ramon Rivera” has written an E-mail claiming that “Tony Fisher” is really Bob Summersgill; Jonathan Rees has written me that there really is a “Ramon Rivera” who has worked for him and who created the blog and that "Tony Fisher" is spreading lies about him; and it appears that “Tony Fisher” may also really be Rees himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Emailed to many this morning by Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 From: Ramon Rivera [mailto:ramon.rivera@dc2006.net] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:14 AM To: 'gary@dcwatch.com'; 'themail@dcwatch.com'; 'dorothy@dcwatch.com' Subject: Tony Fisher is Bob Summersgill. Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Tony Fisher is Bob Summersgill. How do I know? When I created that blog about Bob Summersgill, I emailed it ONLY TO HIM and nobody else, as I suspected that he was many of the anonymous posters on many blogs. Nobody but Summersgill saw that blog up until the day you published it! Case closed in my book. I would be happy to present myself to you, show you my ID and put to rest my existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Except that "you" also posted the blog address on several Listservers. You are a sack of BS. I am glad that Gary and Dorothy are now on to your crap. From: Ramon Rivera [mailto:ramon.rivera@dc2006.net] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:14 AM To: 'gary@dcwatch.com'; 'themail@dcwatch.com'; 'dorothy@dcwatch.com' Subject: Tony Fisher is Bob Summersgill. Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Tony Fisher is Bob Summersgill. How do I know? When I created that blog about Bob Summersgill, I emailed it ONLY TO HIM and nobody else, as I suspected that he was many of the anonymous posters on many blogs. Nobody but Summersgill saw that blog up until the day you published it! Case closed in my book. I would be happy to present myself to you, show you my ID and put to rest my existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Exactly. Lots of people saw that stupid webpage. You're losing track of your own lies, dude. You posted the link in several places. Busted. Again. Except that "you" also posted the blog address on several Listservers. You are a sack of BS. I am glad that Gary and Dorothy are now on to your crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ramon Rivera Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 WRONG YOU STUPID FAGS. Summersgill submitted it days before it was published in (themai)l and before I circulated it. I released it publicly the night before it was published and anybody else saw it and Gary and Dorothy had already received it from Summersgill. YOU FAGS DIDN'T CHECK DATES. Exactly. Lots of people saw that stupid webpage. You're losing track of your own lies, dude. You posted the link in several places. Busted. Again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 I would be happy to present myself to you, show you my ID and put to rest my existence. If only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Total lie. You posted the link on CityPaper several days before the Mail came out. Nice try "Ramon". WRONG YOU STUPID FAGS. Summersgill submitted it days before it was published in (themai)l and before I circulated it. I released it publicly the night before it was published and anybody else saw it and Gary and Dorothy had already received it from Summersgill. YOU FAGS DIDN'T CHECK DATES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summersgill Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Rees never heard of Tony Fisher? That's odd. Rees didn't tell me about the blog. A Rees watcher did. It is quite a sizable community. When "Tony Fisher" posted the announcement to themail, I responded to Gary Imhoff and Tony Fisher. "Ramon Rivera" responded. I'm sure that Gary didn't forward the email to Ramon. Ramon Rivera has been signing letters on Rees' behalf and then sending the pdfs from Rees' personal email account. There is no dispute that Ramon is one of the 83 names that I've collected so far in use by Rees. http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/2006/07/m...me-of-rees.html As to the claim that Jonathan Rees does not discriminate, well the record is clear. Rees is the only candidate in the DC primary election that is running an explicitly anti-gay campaign. Rees also refuses to say where he stands on the issues. He has been telling groups who send questionnaires that he will not respond to their questions. An odd tactic. He claims that he won't share his opinions on the issues because the groups rate or endorse candidates, and he doesn't want endorsements or ratings. Of course groups like GLAA and Smokefree DC who plan to rate candidates also plan to put all of the candidate responses on their respective websites. Both groups will rate all candidates in all parties with or without questionnaire responses. Smokefree DC is a young group without a history of candiate ratings or endorsements, but GLAA has been at it since the School Board elections in the early 1970s. The First DC Council election (under the current Charter anyway) was in 1974. GLAA is at www.glaa.org for those who want to see their elections project and information and questionnaire. Check out just how radical we are. Usually the complaint is that we aren't radical enough. ;-) -Bob Summersgill I have no idea who Tony Fisher really is. His email address given themail was bogus in that all emails sent to it bounced back saying no such account. Ramon Rivera works for me and he is definitely opposed to any special rights for glbt people but I also have two lesbians working with me as I do not discriminate. As for Bob Summersgill, he is a radical within the glbt community, does not speak for the majority of glbt people and is totally obsessed with his gay life to the point it is abnormal. People like Summersgill are intollerant of those who are intollerant of his kind, and thus he lives a never ending life of being on the defensive. It is this constant tug of war between those in opposition and support of glbt rights why I put it on the back burner of what I feel is important for the District. GLBT rights have gone as far at it can in the District based upon what we know Congress will agree to, and I think both sides need to sit their asses down and shut up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Just as I suspected. Criminals: they always get sloppier towards the end of their career ;-) Rees never heard of Tony Fisher? That's odd. Rees didn't tell me about the blog. A Rees watcher did. It is quite a sizable community. When "Tony Fisher" posted the announcement to themail, I responded to Gary Imhoff and Tony Fisher. "Ramon Rivera" responded. I'm sure that Gary didn't forward the email to Ramon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Hmmm. Well-known decent guy Bob Summersgill says it happened this way. Well-known spamming, slandering, alias-using, restraining-order-getting, internet troll says it happened another way.... Hmmmm. Who to believe. Who to believe.... After careful consideration, I'm going to have to go with the first guy. :-) Rees never heard of Tony Fisher? That's odd. Rees didn't tell me about the blog. A Rees watcher did. It is quite a sizable community. When "Tony Fisher" posted the announcement to themail, I responded to Gary Imhoff and Tony Fisher. "Ramon Rivera" responded. I'm sure that Gary didn't forward the email to Ramon. Ramon Rivera has been signing letters on Rees' behalf and then sending the pdfs from Rees' personal email account. There is no dispute that Ramon is one of the 83 names that I've collected so far in use by Rees. http://jonathanrees.blogspot.com/2006/07/m...me-of-rees.html As to the claim that Jonathan Rees does not discriminate, well the record is clear. Rees is the only candidate in the DC primary election that is running an explicitly anti-gay campaign. Rees also refuses to say where he stands on the issues. He has been telling groups who send questionnaires that he will not respond to their questions. An odd tactic. He claims that he won't share his opinions on the issues because the groups rate or endorse candidates, and he doesn't want endorsements or ratings. Of course groups like GLAA and Smokefree DC who plan to rate candidates also plan to put all of the candidate responses on their respective websites. Both groups will rate all candidates in all parties with or without questionnaire responses. Smokefree DC is a young group without a history of candiate ratings or endorsements, but GLAA has been at it since the School Board elections in the early 1970s. The First DC Council election (under the current Charter anyway) was in 1974. GLAA is at www.glaa.org for those who want to see their elections project and information and questionnaire. Check out just how radical we are. Usually the complaint is that we aren't radical enough. ;-) -Bob Summersgill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ramon Rivera Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Bob Summersgill was fed my blog by someone he thought was Martin Austermuhle, he turned around and sent it to themail, days later it was published elsewhere and after Summersgill had already written themail under the name Tony Fisher and gave a bogus email address. Hmmm. Well-known decent guy Bob Summersgill says it happened this way. Well-known spamming, slandering, alias-using, restraining-order-getting, internet troll says it happened another way.... Hmmmm. Who to believe. Who to believe.... After careful consideration, I'm going to have to go with the first guy. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Bob Summersgill was fed my blog by someone he thought was Martin Austermuhle, he turned around and sent it to themail, days later it was published elsewhere and after Summersgill had already written themail under the name Tony Fisher and gave a bogus email address. riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ramon Rivera Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 The eaze of pretending to be somebody here on the net is amazing. riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PRO CHOICE SMOKERS Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 The DC Dept. of Health estimates that there are over 110,000 smokers in DC. Despite the ban, smokers still could mustard up enough clout politically to put the breaks on any candidate running. Mark Lee, the former owner of the APEX Club and many pro-choice glbt persons are working for Bolden, Wilds, and Wells. I suspect SmokeFree DC knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Only if there was ketchup and relish to go with that mustard, LOL. B. Frank The DC Dept. of Health estimates that there are over 110,000 smokers in DC. Despite the ban, smokers still could mustard up enough clout politically to put the breaks on any candidate running. Mark Lee, the former owner of the APEX Club and many pro-choice glbt persons are working for Bolden, Wilds, and Wells. I suspect SmokeFree DC knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summersgill Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 Pretty much everyone running in DC is pro-choice and pro-glbt rights. GLBT people seem to be working with almost every candidate. Those probably aren't good gauges of candidate support in D.C. The Stein mayoral endorsement meeting had votes going to Cropp (who won the endorsement), Fenty, Johns, and Brown. Each of these candidates has well known gay leaders working on their campaigns (paid or otherwise). Only Orange and Milligan failed to garner any votes. Milligan is gay, but perhaps just too much of a long shot. I think he started way too late for an unknown. Orange has a weak record on gay rights on the Council and to the best of my knowledge hasn't tried to get support from the gay community. At the Stein endorsement meeting for At-Large candidates, Bolden got 35% of the vote to Mendelson's 60%. If memory serves, Bolden got 39 votes, Mendelson 67, and 6 votes for no endorsement. Bolden has claim to having supported gay rights on a few issues, but nothing as strong as Mendelson. Tommy Wells should get strong support from the glbt community. He'd have my vote if I lived in Ward 6. I can't say that I know much about Wilds. He seemed charming when I met him briefly last winter. Mark Lee was not the owner of Apex, but rather the Lizard Lounge, a Sunday evening dance party. Smokefree DC is not a gay group, of course, but does have a lot of GLBT support. Both Stein and GLAA supported the legislation as well as all the glbt health groups. The Restaurant Association of Metro Washington (RAMW) led the opposition, and they of course had gay supporters as well. -Bob The DC Dept. of Health estimates that there are over 110,000 smokers in DC. Despite the ban, smokers still could mustard up enough clout politically to put the breaks on any candidate running. Mark Lee, the former owner of the APEX Club and many pro-choice glbt persons are working for Bolden, Wilds, and Wells. I suspect SmokeFree DC knows that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 I understand that the Stein democrats have, on procedural grounds, rescinded the endorsement of Mendelson. Did they give an endorsement for Ward 3? B. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summersgill Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 The Stein endorsement of Mendelson is in play. There is some negotiating going on. We'll see how that works out. The short story is that mendelson got 67 of 112 votes. 60%, the number needed for endorsement is 67.2 votes. At the meeting, with these numbers openly discussed, Mendelson was declared to have won the endorsement. I had thought that the rounding went to his favor, but a fair argument can be made that he didn't get to 60%. The nitty-gritty of Roberts Rules will probably come into play on this since the challenge was not made at the meeting. A $1000 donation is at stake, as well as some other organizational support. The Ward races will be up for endorsement at their next meeting, August 14. GLAA will have their ratings meeting for all primary candidates on August 15. GLAA's process is based on the candidate questionnaire and record. It is not a matter campaign strength and organization, which is useful in its own way. I am a member of both Stein and GLAA. -Bob I understand that the Stein democrats have, on procedural grounds, rescinded the endorsement of Mendelson. Did they give an endorsement for Ward 3? B. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
summersgill Posted July 13, 2006 Report Share Posted July 13, 2006 deleted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Endorsements and ratings from GLAA and STEIN DEMOCRATS are good if you live in ward 2 and possibly 1. Their endorsements in all other wards would have little on no impact on candidates good or bad. The Stein endorsement of Mendelson is in play. There is some negotiating going on. We'll see how that works out. The short story is that mendelson got 67 of 112 votes. 60%, the number needed for endorsement is 67.2 votes. At the meeting, with these numbers openly discussed, Mendelson was declared to have won the endorsement. I had thought that the rounding went to his favor, but a fair argument can be made that he didn't get to 60%. The nitty-gritty of Roberts Rules will probably come into play on this since the challenge was not made at the meeting. A $1000 donation is at stake, as well as some other organizational support. The Ward races will be up for endorsement at their next meeting, August 14. GLAA will have their ratings meeting for all primary candidates on August 15. GLAA's process is based on the candidate questionnaire and record. It is not a matter campaign strength and organization, which is useful in its own way. I am a member of both Stein and GLAA. -Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted July 18, 2006 Report Share Posted July 18, 2006 Why do you care since you are not able to win any endorcements from any credible organizations? By the way, a friend told me about receiving a Rees flyer in an envelope on her windshield. Those envelopes you are stuffing your flyers in cost money. So does the paper. I am guessing you are over the $500 waiver you signed as a cap for spending on your "campaign". B. Frank Endorsements and ratings from GLAA and STEIN DEMOCRATS are good if you live in ward 2 and possibly 1. Their endorsements in all other wards would have little on no impact on candidates good or bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 When you do not seek endorsements then you do not get any. Why do you care since you are not able to win any endorcements from any credible organizations? By the way, a friend told me about receiving a Rees flyer in an envelope on her windshield. Those envelopes you are stuffing your flyers in cost money. So does the paper. I am guessing you are over the $500 waiver you signed as a cap for spending on your "campaign". B. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Posted July 19, 2006 Report Share Posted July 19, 2006 Every day in DC, the some 125 printers throw out thousands of envelopes because they are defective just like Bfrank is. They are defective due to a lack of glue on the back, not exactly the size they are suppose to be, not bound well or for other reasons. So a smart guy has to go and grab them each day and bingo. According to the DC OCF, doing this is not an expense, not an in-kind contribution but just smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts