either is your avoidance of answering the question I asked you.
When you post to a blog, its audience is brought into the conversation. That means me. Your post invites me to participate. If you didn't want my input, you should have posted your comment on your own or Grimm's blog.
Unless you're claiming to be the author of the TU blog's privacy policy, which I am sure you are not - you copied it.
I would also add that any lawsuit you might be contemplating against the TU for a supposed violation of their privacy policy might be mooted by your violation of their copyright by posting here that policy without first receiving their permission to do so.
Only a suicidal lunatic would be happy to be in someones headlights, by the way.
Perhaps I should have used the word 'supporter' rather than 'staffer' when I asked if you were he who posted the comment which prompted the TU to expose the fact it had come from Grimm's email address.
So I'll ask you directly: were you the Grimm supporter who posted the "suspiciously fawning" comment that "reeked of political posturing" on the TU blog using the pseudonym "truthsquad"?
By the way, what on earth did you think lameman's 10-26 diary entry "TU outs some blog commenters", which you refer to above, was about if you don't think it was specifically about the TU's privacy policy?
The first commenter to lameman's diary entry mentions "sockpuppet" as did the TU 10-30 blog entry "Poster or poser?" and still you feign ignorance of the term? After have read it at least twice and commenting after having read it and before my mentioning it? Unbelievable!
But you're right. I shouldn't have used that term. I should have used Meatpuppet, as it more accurately describes what I believe you, excuse me, the "Grimm supporter" who posted to the TU blog using the pseudonym "truthsquad", to be.
Oh, before I'm done here, about that snide comment on me adding something constructive to the conversation: Aside from your reposting here the TU's privacy policy, What's your point that you couldn't have made on lameman's diary entry?
Why don't you say something at all in the way of your opinion after your diary entry?
If anyone has a right to be pissed about being outed by the TU it would be Csaposs.
After all he didn't pawn off his guilt on an anonymous Bosworth supporter like Grimm did.
Granted he was upset, but he owned up to it.
He went on in his comment to say "... you aren't allowed free expression of your views as a private citizen without subjecting yourself to false and malicious personal attacks by low-rent losers like Grimm and Redlich, who want to tag any negative commentary about their pathetic excuse for a campaign as partisan rather than a simple statement of opinion. I don't object to the fact that they're Republicans. I do object to their lies, their low-rent spin-doctoring, and the fact that they offer voters nothing that remotely resembles an alternative, and nobody's paying me or ordering me to say so.
Now I don't know this guy or either you or Grimm, but you missed an opportunity to lay out your platform as a response to his comment, but you didn't.
So maybe Csaposs is right about you and Grimm.
Here's what your website says your platform is:
"Mark Grimm and I are running on a message of ending the secrecy and insider privileges"
Wow! Makes me want to run out and vote for you.
And Grimm's site has nothing but griping as his platform, with little being offered as solutions.
Bitch and Moan.
Too bad you didn't better advertise your support for that libertarian lunatic, Ron Paul. I'm sure that would have helped your campaign.
Lastly, when I asked you how you felt about the housing project seeking approval in the unique in all the world pine bush ecosystem, you had this to say: "I am opposed to any further development in the Pine Bush." Which is where you should have stopped. If you had, I wouldn't be wasting my time posting this now. Especially for such a petty, and I mean that in every sense of the word, politician wannabe like you.
You see, after stating you were opposed to further development in the Pine Bush, you went on, and offered your apologia supporting its development:
"As for the particular proposal, I don't know enough of the details to state what I would do about it as a Town Board member.
This is a zoning problem. If the property is zoned residential, then the developer has every right, legally, to put a residential development in that area.
The larger problem is not this one development, but zoning of the area in general. There is a precedent (from a case in Utica in the 1950s, if I remember correctly) for zoning an area like this with very restrictive rules. If a town (or city or village) identifies an area with unique environmental value, it can enact restrictive zoning laws to protect that area. The Pine Bush certainly has that unique environmental value.
But legally, a Town generally cannot retroactively apply such zoning to a development that has been proposed."
It's nonsense to pawn off your opposition to development in the Pine Bush on whether or not zoning permits it. You could have said you'd work towards establishing a "hands off" policy in Guilderland's portion of this incredibly rare ecosystem instead of stating a developer has every right to build upon it and destroy it because it may be zoned residential.
That's where you lost me and my support.
How's that for adding something constructive to the conversation? :-(
