For the very same reason they would give any credibility to your extreme, slanted, inaccurate rants, Helen.

Please give some examples of Helen's inaccurate reporting, "Same Reason." Back your accusation up with facts.

The Star's bloggers are given free reign as far as their opinions. But I have not known Helen to post anything that wasn't accurate. Brian Dennert, Timm Herdt and myself all work very hard on our accuracy, as well.

If I ever make an unintentional mistake, I ask that readers email me and I fix it right away.

Helen does keep it accurate - at least as far as I can tell on the local issues - I'm not so well versed on the national ones. But she is very accurate on the local ones. My only complaint is that she doesn't post more often.

Steve Frank makes a habit out of posting patently false information - which is why he has very few people that support what he says. There is only one or two people using a variety of fake screen names that support him. There are those intrepid souls who correct his record and they use their real name. Why they bother, I don't know.

In fact, I suspect "Same Reason" is the same lonely blogger that supports Steve Frank.

Dear bloggers let's have some actual facts please and open a discussion. That means we (all of us) need to be open to being wrong and willing to acknowledge that reality in responses posted to this blog. If you are not willing to do that please keep your posts to your self. Let's see if we can practice respectful, critical and responsible thinking.

Katie,

The reason Helen doesn't post more is she has a hard enough time getting people to post on the threads she does put up. Why make her blog look even worse? By the way, you could use a credibility bounce as well.

Helen,

Since you started this whole discussion, why don't you provide some examples of where Mr. Frank has misrepresented the facts? You've simply made allegations about him being an extreme right-wing ranter and accused The Star of publishing false information.

Your example about the Phil Schmit incident is not a good one. There is apparently a reasonable difference of opinion here about how the State law applies in this situation. Phil acted in his capacity as Elections Chief for the County in shutting down this voter registration operation. Unless he takes his job lighty, which I know he doesn't, he was confident that what he did was in compliance with current election law. The jury is still out on this one, however, and for you to say Steve Frank was wrong in his assertion is disingenuous of you.

To use your own words:

"Dear bloggers let's have some actual facts please and open a discussion. Let's see if we can practice respectful, critical and responsible thinking."

Mr. Schmit admitted his mistake in the article today.

Easily spotted mistakes: Frank has a headline on his third entry down which is patently false. HBJ has not admitted she is losing the race.

Frank accused HBJ and a local firefighter of breaking campaign laws in an early entry. Again, not true.

He said she had never voted against a budget. Again, not true.

We could go on here...

Same Reason - wasting hard earned taxpayer $$$$ and resources again are ya? You've been like a bee today, flitting from blog to blog. There's a reason why the state budget is so dismal right now.

Tom Johnston is always busting Frank's chops for his delibrate inaccuracies. One of my favorites was how Audra was going to stop the prison single handedly by stopping the funding. Mongo or someone was right there drinking the koolaid.

Frank didn't even get it right on who founded the movement to save the Ventura Cross.

Katie, you're deluding yourself, as usual.

Audra succeeded in drawing enough public attention and opposition to the Camarillo prison hospital that it got bumped down the list. It's now No. 5 out of 7 planned and Kelso recently announced that he's going to build the first 3 and then "reassess" his plan for the others. If you read between the lines a bit, you can conclude the public outcry that Audra helped solidify against the Camarillo facility certainly had an impact in at least delaying what was originally thought to be an inevitability.

So, don't be afraid to give a little credit where it's due even it is to a member of your opposition party.

So, Katie, you think I work for the state? Not sure what you've been smoking, but I got a big laugh from that one. All I can say, in the famous words of Ray Davies of the Kinks is - Paranoia Will Detroy Ya'.

I'd heard somewhere though that you were a forensic analyst or something who works on a contract basis with the Coroner's Office or the Sheriff's Dept. Couldn't one conclude then that when you're blogging away all day long, like you do, that you're doing it on the taxpayers dime? Hmmm...

Maybe I should give Mr. Brooks or Mr. Totten, both of whom I happen to know, a little heads up on this.

I'm sure Brooks would be very suprised to learn I am on his payroll. That's very funny.
I did laundry and vacuuming today too - I'm sure Brooks and Totten won't be happy about that either.

As I have maintained on the prison situation, the reason it went to federal receivership is that our elected officials choose not to address the issue while in office. It didn't just happen.

Katie, I gotta give it to you. You're a good sport and I like your sense of humor.

No hard feelings, huh?

Dear anonymous bloggers,
To have a discussion we first need to all identify ourselves by posting our actual names. Then one can be responsible for their posts.

Helen,

Absolutely not. We've had the same debate over at Dennert's blog and others as well. A lot of folks have very good reasons to not want to reveal their identities on these blogs. That shouldn't matter at all.

These should be free and open forums for discussion, not opportunities for gotcha moments. You should first open the floor for a discussion of the pros and cons of anonymity on blogs before proclaiming that's it the right way to go.

If you establish this as a policy on your blog, I guarantee that you will lose a lot of posters, including me. It looks like you could use a little more traffic, if I can be candid here.

"Same Reason:" How is it that Katie, Helen and I are brave enough to post with our own names and you aren't?

I haven't held back any opinions. The sky has not fallen on me.

Marie, Helen and Katie are women with class. How they continue to respond to Mongo-Gibson is beyond me. I look forward to meeting you three fine ladies on election night.

Well then I don't want to have a discussion with those who refuse to post their names and identities. I am not concerned about traffic to the blog. I am interested in responsible factual posting, but you are not. Point made!

Then you should just stop writing this blog. Because nobody posts on it anyway, except a few of your stubborn lefty cheerleaders.

Heil Helen!

OK, I'll start using my real name in the future. Do you need my birth date, Social Security and driver's license numbers as well? After all, there's still the issue of verification.