Shady financial dealings mar the "Run, Ed, Run" campaign

Behind the cute campaign posters lurk some shady characters with a financial self-interest in keeping Mayor Ed Lee in office.

Not only do the groups behind the campaign urging Mayor Ed Lee to run for mayor get lucrative city contracts, sometimes with Lee's help, but at least one of the companies has also made direct payouts to Chinatown power broker Rose Pak, who arranged to place Lee in the Mayor's Office and has been coordinating the campaign to keep him there.

This latest revelation, from documents uncovered by the Guardian, comes as other local media outlets have been exposing the financial self-interest that Pak, former Mayor Willie Brown, and their allies have in urging Lee to break his word and run for a full mayoral term, including a devastating front page article in today's Chronicle.

Reporter John Cote writes that Progress for All, the group behind the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign, “has been bankrolled almost entirely by a small group of politically connected individuals, some of whom have received millions of dollars in city contracts in recent years.” Among them is Robert Chiang, owner of Chiang CM Construction, which has received millions of dollars in city contracts despite lawsuits and rulings by regulators alleging that the company violated a variety of wage laws.

Chiang CM has also paid Pak personally at least $10,000, according to her tax return form that she filed with the city back in 2002 when she bought a Rincon Hill condominium for half-price through a city affordable housing program. The tax form listed that payment under “miscellaneous income,” along with $12,000 from Emerald Fund, the politically connected developer of the project, “an apparent violation of regulations governing the distribution of the discount housing,” according to an Examiner article at the time (“Affordable-housing flap,” 2/24/03). But the Brown Administration, which approved Pak's purchase of the condo, refused to take any action against Pak, a close ally of both Brown and Lee.

We reached Pak on her cell phone to discuss her financial ties to Chiang CM and what they paid her for, and after we explained our findings three times, she said, “I don't remember,” and hung up the phone. When we called the company for comment, we were told “nobody is available to speak on that right now.”

More recently, the Examiner has reported on the millions of dollars in city contracts that Lee has helped steer to other key Progress for All leaders, including the Chinatown Community Development Center, whose executive director, Gordon Chin, also leads Progress for All. In addition to its city contracts, documents obtained by the Guardian also show that on Dec. 10, 2010, CCDC entered into a contract with Central Subway Partners – which is building the Central Subway project long pushed by Pak and Lee, but criticized as an overly expensive boondoggle by many transit activists – to be paid up to $810,000 for unspecified services that “will be issued on an Annual Task Order basis.” Chin hasn't yet returned a Guardian call for comment.

The Chronicle also broke the story about Pak urging Recology – which just last month was awarded a lucrative city contract (with Lee's support) giving it a monopoly over all aspects of waste management in the city – to improperly have its employees work for the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign. And the Bay Citizen has also exposed the financial self-interest of Progress for All backers, which Judge Quentin Kopp and local Democratic Party chair Aaron Peskin have separately called for prosecutors and regulators to investigate.

“Unlike all other candidates who must abide by the strict $500 contribution limit and source restriction (no corporate, union or City contractor money), Progress for All has been able to raise unlimited amounts from any source, making it easy to amass large sums of money for its efforts,” Peskin wrote in a July 28 letter to Ethics Commission director John St. Croix, requesting an investigation. The Ethics Commission is scheduled to discuss Progress for All at its Aug. 8 meeting.

Despite her considerable power and influence – including arranging regular trips to China for public officials, including Lee and Board President David Chiu – Pak's 1999 tax return indicated she had an adjusted gross income of just $31,084. On her application, Pak reported a $60,000 income in 2002 as a “self employed consultant,” yet a whopping $73,414 in her checking account.

Although Maggie LaRue, the inclusionary program manager, wrote Pak a letter on June 17, 2002 challenging the “inadequate documentation” of her income in the application, the Mayor's Office ultimately approved her purchase of a swanky two-bedroom apartment at 400 Beale Street for just $300,000, although it was valued at $580,000.

Although Pak seems to have fairly steady income from the vague consulting work that she does, a request for information from the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector indicates that she doesn't have a business license and hasn't paid any local taxes, even though city laws require a license from any “entity engaging or about to engage in business for seven or more days a year in San Francisco.”

Lee's office has consistently denied knowledge of or connections to the Progress for All campaign, although the Chronicle has reported that Lee does plan to get into the mayor's race, probably next week. The deadline to file for a run is Aug. 12.


people who fund politicians often do so because they think it will promote their interests?

I rather thought that was the ONLY reason anyone supports a candidate?

Even the SFBG admit that Progress For All has no link with Lee.

So the only real story here seems to be that those who think Lee as Mayor will be good for their business give their support to Lee. Hmm, what else would you expect?

Tomorrow I expect your shock scoop story that the Unions will be supporting Avalos.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 3:44 pm

We've never said Lee has no connection to Progress for All. Quite the contrary, he is in regular communication with Pak and other leaders of this effort, so we think he will have lots of explaining to do if he decides to run. And this isn't just businesses supporting a pro-business mayor, this whole ugly situation smacks of serious political corruption.


Posted by steven on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 3:59 pm

that Ed Lee has had any influence in the activities of Progress for All?

You may suspect that. But where's your hard proof?

Posted by Harry on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 5:34 pm

He has told us and others that he speaks with Pak on a regular basis, that they're friends, and that she has actively lobbies him to run for mayor. Now, that may not rise to illegally influencing Progress for All, but it's not credible to suggest that he has no connection to it at all.

Posted by steven on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 9:42 am

What do these crooks expect to gain from his hoped for position as Mayor?
Opportunities to continue to defraud and swindle the taxpayers of San Francisco as described in the above article.

"Progress For All" is simply the Ed Lee For Mayor campaign.
If Lee had a problem with it, he would have put a stop to it.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 4:16 pm

On top of that Chinese get to be 10% below city contract bids because they are a minority? WHAT?

Posted by KC on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

"Progress for All" has reminded everyone that our local moderate sect can be as stupid and dysfunctional as our local progressive sect.

If Ed Lee does decide to run for mayor, he will have to start out by scraping off any grubby hand-prints he might have on his clothes from "Progress for All." Not a good way to start a mayoral campaign.

My own hope, as expressed before, is that Lee decides not to run. The remaining months of this year will then continue with an era of good feeling, where politicians down at City Hall act like adults.

But the likelihood is that he will run, after all. The era of good feeling will be over. It will be politics as usual. All the politicians, across the spectrum, will again start acting like children.

Who needs any of this?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 4:36 pm

This is what happens when "caretaker" becomes "candidate." Everything about the guy is going to get scrutinized. He should just fulfill his original intention and stay out of the race.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 4:47 pm

He's now seen our problems from the inside, has a good feeling that he can solve our problems, and a lot of centrist and moderate voices are telling him we need his calm, dispassionate style rather than the ideological dogma and histrionics of so many of the so-called "Progressives".

The important thing is not so much what a particular person might have said 7 months ago but who is the right guy to be in charge going forward? And that could well be the guy in charge.

As a voter, I'd like to have more choice. And anyone who is scared of giving me more choice is doing me a un-democratic disservice.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

"He's now seen our problems from the inside"? Come on. He has been working for city government for decades -- his last post being city administrator. He has been out touting the benefits of, and his membership in, the "city family." His pension reform deal was inside baseball that sold out taxpayers.

Your "more choice" argument is a red herring. Would you be happy if Chris Daly joined the race because it gave you more choice? No. How about if Sarah Palin moved here and decided she wanted to run for mayor -- would you be happy about it because it bolstered democracy?

I don't want some candidate spouting histrionics either, but Lee is the classic insider.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 7:48 pm

Or anyone else. There were 140 candidates on the ballot for State Governor when Arnie won. Ask me if I thought that was too many?

I wish people here were honest and admit that they don't want Lee to run because he will probably win.

If you don't like Lee, then vote for someone else. But don't try and deprive me of my right to vote for him.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 5:59 am

That's how Arnold won. The easiest way to fix an election is to put votes to an oddball candidate in outer districts.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 6:33 am

I've heard that's how elections work.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 7:27 am

do you still consider Ed Lee someone who is finally seeing the problems from the inside? That was the gist of your post.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 10:38 am

and a much wider circle of advisors than before. As such, it's reasonable to assume that he knows a lot more about the City and it's problems than a year ago.

If such experiences have made him realize that he can make a longer-term success of his interim position as Mayor, then it's not clear to me why there are some who would want to deny the people the opportunity to agree or disagree with that idea at the ballot box.

Nothing about Lee running prevents you from voting for someone else, so nobody loses by him running..

Posted by Harry on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 10:51 am

I think the whole slate, with or without Lee, is weak. But I think what he's doing is a shitty thing to do. I realize people will vote for whom they want to vote for, but lots of people don't pay attention to elections until well after Labor Day. And there will be many people who just see that his job title is incumbent Mayor on the ballot and pick him.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 12:58 pm

restrict the ability of SF voters to have the widest possible choice of candidate.

That would be other posters here who, no doubt, want to try and manipulate the result by restricting the options.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 1:37 pm


Lee is the ultimate career bureaucrat/insider. His entire perspective of the City taxpayer is as ATM machine -see sales tax, pothole tax and phony union-sponsored person reform on the ballot. "Centrists" are not calling for a guy who loves big employee pay raises (see police and fire) and can't pile enough tax increases on the November ballot.

No one is saying he is not entitled to change his mind and run. We are saying he is a weasel.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 04, 2011 @ 10:13 pm

"As a voter, I'd like to have more choice. And anyone who is scared of giving me more choice is doing me a un-democratic disservice."

It seems to me you're doing the "un-democratic disservice" to yourself by ruling-out and dismissing progressives who would give you the "more choices" you claim you'd like. You're very transparent, Harry, especially with the words "centrist" and "moderate" you toss around. At least in this City, that usually means right-wing.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 1:46 am

when Eric Mar said that the happy meal law would give people more choices?

Do things fall up in your world?

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 3:13 am

election day if these "progressives" you keep talking about succeed in removing a candidate from the ballot?

Regardless of labels, why do you fear more choice? If the people don't like Lee, they'll elect somebody else. Problem?

Posted by Harry on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

Gerry Shih over at Bay Citizen reports another solid piece of this puzzle, showing how taxpayer money is being used to create a political machine that is backing Lee:


Posted by steven on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 10:01 am

I've seen Rose Pak in the past pack meetings of the board of supes. She would bring in scores of people, mostly older, often looking docile and confused, and orchestrate their behavior at the meetings.

My impression all along is that she was marshaling them from some housing complex or community-based organization. She was loud and intimidating in manner. Her troops did what they were told, on cue. She was not the sort of person any of them would want to antagonize.

Rose Pak is probably using the same tactics to bolster "Progress for All." I doubt that Mayor Ed Lee had any personal involvement in these particular shenanigans. However, he surely must know about Rose Pak's pattern of using this sort of tactic.

This is but one example of how the city's nonprofit political complex manipulates City Hall. There are many others.

It's time for the board of supes to hold public hearings on nonprofits, their political activity, their finances, and their general behavior.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 10:34 am

Would the proposed hearing on nonprofits include such nonprofits as the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce or CPMC, or the Botanical Garden, or are you thinking only of nonprofits involved in services to low income residents?

Posted by CitiReport on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 11:03 am

political operations financed by us the tax payers.

Try this on for size.

On the national level because its more obvious.

Tax dollars going to goofy right wing religious operation that started to get money under Bush 2 is bad in some sectors. While the tax payer funding of acorn and other such political machines is seen to be bad in some sectors.

The same people who loath acorn do like Jesus getting tax money to inform girls on not getting an abortion, while the other side gets worked up over Jesus getting money but howl when Acorn doesn't.

Do you fall into either of those camps?

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 11:55 am
Posted by Harry on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 12:46 pm

But I post from half a dozen computers so I have to enter my name every time I post, or what I put in the guest area is still there from the last time, thus meatlock on this computer.

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 1:23 pm

Sometimes I don't

But I always use some variant of "Snapples." Right now I am feeling the power of sisterhood, so after a friend called me "a right on sister" I used that for my name here.

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 2:01 pm

Directly or indirectly? Steve Falk claims they do not and I have my doubts...



Posted by Guest on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 1:02 pm

According to the SF Controller web page on city contracts, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce will receive $71,640 in taxpayer funds this year.

Posted by CitiReport on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

So the chamber should stop taking city money too.

I'm fine with that, if the poverty pimps do the same we all win.

Posted by meatlock on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 2:04 pm

According to the SF Controller web page on city contracts, the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce will be paid $71,640 in city funds this year.

Posted by CitiReport on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 1:29 pm

You'll note in the comment section of this Bay Citizen article- Steve Falk claimed: "We receive no funding from the City."

It's clear the Chamber does have a business relationship with the City and of course, this is a conflict when evaluating ballot measures authored by those from which the Chamber receives funds. (Maybe Falk is trying to comment on a distinction without a difference - some form of grant versus doing business with the City.) Regardless, the Chamber is no objective evaluator of rival pension measures. I doubt they have a contract with the Public Defender's office.

I thought it was suspicious that the Chamber is often touting the City Family line -now we know why.

Please consider this writing on this topic of our less than transparent Chamber...



Posted by Guest on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 2:25 pm

The ONLY reason Ed Lee was APPOINTED

Posted by Guest on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 11:46 am

The ONLY reason Ed Lee was APPOINTED interim mayor by the board of supes is because he PROMISED to be a caretaker ONLY.

Why is he running?

Posted by KC on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 11:47 am

All that matters here and now is whether the voters' choice should be artifically restricted on a technicality or whether it should not.

If you don't like Lee, then you're free to not vote for him. But why seek to prevent me for voting for the guy I like?

Posted by Harry on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 1:39 pm

Has he said that he is running?

Posted by Patrick Brown on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 1:48 pm

I never really expected to hear Alioto-Pier offer a cogent explanation on why Lee was asked for a commitment not to run, but she did exactly that at the POA forum.

She noted that last January they were all aware that a major proposal for pension reform would be needed this year, as well as some tough decisions on resetting the city’s budget. She said that she and others feared that if an interim mayor decided to run for a full term, those important issues would be caught up in a mayor’s election and that it could even, in some circumstances, endanger passage of needed reforms because they would become surrogates for an interim mayor’s election.

It is now clear that Lee did substantially trim back the pension reform he said was needed, offering a resolution that is fully less than half what he said the city needed. Was he responding to what it would do to his prospects politically, or to the prospects of the measure itself? He spoke of the unity of the city family, but then gave veto power to the POA over who would be allowed in the room -- including a member of the city’s “official family.”

Lee, according to one press report, went to Chiu to ask that he step aside from being the lead sponsor on a street repair bond measure because Lee said he feared it would be caught up in mayoral politics.

But if that was true on a street bond measure, how much truer would it be for such a high profile issue as pension reform?

If what Alioto-Pier suggests really did affect the thinking of supervisors who selected Lee, then they have every right to view Lee as breaking not only a promise, but breaking faith with a commitment to keep important issues free of mayoral politics out of ambition -- either his own, or the ambition of his backers.

Worth giving some consideration.

Posted by CitiReport on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 3:18 pm

I never thought of that. No wonder the "city family" pension reform deal sold out the taxpayers.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

A great round of links of real journalists doing the work. The Guardian fired all their reporters and do nothing but write editorials and smoke pot, so time to turn off the lights, the Guardian is finito. Hey maybe you guys could work at Bay Citizen since you're all in tight with Hellman?

Posted by linker linker on the blinker on Aug. 05, 2011 @ 3:59 pm

CitiReport, you say:

“she [Michela Alioto-Pier] and others feared that if an interim mayor decided to run for a full term, those important issues would be caught up in a mayor’s election.”

Those important issues will become part of the mayor’s election regardless of who does or does not run for mayor. And they should be. These are issues on which all the mayoral candidates should take a public stand.

You say:

“It is now clear that Lee did substantially trim back the pension reform he said was needed … Was he responding to what it would do to his prospects politically, or to the prospects of the measure itself?”

Ed Lee’s pension proposal is inferior to Jeff Adachi’s. But you needn’t look for base motives on Lee’s part to explain the difference.

Lee is a pragmatist who wanted to come up with a measure that had the widest possible support among stakeholders. In this case, that meant reaching an accommodation with the unions.

That was a mistake on Lee’s part. The unions are part of the problem. Nonetheless, you don’t have to smear him with base motives to understand his rationale.

You are always quick to impute base motives to anyone who disagrees with any of your dogmas. This trait is your calling card in SF politics, the thing for which you are most known and for which you will be remembered. There are more principled ways of engaging in political debate.

You say:

“they [the supes] have every right to view Lee as breaking not only a promise, but breaking faith with a commitment to keep important issues free of mayoral politics out of ambition.”

The supes are correct that Lee will break his promise if he decides to run for mayor. I, myself, believe he should not do so.

However, it’s a stretch to impute base motives to Lee all along.

There’s nothing progressive about Phariseeism. And it's often counterproductive, too.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 9:35 am

According to Matier & Ross in the Chron (Sat.), Ed Lee will announce his mayoral candidacy on Monday (link below). They also say that Lee will not use any public money for his bid. Most of his leading opponents are up to their necks in public money.

Ed Lee would do well to distance himself from Rose Pak and Willie Brown, just as John Avalos has kept Chris Daly under wraps.

Rose Pak is Chris Daly in drag. Both are insufferable bullies.

Willie Brown was noted as mayor for his cronyism, imperial manner, and ineptitude as a manager.

Lee should lock Rose Pak and Chris Daly up with Chris Daly in a small room and let them tear each other apart. What joy would come to the entire city!

Lee will likely win the election by a sweep. His opponents, especially our local progressive sect, are already repeating all their old mistakes.

They will launch personal attacks on Lee and any of his supporters while failing to come up with a positive view of their own for city governance. You already see that pattern here. "CitiReport" is a recent example.

Click here:

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 6:30 pm

Hmm. You seem pretty smug Arthur. And seem to be announcing the winner of the mayor's race already. Wonder why...

Oh Yeah...

Was Ed Lee by any chance involved in the decision of Willie Brown's Art Commission to give you thousands of dollars to reformat your poorly written draft college thesis, and publish it as a book?

In return for your publicly pumping up Brown, and Brown machine candidates, I assume?

Just askin'...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 7:26 pm

"Was Ed Lee by any chance involved in the decision of Willie Brown's Art Commission to give you thousands of dollars to reformat your poorly written draft college thesis, and publish it as a book?"

- Eric Brooks

Your comment above is a beautiful example of the point I made earlier.

Attacks on others' motives and character will not hinder the mayoral candidacy of Ed Lee. Just as the same tactic in 2003 did not hinder the mayoral candidacy of Gavin Newsom. Some sects never learn.

By the way, I haven't decided yet on whom to support as mayor. I'm not enthusiastic about any of the candidates.

Again by the way, the grant I received from the Arts Commission in 1996 was for my book "Critique of Patriarchal Reason." An independent jury of writers and artists made the decision about grants.

The only politician who knew about my proposal was Tom Ammiano, who spoke favorably of it. The only politician who has publicly commented on my book since then was Jeff Adachi, who likewise praised it.

As to the book's merits, I recommend that people actually read it before judging it - contrary to the practice of Eric Brooks.

As mentioned, the book is "Critique of Patriarchal Reason." It's a comprehensive overview of Western philosophy from classical antiquity to the present, showing how gender biases have influenced formal logic, higher mathematics, the scientific method, and philosophical inquiry, to the detriment of women and gay people.

The late Paul Oskar Kristeller said of my book:

"I have read your book with great attention, interest and pleasure. It is in fact a completely revised history of logic from classical antiquity to the present, and I fully agree with you on every detail. The book is a major contribution to the study of philosophy and its history on which I cordially congratulate you."

My guess is that Eric Brooks never heard of Paul Oskar Kristeller, just as he never read my book.

In his youth, Paul Oskar Kristeller studied with Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger in Germany. No doubt, Eric Brooks never heard of these either.

After the Nazis came to power in Germany, Kristeller fled to the U.S. His parents were murdered in the Holocaust.

In the U.S., Kristeller ended up at Columbia University. There be came the world's leading authority on Renaissance humanist philosophy. He died at age 94 in 1999.

Enjoy your paranoia and tunnel vision, Eric. And good luck winning elections while walking on these stilts.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

Actually Arthur, I did read through as much of your book as I could stomach.

It is definitely, very, poorly written, as anyone can see from reading its excerpts at the link I re-post below.

Here is what I wrote to a similar rebuttal you posted 6 months ago...

Foot-In-Mouth Note - How The SF Grant Game Really Works

Arthur, everyone who knows anything, about what it takes to get City grants in San Francisco, knows full well that the benign picture you have just limply attempted to portray of how you got that grant is total bs. The City grant funding process in this town is totally corrupt and has everything to do with sucking up to the mayor's office and other powerful players in City Hall.

One glance at the sample chapter of your book on the web site that I posted shows both why you needed the grant, and why no -unbiased- jury would have awarded it to you; the book is terrible. I've rarely seen such typical, tedious pedantic western philosopher-speak in my life. (A little surprising actually given your pretty sharp and admittedly effective writing style on these blogs.)

My guess is that much of its text was originally a masters or PhD thesis that you wrote, but didn't present, and later decided to publish as a book.

But since it was so poorly written (apparently because it was done for a thesis panel) no self respecting publisher would take it, and that forced you to turn to your pal Willie to give you a 7 thousand dollar freebie.

The key, is who is on the jury, and how they got there...

Well this jury of one pronounces you guilty of attacking progressives in the press and on blogs, in order to ingratiate yourself to Downtown manipulist mayors so that they will put money in your pocket.

And the proof is foolishly open for everyone to see at

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 8:33 pm

That's some very interesting information that you've unearthed, Eric, and it would explain quite a bit. I've always suspected Arthur's relentless criticism of the Guardian and progressives was more than just a personal obsession.

Posted by steven on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 10:04 pm


My assessment is that the true job of trolling shills like Arthur, is to make these blogs so profoundly irritating to read that few will participate, making serious dialogue, readership, and exchange of progressive ideas, go -way- down.

It is not censorship to put a stop to that kind of insidious crap.

Y'all should do so.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

Question for Eric Brooks:

Whatever happened to the topic of this thread?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 9:11 pm

"Since I was one of this loon's instructors at Columbia, I have to take partial responsibility for his mediocre efforts as a writer and failed philosopher. It is in my best interest to write something nice about this exercise in mind numbing pedantry, or else I will be criticizing this unfortunate product of my own teachings here at Columbia, and, by extension, myself.
I only hope he will find some figure of philosophical note other than myself for the adornment of the book jacket of this navel gazing abomination, and that Evans will resist the urge to drag my good name through his own literary hog slop for decades after my death, at even the slightest mention of his credibility."

Posted by Harry on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 9:21 pm

If everyone (literally) were to stop responding to anything (literally) that Vagabond & Ayatollah Arthur Evans writes on this message forum, he would have no one to argue with but his own exceedingly smug and self-righteous being.

Rational people seem to strongly dislike Evans. Or perhaps others are as dysfunctional as Evans and enjoy the taunts and argument sessions with Evans.

Fortunately, most of the time the Bay Guardian staff have the maturity to ignore Evans despite his continual taunts of them, like an out-of-control, nagging child pulling on the parent's clothing.

Evans is an embarrassment to this forum, and anyone who engages Evans is enabling and taunting an insane person. Does that seem like civil and sensible behavior for intellectual and intelligent people of reason?

Let's be reasonable.

Posted by Artor Evons on Aug. 06, 2011 @ 9:22 pm