- Orange Juice blog
On behalf of the entire Juice Team we wish to express our sincere gratitude to all of our faithful, and newer, readers for our latest milestone. We have now surpassed 75,000 posted comments on our 8,200 plus stories. That achievement could never have been reached without your participation that is truly appreciated.
What sets us apart, and has resulted in our top statewide blog ratings, is that we are not beholden to any special interest or political party. Our posts clearly confirm that statement. We frequently disagree among ourselves which is healthy.
Continuing to be a leader in the Orange County blogosphere, the Orange Juice has now expanded into interactive, on-line call in radio. That program is “on the air” on Wednesday evenings. Yesterdays radio hosts were Juice editor Vern Nelson and long time Juice blogger Sean Mill. As of today, no other blog offers that form of communication to its readers.
In addition, founder Art Pedroza created a new sister blog covering Santa Ana. If you haven’t visited yet check it out. www.newsantaana.com
As always we welcome your comments and are receptive to your suggestions.
Whatever level of success we enjoy today is attributable to each of you.
On behalf of the entire former and current Juice TEAM we say THANK YOU!
“We have now surpassed 75,000 posted comments on our 8,200 plus stories.”……. wrong!
It is actually over 100,000 posted comments out of which Pedroza censured more than 25,000 of my posts. More than Josef Stalin removed from the Pravda and Izvestia in his lifetime.
Hurá bolševism!
Stanley. Do you fail to admit, or bother to mention, that after being warned, than banned, we allowed you back on the blog because you now (almost always) follow our few simple rules. As many of your alleged banned comments were before my time we could have had over 150,000 comments if this was solely about a numbers game
“we allowed you back on the blog”……
Thank you my lord to return my unalienable rights back to me.
Stanley. The decision to allow you to return, based on the 2/3rds requirement for reinstatement, was debated at length by the writers, but you passed.
You are such a humble and inciteful gentlemen, we felt the need to retain your contributions to our labor of love. Without your putting our feet to the test of fire, we would be slackers.
Reiterating Gilbert, you are clueless.
Do you believe that you had that right to make such vote?
If I would have a time and will and took you to the court you would be surprised how little right you had to do so.
However, you can’t always sue every little nature’s misfit and psychopath.
It is more prudent to let them self destruct as the nature sees fit and then there is the purgatory.
OK Stan since you are so dense and stubborn, I will answer the sardonic rhetorical question I tossed at you on the other thread:
NO, the First Amendment does NOT give you the RIGHT (unalienable or otherwise) to comment on a blog, which is another person’s property – in this case Art’s.
Art is not the Government infringing on your Freedom of Speech; neither am I, neither is Larry. Now be happy that this blog DOES have such a LIBERAL and TOLERANT love of freewheeling dialogue, have fun, and don’t be surprised when we occasionally delete any of your comments which we find too gross, insulting, anti-Semitic or racist. Peace out!
Stanley. Get some help
Comrade Vern,
You are restating phrases which you do not fully understand. I know that there is such urban believe among the bloggers, as you stated, and will remain so until challenged in the court of law. The blogging is fairly new social behavior and was not yet fully tested against the constitution.
You have stated: “don’t be surprised when we occasionally delete any of your comments”. To be honest, I am not even surprised when some people routinely drive on the red light even though it is illegal. As I said comrade, it would take the law enforcement to set you straight.
Let me put it to you on three levels to see if I will strike the IQ gene somewhere in that gray mass/mess of yours.
1) The civilized behavior is voluntary and is based on the free will which is governed by the GOLDEN RULE. So if the OJ, as an entity, relies on the First Amendment than such reliance mus be passed on to the others.
i.e. Larry is bitching and moaning about the free speech being taken by the DC but his free will is corrupt by taking it from others like in the OJ. (FYI Larry, the government has a right to suspend constitution same as you can create draconian rules, even more so if you do, so shut-up Larry!!)
2) Any time the entity like corporation or landlord provides open public access to itself the constitution applies. However, if an access is based on membership or fee the constitution may not be applicable. e.i. Homeowners Association, private clubs, SantaAnaCitizens list etc.. The OJ is open to the public and no registration, membership is required. There have been many rulings on the first amendment re private shopping malls and the T shirt signs etc. in favor of the public. Again, the people with the power will always violate constitution because their free will is corrupt by the power, like yours is, and each time it will require a lawsuit to put you straight.
3) Finlay, the first amendment is spiritual issue based on whether or not you believe that the people should have right to speak freely and not only about what you like to hear but mainly about what you do [not] want to hear or print in the OJ. This spiritualism is based on the form of the government we have. The USA is not democracy but the constitutional republic where each citizen is represented in the congress by his elected representative (a proxy) . Therefore we all are the congress as provide by the constitution. So if the first amendment states that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It implies that we the people (the congress by proxy) “you” , “I” and “us” shall make no law or oppressive rules………
This is probably most difficult part of the constitution for you Pedroza and Gilbert to comprehend because you are pro democracy socialists to govern by tyranny of majority rather then by representation of an individualism, free will and spirit.
I do not expect you to understand the above especially if you do not believe that people should have passport and visa before they can enter the USA and believe that such a demand is the racism.
Eventually, some bloger will step on the toe of some anger driven Jew and will get sue. Then the issues of your behavior will get more clear. I will certainly not do that because I do not sue every ant for eating my food or for an assault when I get bitten.
In the meanwhile comrade Vern keep running the red light, use your corrupt free will by the power until your fascistic behavior sparks some serious social upheaval.
The freedom is largely an issue of the evolution and civility so obviously you, Pedroza and Gilbert are not there yet and probably never will in your lifetimes.
Stanley.
As somone who sent many Letters to the Editor of the Register why weren’t all of them published? I did not include any offensive language or engage in any personal attacks!
You, my friend, do not have any constitutional right to demand our publishing any of your driblovat.
I like it Stan
Wow! Having read many of the foul, racist, just plain stupid comments from Fiala that DID appear on the OJ in the past, my head reels when I contemplate what those that were blocked might have contained! My opinion – the Orange Juice blog is much better off without any of his rants… let him vent his spleen somewhere else. He tried that on my blog back a ways. You’ll never see his byline on it again.
On a happier note, congrats to all of you at the Orange Juice blog on this milestone. I’ve listened to the radio presentation both times – once you figure out the “sound” issues it’s probably going to be a valuable forum. Keep up the good work.
Thank you potstirrer.
While I missed the radio Juice I am told that the bugs will be dealt with.
Actually the bugs we need to focus on first are incumbents who need to be removed from office. Note: This response is not a promo for Raid.
Dearest Larry,
Did you intend a pun regarding Stanley when you used “inciteful” dictionary meaning incite –verb , -cit·ed, -cit·ing.to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action: to incite a crowd which implies he is a rabble-rouser stirring up the public. The other alternative is he is in fact an insightful- dictionary meaning insight
1. the ability to perceive clearly or deeply; penetration
2. a penetrating and often sudden understanding, as of a complex situation or problem
3. psychological
a. the capacity for understanding one’s own or another’s mental processes
b. the immediate understanding of the significance of an event or action
There is a chasm between the two meanings of incite and insight, although they are homonyms.
GG Voter.
Thank you for your words of wisdom.
While Stanley attacked me early on, I have no problem so long as he challenges me without going off the reservation.