NorthCoastOregon.com

On Jun 10, 11:42 AM, Hamilton Bugerking wrote:

Gosh McGee, maybe you’ll be called as an expert witness because of your extraordinary memory. The only question remaining is which side, the plaintiff’s or the defendant’s, are you going to go to bat for?

On Jun 10, 3:16 PM, this is funny wrote:

Talk about a spinster! WOW! He pukes up the vitriol (w/o the “e") and blames anyone with a reply. Hehehe! Nobody call him with an “important job,” puhleeeeze! Its a rainy, boooooring, day and he has obviously already hit the cooking sherry. Lets just sit back and enjoy the ride!

By the by, pray tell us sir since you appear better informed than us all, exactly what was it the sheriff admitted to? Exactly how many people did the sheriff tell? And, please, inform us all how the sheriff obtained his information?

“All of his money off illegal drugs” don’t quite recall the sheriff admitting he said that. Maybe you could refresh us with a direct source of where/when he confessed to saying this (any one wanna play bookie on the odds that no one will be able to source this public admission)?

On Jun 10, 3:55 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Yes, I do thank God for NCO, the humor here just amazes me.

A whole shitload of nobodies with a few known names to target.

Yes indeed, a “Real” media outlet, this place.

Grassroots People?

I could care less whether anybody ever posts there.I post exactly what I wish to post, cut and paste and all.

Anyway, back to Neikes.

If he takes this to court, my guess is it will be one of the biggest mistakes he will ever make and the litigators are going to take publicly work him over big time, I betcha and don’t even begin to guess how the BOCC, certain members, will be somehow brought into this and the Bohnam isuue? Good Lord in heaven!

As I keep saying, this thing is really going to be interesting and I’m not even trying to be a smartass about it. I am really concerned that Neikes might not be making the right decision here.

On Jun 11, 7:18 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

We will see, will we not?

Still, it’s going to be very interesting to se how it plays out.

On Jun 11, 1:13 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

Of course Neikes has a witness, a subcontractor deriving income from doing work for him and honest or not an attorney will have a field day with that witness, no disrespect to Jim, his attorney, the witness.

I agree with you, it should go to trial because it will certainly clear the air around this place once all is done.

On Jun 11, 4:03 PM, free world wrote:

Ditto to the above, as I stated Neikes has a witness, who you have already decided as not important!
Would not want you on any jury!

On Jun 11, 9:35 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Patrick McGee,

Take a chill pill. I am only cautioning you about representing yourself as an authority on the subject matter. You have a habit of presenting yourself as an authority on the subject matter. That can get awfully close to illegal misrepresentation. If you are not careful, it can literally become illegal.

Again, chill out.

Rick Balkins
Building Designer

On Jun 11, 10:08 PM, Patrick McGee wrote:

What the hell are you talking about Balkins?

Once again your obvious lack of comprehension will not allow you to distinguish between a simple common sense observation and some B.S. concoction of some misguided interpretation of what was written actually written.

Read it again Balkins and seriously, take your time in interpreting it and think about. Does it really take a legal authority to figure it out?

On Jun 11, 11:11 PM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Patrick McGee:

I personally just want the facts, period.

Ok. In this case, your first comment isn’t too bad. It is your subsequential responses gets problematic. Ok?

Alright, take a chill pill. Now, it gets distracting and annoying all your squabbles with everyone. I need to see a verifiable facts of evidence of claims.

What I can see of the post is that this is Niekes Defamation Lawsuit claim. If there is evidence of the actual lawsuit to view then I can verify. If there is evidence of Bergin making the exact statements to view, then I want to see those. However, the law may prevent me from seeing those evidence.

From my observation of the original poster, Niekes may have some issues to deal with in court. Court isn’t exactly about justice. Here, I can agree with you.

The saying can go, “Who are you going to believe?”. An officer/sheriff of the law or someone who have been charged and convicted of violating the law. This becomes a character battle which lawyers will LOVE. One or two mild negative issue in otherwise impecable career versus someone who has been convicted of charges for violent behavior.

Now McGee, I would verify facts because the Daily Astorian hasn’t been entirely about holding completely accurate reporting. Including, using specific wordage to try to start cr*p. Loosing their credibility as a responsible and accurate source of news information. They are slowly turning themselves into the community’s “national inquirer” versus the community’s “new york times” or like the Oregonian where article about news is about holding to the facts.

I think your style of writing tends to present yourself as an authority or your opinion is facts. So, be careful. Since what you are saying is only your opinion of your own observation. It would be more respectful and sincere to pre-lead your opinions or observations with statements like: “From my observation...” or “In my opinion...” or even “In my humble opinion...”. Showing humility. If it is just your opinion on something and not utter unadulterated facts, “I maybe wrong but from my observation...” or “I could be wrong but from my understanding,...”. Since your response is clearly going to be an opinion on an issue and you don’t have all the facts or credentials to be privvy of all the information (some such information that the general public is not permitted by law to view to protect the innocent,ect.)

Understood. Try that in the future. Also in the future, try to refrain was wasting time arguing with everyone who disagrees with you. You don’t have to fight the world. Pick your battles.

On Jun 12, 8:40 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Patrick McGee,

Ok then…

Continue to get razzed on - ALL the time. Be what you will.

Be careful about those statements like: such lunacy?
It can also be a description about yourself. 

Since you like to razz on everyone, you must enjoy being razzed on yourself. Enjoy it !!

Now we need ‘sense’.

On Jun 12, 9:40 AM, Rick Balkins wrote:

Patrick,

Alright. Sometimes, keep in check the reaction and pick your battles.

Your response, this time, is reasonable. Even with my own observation, this site would have difficulties being considered a legitimate media source.

With the way the Daily Astorian has been, it would fail my test of proper media source.

To be a proper and legitimate media source, the “news articles” are to be report exactly as is. No, attempting to fabricate or exaggerate the news reporting. However, the part of the newspaper where it is acceptable for the Editor to speak more freely is the “Editor’s Opinion” section and the rest of the folks in the “Letters to the Editor” section. Often is traditional in newspaper sections. On the radio, you would have a time slot where you report the news as it is then a section maybe devoted to Radio announcer’s opinion on the local news matters. Professional journalism/investigative reporting can not get emotional or distort the truths and choose words that states the news accurately. For example, not choosing words with negative connotations when there is nothing negative about it.

The point is, the news articles are suppose to be a clear cut as any meeting minutes. The news is suppose to keep a neutral attitude in the actual news articles and keep a politically independent stance as biases fouls up the news facts very often.

Of course, this is my opinion and the Daily Astorian has on multiple occassions slipped below this standard.

Oh well. This site may fall below the standards, too. Blogs would not qualify as it is only an area of opinion.

Generall the site should have an area for the articles, that does its own investigative reporting to the same standards that I said for the newspaper. Reader responses would only be the same thing as “Letters to Editors” or any such “Public Opinion” areas as is disclaimed by a disclaimer. However, the reporters would have to keep a professional investigative reporting manner that is neutral of any biases - even the biases of the journalist reporter investigating/writing the article. Of course, it is only fair and Constitutional for the Editors or Reporters to have their own area to speak their own personal opinion on the matters.

If this site can do that, ok. The reporting has to be done in a mannerism that can keep the facts straight and independent of opinion or biases of the reporters.

On Jun 12, 11:12 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:

We both have choices Balkins and will exercise them as we wish.

On Jun 12, 12:16 PM, Best Guest wrote:

Two things come to mind.  The Daily A never reported on when Betsy Johnson was being investigated by the FBI.  She represents our district and the story made it into all the other news papers and TV/Radio media, but not the Astorian.  What’s up with that? Just this week NCO ran the this story (Ace vs. Bergin) two days before the Daily A.  They probably took it to the think tank and couldn’t come up with a spin so they ran it as is, or as NCO reported it.  The Astorian isn’t doing anyone (other than its friends) any good by coloring and filtering the news that they put out as fact.  It only serves to keep the population from making good decisions on who they elect and support.

On Jun 12, 2:00 PM, Ben Hur Lamplighter wrote:

On Jun 12, 12:38 PM, Beaverton wrote:

as far as I can tell Mr. Forrester has a pretty small circle of friends, they are in the paper over and over again..

Your comment is very much appreciated and I couldnt agree with you more. With the extensive business growth in the county the past ten-fifteen years, the paper has probably never been in such fine financial health due to the dramatic increase in advertising revenue. And with a new big boxer almost ready to open in Warrenton it’s just gets better and better for them. With the money rolling in it doesnt matter to the editor/publisher what integrity or honest journalism the paper has. It’s vanity press, a smear sheet, tabloid style journalism where truth comes second to axes to grind or favors to pay.

As long as Mr. Safeway, Mr. Fred Meyer, Mr. Costco, Mr. Home Depot and the local auto dealers and real estate shysters are pouring ad money into the Forester coffers, he and his cohorts could give two shits what the people who read the paper think.

On Jun 12, 4:21 PM, Best Guest wrote:

Jon, I think it was in last night’s paper.  This is a real serious thing.  Not only did the sheriff expose the county to a major law suit, but his credibility as a community leader has been flushed down the toilet.  His prejudice may become grounds for future case dismissals.  It reminds me of when Josh called Ann Samuelson a liar in public and suddenly he lost her as a witness in his case against Seely.  A sheriff should know better than to shoot his mouth off and use political blackmail against four commissioners.  He should resign now before his name is ruined past the point of ever having a career again...but there may be an opening for a security guard at Bradwood Landing.

On Jun 12, 9:26 PM, DeeDee wrote:

Jon Dana I do believe you are right on target on both points. SF would have run with this story the first day out. He is being ... cautious ... enough to run it by his attorneys first. And it hasn’t yet appeared in the paper.

It is ... interesting ... that a mere inquiry by a sheriff gets front page above the fold attention, however, when that same sheriff is getting sued the same paper is waiting for ... what?

One would think that the sheriff makes preliminary inquiries on citizen complaints on a daily basis. Kind of ... odd ... that this one is an “investigation”.

It will be very interesting to find out if Bonham went to the Sheriff or if the Sheriff came to Bonham and what made Bonham report this ... non-incident ... to anyone other than his supervisor.

On Jun 13, 5:35 AM, Best Guest wrote:

I stand corrected.  I went through every page an found nothing about that suit, just the other suit from the former Health Department workers.  I guess that SF felt good about printing that one since Scott Derickson isn’t one of his protected species.

On Jun 14, 11:38 AM, Jon Dana wrote:

So it only takes 2 days to get an incomplete, unaccurate, half truth story to print. But it takes 3 days to get information filed in court, to be able to get that in print. I guess it’s faster when you only have to print one side of the story. When it comes to the daily paper it’s very PC, politicaly corrupt bordering on CC with local law enforcement. That being collusion and possible conspiracy. Seems the timing of all the past stories and who they are tageted at is very telling. This is a proud moment in democrat party politics. This should be an example to the rest of the state dems, on how to get things done. Party on!