Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Old Guys Rule
Nan, can I please change my screenname to bitterlovescornedmanhater? It is so me.— June 20, 2010 6:51 a.m.
Members Only
Carolyn Matteo clearly states in her article that she was "invited" to the Board meeting. Was there actually an invitation, or was that another lie? If there was an invitation, who sent it? Was that person authorized to extend the invitation? Watching the (edited) video of the meeting is revealing on this point. No one sitting at the table stands to say, "I invited Matteo." If Matteo is interested in preserving what can laughingly be called her integrity (and I doubt she is interested), she can still come forward and provide that information. Further, even though she came to the meeting uninvited (assuming what is the most likely case), according to Ms. Younger's post, and the account from the police officers, and even her own video, Matteo could have stayed if she turned off her recording equipment. Matteo states in her article that she had "attended with the intention of giving my “Friends” an opportunity to share their side of the story regarding the 24-hour alcohol-ban proposal." We don't know if the alcohol ban proposal was on the Board's agenda that evening, however, Matteo may have been given the opportunity to speak on this matter had she merely stuck to her stated purpose and complied with the Board President's request not to videotape a private function. Surely she did not need the camera to be turned on to speak, or to listen. No one would have stopped her from taking notes. She further had a witness with her who would have verified anything that was said. The video shows that Matteo was aggressive and combative and baiting the Board. She had come to a private function she had not been invited to, and was not welcome. She would not comply with the Board's requests. Without knowing what was edited out of the video, it is apparent that her conduct was so disruptive that police had to be called to have her removed. Again, I personally spoke to the police officer in this matter and he verified what Ms. Younger stated in her post. Given all this, one can not help but come to the conclusion that in fact Matteo's purposes were very different than what she claims. She manufactured that whole confrontation to suit her purposes, and the Board fell for it. Add manipulative to Matteo's list of qualities. Oh yes, indeed, it is no surprise that her supporters here admire her so much.— June 19, 2010 7:40 p.m.
Members Only
You don't know the whole story, nan. But even taking the story as presented here, on it's face, Matteo was deceitful on several counts. Combined with other instances of deceptive, unethical, hostile, vindictive conduct which I have detailed on many threads, it is hardly a matter of differing opinions. Matteo's conduct has clearly violated the Terms of Service. It is beyond severely disappointing that the Reader has done nothing to resolve this situation. But then, that does seem to be their pattern.— June 19, 2010 7:01 p.m.
Members Only
So let's go through this interesting episode. Tell us, Carolyn, if you care to: Michelle Younger clearly documents in her posting that according to their bylaws, people can attend the closed-door Board meetings by invitation only. Who "invited" you to this Board meeting? Care to share that email with us? Did this person have that authority?— June 19, 2010 12:59 p.m.
Members Only
All we need now is a kitty cat!— June 19, 2010 2:18 a.m.
None
Geez, this one's hanging around longer than usual. Maybe they are waiting for AG's post! :))— June 19, 2010 12:58 a.m.
...friday follies...
I am addicted to this soap opera!!!!!!— June 18, 2010 9:48 p.m.
None
Where's AG??????— June 18, 2010 9:45 p.m.
Army sergeant comes back to San Diego from Afghanistan
What made you change your mind about Powell, Visduh?— June 18, 2010 9:44 p.m.
Members Only
Deflecting attention away from reprehensible and outrageous conduct by blaming the victim. Disgusting, if you ask me.— June 18, 2010 9:40 p.m.