http://disqus.com/people/59375edb93244f4a73646c51bd3b0e4b/enThu, 17 Jul 2008 00:30:52 -0000http://districtweekly.disqus.com/i_have_many_friends_the_district_weekly/#comment-1387114Will Swaim - Why the constant smart ass responses to every post. 'Then maybe there is my attorney that thinks you and yours libel people on a regular basis lately.' 'Then maybe she should contract with Chris Pook's lawyer to make you crawl back into your hole.' Seems to me that is just what you did when he threatened you with libel. Of course you remember him. He is the guy that helps to bring millions of dollars into the city each year. Oh, but Im sure the DW competes with that too, right? In short time, you and yours will be "Collateral damage..."BillWed, 16 Jul 2008 23:07:02 -0000http://districtweekly.disqus.com/suja_lowenthal_and_the_art_and_science_of_politics_the_district_weekly/#comment-1387809LIBEL, LIBEL, LIBEL. I can't wait to see you guys stuff your little pee-pees between your legs and run like hellBillWed, 16 Jul 2008 23:10:11 -0000http://districtweekly.disqus.com/suja_lowenthal_and_the_art_and_science_of_politics_the_district_weekly/#comment-1387817Im not talking about Suja. The District has gone out of its way to throw people not related to the marriage under the bus, and try to somehow connect them to some kind of conflict of interest and infidelity. The DW has also, by naming the leader of an organization, impugned the reputation of that organization and all of it's members. I will gladly watch with pleasure, when that organization defends it's reputation and it's leader. This is a ridiculous fishing trip. The fact that the DW would even consider any of this newsworthy only serves to solidify the fact that their journalistic standards are not as important to them as creating a buzz about a topic. It makes no difference to me what the Council woman says about her marriage dissolving. The fact is, this is a private matter, and by the DW's own reporting, no laws or statutes have been broken, yet, the DW continues to try and discredit people not related to the marriage. The DW is walking a very slippery slope, and in my opinion, when presented with the facts, a reasonable person will agree that the only intent of the DW was to try and tear apart the reputation of a person in this City. I suggest that the intent of the DW was to try and create something out of nothing, so as to create interest in their publication. Maybe that has worked to an extent, but not in the way I believe they intended. Divorce is a private matter between two people. Regardless of their place in society, it should be dealt with privately and with a certain amount of discretion. How would any of you like to have your personal life splashed across the front page in tomorrow's paper? It does not matter that she is an elected official, her private life is hers and hers alone. There were two people in this marriage and I find it strange that the DW has not reported the other side of the story... to be fair. But I guess that would not sell as many ads as this side of the story.BillThu, 17 Jul 2008 00:30:52 -0000