<
>
In His Own Words – Walter Shwe Exposes and Brings Down Al’s Corner Hypocrisy
Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.
Comments
43 responses to “In His Own Words – Walter Shwe Exposes and Brings Down Al’s Corner Hypocrisy”
-
This strikes me as a continuation (or “addendum”) to Al’s Corner.
“He also proved that Mr. Miller was a horse.”
Pretty sure I saw him dressed as another type of equine – or at least a portion thereof (outside of a Vanguard event). -
From article:
“Without the the names, my comments had little value.”
Right – they’d have so much more value, with the names included. -
RO: “Pretty sure I saw him dressed as another type of equine – or at least a portion thereof (outside of a Vanguard event).”
Yes, I showed up as a horse’s ass. -
Shwe,
“… my comments had little value.”
Truer words were never written. -
Gee, KO, I think you left a few words out that changed the intended meaning.
🙂 -
The Vanguard is (still) not posting some comments, which is also the reason that Al’s Corner was created. Below is the latest one (though I’ll only use the “initials” for last names here – other than for the person who actually made the comment):
Ron O July 17, 2023 at 12:30 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Richard McCann: First, I don’t see any real relationship between what’s happening far away in San Francisco in a very different setting and in Davis. Not sure why you spend so much time on a situation that none of us see as relevant.
My response: David is the one who posted a photo of a fake proposal in San Francisco, apparently as a “scare tactic” for Davis. And yet, you focus on MY comment.
What does that tell readers about YOU, and YOUR motivation?
Richard McCann: Second, I find it ironic that accuse David of bias because he’s carrying an ad while you object to the us pointing out the fact that you don’t live in Davis and have unstated motivations for meddling in Davis issues. Suspicion goes both ways.
My response: Where did I say that I “object to” the ad? Did you even read the comment?
Here it is, again:
Oh, and while you’re at it, ask yourself why the Palomino Ranch developer continues advertising on this blog, since he’s already announced that he’s pursuing the “builder’s remedy”, himself. Why would he need to continue advertising on here, if the builder’s remedy is available (and feasible) for that site?
Also, I’ve never stated where I live.
But again, are you “suspicious” of Don S, Don G, Matt W, Professor Chris E (and others), who have freely noted that they don’t live in Davis? And if not, why not?
I’ll tell you “why”. The reason is because you think you’re scoring some kind of political point with this repeated nonsense, in regard to “me” alone. What you’re repeatedly attempting to do is a reflection of you and your motivation, not mine.
Why “anyone” would listen to you is beyond me. -
Here’s one more that the Vanguard wouldn’t post:
Ron O July 17, 2023 at 12:17 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Richard McCann: What is happening in Davis is independent of what’s going on in the Bay Area. Our housing demand isn’t being driven by those tech companies.
My response: I know someone (personally) who has a tech job in Palo Alto, but is a full-time telecommuter who chose to live in Davis. Nice guy, actually.
I also know of a YIMBY university professor, who (ironically) “chooses” to live in a more-expensive locale than Davis (San Francisco), and “commutes” to UCD. This is a guy who is essentially using his position at UCD to advocate against the community that he chose not to live in, while living in a more-expensive locale. How does that make any “sense”?
Richard McCann: It’s really being driven by UCD demand and pushing those employees and affiliated organizations such as the seed companies out of town.
My response: Are you suggesting that “seed companies” (e.g., those requiring large plots of land) are going to move from locales outside of (any) city limit, to a locale within a city limit? That makes no sense.
Richard McCann: They want to live here, not commute in.
My response: As you just noted, the “seed company” jobs are already outside of Davis – so why are you claiming that they are commuting “to” Davis?
Do you even think about what you claim, before chiming-in?
And how would you know where they want to be? -
Another comment that the Vanguard won’t post:
Ron O July 17, 2023 at 9:05 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Walter Shwe: Stating the absolute truth is neither a personal attack nor bullying except in your own highly biased mind.
My response: O.K. – the “absolute truth” is that you’re tied to an address [implied location removed]. Some sources state that you still live there, while other sources show it as a former address.
And yet, you don’t like it when I point out this “fact”.
Walter Shwe: If that was actually the case, the entire Internet would be comprised of personal attacks and bullying.
My response: It is.
Walter Shwe: Stating the city where one lives or doesn’t reside does not in any way constitute a personal attack, bullying or doxxing unless the specific neighborhood or street address is cited. The population of Woodland is 61,398 (2021). You are just one individual in a sea of people.
My response: I’ve never stated where I live, nor will I ever do so on this blog. Nor will I discuss any other connection I have to Davis. Frankly, it’s none of your business, nor is it my business that you have ties to a [implied location removed]. Which I don’t bring up, until someone like you or Richard attempts to engage in doxxing.
Walter Shwe: The city of residence is definitely relevant when the subject directly involves Davis issues. People can tell based upon some of your comments that you don’t currently live in Davis.
My response: Not from “my” comments, they don’t.
And if Richard (or you) were actually concerned about where commenters live on here, there’d be similar concerns regarding Don S, Don G, Matt W, Chris E, and others. Possibly even YOU, though I’ll take your word for it that some of the information on the Internet about you is not up-to-date.
The fact that there’s “selective concern” should tell you all you need to know, for anyone who isn’t purposefully dense.
Walter Shew: It’s not hard to determine that fact.
My response: You’re free to look up whatever you want, but it’s not a topic of discussion for me on here.
Walter Shwe: Regarding people that no longer wish to comment on this site, it’s simply their choice, not mine. If you regard this comment as anything resembling a personal attack, you unquestionably and with gusto personally attack other people such as Richard, David and myself.
My response: What do people “no longer commenting on this site” have to do with any comment I’ve made?
Also, name one attack I’ve made against any of you, though I did imply that you’re “gullible” regarding your support for YIMBYs. And that you’re being “purposefully dense” regarding Richard’s “selective concern” – which you repeat like a parrot. -
I don’t know how to put this any more-clearly, folks – but I don’t see how anyone can support the Vanguard or Redwood Barn, given how they treat commenters on the Vanguard whom they don’t like.
This isn’t a matter of political views – it’s a matter of personal integrity and respect for others.
I specifically suggested (many times at this point) that they cease with comments clearly-intended to bully (from Richard McCann, and now also Walter Shwe) – but they’ve repeatedly declined to do so. And much of the time, refuse to post my response, as well.
“How” Richard McCann is allowed to remain on any city commission is a mystery to me. Does he act like this on the commission, as well? Does he act that way at his business?
At this point, I feel a greater level of disgust toward Don Shor, David Greenwald, Richard McCann and Walter Shwe than I do regarding continued sprawl. These folks aren’t interested in honest debate, they’re interested in “scorched earth”.
This isn’t a way to generate support for the publication, or its views. This is simply a way to declare war on perceived “enemies”. This isn’t the way to “win” anything – it’s simply a way to create animosity – and an even greater determination to see them “lose”.
Again, I sincerely hope that no one supports the Vanguard, or anyone associated with it. -
“Again, I sincerely hope that no one supports the Vanguard, or anyone associated with it.”
Then riddle me this Ron. Why do you continue to frequently comment on a site that you hold in such low regard and utter contempt? The answer is that you love attacking and denigrating YIMBYs, then turning immediately around and playing the victim. That’s a classic attacker strategy. Ron can’t do that here because there are very few proud YIMBYs besides myself that he actually can attack.
As for Keith, why does he comment on the Vanguard at all if he actually doesn’t care about the Vanguard’s opinions? The answer is that deep down he really cares what the Vanguard says.
I won’t say what I really think about Ron here because Alan ‘Derogatory Language’ Miller will just censor me to his heart’s content just because I am not among the chosen few. -
” . . . just because I am not among the chosen few.”
You have it all backwards, WS. Not only are you among the Chosen Few, you are actually the Chosen One. -
” Not only are you among the Chosen Few, you are actually the Chosen One.”
You have that right, but I won’t say what the “Few” or the “One” represents. -
Then riddle me this Ron. Why do you continue to frequently comment on a site that you hold in such low regard and utter contempt? The answer is that you love attacking and denigrating YIMBYs, then turning immediately around and playing the victim. That’s a classic attacker strategy. Ron can’t do that here because there are very few proud YIMBYs besides myself that he actually can attack.
Seems to me that you’ve answered your own question, though I wouldn’t word it as you did. I don’t “love attacking and denigrating YIMBYs”, but I do feel compelled to point out the flaws in their arguments due to the unfortunate ramifications if their views remain unchallenged. In fact, my main concern isn’t what YIMBYs “claim” to support, regarding infill. It’s sprawl that I’m (primarily) concerned about.
But as far as being a “victim”, anyone can see that Richard and you are attempting to make residency an issue, but only for one commenter. And again, the Vanguard encourages this. This isn’t even in question – it’s a fact which has been demonstrated repeatedly over time.
This is a textbook example of online bullying. A recipient of this type of thing is indeed being victimized, with the explicit approval and encouragement of the moderators at the Vanguard. Even worse is the fact that David suggests that capitulation to bullying will end the bullying, which demonstrates that he willfully misunderstands what he is encouraging. By encouraging this, David and Don are active participants in the bullying. You’re a direct participant in it, as well.
As for Keith, why does he comment on the Vanguard at all if he actually doesn’t care about the Vanguard’s opinions? The answer is that deep down he really cares what the Vanguard says.
Keith can speak for himself, but I suspect it’s a similar reason to mine.
I won’t say what I really think about Ron here because Alan ‘Derogatory Language’ Miller will just censor me to his heart’s content just because I am not among the chosen few.
Since you’ve objected to Alan’s “derogatory language”, why would you attempt to engage in it, yourself? -
RO to WS: ” Since you’ve objected to Alan’s “derogatory language”, why would you attempt to engage in it, yourself? ”
Answer: Progressive Victimization Hypocrisy -
In case it wasn’t clear, the Chosen One was chosen by, the Chosen One
“All is none all is none all is one” – Charles Manson -
Alan ‘Derogatory Language’ Miller
I’ll let it slide because it’s me; however, please provide a basis for your nickname. I mean, I’ll accept Alan “Swear’s a Lot” Miller; or Alan “Shit Fuck Piss God Damn Cocksucker Motherfucker & Tits” Miller. But I’m a bit puzzled and offended by Alan “Derogatory Language” Miller.
A simple explanation along with three examples would clear things up. -
” Alan “Shit Fuck Piss God Damn Cocksucker Motherfucker & Tits” Miller”
I thought that “Miller” got blown up in a tanker fire. -
Whew, alerts! Whee, trawls!
A shrew welt.
Signed,
Not Shwe F. Walter -
ARTICLE in DVG: “Bail Motion Paints Startling Picture of Innocence in Yolo Murder Case”
Walter Shwe July 20, 2023 at 7:30 am
Has (edited) operative DA Reisig railroaded the wrong individual?
Hey Hey Hey WS: It appears the Davis Vanguard had to edit out something you said in their comments section; much as Al’s Corner did in our comment section. Tell me, what Davis Vanguard comment rule did you violate? Please cite the rule and explain. I have cited ever time the rules that you broke on Al’s Corner.
I also have noted a couple of times where you said something outrageous in the Davis Vanguard comment section and it was posted and later removed. I’m sure it happened more than the times I noticed since I don’t hang around there that much anymore. I have a question for the Davis Vanguard moderator: why were these comments by WS posted in the first place? Don’t you know your own comment guidelines well enough to nuke them at first sight?
And I have a question for Walter Shwe: why do you complain here about Al’s Corner editing your comments, but never about the Davis Vanguard removing or editing your comments? Is it your hypocrisy? -
“And I have a question for Walter Shwe: why do you complain here about Al’s Corner editing your comments, but never about the Davis Vanguard removing or editing your comments? Is it your hypocrisy?”
LMFAO, touche !!!
Over and Out with mustard on top. -
Keith, there will be no answer to my direct questions, because he cannot face nor answer to his own defects. Instead, he will make an obtuse comment with no real content that basically says “I’m right, you are wrong, so I don’t have to follow your rules, because those of us that are perfect in our knowledge of truth need not follow anyone else’s rules, because we know the real Truth. Oh and Alan Miller uses ‘swear words’ so he is Satan incarnate”.
-
Keith Olsen July 21, 2023 at 5:58 am
I read this article and my only thought is how many ways can the Vanguard continually say the same thing over and over.
I didn’t even cite the article, because it is just like — how many hundred others? How can one person be so obsessively repetitive? Don’t they bore themselves to death. Was is the motive? Is it mad ideology, or ad money? -
I didn’t even cite the article, because it is just like — how many hundred others? How can one person be so obsessively repetitive? Don’t they bore themselves to death. Was is the motive? Is it mad ideology, or ad money?
I believe that the reason is that if you claim something enough times, some folks will start to believe it. They might even “teach” this in political science courses, for all I know.
Sort of like saying “fake news”, over-and-over.
Advertising (in general) can work this way, as well. That’s why so much money is poured into it, often using the same repetitive message.
Yeap, we’re actually that stupid. -
“Yeap, we’re actually that stupid.”
I often think that because I actually read and comment on the Vanguard. -
I often think that because I actually read and comment on the Vanguard.
I try not to think about that, or at least view it as “purposeful disregard” on my part.
Though I’m not actually sure if it has any “purpose”, other than causing myself grief. -
Walter Shwe July 21, 2023 at 7:56 am
How many times has California and Newsom subverted federal laws for left leaning reasons?
Unless you can cite specific instances, your question is actually a lie. The Temecula school board is subverting state law for solely right leaning reasons.
Log in to Reply ↓
Keith Olsen July 21, 2023 at 12:44 pm
Why was my reply to Shwe deleted?
There was absolutely nothing wrong with my response.
David, please look into this.
Log in to Reply ↓
Moderator July 21, 2023 at 5:29 pm
Because I was trying to stop an endless, pointless back and forth argument.
So. WS says a question is a lie. And KO can’t respond to that because Mod E. Rater was “trying to stop an endless, pointless back and forth argument.” One of the guidelines for moderating comments, except it’s not. Considering the “endless” could end at five by at least a known moderator-added-“rule” about five comment max, it would not have been remotely “endless”. I call out the elephant in the room: the moderator’s reasoning sucks. -
But wait! There’s more . . .
Moderator July 21, 2023 at 5:29 pm
Because I was trying to stop an endless, pointless back and forth argument.
David Greenwald Post author July 22, 2023 at 6:32 am
Keith – working on a revised commenting policy, but as Don noted, the back and forth here was not helpful.
Clue: The problem is not ‘commenting policy’, and a ‘revised’ commenting policy will not solve the problem. The problem is with the flawed moderation where the politics and constipation-level of the moderator(s) dictates what is published.
The problem is when someone writes a comment that takes their time because it’s important to them, and it is deleted because it offends moderator politics or they don’t like the ‘back and forth’, neither of which are part of the current comment policy.
In addition, most often an explanation for the deletion or a reinstatement of the comment can take hours and multiple emails. New policies will similarly be ignored. The problem is the people involved in the moderation, and allowing the status quo to continue.
Every time the Vanguard has taken another step with new ‘guidelines’ the vibrancy of the comment section degrades further. I have one word: FREEDOM! Take a look at the vibrant comment sections from 5-15 years ago compared to the boring drivel of today. Wasn’t it better when the community was involved? Before all the moderation? Before all the banning?
I’ll say it again: I committed commenticide as your savior. I sacrificed myself at the alter of the Oracle of the Davis Vanguard to show all the flawed comment system. Build no blogs in my name. -
I’d just say that if you are going to cut off discussion, the place to do it is not after someone lobs a flaming accusation like a “lie” (not a falsehood, note — a lie) without allowing the accused to respond. If the accused cannot respond, then the accusation should not be up there either.
-
If Don Shor or David Greenwald adhered to their own policy, Walter’s purposefully-inflammatory comment might not have been allowed in the first place (rather than focusing on Keith’s response).
By the way, does anyone view today’s article (regarding Dillan Horton’s candidacy) as being uncomfortably-close to “support” – which is specifically prohibited for non-profit publications like the Vanguard?
Here’s one sentence from that article:
“In the meantime, Horton should be doing all he can to solidify himself as a strong candidate should Arnold not run—that’s still Horton’s best chance to actually getting a seat on council.” -
Thank you Alan and Roberta. I made some of the same points early this morning on the Vanguard but of course it never was allowed to post:
Keith July 22, 2023 at 6:47 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
David, I was going to let this go but you opened the door.
First off there was no back and forth. Shwe addressed me saying what I wrote is a lie and I wasn’t allowed to respond.
Speaking of “endless, pointless back and forth argument”, you mean like what happens almost everyday on the Vanguard. -
Keith: You could put an end to this type of thing, by not “lying” in the first place.
Problem “solved”.
(Just kidding. It’s much easier for me to laugh about the type of thing you’re experiencing, when it’s not directed at “me”.)
But rest-assured, any objective person already knows what’s going on. It’s nothing new, regarding the Vanguard.
In regard to this (Davisite) article, Walter doesn’t seem to be chiming-in much – considering that the article is ABOUT him in the first place. Walter, where art thou?
But truth be told, focusing on Walter ensures that actual issues aren’t discussed. -
RO: Walter, where art thou?
Good God, what are you doing? Do you also summon the Devil at your place or worship, just for kicks? -
Good God, what are you doing? Do you also summon the Devil at your place or worship, just for kicks?
I’m failing to see the “difference”, here. -
RO said: “By the way, does anyone view today’s article (regarding Dillan Horton’s candidacy) as being uncomfortably-close to “support” – which is specifically prohibited for non-profit publications like the Vanguard?”
The Vanguard doesn’t even have to be supportive of Horton’s candidacy to violate federal IRS nonprofit rules. All they have to do is publish something supportive (or in opposition to) of a candidate by somebody else.
“Can a section 501(c)(3) organization post information on its website (or link to other websites) about a candidate for public office?
A website is a form of communication. If an organization posts something on its website that favors or opposes a candidate for public office, it is prohibited political campaign activity. Posting information on its website is the same as if the organization distributed printed material or made oral statements or broadcasts that favored or opposed a candidate.”
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-ban-on-political-campaign-intervention-by-501c3-organizations
There are other activities that are banned too:
“Can a section 501(c)(3) organization state its position on public policy issues that candidates for public office are divided on?
An organization may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office as long as the message does not in any way favor or oppose a candidate. Be aware that the message does not need to identify the candidate by name to be prohibited political campaign activity. A message that shows a picture of a candidate, refers to a candidate’s political party affiliations, or contains other distinctive features of a candidate’s platform or biography may be prohibited political campaign activity.” -
Yes, RK, all true. But until someone is willing to sue or otherwise set action into motion, nothing is going to happen.
Hint: If you start a go-fund-me for such an activity, I bet you raise some money. I would give to such a project, for example.
By the way, the non-profit-org political violations are illegal, but not my issue. I would give to the campaign to sue the Vanguard over improper political support as a jab for their horrific comment moderation. -
By the way, the non-profit-org political violations are illegal, but not my issue. I would give to the campaign to sue the Vanguard over improper political support as a jab for their horrific comment moderation.
The “horrific comment moderation” could be construed as supportive (or against) a candidate in the first place, and/or in regard to political campaigns for other issues.
I am less-clear on the law, regarding political campaigns for “issues”, compared to campaigns for individual candidates.
Also, I see that the Vanguard still hasn’t updated its online IRS disclosures. The last one listed is from 2020.
But I do believe that you’re correct, in that the IRS (and/or state tax board) probably isn’t going to do anything about this – despite the complaints that were reportedly initiated. Perhaps there just isn’t enough potential “recapture” of taxes to justify it. (Then again, we wouldn’t know that, unless the Vanguard publishes its tax filings.) -
I see that the Vanguard still hasn’t updated its online IRS disclosures. The last one listed is from 2020.
Close enough 😐 -
SUBJECT: State Superintendent Forcibly Removed from Chino School Board
Posted by Vanguard Administrator
Date: July 22, 2023
Special to the Vanguard
Apparently it is SO SPECIAL to the Vanguard that it has no author, nor no description/bio of said author, who doesn’t exist. -
SUBJECT from 2day’s Vanguard: “State Superintendent Forcibly Removed from Chino School Board”
David Greenwald July 22, 2023 at 3:00 pm
Your argument is absurd You clearly don’t understand the issue here.
That was such a well-articulated and well-researched argument, DG 😐 . You might win a metal for that one, because you certainly won’t win a medal. -
David Greenwald July 22, 2023 at 8:55 am
Do you ever think, gee, it might be better leaving somethings unsaid?
DG: Do you ever think, ‘gee, it might be better to shut down my blog and leave all my thoughts unsaid’ ? -
SUBJECT: “State Superintendent Forcibly Removed from Chino School Board Meeting” DVGuard 7/22/2023
KS: “Children KNOW when they aren’t safe around their parents. But it looks like the right wing extremists on this site fail to acknowledge that, and instead just double down on the cruelty and lack of compassion.”
The ‘right wing extremists’ on this site (that being the Davis Vanguard) ? Who is KS talking about? And by what measure/evidence are they being labeled as ‘right wing extremists’ ? Setting the issues aside, this labeling is extremely unhelpful to any sort of dialogue. Also, if anyone who posts on the Vanguard are ‘right wing extremists’, how would KS label members of groups such as The Proud Boys? Or anyone in the midwest or south espousing outright racism using the pre-2015 definition?
KS: “And let’s get real. Chino is in a conservative area, so these children are statistically more likely to be subjected to right wing reactionary mentalities at home and not feel and/or be safe.”
Are they? I’m not sure if more conservative areas necessarily have more people with ‘right wing reactionary mentalities’. I don’t know. I would believe that such persons may be more likely to speak up in such communities, but could just be more hidden in a place like Davis. Without a term of measure, not sure how this could be proven.
KS: “Again, the public schools are the next best place to offer these children safety if their parents won’t allow them to live their full lives, even if they turn out to NOT be what their parents want them to be.”
Are public schools the next best place? I’m thinking back to my day to quite a few teachers and administrators and even counselors who I wouldn’t trust with offspring. And from talking to numerous persons who have abandoned the public education system in the last few years, it sounds like things are much more dysfunctional than when I attended public schools. I’m not saying all parent’s are functional, but ‘trusting’ the CA public school system? I’m not sure where this fantasy originates from. -
Are public schools the next best place? I’m thinking back to my day to quite a few teachers and administrators and even counselors who I wouldn’t trust with offspring.
Personally, I never felt directly threatened by teachers, administrators or counselors.
Instead, I sometimes felt “indifference” towqrd students in general and toward their own profession. Sometimes, “incompetence”, as well. (Not to mention indifference regarding racist attacks from other students.)
I suspect that a lot of school shootings “result” from this perceived indifference, as well. Students who do such things haven’t yet developed sufficient maturity or perspective, and are sometimes at the “end of their rope”, so to speak.
It’s usually not some random adult stranger who engages in such shootings. It’s usually someone who attends, or attended the school. The threat is created from “within” the system itself.
If only they could “fence out” all of the students, it might then be safe.
So in that sense (since they’re supposed to be creating a “safe” environment for students,) I wouldn’t necessarily “trust them”, either.
Perhaps the system itself “creates” this result. -
Subject: “Student Opinion: Public Libraries Should Stay Public”
DVG 7/29/23
Walter Shwe July 29, 2023 at 7:35 pm
The perpetrators, Amy M. Vance and Martha Martin, are most accurately described as Republican bigots.
“Republican bigots” – ‘make love, not hate’ –> labeling people as bigots is a way to start 😐
CatholicVote has closely aligned itself with the ultraconservative Republican extremist, fascist and hate organization Moms for Liberty.
“ultraconservative Republican extremist, fascist and hate organization” – ‘make love, not hate’ –> labeling organizations as ‘extremist, fascist and hateful’ is a way to start 😐
They utilize similar tactics to attempt to take over the United States and turn it into a fascist regime.
“take over the United States and turn it into a fascist regime.” – ‘make love, not hate’ –> claiming an organization is trying to ‘take over the US and turn it into a fascist regime’ is a way to start 😐
Make love, not hate!
Commenter, heal thyself!
Don Shor July 30, 2023 at 8:18 am
Libraries are for everyone. That means there may be things there that you don’t like, and things there that I don’t like . . . If you’re concerned about what my kid might see at a library, butt out. It’s none of your business.
And yet, progressive groups in Davis are trying to get the Davis Library, at their Fall ’23 meeting, to alter its policy on who it allows to hold public meetings at the library in such a way that groups ‘such as’ Mom’s for Liberty would be excluded/banned. (And in a small town in the midwest, a conservative group is probably doing the same to try to exclude a progressive group from their library . . . an ear for an ear leaves everybody deaf 😐 ) I even heard one of the library managers telling the progressive group protesting outside the Mom’s for Liberty meeting a few months ago that this was going to come up at the fall meeting and ‘changes’ to the policy may be forthcoming. Yikes!
Davisite 
In what could be the most important hero-story in Davis' history, Walter Shwe saved the Davisite from Alan Miller's hypocrisy as found on Al's Corner. Readers should congratulate Mr. Shwe for his Davis-saving efforts in the comment section below. In his own words, combining two WS comments, one of which was written at 4:45 a.m. on July 5th, Mr. Shwe says:
" I exposed the hypocracy of Mr. Miller. He regularly slammed the Davis Vanguard for censorship, yet he did the same thing with me everytime I tried to truthfully call someone out by name. Without the the names, my comments had little value. Worse still, he swore frequently, then attempted to laugh it off. Good riddance to Al's Corner. Al's Corner turned out not to be a free speech platform. Glad I don't have to read any more of Mr. Miller's whinny comments about the Davis Vanguard! 🤣 "
Mr. Shwe TRUTHFULLY called people out by name, but was prevented doing so by Alan Miller. He also called out Mr. Miller's "swearing". Most important, he pointed out that Al's Corner did not publish all his comments in whole, PROVING that Al's Corner was not a free speech platform. He also proved that Mr. Miller was a horse.