May 18, 2005

justin on 18 May 2005

good times... good times...

Alan DeWitt on 18 May 2005

Looks like someone at that company might have a grudge against webloggers.

The One True b!X on 18 May 2005

The more amusing thing about that PDF (as a friend of mine just noted) is that in it, Clevenger uses the same taunting style of insults as he used in the original meltdown email to me that prompted this recent mess on this site.

tomhiggins on 18 May 2005

Good reporting skills b!x.Odds are its one of the two founders, Ted or Phin, given they are both market based types who very well might have some connection with the likes of Bully Boy.

All speculation though, I mean it could be someone working for them or swome such, but the tie in to marketing types is interesing.

Maybe this is all just research for a new PS2 game they are working on "Leech City", a sort of Sims for marketeers, lobby groups and other bottom feeders of the city's infrastructure. I can see the game rewarding getting large bid jobs from city agencies for doing as little real work as possible. Oh yea, good times.

-tom

Dave J. on 18 May 2005

Nicely done, b!X. I had imagined that an IP search would yield no useful information, as I also assume that most people are aware that any webmaster who knows anything can track the IP address for all site visitors, and thus would have posted from a home account--Earthlink, for example. Guess I was wrong.

Phin Barnes on 18 May 2005

This has been brought to my attention by our marketing department and it will be addressed internally. responDESIGN has not had an official relationship with 3 or Than Clevenger since January of this year. The statements originating from our IP address do not represent the views of responDESIGN.

Melissa on 18 May 2005

Heh...heehaw! Excellent work, b!X. And congrats. I, too, pondered the idea of Phin, since he is the marketing head there, but I would also imagine that any founder of a company would be wary of making such moves -- tho Clevenger proved that wrong anyway...

I also mused over the tracking of IP addresses and was surprised the poster hadn't thought of that possibility.

No matter -- I love that it was found out and am profoundly happy for b!X that he was able to uncover an interesting connection.

tomhiggins on 18 May 2005

Heya PhinkBigpdx

Or should we just call you ThanPhinPdx?

I am happy to see your company respond to this situation in a timely fashion. I will be looking forawrd to see how things are dealt with from this point.

Can we get a Bix avatar in your next Fitness Game as I find his workout ethics rather effective at least so far as working out the BS commentators on his blog.

Game Over

-tom

Alan DeWitt on 18 May 2005

Now, Tom, be nice to Mr. Barnes. There's no reason to insult him, especially as it appears he's about to go kick someone's ass over this. Let's wait and count bootprints.

Melissa on 18 May 2005

LOL! Don't usually respond with a "non comment" comment, but Tom, you just made me laugh so hard. I like the b!X avatar idea. Much like I thought he should show up as a Pixar Toon now that he's been toonized.

I will also add that I, too, am curious to see what happens in the responDESIGN-sphere. Glad to see their head come on board here and comment. Gladder to see the offender nabbed.

enough_already on 18 May 2005

Sorry, b!X, but methinks you're overreacting. Finding an IP address that belongs to a company that has ties to 3 public communications is discovering an interesting fact; actually contacting the people at responDesign and interviewing them about this fact is reporting. Failure to take this second step has the effect of implying that your speculation -- that these people mean "to exact Clevenger's revenge" -- is fact. If it proves specious, you've really undermined no one but yourself.

I by no means mean to be an apologist for Than; he's got plenty to answer for, and the scrutiny leveled at him in this PDC debacle is appropriate. But just because he made a jackass of himself doesn't mean you have to follow him into the barnyard braying at the top of your lungs.

Dave J. on 18 May 2005

Sorry, b!X, but methinks you're overreacting. Finding an IP address that belongs to a company that has ties to 3 public communications is discovering an interesting fact;

I disagree. There are few charges you can level at a blogger that are more serious than suggesting that he accepted money in exchange for commentary, which is what thinkbig suggested. He was trying to act like an unbiased observer, and b!X was right to reveal information that established a connection (however peripheral it might appear) between him and Clevenger, information that establishes that thinkbig most likely does have a dog in this fight, a horse in this race, whatever.

(And, judging from Phin's comments, someone at responDESIGN should be getting very nervous right about now.)

thinkbigPDX on 18 May 2005

My views do not represent those of responDESIGN nor do they represent the combined views of the founders.

responDESIGN at no time had any knowledge that I was posting to this, or any other site through their Internet connection. I will no longer utilize corporate resources to participate in this or any other activity that may damage the image of responDESIGN or does not involve the fulfillment of my duties as an employee of the corporation.

Further, I apologize to my co-workers and to our customers if any of my comments were offensive or inappropriate and I assure each and every one of you that I will be more conscientious of the effects of my actions in the future.

shannon on 18 May 2005

Oh heavens, this is classic, CLASSIC !

They didn't think about the possiblity of an IP Search? !!!!!

Don't you just adore when self-proclaimed smartypants are allowed to prove precisely how dumb they are with just the tiniest of an Outside Assist? I do, I do.

Let's vote, shall we, on exactly what's funnier:

(1) the snide pdf press release that provides a de facto style signature for our anonymous poster (gotta work on expanding your "voice," darlin').

(2) that the likely poster has now posted in name as an attempt to save his ass -- and his company's rep --- with an "it's been brought to my attention" corporate-speak bulletin.

or

(3) that these ridiculous people Can't…Quite…Keep…Themselves From Posting, even though they tighten the noose with each subsequent Send Entry.

Kick your own self while you're down, baby, we're all enjoying the show.

Paul Gronke on 18 May 2005

I am concerned, however, at public "outing" of IP addresses on a blog that allows anonymous postings. We've seen it today; it appeared yesterday in Blue Oregon .

I am now posting under my real name, but for a long time I did not because I was warned that as a moderate liberal, the Portland progressive community could be awfully mean spirited.

Luckily, I have not found that to be true here or on Blue Oregon.

However, in this case, the outing worries me. Either you allow anonymous posting or not. But you had better have a very good reason to post IPs and level accusations.

For those defending b!x, one wonders why the speculations in this thread are any different than the ones originally posted by thinkbig? Thinkbig does not claim to be a journalist (and thus open to public scrutiny); b!x does.

I think a more defensible course would have been to email or contact thinkbig, if available, and present the information shown here. Give him or her 24 hours to respond or else you will post the story without the benefit of their reactions.

That is journalism.

Dave J. on 18 May 2005

For those defending b!x, one wonders why the speculations in this thread are any different than the ones originally posted by thinkbig?

Thinkbig was not "speculating," he was claiming to have actual information that established a hidden agenda (advance Beam's goals) on the part of b!X. Go back and read his posts--he definitely suggests that he has had conversations with people at BEAM, and that those conversations involved a discussion of the payments (financial or otherwise) made to b!X. I think that's more than just wondering aloud about things. I think he had speculation to begin with, but he went farther and claimed to have evidence. Once he did that, I think he opened himself up to b!X's (justified, in my view) publicizing of his IP address.

I really think that people are overlooking the seriousness of claiming to have information that a blogger (especially a policy wonk blogger like b!X, no offense intended!) has accepted money in exchange for a positive spin on something. That charge, if true, would erode all of this site's credibility, and so I think that b!X is quite justified in responding pretty forcefully to that charge.

enough_already on 18 May 2005

[thinkbigPDX] was trying to act like an unbiased observer, and b!X was right to reveal information that established a connection (however peripheral it might appear) between him and Clevenger, information that establishes that thinkbig most likely does have a dog in this fight, a horse in this race, whatever.

No -- you're making the same mistake here that b!X is. He discovered a coincidence, but did NOT "establish a connection." This fact, by itself, establishes nothing. My point is that b!X has not gone far enough. Without confronting the people at responDesign (a really stupid name, btw) and actually establishing that connection explicitly, he's really finger pointing, behavior which is no better than thinkbigPDX's.

I'm trying to hold b!X to his own editorial policy here -- which lists, as point #3 of its "elements of journalism," that "[journalism's] essence is a discipline of verification."

myrln on 18 May 2005

One must now wonder: does thinkbigmouth's use of a corporate ip to excoriate bix constitute a conflict of interest? What say you, thinkbigmouth? Do you live by a double standard?

Yoram on 18 May 2005

As of this writing, we do not know if 3 Public Communications still works with responDESIGN. Nor do we know exactly who posted as thinkbigPDX from a computer inside responDESIGN's range of IP addresses. Nor do we know whether or not there has been active collaboration between Clevenger himself and thinkbigPDX.

b!X was pretty careful not to overstate his case. He found some facts, which looked pretty damning, and he shared them. He was defending his reputation, and he has done so successfully with me.

justin on 18 May 2005

My views do not represent those of responDESIGN nor do they represent the combined views of the founders.

responDESIGN at no time had any knowledge that I was posting to this, or any other site through their Internet connection. I will no longer utilize corporate resources to participate in this or any other activity that may damage the image of responDESIGN or does not involve the fulfillment of my duties as an employee of the corporation.

Further, I apologize to my co-workers and to our customers if any of my comments were offensive or inappropriate and I assure each and every one of you that I will be more conscientious of the effects of my actions in the future.

best times... best times...

Betsy on 18 May 2005

And the other thing I'd add to those who want to pile on either respondDesign in general or their founders - don't assume that a former relationship translates into broad current support or collusion.

Or, other words - haven't you ever had 'buyer's remorse' before?

The One True b!X on 18 May 2005

Paul, the questions you raise are precisely why this item begins with a quote from my privacy policy. That portion of my policy exists precisely because it was inevitable that people with specific agendas -- whether or not they related to trying to damage my reputation -- were going to try to anonymously use this site as a means to furthering that agenda.

This outing is directly related to a story I've covered here for months, and quite clearly covered by that particular term of my privacy policy.

JVK on 18 May 2005

(from previous thread):

"Time will tell and when it does we will all have a great time revisiting the archives of this site to see who was right and who was wrong...Time always tells."

Well, he was right about one thing. I'm having a great time reading the archives and seeing who was right and who was the PUNK ASS BITCH THAT CHEWED OUT BY HIS BOSS.

And if you're still reading this, ThinkBig, don't try this again from your computer at home. We will trace the IP addy back to your mom's house, and when she finds out you're not playing nice, you'll get the spanking of your life.

The One True b!X on 18 May 2005

I think a more defensible course would have been to email or contact thinkbig, if available, and present the information shown here. Give him or her 24 hours to respond or else you will post the story without the benefit of their reactions.

That is journalism.

That's one form of journalism, and one which in part exists because prior media haven't allowed the subjects of stories to respond on their own without having to go through the editorial filter of the reporter's story. Here, subjects can respond as they see fit.

The facts as presented in this item are true. All contacting thinkbigPDX before publishing would have done is give him an opportunity to spin his way out of it.

As for my editorial policies, there's nothing here that can't be verified, and anyone who thinks that this:

While thinkbigPDX has gone out of his or her way to claim to have no bias in the Burnside Bridgehead decision to motivate them, what's clear now is that their motivation was simpler still: To exact Clevenger's revenge.

is an attempt to report a fact rather than give a justifiable characterization has, to my mind, a fairly narrow and blunt view of what literacy means. Personally, I believe the readers here are intelligent enough to read nuance and understand what's what.

But since we're talking my editorial policy, try this one: Everything here qualifies as publishing only that which I knew to be true.

JVK on 18 May 2005

PUNK ASS BITCH THAT CHEWED OUT

Alan DeWitt on 18 May 2005

Paul: "I am concerned, however, at public "outing" of IP addresses on a blog that allows anonymous postings."

Well, the tricky part is that, in practical terms, there is no such thing as anonymity on the internet. When he moved, B!x made it clear that he does his own hosting for this site. I'm tech enough to know that means he has the capability to log the IP address of every comment, unless the commentor takes extraordinary steps to hide the source IP.

Specifically, any longtime reader would know that the editor is known to have outed someone by IP address before for playing the astroturf game in the comments section. Combined with the privacy policy, I think the expectation of anonymity here should be pretty low. (Which is one reason I post under my real name.)

The editor acted within his privacy policy because this was part of a developing story. As I see it, the relevance comes not from who thinktroll is, but because of who he is not: Clevenger himself. The poor sod was being linked to thinktroll's comments in a forum read by at least two city councillors, and presumably by other people for whom Clevenger's reputation is influential data. (Sorry about that, Than.)

That said, I think b!x spun this particular post pretty hard right at the end. I can see why he would... I'm sure this is not an issue on which it is easy for him to be dispassionate. He had right and reason to be mad. In his role as editor it may have been over the line, but in his role as publisher he also had right and reason to express that anger. It's tricky when roles are blended.

I think, given the "intergrity through transparency" philosophy here, it would be better if every post revealed the poster's IP address.

Elaine of Kalilily on 18 May 2005

enough-already says:

My point is that b!X has not gone far enough. Without confronting the people at responDesign (a really stupid name, btw) and actually establishing that connection explicitly, he's really finger pointing, behavior which is no better than thinkbigPDX's.

I'm trying to hold b!X to his own editorial policy here -- which lists, as point #3 of its "elements of journalism," that "[journalism's] essence is a discipline of verification."

First of all, for b!X to go further and confront people at responDesign would mean that he would just keep stirring a pot that has already badly boiled over. There's a bit of a mess there that the people involved will have to clean up among themselves. There's no point in fanning the fire from the outside.

Second of all, b!X did verify the location from which the Big Thinker (heh) posted and answered the question being asked by many of his commentors. I don't see any reason for him to feel obligated to do more.

In every instance that resulted in b!X being verbally abused here, all he did was make observations of what is true and wonder about the implications of those facts. Rather than launch an attack at his credibility, what his critics should have done, if they had been truly smart about how public relations work, is posted comments addressing b!X's "wondering" by giving his readers the "real skinny." And then that would have been that -- unless, of course, the "real skinny" involved even more "fat" Than [sic] even b!X wondered about.

It's time for everyone to cut their losses on this issue and move on. Except for b!X, that is, since he has no losses. He can move on knowing that he continues to have the moral support of readers who understand the business of this particular weblog.

paul gronke on 18 May 2005

b!x,

I did not accuse you of violating your *privacy* policy. I agree with "EnoughAlready", I think this thread undermines your *editorial* policy.

I don't think the original claim by ThinkBigPDX was taken very seriously. Your credibility and reputation are stronger than that, and you should have realized this.

Instead, I believe that you took this as a direct personal attack that needed to be responded to as vigorously and aggressively as possible. In doing so, I think you stepped over the boundaries of your own editorial guidelines.

I remain disturbed by the unnecessary outing of an IP address, and the associated claim that this demonstrated some tenuous connection between Than Clevenger and ThinkBigPDX.

This last assertion seems to have been lost in the rush to praise you -- this assertion remains as unsubstantiated as was ThinkBigPDX's claim that you received a donation from a Beam member.

This is just not good journalism, to first disassociate yourself from the claim that ThinkBig has a link to Clevenger: a theory to which we never subscribed... but then later post this: But many of you were looking for thinkbigPDX's connection to things. Well, there's the start of your answer. Whoever thinkbigPDX is in real life, he or she has posted from a computer at a company for which Clevenger's public relations firm has done work.

Oh no, *B!x* is not suggesting that thinkBig is connected, but he invites the rest of you to make this connection.

I agree with EnoughAlready -- if you really aspire to the journalistic standards that you list in your editorial policies, then you were obligated to at least attempt to get a response from ResponDesign or from ThinkBigPDX.

Failing such a response, you would have been free to go ahead with the story and the mention that you attempted to get a response and were unable.

That's just my opinion, others are free to disagree.

JS on 18 May 2005

This is definitely interesting reading, though (like a few other commentors) I wonder how this particular "story" would have turned out if b!X had contacted responDesign and asked their spokesperson about all of this before laying out the info on the IP address.

The Blog as a medium (and the responsibilities of the blogger) is very interesting indeed.

The One True b!X on 18 May 2005

Paul, you just entirely mis-stated what I said. I said I had never subscribed to the claim that thinkbigPDX was actually Clevenger. What I actually posted, and what your selective editing avoided, was this:

Over the course of these two weeks, some readers have openly speculated (if not outright charged) that thinkbigPDX in fact was Clevenger himself, a theory to which we ourselves never subscribed.

That's not the same as me saying I never subscribed to the idea that there was a connection.

Meanwhile, the outing of thinkbigPDX via the IP address was not "unnecessary" because the only way to undermine the covert attempts to damage my credibility was to out thinkbigPDX's motivations and/or connections.

The charge of the link is made neither lightly nor without basis. And as originally stated here, the facts on this post are the start of the answer to the question of those motivations and/or connections, not the entirety of it.

justin on 18 May 2005

I don't think the original claim by ThinkBigPDX was taken very seriously. Your credibility and reputation are stronger than that, and you should have realized this.

Obviously B!x took it seriously. And I tend to think the claim was pretty serious.

And I think it's easy for you to blow this off, because it wasn't your livelihood at stake.

pdxsomeone on 18 May 2005

Paul: "I am concerned, however, at public "outing" of IP addresses on a blog that allows anonymous postings."

Anonymous to you, anonymous to me, anonymous to dear old Aunt Greta reading this. Because it is not our blog; we do not have access to I.P.'s

Not anonymous to Communique editor.
Because it is his blog. He does have access.

Now whether he should post that I.P. (completely, without removing some of the numbers or some kind of other anonymity continuence) for everyone to see, thus obliterating that anonymity between us, is a different story and seems to be the problem for many.

But he hasn't posted my I.P., so that doesn't take away the fact that for all of you, my anonymity is preserved. (nyah,nyah, I insert 'Yo mama' joke here and run away quickly.)

Fascinating, this medium, isn't it?

tomhiggins on 18 May 2005

Ive been online for many a year and have seen this supposed "things are supposed to be anonymous" issue come up a few times.

Folks, like the easter bunny and the man in the red suit its mostly a myth[1]. Yes you may belive it to be true and want it to be true but its not, never has and most likely wont. Every time you do anything on a web server, for example, your IP is out there for all to see. Some servers put thier log files out in the clear for all to read, others use web analyis software to aggregate the traffic but show top IPs or ranges of ips.

I find it interesting that even after 10 or so years of the net being used byt he masses folks still belive in this mythical thing called anonymity. It reminds me of the movie, I think it was Erik The viking, where this bloke put a cloth on his head and belives himself to be invisable because he was told that is what would happen.

And to make matters even clearer...the web admin does not need to be the one to find out IPs, if someone is sniffing the traffic of a server they can piece it togther. So even if the server admin states they dont track IPs that does not mean some one some where is not for whatever reason.

Please inform yourselves about the real deal on this issue folks because it serves you all badly if you go walking aroung with cloth on your head thinking folks wont see you publicaly posting false aqusations and not call you on it in the same open manner you made the false claims.

Nuf Said

-tom

[1] OK so there are methods that get close, like TOR, Freenet, etc etc. For more info on these go hit google or show up at a PTP weekly meeting:)-

Melissa on 18 May 2005

re: anonymity and the reveal of an IP address -- the poster is STILL anonymous! Just the location from which he/she posted is no longer so. And as for taking things too far, or too seriously, well -- the attacks on b!X were quite serious, bordering on, if not flatly landing on, slander. And they were all made publicly. I see no reason whatsoever that b!X should not have felt justified in responding vehemently and as publicly as the attacks occurred. Whether or not the majority of his readers know him better than to listen to the attacks (thereby keeping his credibility with them intact regardless of what someone might say) or not is irrelevant. His credibility WAS being threatened and he has every right to defend it.

And let us not forget that in the end, NONE of this would have happened if a: any of the attacks/accusations were true, and/or b: the accuser provided any real verifiable proof.

I say they dug their own graves and got what they deserved. Name calling (like Clevenger stooped to) is annoying and bothersome but deserves little attention. But when your character is called into question, when serious accusations are hurled at you willy nilly, then I say all bets are pretty much off.

And even so, b!X has never stooped to an accuser's level of unsubstantiated claims. Everything is provable and has been proven.

And c'mon, the "connection" between poster and Clevenger is a rather LARGE coincidence, doncha think? Not saying Clevenger orchestrated it or even had any knowledge, but I sure as hell wouldn't be surprised to find out it's a buddy who felt he/she should come to his defense by mounting their own b!X attack.

And that's all b!X is saying. Rather plainly, clearly and truthfully I might add.

Dave J. on 18 May 2005

It's really interesting--if you go back and read the original thread, where Than Clevenger blew up bigtime, and where thinkbigpdx first made his presence known, you will notice one thing: the guy is heavily involved in the Burnside project. I mean, he knows A LOT about it. Say what you will about his tactics, or his charges, but it is really clear to me upon re-reading that thread that thinkbigpdx is a player in all of this. Or, that he is associated with one of the players. So I think you have to take that into account when assessing the seriousness of his charges--I mean, here is someone involved in the process accusing one of the few local bloggers to devote a lot of time to this of having accepted a payoff in exchange for biased commentary. In the blogosphere, that's the cardinal sin. I continue to think that the charge leveled against b!X was serious indeed, and think that he did one of the few things he could do to reveal a potential conflict of interest on the part of his accuser.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, after all.

Nathaniel on 18 May 2005

Hi All,

Nathaniel Clevenger here -- the actual one. Not the spoof known as Thinkfast. Or, the blogger ThinkbigPDX.

How about a virtual "blog conference?" I am taking responsible questions and will do my best to answer them.

But first, I would like to thank our host, Mr. Franconis (sic?) for allowing me a little time here.

Fire away.

myrln on 18 May 2005

As thinkbigmouth persists in questioning bix's accountability, one can also question, and I will, tbm's accountability. To whom or what, tbm, are you accountable? From your unsubstantiated innuendo about Communique's honesty, you are not accountable to any manner of truth. Nor, clearly, are you accountable to any sort of ethical principles. Nor, equally clearly, are you accountable to conscience. So you need to be told to whom and what you ARE accountable in this matter: you are accountable to Communique's readers and supporters. That has been made patently clear, and we readers have obviously determined this: you are irrelevant. You have disqualified yourself from relevance through your lies and your inability to lend even a semblancee of credibility to those lies. And since nothing you have to say here has any relevance, I expect Communique's readers and supporters will now ignore you entirely so we can get back to Portland's important -- and relevant -- business honestly and intelligently reported by bix. You, thinkbigmouth, are not worth any more of our time and energy.

Lily on 18 May 2005

I just knew there was a connection, and my money's still on Clevenger as Thinkbigmouth. I think I even said something about "posting on work time, tsk tsk". Talk about "instant Karma"! Or digging your own grave! What goes around apparently DOES come around.

gabriel on 18 May 2005

Nathaniel-

Do you know Thinkbigpdx?
What do you think of the content of Thinkbigpdx's posts?

The post seems to have come from your associate's spouse's business.

Do you lend any credence to the assertion that BEAM paid B!X for siding with BEAM's take on he project? It is a rather significant charge...Libel if unproven. You said that you met with B!X several times during the process in an of-the-record manner. Did you find him to be someone easily influenced?

hilsy on 18 May 2005

Nathaniel,

I'd like to hear (read) your opinion regarding the citizen/community support of the BEAM proposal as opposed to the Opus proposal. And please, because this decision seems to be based mainly on financial issues, I would like to hear/read how you would compare and/or contrast this decision with the Pearl/Armory/South Waterfront PDC decisions.

Thank you for sticking your neck out in this manner to respond to questions. Please resist the urge to react to what I am sure will be derisive comments.

For full disclosure, my name is Jim Hilsenteger (I'm easily located). I have no vested interest in the Burnside Bridgehead and I am frankly still trying to make my mind up about this whole fiasco.

Oh, and B!X, if this is on the level with Mr. Clevenger, IMHO, this should be a separate thread on it s own.

Josef Schneider on 18 May 2005

Let's break this down. This began when Phin Barnes, using the pseudonym "thinkbigpdx", posted a comment to a thread about the Burnside Bridgehead project that included the following:

"let's move away from the pointing fingers and the worries about "spin" and PR/lobbyist because you know as well as I do that BEAM had them too, including payments to the guy in that cute little hat in the cartoon,"

The "guy in that cute little hat in the cartoon" is a clear reference to the proprietor of Portland Communique, b!x (Chris Franconis). B!x naturally demanded that thinkbigpdx back up his accusation with specifics.

Barnes (as thinkbigpdx) replied, but did not provide proofs or even any specifics to back up his charge that b!x had received payments from BEAM in exchange for "PR/lobbyist" services. But he asked b!x:

"You sure you want me to share what I know"

"What I know". Not "in my opinion" not "I suspect" -- "what I know".

Barnes (again as thinkbigpdx) said that he has evidence that b!x, improperly took money from Beam in exchange for favorable coverage. What could be more damaging an accusation to make against a professional journalist?

According to the Oregon State Bar:

"Defamation is defined as a false statement communicated to another person that damages your reputation by exposing you to hatred, contempt, or ridicule from other people. Libel is communicating a defamatory statement by writing or picture."

I am not a lawyer, but to my layman's eyes it appears to me that Barnes libeled b!x. He made an accusation of wrongdoing against him for which he obviously has no proof (I am assuming here that if Barnes/thinkbigpdx had any proof he would have offered it by now). Nonetheless, Barnes claimed that he did have some proofs, some evidence. If this is true he knowingly and maliciously defamed b!x.

Barnes wrongly (stupidly) assumed that his statements as thinkbigpdx could not be traced back to him and so he could defame b!x with impunity. What's more, he defamed b!x from the computers at his workplace, responDESIGN. By doing so, Barnes may have exposed his employers to some measure of legal liability for his having defamed b!x.

In my opinion Barnes was abusing this sites privacy policy in attempting to use it as a cover for his (certainly) unethical, sleazy, and (perhaps) illegal actions. In no way is b!x obliged to allow Barnes to defame him with impunity.

I absolutely believe that anonymity on the internet is a social good: to allow people to share their opinions without fear of reprisal, so that dissidents and whistle-blowers may tell the truth without retribution from the powerful, but not so that someone may knowingly lie about, defame a political opponent. I believe that is what Barnes did to Franconis, here.

Chris, as I said I'm not a lawyer, but I think that you should talk to one. You may have a case against Barnes and responDesign. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with this sleaze.

The One True b!X on 18 May 2005

Speculation is running again, so I need to say something else: The email I received from thinkbigPDX under their real name was not from Phin Barnes.

Alan DeWitt on 18 May 2005

To Dave J:

Yeah, I noticed that, too. He did know a lot about that project. I saw elsewhere that he disclosed he does "own a bunch of GE stock". In context, I assume by GE he meant Gerding/Edlen. So that might account for his insider knowledge.

To Than:

Sorry about the mess. It's not all my fault, but I did play a part. I thought what you did was laughable and I laughed... but this argument ceased being about you a long time ago. I hope you'll accept my apology for ever speculating that you and thinkbigpdx might be the same person. I meant to dig at him, and it never occured to me that such speculation might end up making you look bad. Whoops. Thanks for coming by to talk. I hope it will foster an interesting conversation.

The One True b!X on 18 May 2005

In the interest of transparency, those who will be conversing with Mr. Clevenger may want to be aware that he has made his legal counsel aware of this post, so whoever that counsel may be likely will be reading as well.

paul gronke on 18 May 2005

b!x,

My apologies for misquoting you, but you failed to respond to the main point of my post. Why didn't you try to get a reply from the firm or from ThinkBIg before going public with the IP?

You claim that you had to out the IP in order to expose TBP's "motivations and/or connections," yet the post has no substantiated facts about either, other than the firm where this person apparently worked. What we have is one person posting from an IP at a company that also, four months ago (just the sort of point that would have been confirmed *before* publication by a reputable journalist), employed Clevenger's PR firm.

You are being purposely coy, urging your readers to find conspiracies and to presume motivations where there is little hard evidence, yet claiming that you are not leveling any accusations. This is the essence of yellow journalism and is beneath your dignity.

People here are also badly misinterpreting what I posted, so quick are they to defend B!x that they are turning off their critical faculties.

1. B!x says, according to his own editorial mission statement, that he is following the "elements of journalism". I point you especially to principles 1, 3, and 4. All I'm doing it trying to hold his accountable to his own posted guidelines.

2. This story as originally posted would not have been published by any reputable media outlet. I ask any lurking members of the media to correct me on this.
There were no attempts to verify the information in the original posting (guideline 3); neither the company nor the individual were contacted to comment.
The title remains unchanged and is completely misleading--there is *zero* hard evidence of ThinkBig's "links to Nathan Clevenger" (guideline 1).

3. I never suggested that b!x could not violate the poster's anonymity. I am no naif when it comes to the Internet. It is the procedure that he followed in doing so that I continue to believe was done unprofessionally, because b!x felt he had to go on the "offense" as quickly as possible (guideline 4).

4. Being a journalist is a hard business, and it requires a thick skin. B!x needs to thicken his up a bit.

The One True b!X on 19 May 2005

My apologies for misquoting you, but you failed to respond to the main point of my post. Why didn't you try to get a reply from the firm or from ThinkBIg before going public with the IP?

Actually, I did address this:

That's one form of journalism, and one which in part exists because prior media haven't allowed the subjects of stories to respond on their own without having to go through the editorial filter of the reporter's story. Here, subjects can respond as they see fit.

The facts as presented in this item are true. All contacting thinkbigPDX before publishing would have done is give him an opportunity to spin his way out of it.

What we have is one person posting from an IP at a company that also, four months ago (just the sort of point that would have been confirmed *before* publication by a reputable journalist), employed Clevenger's PR firm.

Actually, what we have is a person posting from an IP at a company (and working at that company) whose CMO is married to an Associate at Clevenger's PR firm.

Regarding your citation of three items from my stated editorial policies, I will go through each in what follows.

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.

Nothing in this post is untrue. The anonymous poster was posting from responDESIGN. responDESIGN has (or has had) both professional and personal ties to 3 Public Communications. 3 Public Communications is Clevenger's firm.

As I stated elsewhere here, I trust the reader to not need "what I believe" or "here's what I think" or "here's my opinion" every time I offer a characterization of something (not to mention that to add such phrases every single time would make for some pretty clunky writing). I doubt that any intelligent person would take the end of this item as originally posted as anything other than it was. Perhaps other people have a dimmer view of my readers' intelligence than I do.

Its essence is a discipline of verification.

Nothing in this post was unverified. It was a verified fact that the IP address in question resided at responDESIGN, making it a verified fact that the anonymous poster was posting from that company. It was a verified fact that responDESIGN had ties to Clevenger's PR firm. I didn't need to speak either to 3 Public Communications or responDESIGN to know these were verified facts.

Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.

We've been through this one before. Independence does not mean neutrality, and anyone who thinks I'm supposed to maintain neutrality when there's a smear campaign being waged against my personl character and my professional crediblity is, simply, delusional.

The expanded version of #4 says that while editorialists and commentators clearly are not neutral "the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform". In this item, I lived up to my responsibility to accuracy, fairness, and my ability to inform. It's just that in this case, all of those things were in the service of defending myself against unfounded accusations.

2. This story as originally posted would not have been published by any reputable media outlet. I ask any lurking members of the media to correct me on this. There were no attempts to verify the information in the original posting (guideline 3); neither the company nor the individual were contacted to comment. The title remains unchanged and is completely misleading--there is *zero* hard evidence of ThinkBig's "links to Nathan Clevenger" (guideline 1).

I've already covered the three guidelines you cited earlier, so people can re-read what I said about those. And I stick by the title, and will continue to do so. Would you or Mr. Clevenger feel more comfortable if it had read, "Our Anonymous Critic's Ties To Nathaniel Clevenger's PR Firm"?

3. I never suggested that b!x could not violate the poster's anonymity. I am no naif when it comes to the Internet. It is the procedure that he followed in doing so that I continue to believe was done unprofessionally, because b!x felt he had to go on the "offense" as quickly as possible (guideline 4).

Again, see my earlier response at how you and others here continue to misrepresent what guideline 4 actually means. Also see some other reader's comment to you from earlier: This is all very easy for you to say when it isn't your professional reputation or your livelihood on the line.

Whether on his own or with encouragement, thinkbigPDX had taken on the task of attempting to undermine (read: defame) my reputation through the use of repeated and repeatedly-unproven smears of being bought and paid for by Beam Development. As also pointed out recently, being bought and paid for (or at least being bought and paid for without revealing it) has generally come to be accepted as one of the greatest cardinal sins in blogging.

Again, whether with encouragement or on his own, thinkbigPDX had set out to undo me. And the lesson here is simple: Don't come in here and try to ruin me. I won't take it sitting down.

4. Being a journalist is a hard business, and it requires a thick skin. B!x needs to thicken his up a bit.

I think you will find that a large prtion of my other readers are laughing their asses off at this line, as I'm sure they recognize that I have endured first Clevenger's own ad hominem attacks and then thinkbigPDX's smear campaign with a rather great deal of restraint and aplomb.

Me, I credit the power of my cute little hat.

The One True b!X on 19 May 2005

Oh, one other thing, since some people have questioned why it was necessary to actually publish the IP address itself. The reason, as it turns out, directly relates to the issue of verification.

Publishing the IP address allows anyone to use the linked WHOIS tool to see for themselves that it leads to responDESIGN. Which then leads them to click the linked Google search to see for themselves the link to 3 Public Communications.

In today's world, verification can often be public. And, often, it should be, so that readers don't need to take anyone's word for it -- they can verify for themselves.

mediamember on 19 May 2005

Prof. Gronke is correct when he says other media outlets would have contacted 3 Public Relations before posting this item, at least giving them the chance to clarify their relationship, if any, to thingBigPDX and/or Than Clevenger.

Depending on their response, it might have made some of the legal backpedaling we saw later on unnecessary. It certainly would have been less entertaining. But we're in a brave new world of blogging here, and b!X certainly has the right to set his own rules for how he operates.

While IANAL, it certainly appears the Barneses are tossing around legal threats in an attempt to quiet b!X down. I'd suggest to them that it's an awful strategy for a PR firm, and the likely outcomes include

a) more negative press for Clevenger, Opus, and 3 Public Relations
b) getting the ACLU involved in a suit over bloggers' rights as journalists
c) getting tossed out of court for filing a SLAPP suit, should they choose to persue legal action.

I can't wait to see what happens next.

(Yes, I'm choosing to remain anonymous because I'm posting my own opinions and they don't necessarily represent those of my employer, which would frown on this sort of thing. Go ahead and post the IP address if you want, it'll trace back to a Comcast cable modem.)

Alan DeWitt on 19 May 2005

On fact-checking the IP address:

Actually, it is barely possible that the posts could have come from someone posing as that IP address via some spoof or man-in-the-middle attack. The attacker would have to interactively spoof responDESIGN's IP address to the Communique while posting. Such a hypothetical attacker would have to be highly motivated, highly skilled, and have nearly unlimited access to the network infrastructure of either the Communique's or responDESIGN's ISP, or to some higher-level intermediate network provider.

In practical terms an interactive IP address spoof is so excessively unlikely that it's not worth considering. Judging by the number of factual errors I see or hear in other media, I'd say the 99.998% certainty given by a logged IP address is better than most media outlets' fact checking. Surely it's good enough.

(B!x, now would be an excellent time to start archiving your daily site backups (if you do dailies) and site logs to write-once media. Although I'm sure I recall reading the statement you reiterated in your third update in your original post, in this ephemeral media it might be hard for anyone to verify that you didn't alter anything. Some sort of audit trail or change log might come in handy if hostile lawyers get involved.)

Dave J. on 19 May 2005

b!X said:

Whether on his own or with encouragement, thinkbigPDX had taken on the task of attempting to undermine (read: defame) my reputation through the use of repeated and repeatedly-unproven smears of being bought and paid for by Beam Development.

To be honest, I'm embarassed to say I was at the point where I was wondering whether or not there actually was substance to thinkbig's comments. I say this because he made quite an effort to establish his bona fides in the original Clevenger Blow Up (TM) thread. As I mentioned earlier, if you go back and read his comments, he definitely knows the ins and outs of the Burnside project. He is quite familiar with all the three proposals, and I'd say that in addition he gave off the air of someone involved with the local business community. (His name alone should give that away.) That being said, I have no idea who he is.

Given the identity he had cultivated through previous postings, I have to admit that his charge against b!X stuck a bit. When he later failed to back up his charges with any evidence, it became evident that he was just speculating, but his initial charge, viewed in light of his previous posts, seemed like it could be true. Sorry, b!X, but that's how it appeared. Nothing against you, but the charge was serious, and it seemed like the person making it knew what he was talking about.

So that's why I think b!X had to take the steps he did. I still do not believe that the critics posting here really GET the potential damage of this charge. Why should b!X afford his anonymous slanderer the luxury afforded to the subjects of newspaper articles, when, as b!X rightly points out, this blog functions in a fundamentally different way: anyone can just jump in and say whatever they want.

Yes, a newspaper would have contacted responDESIGN before talking about the IP thing. But, at the same time, a newspaper would never have arrived at that point, because they read and edit reader commentary before it makes it onto the pages. Can you imagine what newspapers would be like if every letter to the editor was published? I think we would have a vastly different kind of journalism before us today. The rules that so many here want to hold b!X to--that he contact responDESIGN before "outing" the IP address--exist only because newspapers are never put in the position where b!X found himself.

Jonathan Radmacher on 19 May 2005

There's lots of bad speculation about defamation law here. I wouldn't look to the "Oregon State Bar" for advice about it (even though presumably it was a CLE publication, written by a lawyer). While I haven't seen any blogging defamation cases, I suspect that (a) b!X would get the protection of a reporter (while this is an inexact description, he needs to act in good faith in leveling charges), and (b) Clevenger might not get much protection (he may be a "public figure" and therefore be more subject to media scrutiny), BUT (c) charges leveled by other non-media people (i.e. non-b!Xes) (d) about non-public figures (e.g. Barnes or "Justin") might be subject to greater potential liability.
With that said, before anyone posts "info" or makes charges about someone else on a blog, you would be well-advised to get paid legal advice (as opposed to the free kind), as the outcome of each statement and case is pretty dependent on the specific set of facts in play.

Randy Leonard on 19 May 2005

I believe it is important for the Editor of this publication to make decisions as to the actual source of comments IF those commentators represent a certain position that is based on a deception to mask a financial self interest. If, as some of the anonymous commentators wrote, the truth of the message should be read independent of who posted it, anonymous or not, I would tend to agree.

To be clear, I think there may be valid reasons one may want to maintain some anonymity in making comments. I have no problem with that as long as the motivation that inspires the comment is fact based and well intentioned.

However, as I have suspected –and alluded to in my own earlier comments- the commenter in question here was not some random, disinterested “observer” of the local political scene. But, rather, a person whose financial and business interests are benefited by the choice PDC made for a developer.

These various anonymous comments have been, in my opinion, self serving (financially and otherwise), written by the same person and, worst of all, foolishly amateur.

As the old saying goes, I may have been born at night, but not last night.

torridjoe on 19 May 2005

late to the party...

Question, b!x:
In addition to 'outing' thinkbigpdx's posting terminus (and thus assumedly his place of employment), you have publicly identified the range of IP addresses for ResponDesign's entire staff, no? This makes me a little uncomfortable.

I agree that in order to place tbpdx's commentary in proper context, it was within the bounds to trace his IP and identify where it originated. But publishing RD's IP range makes public information that--outside of tbpdx--may have no relevance whatsoever to your situation.

In retrospect as purely an academic exercise, perhaps it would have been better to identify the source, then contact the source and seek verification of the IP range as coming from RD, and even to ask that they seek to discover whether someone from the office indeed will cop to being tbpdx, and posting from their computer(s).

At that point, you could have achieved your goal--identifying tbpdx's potential connections to Than--without theoretically compromising the privacy of RD's entire office staff. Even without a confirm from RD executives, you could have established the connection fairly enough in most people's minds. But because you wanted readers to have the ability to verify what you were saying, having RD confirm that posts to PC were made from there would have done the job without exposing their Internet profile.

Please recognize my extremely narrow focus in critiquing your reportage; on balance I don't see that you've done anything clearly wrong or ethically suspect. I only mean to say that I might have sought to protect the privacy of likely unrelated innocents, while outing the guilty.

Finally, it was suggested that a libel case against tbpdx might be possible. If I understand US law on the matter correctly, libel includes not only a false charge, but knowledge that the charge was false when made. From this corner, it certainly seems to be that tbpdx is nothing if not a true believer. !!

Nathaniel on 19 May 2005

In reply to Hlsy.

First, thank you Bix for allowing me to participate here. I appreciate it.

Thank you for the thoughtful question Hsly. I will try to answer it in the next week or so. We have been asked not to publicly discuss the Burnside Bridgehead while Beam Development and Opus NW are in negotiations. I think that is wise.

I need to declare first, that I am speaking here as a private citizen, not as a formerly paid advisor to any entity.

And, for the record. I am sorry if I offended you. In short. I am just plain sorry.

I learned some of my craft at the feet of James Carville. And, as a southerner have a bit of a latent red neck gene like James does (shoot first, ask questions later). Anyone who knows me personally saw the humor in my taunt a couple of weeks back. Those who don't thought I was an idiot. I tend to agree with the them. Maybe not one of my finer moments, but it sure has people talking. I can't count how many times local folks have told me that they are blogging now as a result of my poor attempt at late night humor.

By the way, as I intend to post here from time-to-time (assuming Bix will allow me to do so), I think it important to describe myself. I am 41, have two young children and one on the way. I am married to a beautiful and talented Oregonian (who I adore). I am trying to lose some weight by running on the track and punching on the bag. And, I absolutely love politics and discourse. I don't like what Bix has insinuated about me because none of the insinuations have any truth or merit. Yes, I am seekin legal counsel to determine what, if anything, can or should be done. But, I don't see how going after Bix is going to help solve the bigger problems of our city and the world. I am sure that Bix would agree with me that it is more important to spend time on more positive things.

Last, I am disappointed that so-called friends would post comments like the ones posted here the past two weeks. I don't think it productive and do not condone their actions. It's unfortunate. And, I have asked everyone I know to be more responsible and to stop the personal attacks and focus on more substantive issues.

In that vein, I have asked Bix -- again, politely -- to remove name from this thread's banner. He has not complied. Bix, I hope one day when we are old we can laugh about all of this. I think your forum here is important and am glad you are here. Because you have no editor or ombudsman, it's hard to find someone to complain to anyway. So, I will leave it to our peers here to judge.

Portland, friends and neighbors: we have big problems in this city. Our school system needs some fresh leadership and new ideas. I'll talk more about that later. The PDC does need some reform. I plan to speak before City Council on June 15 as a private citizen about the findings from our audit. Afterall, the city paid for it so is entitled to here from one of the authors.

God bless all of us. We need as much help as we can get. I know I do. Have sure learned a lot about myself and my city through this agonizing process. I want to be a better citizen and so look forward to future contributions here.

Than

tomhiggins on 19 May 2005

Than

Remember that Bix has never, to my knowledge, forced anyone off the comments here at his blog. Nor has he ever compeled them to change thier comments. Even though he is the editor here he allows a free an open exchange of ideas even when they are not to his liking.

Yet you seek legal action to make bix "comply" with your editorial wishes of his words.

I think its safe to say that even after all this mess you have created you still have not learned what it means to be a good citizen, what it means to live with the freedom of speech and ideas that this place represents in action, and what it means to be a good neighbor in this community.

Nope, you come on like the Lamb Than with appologies and the family portrait yet with the other hand you are weilding a legal bludgeon that you will use to MAKE bix comply to your wishes.

You make a point of using the term "I have asked Bix -- again, politely -- to remove name from this thread's banner. He has not complied." as if being polite weighs out your wanting to do to Bix what he has not done to you, that is to go down a revionist path over something you dont like.

I also hope that one day you and bix can sit back and laugh on this, but I hope that is because you have learnt how to live in a community that values free speech and exchange of ideas rather than forced revionist meangling due to bully boy legal threats.

Until then dont expect folks to fall for the Lamb Than spin.

-tom

MarkDaMan on 19 May 2005

How do you have the nerve, Nathaniel, to come onto this website and "politely" demand that B!x comply with your wishes. By the way it's not a polite request when you have the Julia Roberts smile, but dirty Harry's big guns pointed at him.

While B!x allows anyone to post, and post about anything they want, why don't you start your own blog where you can facilitate a discussion on your own terms? You coming here and trying to lead the discussion by your offer of a "virtual "blog conference?"" is flat out pathetic. It is wrong of you to assume that you may come here and control the discussion with you pacifist words. Your arrogance signifies to me that it is YOU that has always been handed things (possibly by your mom and daddies allowance?) and glady taken. Instead of taking questions, why don't you contribute to this space by responding to the several dozen questions aimed at you that have been posted throughout the last week. In fact, why don't we extend those open questions and have you give us your spin on the stories circulating about you in our weekly and daily rags too?

Since your credibility is being drug through the mud in so many Portland circles I have some advice for you. When you find that nobody in our small metropolis will touch you with a ten foot stick, you can always turn to the national repubs. I've heard they are always looking out for a new sleaze machine and I'm sure O'Reilly has room for a fellow Oregonian...you two faced...

Dave J. on 19 May 2005

Nathaniel said:

Anyone who knows me personally saw the humor in my taunt a couple of weeks back.

Oh please, Than. That's the lamest excuse at all, "Oh, I was just joking." Yeah, right. And don't pass it off like your neo-Carvillian attempt to confuse us city folk with your crazy backwoods Southern-talkin' ways.

Go back and read the thread. It was pretty obvious after the first responses to your posts that people were taking you seriously...yet you kept responding in that vein. Had you been joking, it would have been apparent to you that your comments were not being interpreted as jokes, and you would have taken steps to clear the air. But you did not, and you went deeper and deeper in , drawing Randy Leonard, "thinkbigpdx," and assorted others into the fray, none of whom thought you were joking.

You obviously now have the benefit of hindsight, and can look back with some chagrin at your lame remarks. Trust me, we all look back at them with chagrin as well, and we're embarassed FOR you. But please don't try to sell us some line that you were just joking around--it is abundantly clear that you were being very serious. Be a man and admit that you took it too far and you wish you hadn't.

shannon on 19 May 2005

Nice phrasing Tom. Lamb-like is correct.
Saccharine is also applicable.

The textual equivalent of Olan Mills family portraits aside, I cannot but wonder which is more offensive, the initial wacked-out bile or this new artificial candy-coating (melts in your mouth, not in your hand).

Mr. Clevenger why do you persist? There are many points to address in your last post -- Tom was nice enough to touch on a few -- but ultimately, one is left to wonder Why Exactly You Persist in crafting such an unflattering portrait of yourself.

(I've already asked myself why I persist in reading said portraiture; it's the trainwreck of it all....Can't...Quite...Turn...Away...from the spectacle.)

As tempting as it is to be snide, there's a certain point where one just feels sad for someone else's profound disconnect. (Of course, I'm not there yet, but you know what I mean).

Nice try on the feel-good, but really, I prefer the Overestimating Your Audience method to the M&M variety.

Alan DeWitt on 19 May 2005

Wow. You seem to have tapped into some hostility there, Than.

Personally, I'm giving you a fresh start. After your initial outburst, you did the sensible thing and shut up while you slept off the anger/alcohol/whatever that led you to such folly. Now, much later, you might even have admitted that you blew it. (The relevant sentence is a bit unclear.) Good enough for me to give you another chance... but please don't do it again, eh?

However, given that the editor here uses transparency to guard integrity, you need to know that it is unlikely he will voluntarily "remove" your name from the story title no matter how politely you ask. It would be against all history here on this site where even the editor's own embarrassing mistakes only rate a strikethrough. Furthermore, the headline is factual and accurate: the article talks about ties (however tenuous) from your erstwhile defender to you and there is every reason to presume the reported ties have basis in fact. There is no inaccuracy on which to base a call for a retraction.

You have nothing to gain by pursuing this in legal channels, and much reputation left to lose. It is of course your choice, but my advice to you is to let it go.

tomhiggins on 19 May 2005

So what I am waiting for now is the obvious replay of good cop bad cop....

Than now lays down the good cop role and one of his buddies , maybe in the game industry or maybe elsewhere, comes in and smears bix and or the other commentors here so that the heat is moved off the orginal focus.

But thats already happened in the first round, can we hope folks have learned thier leason and not do this a second time? Can we please hope...

Meanwhile, there is a thread about neighborhood groups on this site that is actualy productive, I think folks should start looking for more of the same and less of this craptacular flakapolooser stuff.

"Have you ever felt like youve been cheated??" J Lydon

-tom

The One True b!X on 19 May 2005

I was going to leave a certain aspect of this alone until and unless Mr. Clevenger made his decision regarding legal action, but I notice now that there's something I need to to note.

Twice now -- once via email to me, and once in a public comment to this thread -- Mr. Clevenger referred to the comments being made here about me over the last two weeks as coming from "friends" (although with the proviso that he now deems them "so-called").

That admission in and of itself confirms the "ties" referenced in the headline, and so its accuracy stands, by Clevenger's own public admission.

The headline stays.

JVK on 19 May 2005

Previous to Than's message here:

I don't get the drift of all the lashingly tedious, introspective BS that's going around in discussion of B!x's alleged violation of editorial policy, electronic privacy, so on and so forth, blah blah blah BLAH. BORING! Seriously, I think the issue is broached merely so that a few folks can listen to themselves talk while splitting hairs and microanalyzing NON-issues. Step back. Shut up. Look at the big picture. More than anything, assume nothing. Never assume that your privacy is protected in an electronic format, or your rights will ever be protected, even if the proprietor says they will be. Ever. And you'll be light and fluffy and happy and worry free. Maybe I sound naive, but it's really that simple. I suppose people who can't figure that out need to hash it over endlessly so they can learn it.
Personally, I don't see that B!x did anything wrong, except dignifying the debate with responses. But it's his site, so that's his business.

As to Than's return:
I really admire someone who can admit s/he was wrong. That takes character. Unless that person works for a PR firm, where they are paid to put a sunshiney spin on things. Then I'm a little suspicious. But I'm suspicious of yuppies anyway.

Backbiting aside, Than...buddy...you brought it on yourself! For someone interested in Portland politics, you must have been cognizant of the tension in this town directed towards PDC. And you just stepped up and gave PDC the nasty face time so many of us were looking for, merely by your association (something someone politics-saavy should have anticipated). You have furthered the agenda of those among us (myself included) who want to see PDC dissolved and its interests relegated to elected officials, where it soundly belongs. If you couldn't see that coming...hell, can I get a job with your firm? I think I can help you. And I'll only charge $40k for my services. No need to put it up for bid, innit?

But thank you for that. I appreciate your courage to apologize, but I am more thankful you've made a misstep that the rest of us stand to benefit from.

And thanks to Commissioner Leonard for taking PDC on. May many loud heavy metal songs be written about you and your righeous fight to stick it to PDC. I knew I voted for you for a reason.

paul gronke on 19 May 2005

That admission in and of itself confirms the "ties" referenced in the headline, and so its accuracy stands, by Clevenger's own public admission.

The headline stays.

The title was not accurate when written, even though it may be now.

And given Cmmr. Leonard's comments: However, as I have suspected –and alluded to in my own earlier comments- the commenter in question here was not some random, disinterested “observer” of the local political scene. But, rather, a person whose financial and business interests are benefited by the choice PDC made for a developer.

it remains clear that many are assuming *financial* ties for which there has been no evidence.

The One True b!X on 19 May 2005

Yes, Paul, it was accurate when this article was written. In fact, the ties would have existed even if this item had never been written at all, and what was originally written does constitute ties.

As for poeple making the assumption that they are financial ties, it isn't my fault if people in their own minds insert their own words into what I write, on top of apparently only reading headlines and never reading actual articles.

Again, I assume people are actually intelligent, not idiots, and write with that assumption. Perhaps you have different expectations of people, but I'm not going to start writing either content or headlines to function at the level of four year olds.

Paul Gronke on 19 May 2005

b!x,
One last post and I'll stop.

1) As mediamember confirms, no reputable journalistic outlet would have published this without allowing the affected parties a chance to respond. Take that for what you will. His/her posting is what I meant by verification--here you're being coy again. Not verifying the IP addresss or that ResponDesign used Clevenger's firm, but verifying the unsubstantiated allegations of a "tie" when you had no evidence beyond the IP address.

2) I do not believe your reputation or reputation was at *immediate* risk. The previous threads made it clear that few if any readers believed ThinkBig's allegations. Nothing would have been lost if you had taken the extra 24-48 hours to perform due diligence, verify your facts and claims, and get reactions.
You chose not to do so because you wanted to launch an immediate response--that is where you lost your neutrality, in my opinion. You were so concerned with getting back at ThinkBig in a personal way, that you let it override your journalistic norms.

3) This: Actually, what we have is a person posting from an IP at a company (and working at that company) whose CMO is married to an Associate at Clevenger's PR firm. continues guilt by association and constitutes proof of nothing. I work at Reed College. Does this mean that I benefit from everything that benefits Reed College? That I benefit from everything that benefits spouses of employees of Reed College? How far do we take this?

I think the outing of the IP and this thread may end up hurting your credibility more than the original charges. Again just my opinion. Your active readers/posters who are laughing their asses off isn't the audience you are concerned with anyway, is it after all.

The One True b!X on 19 May 2005

Once again being ignored is the fact that I very expressly and specifically never said there was a link which amounted to "Clevenger told thinkbigPDX to post that I was paid by Beam".

What I posted was that there was a link running from thinkbigPDX to Clevenger -- and there was, and there is, and that link has been demonstrated. The level and specificity of the link is something I never stated either way.

In fact, what I posted was that I had no idea whether or not Clevenger told thinkbigPDX to level unfounded charges about me, or whether thinkbigPDX decided to do so on his own to assist Clevenger -- but thinkbigPDX's early comments were very much attempts to assist Clevenger (which is what prompted readers here to question what thinkbigPDX's motivations and/or connections might be in the first place), which is why attempting to determine whether or not there was any way in which thinkbigPDX and Clevenger could possibly know each other was fair game.

Tex on 19 May 2005

I would like to address three posters here:

Paul Gronke
1) As mediamember confirms, no reputable journalistic outlet would have published this without allowing the affected parties a chance to respond.

The Oregonian reported on a letter written by Congressman David Wu on behalf of Andrew Wiederhorn last week.

This week, Wu responds via letter to the original article. The Oregonian is not a reputable journalistic outlet then? I think the original article would have had a different tone if Wu had a chance to respond before it was published, but The Oregonian went with the story.

Nathaniel Anyone who knows me personally saw the humor in my taunt a couple of weeks back.

So your taunts are humor, but you are also threatening legal action now?!? Please!!! You can't have it both ways, sorry.

Best of luck in the future, but your continuing comments just make you look bad, and futher cement a non-political future for Matt Hennesee.

B!x, I am cool with what you did. Keep up the great work.

Melissa on 20 May 2005

"I think the outing of the IP and this thread may end up hurting your credibility more than the original charges"

For the record -- not in my book. And I don't think in most other reader's books either. In fact, I do believe that most people whose opinions b!X care about believe the original, defaming, unsubstantiated accusations were much stronger and quite serious. It wasn't about b!X being worried about his readers here believing it, it was about his basic character being challenged, smeared and that's a serious situation. I challenge anyone (except, I guess, Paul) to not want to defend themselves in such a situation -- to feel it is their RIGHT to defend themselves and prove otherwise. And, to call out the accuser.

JVK on 20 May 2005

Ditto on what Melissa said. Long winded considerations in the other direction have proved myopic.

From Paul:

One last post and I'll stop.

Thank God.

justin on 20 May 2005

I also agree with what Melissa said.

Laura Logicev on 21 May 2005

Wow, I really can't believe I just read that whole long winded conclusion to......well...nothing. After reading that, I have no more information than I did when I started. Congrats on the fabulous job of outing someone. It really did nothing to further any argument of yours bix. I will continue to read your blog, though, because your love of petty nonsense and inflaming those who really need not be inflamed truly amuses me.

Wow, I don't think that paragraph made sense to anyone but me.

Oh well.

Laura Logicev on 21 May 2005

And just to ask a very pertinent question, because I disagree with bix and think Opus was the better pick for the job, is bix now going to try and find something shady out about me simply because I don't share his views? Are you going to print my address? My IP? My sexual preference?

I for one think that the intentional printing of an IP in this age of identity theft was not only irresponsible, but wholly childish.

torridjoe on 21 May 2005

do you know something about the rampant theft of IP addresses that I don't, Laura?

Alan DeWitt on 21 May 2005

"And just to ask a very pertinent question, because I disagree with bix and think Opus was the better pick for the job, is bix now going to try and find something shady out about me simply because I don't share his views?"

I thought you said you read this thread. If you think this argument is about who won the bid, your reading comprehension needs some work.

"I for one think that the intentional printing of an IP in this age of identity theft was not only irresponsible, but wholly childish."

I wonder which one this poster is wholly ignorant about, IP addressing or identity theft? I'm guessing the former. Poster knows her buzzwords, though... pointlessly throwing "identity theft" into a conversation is almost as much fun as an irrelevant reference to "terrorism".

An IP address may help to identify a person, but it's useless for stealing that person's identity. It is an important distinction.

Can we stick to relevant criticism, please?

The One True b!X on 21 May 2005

is bix now going to try and find something shady out about me simply because I don't share his views?

If you start throwing around unfounded rumors of suspect origin about me which impugn my reputation and credibility, then yes.

If you simply disagree with me, then no.

tomhiggins on 21 May 2005

I would say its funny to see folks trashing on about IP numbers being posted, but its more sad since these folks seem to have a force of will about thier half truths and misundertandings.

IP numbers ARE ALL PUBLIC. Please tato this on your hands if you dont already know it that way you can be reminded of it at all times.

IP numbers are traceable, getable and if you have a DNS (a name like wsmf.org) published for allt he world to see.

Every time you go to a web site that web site LOGS YOUR IP number. Many websites put those IPs numbers up in thier statistics, many even put thier logs up for all to read.

Dont you folks get it, dont folks do any looking into what they are using. This is the net and its 2005, for Bobs sake pick up the clue phone its been ringing for over 10 years (more for many).

You are not ANONYMOUS, not unless your tunnling thru TOR or something, which I doubt is the case. Your IP numbers are all PUBLIC INFORMATION.

And please, equating this with a ID theft and sexual based outing, please dont belittle that and please pick up said clue phone.

Cripse, this is why the Net has simply been so much of a craptacular cave in of the unimformed touristas trashing the place with thier ignorance. Kinf of make you pine for the days when the slow bus folks stayed on AOL.

Now go get informed and please stop making a mess of things.

Laura Logicev on 21 May 2005

Pardon my immense ignorance. I did not know that IP adresses were public. That being said, I think perhaps some folks here need to take a large chill pill and not throw insults at people simply because the facts were not accurately portrayed to them.

I still am finding that there really isn't a shred of REAL proof that the PDC and Mr. Clevenger were in bed with each other on this deal. Yeah, sounds like Mr.Clevenger did overreact. But that is not actually any kind of proof that this giant poo flinging contest has any merit whatsoever. I think that everyone, on both sides, should knock off all this childish innuendo and name calling. How about we try and find out if anything unseemly happened in the PDC's decision? Doesn't that sound like the reasonable thing to do? Or should we just try and undermine everyone by slinging accusations that may or may not be true?

Look, I realize that this is a blog, and as such, the standards of true journalism are not always applicable. But really. This nonsense should stop. On both sides.

Suzii on 22 May 2005

Laura Logicev, really. If you're as innocent as you come across, sit on your posting hands for 24 hours and take some deep breaths. Then stop swallowing every fact that gets "portrayed" to you.

Here's a statement: There are 95,000 taxpayer-provided, no-bid shreds of evidence that tie the PDC to Clevenger. Do the research and see if that counts as a fact, please, before you spout it to somebody else.

The question the rest of us are discussing here is whether we have evidence that ties Clevenger to thinkbigpdx.

I'm inclined to think that posting-from-a-business-that-did-business-with-his-wife leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt. To me, it's not as convincing as the Bryan Francesconi IP track, which was supported by text/context as well; Than and Thin may share a habit of making loud and offensive allegations, claiming to have proof, then slinking away without showing any, but that's too common a habit to imply that they learned it at the same frat or somesuch.

So, yes, I'd call the reporting unfinished if we're trying to pursue that trail.

However, the takeaway message b!X is putting out, really, is that Thin and Than are both pompous boobs. As in all true journalism, the fact that he allowed both ample opportunity to comment -- before and after he published -- enhances the reader's ability to judge the reliability of what he portrays.

Pompous boobiness might not be the kind of breaking news The O would lead with, but in blogland, and given adequate documentation, it's useful information, worthy of reporting. So we, the reader, are left with the question: Has b!X, or has he not, adequately documented pompous boobiness?

Then we can go on to the policy debates, which were never part of this thread:

1. How can we best recover from the ill will around this decision while still winding up with something at the east end of the Burnside Bridge that won't make us wince for the next 50 years?

2. How can we shape this city's organization so that every development decision for the next 50 years won't make us wince?

Whether something unseemly happened in last month's decision is, compared to those, a minor point, and we might not have time to get back to it.

The One True b!X on 22 May 2005

I'm inclined to think that posting-from-a-business-that-did-business-with-his-wife leaves plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

That's not what this post says the ties are.

Suzii on 22 May 2005

Yeah, I shoulda left in my first description, "business-that-did-business-with-a-friend-of-his-wife's-cousin's-barber." I was trying to be hyperbolic and short at the same time and it didn't work.

b!X, I humbly submit that you may have acquired a blind spot from working solo; my perspective gleaned as an employee, an employee's spouse and an employee's offspring is that this is pretty thin soup:

Thin works for Phin. Phin's married to Carrie. Carrie works with Than. The companies involved have, in the past, done unspecified amounts of business, which involved Than but may or may not have personally involved Thin, Phin or Carrie.

Probably very few people in this city know their boss' spouses well, and almost none well enough for that conduit alone to tie them to their boss' spouses' associates.

And probably nobody in this city would care to have their names tied to everybody with whom they've personally done business in the past five years -- especially if that includes the guy who got sent to deliver our dishwasher last year, ugghh! -- let alone everybody who's done work for their employer.

So, really, not a convincing case.

Melissa on 22 May 2005

What some folks keep forgetting is this:
All b!X is saying is...here it comes, in as simple an explanation as I can think of -- There's a connection between Thin and Than in this way: Thin works at a company that Than once did PR for and remarkably, Thin started flinging accusations at b!X shortly after Than's meltdown here -- and flinging similar kinds of nasty bits I might add -- and isn't that interesting?
Nobody is saying they are DEFINITELY friends, or ABSOLUTELY have a direct connection -- simply that, also interestingly enough, they have a previous and current employer in common and oddly enough, one's current employer has a wife working at Than's current company.

Again, nothing absolute, just extremely curious and certainly grounds for the two to have crossed paths in the past or present. POTENTIALLY -- as in: food for thought, makes you go "hrm", throw it in the pot and see what cooks.

That's all. Yeesh.

JVK on 23 May 2005

Stop the insanity!

The One True b!X on 25 May 2005

There's a bit in today's Willamette Week which claims I outed thinkbigPDX as being Phin Barnes. Readers here will please note that this post contains a May 18 update which says that the proper name on the email I received from thinkbigPDX was not Phin Barnes.

So unless the WW knows something I don't, I never stated that thinkbigPDX was Phin Barnes.

Heritage Trees of Portland on 18 May 2005

Portland's Heritage Trees are something to behold. I was going to cut down all of the Heritage Trees because the Oregonian needs newsprint paper, but then I discovered: The ordinance further states that it is unlawful for any person, without...

it's the goose thing on 19 May 2005

The goslings have hatched. They tumble around the grassy slope near the pond, each group of them carefully monitored by their pairs of haughtily protective parents. Each dad stands stock still, never letting his eyes leave mine as I stroll...