SFist: Gavin's Sock Puppet

markshervey

Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:31:34 -0800

Team Newsome including John, Bjorn and Peter: "Fake bloggers soon to be ‘named and shamed" "Hotels, restaurants and online shops that post glowing reviews about themselves under false identities could face criminal prosecution under new rules that come into force next year. Businesses which write fake blog entries or create whole wesbites purporting to be from customers will fall foul of a European directive banning them from “falsely representing oneself as a consumer”.... " http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1361968.ece

katlyn

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:05:55 -0800

This story seems like a distraction. What happen to the real issues that are supposed to be taken seriously?

ragoneisfat@ragoneisfat.com

Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:49:46 -0800

Diet Diet Exercise Exercise Peter Ragone: Ellis Act, TIC, weird answers that make no sense, bad. Exercise: Good.

peterragonewatch

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:33:51 -0800

More on Peter Ragone.... Did you hear about how he was suing and those weird comments he made in Beyond Chron and in the Chronicle. You can find the article on Beyondchron dot org type in Peter Ragone as a search value. Or just do a Google search: Ragone TIC Ellis Act Does anyone keep an eye on Peter Ragone? How can he do the things he does? Isn't there some kind of oversight? Why do people let Peter Ragone push them around? Why does that Alex let Gavin push him around? Is he a man or a little scared boy? Someone even glimpsed at my wife there would be hell to pay.

Quicktime

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:51:37 -0800

Sounds you people all work at city hall. Newsom is a POS, a Madison Ave tailor made for San Francisco packaged politician. The slim Ricon One towers, gay marriage, homless dinners and opera. What a fucking joke, Ellis acted, global warmed and fed up with this shit. The city was ruined 30 yrs ago by downtown interests.

Anonymous

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:27:44 -0800

No, it's not violating any "rights to privacy". Why? Because that IP was public domain info. As was the methods to figure out where it originated from. No hacking of any kind was done, just a few simple searches. Had they forcibly gotten the data by illicite means it would be violating individual's right to privacy.

Rob "Bad News"

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:57:30 -0800

Chalk it up to good old fashion- politicking! People use pseudonym's and make anonymous comments all the time in the "Blog-o-sphere." This is why you have to be careful what you read / interpret in blogs! What is kind of creepy is that the press is outing him- this seems to be breaching an individuals right to privacy. Big Brother IS watching YOU!

colo

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:45:51 -0800

Regardless of who's saying what about Gavin Newsom's personal life.. he is the man! He helps SF be the factor it is in America. So relax, Let the man do his thing!

stopragone

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:37:50 -0800

More Ragone. Do the following Google search: Ragone TIC Ellis Act

stopragone

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 00:26:57 -0800

More Ragone. Do the following Google search: Ragone TIC Ellis Act

sundoggy

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 20:48:55 -0800

Peter Ragone is making a complete fool of himself. The RIGHT thing to do on Gavin Newsome's part is... Upon returning from his working/vacation, he should send Ragone packing on his own with a one-way ticket. Incognito with internet dating etc. is one thing. Posting comments to exonerate the mayor while attempting to defile Dan Noyes is inexcusable behavior.

heatherr

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:34:36 -0800

re: anonymous posting. as an individual, posting anonymously evens the playing field. putting your real name out there makes you a target, frankly, of those with less than honorable intentions, and it only takes one to ruin your life. just look at what happens to people in the political middle in this town. you become just so much raw meat to those at the extreme of right and left, who have either too much time and/or money to spend on their pet issues to arrive at functional political solutions. the rest of us don't have time to bother doing anything more than act in good faith, instead of posting under different user names to create the illusion of non existent support for stupidity.

T-man

Wed, 31 Jan 2007 06:45:51 -0800

Hey What do you mean SFist isn't a kink site? That's bulls**t. While I'm here all I see and here is blah, blah,blah,blah. "Your guy is an a**" "No your guy is an a**" Is too. Is not. is too. is not. Yes we all know that someone posted assuming to be someone else. Uhh duh. It is done all of the time by all sides. If the other guy had become mayor, you know the guy who quit after he lost, what's his name, anyway he would have people doing the same thing. Politics is for grown ups people and grown ups lie. (see presdient) What's next someone complaining that their political opponent is lying about them? Heaven forbid.

Anonymous

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:48:51 -0800

I'm all for net thuggery (it results in much hilarity), but the guy had it coming. He can't even troll correctly, as evidenced by the fact he wasn't even using Tor. Christ, that's free software, and they tell you how to configure it. -_- MAKING YOURSELF ANONYMOUS IS NOT HARD. So Mr. Ragon- I'm sorry, Mr Nelson, do it right next time. You're a public figure and can't hide in the vast crowd of 0-255 values as easily anymore.

difi

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:30:11 -0800

i mean really. everyone blogs under other names, so why the fuss? ragone made matters worse by denying it. he should have said what i just said and this would have remained a tempest in a teapot. now, let's talk about the 49ers...

Catrine

Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:36:27 -0800

By the way, SFist Jer, I noticed Jon uses apostrophes to pluralize words as well. Perhaps your "editor-in-chief type guy" could use an editor himself.

h. brown

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 05:04:45 -0800

Campers, Anonymity, like any drug can be abused. It reminds me of the experiment where subjects thought they were sending strong electrical shocks to innocent victims. Because they thought they were anonymous, most turned up the dial. Maybe the Russian-roulette game in 'Deer Hunter' is a better example. The risk becomes a bigger thrill than material rewards. Along those lines, the homophobic, 'SF Sweetie' is back attacking D-6 rivals. She's apparently had gender reassignment and is now 'Uncle Miltie'. I don't remember Milton Berle as being a cowardly backstabber. h.

Jerry Jarvis

Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:55:41 -0800

A da dad ad ada dada daa da

dan

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:30:14 -0800

This is kinda funny because I was posting with multiple ids on Dan Noyes' blog the other day and he outed me too. I'd post the link but I don't know how on this board. I really lit into'em about it though. But no big deal really and actually I simply dont care, but I did google "anonymous political speech" and this is the first link... a great discussion on the issue. (ps dear Peter Ragone, if you really did that you seriously need to grow up....) quote…Last April, in MacIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech. Anonymity, the court reasoned, helps speech stay free. Focusing on political speech - the sort of speech that lies at the core of the First Amendment - the MacIntyre ruling stipulated that restrictions on anonymous political speech must be narrowly tailored and serve an over-riding state interest. Earlier cases had already guaranteed that the right to anonymity reaches beyond political speech. In Talley v. California, the Supreme Court shot down a Los Angeles ordinance banning all types of anonymous pamphlets - political, commercial, or otherwise. The court explained that the "identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression." Both of these cases, MacIntyre and Talley, based the right to anonymous speech on First Amendment grounds. Though the constitutional right to privacy is admittedly unpopular with the current Supreme Court, it could be used to provide anonymity with yet another layer of protection. Who cares? A robust right to anonymity covers more than unsigned notes; it covers your right to send and receive anonymous messages, to use a pseudonym, and, arguably, to engage in cash transactions. You probably already do these things in realspace. You'll definitely want to do them on the Net. …end quote

pulpstressjns

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:24:35 -0800

It seems to me that people who do want to speak out in support of our mayor either face total criticism from the staff or a handful of bloggers that hog the boards, or they find that their messages aren't posted at all, as was the case with myself and a few others. I would just like to say that, while I am not in agreement with everything our mayor does and stands for, I do support him because I feel that he has a genuine interest in wanting to improve our city, and isn't that what's really important? The problem I find with critics is that, while they make lots of clever (or rather not so clever) remarks (any preschooler would be impressed no doubt), there's never any real substance behind anything they say. I await the day that a critic can come out, and rather than spend all their time bashing Newsom, invest some real time in contributing to a meaningful conversation about how to better our city. I did not vote for Newsom because I thought he would be perfect or always right. I voted for him because I felt his heart was in the right place and he'd do a great job, and I believe he's done a great job thus far, given what he's had to work with. What ever happened to serious journalism and people who really want to see positive movement in their city? I don't dare say that there aren't good people out there, but some of these message boards really make me wonder. By the way, I do not know, nor am I related, to Peter Ragone and I do not work for Newsom. If any of the staff would like to know who I am, no need to invade my privacy with all your fancy technology. Simply ask.

Kim Jong Il

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:35:05 -0800

Alas, Mr. Gavinwatch, no one takes my planning seriously. The next phase, execution, will be much more effective. Mr. Gavin should try it.

SFGary

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:21:06 -0800

Wow, 37 comments! must be some kind of record. It looks like I found a 4th topic SFist readers get worked up enough to comment: 1) Eating 2) Drinking 3) Gavin and his political antics/girlfriends 4) Internet privacy

SFist Jer

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:52:21 -0800

Hey, SPR -- a few points. 1) You need to get off of your "Rita this, Rita that" crap. Look at who authored the piece if you want to criticize. The fellow is named "Jon," and he is our editor-in-chief type guy. And, I assure you, he is not one of Rita's sockpuppets. 2) "vast journalism talents" -- Among journalism skills is checking with sources. However, those sources need to respond. Jon very clearly states that he approached PWR about this issue via telephone and email. PWR did not choose to respond. If he had, this little tempest in a teapot would have been averted quickly. Jon also clearly is still asking about improper sock-puppetry; this is not an out-and-out accusation. And Jon proved that he couldn't get a response by asking in private, but he could by posing it in public. So there ya go. 3) Side notes: "Apostrophe 's' " is not how you pluralize something. And I'm probably the only SFist that supports "bill's" like the patriot act (unverified, but I'd bet the farm). 4) Despite any concerns he (perhaps rightly) has about the appropriateness of the article, PWR himself responded in a forthright and classy manner above; by responding with a hot head, you and any responding like you tarnish the image of the guy you are trying to stand up for. Taking up for another is admirable, but misplaced in this instance. (should I follow my own advice? probably) 5) "another line of work . . ." ha! You think this is Rita's job? SFist is largely, though not 100%, a volunteer operation. Just FYI. 6) Personally, I like Gavin, and voted for Gavin, and will probably continue to do so. But I realize that being mayor puts a huge target on his back, which applies to a lesser extent to those around him. Price of being 'da Gavsta or being close to him. Move on. Yours, SFist Jer (Rita's finger puppet).

GavinWatch

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:51:14 -0800

When the Mayor's Director of Communications posts on the City's most popular blog, that shouldn't be considered part of his private, non-work related life. (Are there any other blogs in SF that get the kind of traffic SFist does?) Sock-puppetry is a pretty serious offense on most discussion boards and grounds for being banned. Peter could've avoided all this mess by simply communicating with SFist and answering their queries. In Jon's post he repeatedly states that they're not sure all the posts are Peter's doing, but that Peter refused to be a grown-up and talk to them about it. And Kim Jong Il: Sure you have 100% approval ratings, but are you still so ronery, so ronery and sadry arone?

Kim Jong Il

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:15:57 -0800

Comrades, it is confession time. Occasionally I allow KWillets to visit my palace and post to SFist. Since I am the greatest man in history, I generously allow him to use my WiFi, although I consider P2P traffic an act of war. The fact that he only posts from my IP address should not be misconstrued by warmongering capitalist puppets. I am a real person, and I have a 100% approval rating, according to every single poll. Now I am off to question time, which this month will again focus on why I am so great.

kevn

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:10:59 -0800

What the f*ck? Does the whole Ragone clan share the same computer and penchant for Rita/SFist? That's one potluck I can avoid. And I second GavinWatch's comments (right on!) By the way, focusing on an individual instead of a group is playbook technique #1 for discrediting a popularly held opinion, effort, movement, whathaveyou...Ragone Clown Posse: keep your dirty political tricks within the walls of Room 200, not SFist.

tony

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:03:10 -0800

looks like all the ragones and friends of the ragones have the same snappish tone, long-held suspicion of rita's supposed bias, and prediliction for early-morning posts. just saying. peter, how about calming down your family and friends so they don't embarrass you more than you already have yourself?

SPR

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:05:05 -0800

Rita (if that is your real name) This type column is at best just tabloid journalism with tabloid journalism techniques. Lets get the record straight: 1. Peter W. Ragone is a real person (I take it, based on your journalism skills you know this because you saw other "real" periodical's that had his pictures in it with his name written underneath those pictures) 2. J. Oneil is a real person as well and is his wife. (I'm surprised that with your journalism skills you could not dig that information up, Bush-leaguer) 3. John Nelson, his wife and child are real. (Far be it that you have the ability in your vast journalism talents to figure out that one) and let me remind you that if John is over PWR's house and wants to use his computer, he can do so, or would you like to take this right away from us as well? 4. After reading your article I think it is pretty accurate that you support bill's like the patriot act. Your need to destroy PWR is futile and pathologic. Your insatiable need to invade his private (non-work related) life is deplorable. This is probably why "real" Professional Journalist and Communication Politicians do not dignify you with responses when you call (hack). 5.My name is Sean, I am the younger brother of PWR. I assure you that I am real. For the record I have no issue any with "journalist right to report" (mind you, I don't think of you should have the right to consider yourself a journalist) as long as they are credible. You Rita on the other hand should consider another line of work, I think you owe this to your readers. And based your other pieces of work it is my opinion that you are not credible. SPR

Kimo Crossman

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 05:13:21 -0800

anonymous surfing? - much easier than TOR for simple tasks: http://www.the-cloak.com/anonymous-surfing-home.html hmm this whole discussion about protecting anonymous free speech? Sure seems relevant to the muni wifi discussion which has ACLU, EFF and EPIC up in arms and still is unresolved. Unlike say, the library which requires a court order for ones info. http://www.muniwireless.com/article/articleview/5513/1/23/ http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/bytes_and_pieces/san_francisco_finalizes_wifi_contract_with_earthlink-google.shtml http://www.epic.org/privacy/internet/sfan4306.html

Jerry Jarvis

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:32:04 -0800

jon only did what every one wanted hbrown to do and chickened out.

GavinWatch

Fri, 26 Jan 2007 01:06:18 -0800

Peter Ragone realized that SFist was becoming a new discussion board for people outside the traditional Wall/Junto circuit, and he panicked at the thought of uncontrolled, unsympathetic speech. Peter's comments about Rita are clearly trying to intimidate and discredit her. When you consider the way Peter and Gavin have similarly tried to intimidate, discredit, and blackball Dan Noyes, it shows a pattern of trying to stifle dissent and control the media. It may not be technically unethical or against the law, but it's ugly and cheesy and not the sort of thing any liberal/progressive San Franciscan wants to see our government wallowing in. As to the issue of anonymous speech, I think if you want to use an alias to post comments, that's fine. But when you post similar comments under multiple names in an attempt to artificially amplify your opinion and create the false impression of a broad base of support, that's dishonest and deserves to be called out. And from the Gothamist comment policy's definition of bad comments: "Bad comments insult the writer of the post, other commenters, Gothamist, other websites, etc." Peter's comments are insulting. To Rita, SFist, and the rest of us. What's even more insulting is the fact that the Mayor's Director of Communications doesn't have the guts to answer the phone when Jon, Rita, or Dan Noyes calls. You're the Director of Communications for chrissake! Communicate! I guess Peter is too busy commenting on SFist, stacking the deck for the next "Town Hall," or setting up cream-puff interviews with the Bay Area Reporter or freaking Energy 92.7. Here's a sampling of Peter's comments: "do you really hate gavin newsom this much?" "why do you hate gavin newsom sooooooo much?" "im talking about your full time newsom hater status." "rita, lighten up and stop just hating on newsom at all times." Peter: maybe you should stop hating and take your own advice: "politics can be fun as long as it is not mean."

Lukester

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:43:20 -0800

So let me get this right. If Ragone gives quotes about Newsom after hours, he is quoted as the public spokesperson for the administration because our taxdollars pay him to be an exempt employee who is on the clock whenever he talks about SF. But, if he posts after hours he can pimp the boss under whatever name he wants? In the first case, if a reporter looks at the caller ID and quotes him for who he is, it is basic journalism. But online, if a blogger looks at his caller ID and quotes him for who he is it is an invasion of privacy? I doubt this will be answered at Question Time, but the bigger question is why he isn't proud to disclose that he works for Newsom. Why?

David Q.

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 22:11:57 -0800

The only fact I trust is that the posters posting under "Peter Ragone" and "John Nelson" originate from the same IP. This in of itself is good to know. There are too many possiblities after that. I take all my third-hand information with large grains of salt.

Greg

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:35:28 -0800

@ip2location: it is not 100% accurate because of the way it looks up the location of the router. it's not 100% but is is good at figuring out what company owns the router, et al. happy fun times!

Jeffrey W. Baker

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:13:19 -0800

If you're so worried about your IP address, use Tor (The Onion Router) at tor.eff.org

The Answer

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:53:01 -0800

Ok I think I've figured it out. The John Nelson/jonell ids are the same perosn (both are close to Janine O'Neil) -- Peter Ragone's hermaphrodite "wife" (because of the "he") reference. Hopefully they have 2 sons cause then the "our sons are best friends" reference works. Ta Da!

ip2location

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:46:41 -0800

ip2location.com - it's doesn't work well for at least sbc ips. at home i'm reported as being in san jose. and at work i think i'm in pleasanton. in reality i'm in sf for both.

Greg

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:34:05 -0800

This is hilarious. I had no idea that SFist had so much influence and power over the masses. Way to go, SFist! Helpful hint for people new to the whole "blog" thing - get yourself a TypeKey account. It is free, you can even register it to a fun name (like MattyMatt did) and then that way no one can pretend to be you on the all important comments section of Very Big Blogs. Also, for the SFist folks - plug your IP addresses into the free form at ip2location.com and you can get a physical location of the router in question. I use it all the time to fight spammers. Or angry commenters.

Jerry Jarvis

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:57:21 -0800

Jon I have to agree with bill.

KWillets

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:21:06 -0800

"John Nelson" seems to be over at Peter's house a lot between 7 and 8 am. Search for: site:sfist.com "posted by john nelson"

kay

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:07:16 -0800

"john nelson" and "jonel" are so strikingly similar that i can hardly take pwr's distinction of the two names as his bffaeae (best friend forever-and ever and ever) and wife seriously. also - and this is in no way an exact science - i just did a google search for the name jonel and the first 10 results that supplied their gender were male.

Wondering

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:14:10 -0800

Did peter write the script, for his wife and friend to post. Just wondering.

bill

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:08:40 -0800

I think SFIST just violated its own privacy policy by posting information about Peter Ragone's IP address. Whether or not you disclose the actual IP address, you associated him with another poster and identified that you attempted to ascertain his actual identity, and then published the results. That is a failure to maintain user privacy per your own rules. Legal Disclaimer Though we make every effort to preserve user privacy, Gothamist may need to disclose personal information when required by law wherein we have a good-faith belief that such action is necessary to comply with a current judicial proceeding, a court order or legal process served on any of the Gothamist Sites. and Comments In order to enhance their use of the Gothamist Sites, users can choose to leave comments on particular articles of interest. To leave a comment, users must submit information including a valid email address. Gothamist uses this information to screen out users who leave comments prohibited by our terms and conditions of use, and will not pass this information to any other organization.

Jon

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:05:23 -0800

Just to be clear here: -We called Peter and e-mailed him a few times to see what was up. We never heard back. -We have not, nor will we, let anyone know what the IP addresses are. We have not nor will we ever give that info out.

That Chick

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:44:13 -0800

Wow! That is very cool investigating work there. I was totally shlocked when I saw pwr on the comments section. In all bias news reporting going on, SFist has remained neutral for the most part by doing both sides of the Who's Defending/Attacking Mayor Newsom, so keep up the good work. Who am I? That Chick of course. Just a mere commentor with nothing more to do than look for a job and comment on SFist. If you really want to know WHO I am you would be disappointed. There total honesty....brutal!

Rain

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:43:49 -0800

What if "best friend" john nelson is an actual sock puppet??

SFist Jer

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:39:47 -0800

Hey, Eve -- I think her name is Janine O'Neil. So joneil/jonell is not such a far cry. -- Jer's Sockpuppet.

Luke Thomas

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:38:00 -0800

I just spoke with Peter by phone. He expressed concern about his privacy being invaded. He said: "My privacy has been invaded. I find it extraordinary and disturbing that SFIST would be doing this." He also said John Nelson is a real person separate unto himself. One thing is for sure this story is going to be another warning to those who think they're anonymous when posting comments on websites. I believe website's that accept anonymous postings should post a disclaimer warning posters that information about their identity may be recorded and subsequently used against them. At least, then, they can't complain when they get busted and exposed.

bill

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:32:06 -0800

In response to Paul Hogarth, who wrote: "I think it's unethical to go by a pseudonym online. While there is a constitutional right to anonymous speech, I feel very strongly that when you're talking about politics -- you should be held accountable for your statements and people should know who you really are." The whole idea of "Anonymous Free Speech" was about "Anonymous Free POLITICAL Speech." I mean, honestly, why would you need anonymitiy to post about something mundane, like why you hate Bran Muffins, or why is the weather so bad? The protection of anonymity specific to political speech is SO THAT one need not fear REPRISAL for speaking out against injustice or simply offering criticism of a current politcal regime. That's kind of the whole point, Hogarth! PS - Please don't reveal my IP address! Seriously! Also keep in mind that people who work for large companies, or go to the same school, may share the same IP address with many coworkers or other students - so just because you see two identical IP addresses associated with two different pseudonyms, doesn't mean they are the same person.

Eve

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:17:39 -0800

I thought Mr. Ragone's wife was named "Janine."

kevin

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:12:00 -0800

Well, I guess that clears things up regarding Peter. And by the way, I'm not a supporter - I'm actually in the Daly camp - but let me remind you that Chris has also commented on the site, so I don't think Peter should be chastise for supporting his guy here. And while we're on the subject, I disagree with Paul and support anonymous political speech, even if it's political speech we disagree with. Nothing's unethical about anonymous political speech; what's unethical is how you use it (ie, covertly fostering divisions in a group in an attempt to disrupt and "neutralize" it).

nulled

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:06:41 -0800

Is this timed to break while Blue Tie is out of the country so that Ragone can be quietly replaced? Room 200 has been getting lousy press. Should a Ragone Death Watch commence?

matthew

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:05:13 -0800

Wow guys what as scoop. Don’t you think that if he was really being nefarious he’d never have used his real name in the first place?

Jerry Jarvis

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:38:48 -0800

This is scary Jon to know who might also have the same info access as this.

peter ragone

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:36:47 -0800

hiya folks- john nelson is my best friend, and yes, he does stay at my house all the time. our sons are best friends also. i think we have the same viewpoints on most things. jonell is my wife. hope this clears some things up. all the best! peter

Paul Hogarth

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:28:54 -0800

I have to respectfully disagree with MattyMatt -- I think it's unethical to go by a pseudonym online. While there is a constitutional right to anonymous speech, I feel very strongly that when you're talking about politics -- you should be held accountable for your statements and people should know who you really are. It's especially bad, however, when you're the Mayor's Press secretary commenting about the Mayor while under a pseudonym. Remember how much flak Congressional staffers (including those of our own Dianne Feinstein) got busted editing their boss' Wikipedia entry??

GavinWatch

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:26:49 -0800

Oh, snap. Did Ragone just get macaca'ed? That's a nice bit of investigative journalism.

tony

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:18:15 -0800

i thought gavin newsom was peter ragone's sock puppet.

MattyMatt

Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:04:52 -0800

In defense of commenting under an assumed name: my real name is not, in fact, MattyMatt. Lots of (most) commenters use fake names. It's one of those deceptions that just about everyone does and just about everyone's used to. On the other hand, just about everyone is not the mayor's director of communications.