Gomer and Goober Patrol Mayberry; Shazam!

>>Question: Were these women seriously prepared to handle an emergency or was this all meant to be cute?

They say the clothes make the man, but in this case I think they just give the {...]s an excuse to call The Man on anybody they don't approve.

"Rotary is an organization of business and professional persons united worldwide who provide humanitarian service, encourage high ethical standards in all vocations and help build goodwill and peace in the world"

And, of course, their hats and shirts are free to local politicians posing as security staff! No surprise that our Town leaders in government are getting freebies from local business organizations. But why the Rotary costume, ladies? Doesn't the Town of Vienna with its own police force maintain a more legitimate security identity than a local business club? Who's going to be in charge of security next year, Magruders?

Perhaps the two ladies may have been wiser to have worn some form of identification that would inform anyone who saw them that they are members of the Vienna town government. They are most certainly not security experts, and to have identified themselves as town public servants, even though they were wearing uniforms provided by the Rotary Club, would have probably been more beneficial to attendees at the festival.

As to this continuing issue of the prohibition of photography at Freeman Store, why not ask them why photography is prohibited? It is a fact that various public buildings have similar prohibitions, and quite often these prohibitions are merely intended to prevent the distractions imposed by constantly flashing cameras.

Often, tourists do not do much thinking before firing their flashes right next to the face of another person, which is extremely annoying and has potential for injury. It is quite likely that something as simple as this is the reason for the no photographs rule in the Freeman Store as opposed to anything of a sinister nature.

Are we having fun yet?

The Golden Girls are on the case-I know I am feeling better. Ridiculous.

Let's not be too hard on Gomer and Goober now, folks. That picture of Jane in her security outfit would surely scare ME into behaving myself!!

"As to this continuing issue of the prohibition of photography at Freeman Store, why not ask them why photography is prohibited?"

They now announce their reasoning at http://www.historicviennainc.org. That explanation, which comes from Laine Hyde, is BS Steve. And, who, by the way is "them"? The building is owned by the Town of Vienna.

Is this the same Steve Rigby who works for Shirley Damon?

I was looking for some information on this year's Viva Vienna and was left shaking my head when I came across this article. This sounds like a bunch of disgruntled children or sore losers. I can't believe adults would put up such trash.

Do you have the same disdain for the recent polling corruption in Vienna? Or is that adult behavior fine by you?

Years ago an eighty year old neighbor went to the park to establish order. One nineteen year old decked him. Next time he asked his neighbor to accompany him on his foray which was ok until the neighbor realized the old man was packing heat. Bye Bye.

Was Maud packing heat? Doubt it, but if she was, that sure would be problematic.

Over the Viva Vienna weekend, I went into the Freeman Store and took plenty of pictures, and had no problem. No one asked me to leave, and no one asked me to stop taking pictures, so what is all the fuss about? I live and work in Vienna.

Re: Often, tourists do not do much thinking before firing their flashes right next to the face of another person, which is extremely annoying and has potential for injury.

...potential for injury... please tell me how a flash has potential for injury?... sounds like you guys will stoop to any lie in the book to try and spin your discrimination and abuses to "fit" the nice little town you think Vienna has become!

Maud doesn't appear to be carrying walkie talkie or cell phone on the picture blowup.

To Steve Rigby... the camera and photographer that was selectively removed from the Freeman Store took pictures without a flash. No potential for flash injury, yet, the photographer was still removed, even though the police stated he could stay and take pictures.

The ball is in your court, now. Please tell me why a photographer with no potential for flash injury (which, by the way, is nonsense and not true), was kicked out, while other people were seen taking pictures with a flash, are allowed to stay?

The Freeman Store staff know what they are doing. They are selectively discriminating against citizens who they don't happen to like or agree with, just like when the TOV tried to have all video filming of their meetings banned. They failed here, but for the next 6 months, they tried to intimidate the free and unfettered documenting and filming by placing a police officer in the Council, something they never did before, and eventually stopped, because they realized they were not going to stop filming.

Note: If we had honest and competent journalists in this town that would report the news, this site would not be needed, and this photographer would not be involved with this site. Were you even aware that Jane Seeman and Council actually entertained the idea that would have made it illegal to film their meetings? How are you going to spin that?

OK, so we goofed, we thought it was Halloween.

With the haunted house scene how could you fault them for thinking it was Halloween?

Is the power going to these {...]s heads? Are they Barney Fife on Mayberry RFD? Or do they just like wearing the uniform? Quite silly, indeed.

The fact that they would step outside with such a outfit is silly and stupid. It's a good thing they didn't have guns. Why, I wouldn't trust these {...]s to guard the town green bathrooms let alone the WO&D Trail.

Historic Vienna says:

They now announce their reasoning at http://www.historicviennainc.org. That explanation, which comes from Laine Hyde, is BS Steve. And, who, by the way is "them"? The building is owned by the Town of Vienna.

To which Steve responds:

By "them" I meant the folks who work at the Freeman House.

If by "interrupt," Ms. Hyde means "bother" or "annoy," I could agree with her. Perhaps the reason for the no photography without permission rule could be more succinctly stated.

Were I in charge of a small museum/store, with tight confines and very low levels of lighting that would require a flash in almost any situation, I would probably ask the same of persons who would wish to take pictures.

Since there is no absolute prohibition, it is quite likely that the management of Freeman Store would allow photography with or without flash if it could be accomplished without infringing upon other visitors.

Tell you what. I shall ask about this the next time I can get by there and I'll post their response.

Shutterbugzzz says:

To Steve Rigby... the camera and photographer that was selectively removed from the Freeman Store took pictures without a flash. No potential for flash injury, yet, the photographer was still removed, even though the police stated he could stay and take pictures.

The ball is in your court, now. Please tell me why a photographer with no potential for flash injury (which, by the way, is nonsense and not true), was kicked out, while other people were seen taking pictures with a flash, are allowed to stay?

To which Steve responds:

The scenario you have presented is a bit troubling. It does appear to indicate that selectivity was being used in the case in question.

However, the use of a flash issue remains as a cause for some "no photos" rules in various places in part because a flash can indeed cause at least a temporary problem that results in some loss of visual acuity for a period of time. Many camera manuals I have read caution against using a flash too close to the face of another person, especially the high powered external flash units that do have the capacity to cause real injury. It remains to be seen if anything having to do with camera flashes is related to this rule at Freeman Store.

As stated in another post on this issue, I shall, at my earliest convenience, ask for a clarification of their rules about photography.

Shirley Damon Fan says:

Is this the same Steve Rigby who works for Shirley Damon?

To which Steve responds:

Yep.

What a Laugh! says:

..potential for injury... please tell me how a flash has potential for injury?...

To which Steve responds:

This is actually off-subject, but since you asked...

There is not a camera manual that I am aware of that does not caution against the use of a flash in too close a proximity to the face or eyes in order to avoid injury or temporary loss of eyesight.

If you happen to have a camera, you have apparently never bothered to read the manual, for if you had, you would already know this.

Good lord, all of you! Stop it!

The person taking the pictures was removed because Laine Hyde & Maud Robinson despise him. There is no other reason. Stop putting out lame excuses.

Is this the same Steve Rigby who works for Shirley Damon?

To which Steve responds:

Yep.

Can you explain the actions of Shirley Damon here? How do you work for someone who clearly shows disdain for the law? It's not even a hard call - Damon is either corrupt or incompetent.

I can understand being in his profession that Steve might be more sensitive to the issue of photographing sensitive documents etc..but that is not the issue here. In fact I have a friend, and I see someone else posted, who took pictures over the weekend and no one bothered her. Hmmm. Bottom line all it is the arrogance by which the garden club operates.

Regarding the flash injury red herring:

Please prove your assertion. Facts please.

Want a good laugh?

Read a Steve Rigby post then scroll up to the pictures at the top of the thread....

Repeat for every post.

Steve Rigby works for Damon Galleries? Wow! These people will stop at nothing to hold their power.

Next time someone takes a picture in the Freeman Store they ought to take it to Damon Galleries to get it framed.

Regarding: There is not a camera manual that I am aware of that does not caution against the use of a flash in too close a proximity to the face or eyes in order to avoid injury or temporary loss of eyesight.

You must not get out much... go to Canonusa.com. Check out their flash manuals, e.g. the Speedlite 580EX, which happens to be one of the smaller portable external flash units I use. The only reference to "eye" is: "With the catchlight panel, you can create a catchlight in the subject's eyes to add life to the facial expression."

Read the Canon manuals, for their 580 flash unit. Hmmm, no mention of eye injury, whatsoever. There is not one mention in their PDF manual that discusses anything about eye injury or sight injury or retinal injury.

But, this is completely irrelevant, the issue is NOT eye injury, flash injury, or whatever you want to call it, the Freeman Store managers and the TOV engage in selective discrimination, and that's that. Several people have gone into the Freeman Store since this incident, and have taken pictures with their cameras and flash units to prove our point and have not been asked to leave.

Goober writes:

Steve Rigby works for Damon Galleries? Wow! These people will stop at nothing to hold their power.

To which Steve responds:

What the heck is that statement supposed to mean? What does where I work have to do with politicians holding onto their power? Please tell me directly what are you trying to insinuate?

Gomer writes:

Want a good laugh?

Read a Steve Rigby post then scroll up to the pictures at the top of the thread....

To which Steve responds:

I am amazed. All you have to do here on this website is post a couple of comments that are completely devoid of any bias whatsoever, and blam...you are suddenly the object of great attention.

Perhaps it is actually the lack of apparent bias in my commentary that has set some folks off so much.

Anonymous writes:

Read the Canon manuals, for their 580 flash unit. Hmmm, no mention of eye injury, whatsoever. There is not one mention in their PDF manual that discusses anything about eye injury or sight injury or retinal injury.

To which Steve responds:

Look. This is all that I am going to say about this issue since it is essentially off-topic to this initial thread.

If you actually think that there is no potential whatsoever for any harm or injury, even of a temporary nature, which is all that I have claimed, to have a camera flash go off right into your eyes at very close proximity, then there is no further use in continuing any discussion of any sort with you because you are obviously obstinate and unreasonable.

If the Freeman Store and their associates engage in discriminatory activities regarding who they allow to take photos within that facility, that troubles me, and I have already stated that.

I perceive no need to be on the receiving end of pointed attacks simply because I indicated that the Store may have broader reasons for wanting to be able to restrict photography at times.

I had a suspicion of what to expect if I engaged in any form of discussion that failed to fully support the precepts of the majority here. I have not been disappointed, and it certainly did not take long at all.

Historic Vienna wrote:

How do you work for someone who clearly shows disdain for the law?

To which I respond:

You will need to cite for me, please, the legal code that Ms. Damon is claimed to be in disdain of. It is not a crime to be in disdain of the law. It is a crime to break the law.

Question for you please, along the lines of your question to me: How do you reconcile your financial support of the Vienna politicians that you appear to despise so much? I do not support them at all except possibly through retail sales taxes.

I may work in Ms. Damon's place of business, but in so doing, I have no connection whatsoever with her work within the town government. I either agree with her on any number of issues, or disagree with her on any number of issues, and she usually knows where I stand. We have a business relationship and a friendship over many years.

Any attempt to taint me by virtue of my association with someone who happens to be involved in Vienna government is as wrongheaded as it would be for me to cast accusations toward yourself in the form of being a racist simply because you happen to apparently live in a town that you perceive to be racist at its governmental level.

Rigby says:

You will need to cite for me, please, the legal code that Ms. Damon is claimed to be in disdain of. It is not a crime to be in disdain of the law. It is a crime to break the law.

The Vienna Code, for the two architectural boards Damon sits on, does NOT provide guidelines for "color". Damon for years has asked applicants for "color", required changes in their "color" and turned down applicants for not having the right "color" - even though a right or wrong color for either of these Boards has never been defined.

Hey Rigby, that is a violation of the big law: the U.S. Constitution. Again, Damon is either corrupt or incompetent. How do you work for a person like this? And maybe if Damon thinks this is all too harsh, she might file a libel suit.

"it is not a crime to be in disdain of the law"

Tell it to the judge. It is called Contempt of Court.

Historic Vienna wrote:

Hey Rigby, that is a violation of the big law: the U.S. Constitution

To which I respond:

Please help me understand your point. I do not know what article or amendment to the Constitution that Ms. Damon is violating when she asks applicants to specify the colors they are desiring for their signs, and I similarly do not see what part of the Constitution she is violating when she is instrumental in rejecting applications over an issue of colors.

If it is true that the town of Vienna is, in fact, routinely in violation of Federal law in these circumstances, which to the best of my knowledge has been going on for long before Ms. Damon ever joined any boards of review, then it should be a relatively easy matter to bring before the Federal Court system.

After all, there will be on file within the Town archives literally hundreds, probably thousands of documents that can be used as evidence to substantiate your claim of violations of Federal law regarding the issue of color information being required for sign applications and approval thereof.

Mr. Wright wrote:

Tell it to the judge. It is called Contempt of Court.

To which I respond:

These allegations that Ms. Damon has been exhibiting disdain of some law, and now apparently even the Constitution of the United States, do not appear to suggest that she was before any court or under oath before any court at any point when she was exhibiting said disdain. That being the case, what would any Judge have to do with any of this discussion?

Once again, anyone may show or express disdain for any law without being guilty of violating the law in question. Disdain for a law does not equate with violating said law.

The moment that our nation descends to a state wherein expressions of disdain become equated with criminal conduct, we will have become fully totalitarian.

Apparently you, as well as others here, hold to the view that expressions of disdain for the law and the outright breaking of the law are one in the same. Sad, sad, sad.

Historic Vienna wrote:

The Vienna Code, for the two architectural boards Damon sits on, does NOT mention "color". Damon for years has asked applicants for "color"

To which I respond:

The sign application form, as provided to applicants for sign approval by the Town of Vienna, requires that color information must be provided as part of the application process.

I am in the sign making business, and have made many an application for clients in many jurisdictions in this area. There is not a board of review that I have ever approached for approval of any sign that does not require color information to be provided as part of the process. This includes, but is not limited to Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church and Vienna.

I think it is silly to single out Ms. Damon, presenting her as being the epitome of hubris in the sign approval world, or even only in Vienna.

A failure to provide color information on a sign application in Vienna will result in a rejection before Ms. Damon even sees the application. Any appiication without that information, or other required information, will not even be accepted at the front desk of Zoning to begin with. The application will be reviewed at the time it is delivered, and if any information that is required on the application is not there, it will be handed back or sent back to the applicant at that time for completion.

Not sure what code you're reading, but the code for Architectural Design Control that's posted on the town's web site repeatedly references color. It even says, "In all final decisions rendered pursuant to this Chapter, the Board shall briefly state its findings in writing, and, in the case of disapproval, it may make recommendations to the applicant with respect to the design, texture, material, color, line, mass, dimension or lighting of the building involved."

There Steve goes again, "There is not a board of review that I have ever approached for approval of any sign that does not require color information to be provided as part of the process. This includes, but is not limited to Alexandria, Arlington, Falls Church and Vienna"

Just because everyone else does it, does NOT mean it is legal. Under your logic of law analysis, when all the slave owning states practiced slavery, under your argument, you would be right to practice slavery, because everyone else is doing it.

Your argument is fallacious. Look at the Vienna Code. You obviously haven't read it. If you think that no one is getting hurt by Damon's actions, you are mistaken. Sit through a few of her meetings: you will see the big banks getting whatever they want, and the small ma and pa store owners get abused - I have seen ordinary citizens go away from her meetings in tears because of her nasty comments made to them. She has no place to treat people like that, and the Vienna Code does NOT specify anything about color, except for Maud's insistence that it not be "Garish", whatever that means, because there is no legal definition of garish.

I voted for Maud so you know how old I am. I am also old enough to remember when the only sign color that was acceptable to the board was Oxford Brown. There is never a color that pleases the board. It is either a little too red and a little less blue and the lighting is not right. Never a case where the sign blows thru on recommendation of staff. There are sign companies that will not even take work in Vienna because of the necessity to put up with the board. Princess Jewelers went through hell to get the diamond on their awning. It has been there for years and no one has announced it garish except the board.

"The moment that our nation descends to a state wherein expressions of disdain become equated with criminal conduct, we will have become fully totalitarian."

BINGO Steve! Why do you think there are so many upset people on this site who understand that this is exactly what the Mayor and TC do??

There he goes again wrote:

Just because everyone else does it, does NOT mean it is legal

To which I respond:

I have been before many a review board in reference to sign applications. I know full well about the processes and the aggravations associated with same. If you think that Vienna is bad, try getting an approval for Old Town Alexandria.

Colors are not the sole issue. Size and type of sign are also considered, and it is likely there are no laws within the town code that directly relate to those aspects either. Most town codes in any jurisdiction do not directly address such issues, yet any reasonably sized town or city of which I am aware is able to judge various things such as signs, new buildings, renovations of older structures, etc., based upon the euphemisms of "aesthetics."

Since this is the practice virtually nationwide, even though you try to make the point that anywhere this happens it is illegal, how are all these cities, towns and villages able to continue the practice?

If it were the fact that only those rules, regulations and laws specifically set forth, in finite detail, within the legal code of a given jurisdiction need to be followed, then you might have a case. Unfortunately for some, perhaps even many, that is not the case. All jurisdictions, to the best of my knowledge, have areas of "latitude," for want of a better word, that may be applied in certain areas, and aspects of zoning are generally regarded as being one of those areas.

Take the town to court on this issue if you are so sure they are, as all other towns and cities across the nation are claimed to be, in violation of the law, both local and federal.

To be honest, I think you will have a very hard time finding any attorney who would take this on because he or she would know better.

Would you prefer that there be no rules or regulations or guidelines whatsoever in this arena, that everyone be allowed to do exactly as they please without regard for anything other than their own pleasures?

Would you prefer that there be no rules or regulations or guidelines whatsoever in this arena, that everyone be allowed to do exactly as they please without regard for anything other than their own pleasures?

You dope. That's the whole point. There are no rules, there are no guidelines. There is no due process...so your corrupt boss Damon makes up rulings on the fly depending on she feels at the moment. That sir is not prevalent across the country. At least you have shown your true colors - no respect or understanding of the constitution.

Would you post copies (.pdf or otherwise) of the complaint(s) and other pleadings (motions to dismiss, summary judgment motions, etc.) in the lawsuit(s)?

I've tried like crazy to find them ('cause I'm actually interested in reading them, believe it or not), but I can't find them anywhere. I'm guessing the cases were not filed in federal court, or else I can't IMAGINE that they could have gone on this long (there's a reason the Eastern District of Virginia is known as the "rocket docket") ... but if they WERE filed in a court with ECF, please let me know, since I have PACER access and can pull them that way. But like I said, I have to think they weren't filed in federal court, if only because of the length of time the cases have been "active" (according to what I've read here).

Anyway, I really am interested in reading the filings ... so any help would be ... well, helpful.

Thanks in advance.

Historic Vienna expounds:

You dope. That's the whole point. There are no rules, there are no guidelines. There is no due process...so your corrupt boss Damon makes up rulings on the fly depending on she feels at the moment. That sir is not prevalent across the country. At least you have shown your true colors - no respect or understanding of the constitution.

I say, while tiring of the tirades:

Why do you insult your guests? Would you prefer that I go away?
I was beginning to perceive that you were enjoying the fresh chum that was recently thrown your way for you to attack and to devour.

The "rules" and guidelines about signs are fairly clearly stated on the application forms.

The ability to, and the willingness of sign review boards to appear to be arbitrary is very prevalent across the country. I have already made my experiences along these lines clear to you as I am in the business. Also, being in the business brings me in to direct contact with others in the business, as well as in contact with the various publications pertinent to the business. I can assure you that sign review boards, nationwide, are generally depicted in a negative light by the sign industry. You are incorrect if you think that Vienna is particularly tough in these regards.

Adam M Schoeberlein wrote:

Anyway, I really am interested in reading the filings ... so any help would be ... well, helpful.

I echo him:

Yes. Please do so. I am eager to have more evidence in the form of verifiable facts on a number of claims made on this site. I have already asked for more info on these lawsuits, what they cover exactly, and if "Historic Vienna" is party to any or all of them. No response yet.

Why do you insult your guests? Would you prefer that I go away?

Saying the same thing over and over ("I am in the sign business"), while ignoring the minutes, video, letters, Damon's corrupt actions that are on this site and in Town Hall records, is insulting to all of the guests here. You are intellectually lazy.

The "rules" and guidelines about signs are fairly clearly stated on the application forms.

Where did the form come from Steve? If it was made up out of thin air, is that acceptable? Is it acceptable if the form asks for items not in the law?

Steve I don't think anyone in Vienna pre-dates Damon. Since you have chosen to put a twist on color, please share with us your understanding of the GARISH (I think that word post dates Damon) diamond on the awning of Princess Jewelers.

Adam M Schoeberlein wrote:

Anyway, I really am interested in reading the filings ... so any help would be ... well, helpful.

I [Steve Rigby] echo him:

Steve: You might want to review this post before repeating what Adam M Schoeberlein has to say. The Town Manager serves at the pleasure of the Town Council, so no surprise that a pent up obscenity surfaced following the rigorous election challenge to Council incumbents. The garden club roots extend far and wide.

>>Where did the form come from Steve? If it was made up out of thin air, is that acceptable? Is it acceptable if the form asks for items not in the law?

This is hilarious. Forms are notorious for assuming authority where no authority exists. And then fools submit to them as if they are the ten commandments carved in stone.

1. There are (3) suits pending in the Fairfax Court system.

2. The Town Manager's son, an attorney, most likely has better information than his public stance ("are the suits filed in Alaska?" "Bermuda?").

3. Vienna has hired outside counsel to fight these lawsuits. Do any of the busy body Maud defenders care how much money the Town has spent in the last 3 years of legal fees for this boondoggle?

I have already made my experiences along these lines clear to you as I am in the business.

What signs have you personally designed that are up in the TOV? Ask the lady at the Art House on Church about her recent experience.

"Town Green," I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name ...

I'm guessing that the owner of this site let you see my lengthy reply to that same sort of insinuation, but that, TWICE, he would not allow through his review and onto the site (despite its total lack of "obscenity"); however, in case he didn't share it with you, would you like me to email it to you? I can, as I still have it. The nutshell version is: some people, by their 34th birthdays, have developed the capacity to think independently of their parents. I happen to be one of those people. Just let me know where to send it, and you can consider it sent.

As for the "obscenities" that so offended you, it's laughable to think that someone reading even the EXCERPTS to which you link (let alone the ENTIRE posts from which they were pruned) would think to themselves, "this is obscene!" Well, perhaps with the exception of that first one ... but then again, that time that you called me a "bleeping bleeping bleep" and said that you hope I suffered a "severed bleep" was pretty obscene, too. What? You didn't say that? (See how easy it is to say that someone said something they didn't say?)

ANYWAY ... I didn't come back on here to start a [...] match with you (although it looks like I just did; trust me, I'd LOVE to get in a [...] match with you, though just not here or now). I came on here and posted because I checked like crazy for the court filings, and couldn't find them. I figured that someone on here would have them, since they are referred to constantly.

If there is no one here who has copies of the litigation papers, please just say so.

edit: in response to "Lawsuits," I'll send YOU the post, as well, since you appear to be similarly ignorant about my relationship with my father -- if it doesn't involve my son, the Chicago Cubs, the Chicago Bears, or maybe the Bulls during a good year, we're probably not going to be talking about it. But in NO event do I talk with him about his job -- clearly, you don't know him, or you'd know that.

FYI, Fairfax County Circuit Court does not appear to be an an ECF-type system. And while I want to read the pleadings, I don't want to do so so badly that I'm willing to pay a courier to go down to the courthouse and photocopy the case file.

SO AGAIN: If there is no one here who has copies of the litigation papers, please just say so.

If there is no one here who has copies of the litigation papers, please just say so.

spoken like an attorney! why not drop your simple request to the head executive of the town? do you need his email?

Historic Vienna repeats:

You are intellectually lazy.

I ask again:

Why do you insult your guests on this site?

Your statement that I am "intellectually lazy" is, in fact, totally incorrect. Those who know me can verify my intellectual genius.

Within but a few posts here, I was being ridiculed and being insulted, the very attributes that you slam Ms. Damon for displaying at board meetings.

To the best of my recollection, I have neither explicitly agreed with you, or disagreed on any subject. I have merely stated my observations, and apparently because my observations do not seem to comport with yours in some areas, that makes me a "dope" or "intellectually lazy."

Were it not for folks like me being here, you would have no audience and no contributors other than your choir. It would be BORING, just as it was before I presented you with fresh meat to chew on.

Enjoy it while it lasts, but stop being so crude and rude if you want any meanigful dialog to actually take place here that can accomplish anthing other than induce titillation.

Why do you insult your guests on this site?

Your statement that I am "intellectually lazy" is, in fact, totally incorrect. Those who know me can verify my intellectual genius.

Within but a few posts here, I was being ridiculed and being insulted, the very attributes that you slam Ms. Damon for displaying at board meetings.

To the best of my recollection, I have neither explicitly agreed with you, or disagreed on any subject. I have merely stated my observations, and apparently because my observations do not seem to comport with yours in some areas, that makes me a "dope" or "intellectually lazy."

Were it not for folks like me being here, you would have no audience and no contributors other than your choir. It would be BORING, just as it was before I presented you with fresh meat to chew on.

Enjoy it while it lasts, but stop being so crude and rude if you want any meanigful dialog to actually take place here that can accomplish anthing other than induce titillation.

You are intellectually lazy. When you have had time to understand the facts of the matters you preach on, it would be a delight to engage with you. Repeat: go read Town minutes, Town code, watch videos on this site, read letters, etc.

Like I said, "tooth fairy," I don't talk about town issues with my father. That appears to be a very difficult concept for some people here to grasp; I'm not sure why.

I'm guessing, however, that your response means that YOU don't have the filings.

Thanks for the suggestion, though.

As for the "obscenities" that so offended you, it's laughable to think that someone reading even the EXCERPTS to which you link (let alone the ENTIRE posts from which they were pruned) would think to themselves, "this is obscene!" Well, perhaps with the exception of that first one ... but then again, that time that you called me a "bleeping bleeping bleep" and said that you hope I suffered a "severed bleep" was pretty obscene, too. What? You didn't say that? (See how easy it is to say that someone said something they didn't say?)

Counselor, by your summation above, you have succeeded in defeating your own two claims that i) you were not obscene, and ii) it was not you who was being obscene. Well done!

The nutshell version is: some people, by their 34th birthdays, have developed the capacity to think independently of their parents. I happen to be one of those people.

By your own admission, your posts are collectively the most immature and obscene posts on this blog. And now you flaunt your independent thinking by the age of 34 as yet another point of personal pride. Wow, by the age of 34, eh... well done! By now this is all sounding so ridiculous that I am beginning to doubt that you are who you say you are despite knowing your name. Funny irony, that!

"Town Green": What?

Seriously, I don't think you could have tried to miss so many points. Let me try one more time: the only excerpt/post that I thought might arguably be "obscene" in your link is that first one, and I didn't post that. The rest, I believe, are mine, all mine. Okay, maybe suggesting that you'd have had to have had your top inside your bottom to miss the banner might be "obscene" to a Puritan, so I'll give you that one.

As for your second "point," again, what? Where did I admit anything like that? If it makes you feel better, I'll say that "most people, by the age of 22 or so, are able to think independently of their parents." Is that better? I used 34 because that's my age, and because I am answering those -- like yourself -- who seem to believe that I must have anything to do with my father when it comes to municipal (or any other) issues. So -- and try to follow me here -- the point is that I'm not 12 years old anymore -- my impressions of the world, and my reflections thereon, stem from direct, unfiltered and personal experience, rather than from textbooks and whatever my mom and dad let through the parental filter. You follow? I'm guessing not.

And how would you "begin[] to doubt that [I] am who [I] say [I] am?" I guess we know each other, eh? I must keep missing your name ... why don't you run it by me one more time, killer?

Holy avoidance at all costs, batman, just forget about what I thought would be a simple request.

schoeberlein writes:

...the only excerpt/post that I thought might arguably be "obscene" in your link is that first one, and I didn't post that...

the counselor appears to have a winnable libel suit on his hand...or he takes lying lessons from our mayor...hmmm...choices, choices, choices...

"getting sticky ...": probably not a good libel suit, because damages would be difficult if not impossible to prove (and I think that's a necessary element -- the last time I really, really had to think about torts was on the bar exam, though, so maybe I'm wrong). Plus, as I'm sure a few people on this board know, it costs quite a bit of money to do anything that involves a lawyer -- it's enough for me to say that I didn't say something. My money is better spent elsewhere.

I mean, if it were really something horrible, I might take it more seriously, but as it is, it's kind of funny. Believe it, or don't believe it -- doesn't make that much of a difference to me ... you clearly don't believe anything else I type, either, right?

And how would you "begin[] to doubt that [I] am who [I] say [I] am?"

OK, I will concede that you are who you say you are... Adam M Schoeberlein. And I will leave it to others to decide if you have posted immature and obscene remarks on this blog.

As for my answer to your question, I find it hard to believe...er, stupid!... that you... anyone, much less a lawyer,... would post immature and obscene content anonymously and then return under your real name to disclaim and to claim those anonymous posts, and to dispute and concede to their obscenity... all in the same paragraph! Not to mention that small little extenuating circumstance of this being a political blog about the town in which presumably your father is the chief executive Town Manager. Such confusion of purpose... and of writing... suggests that you are not who you say you are. But hey, it's no skin off my nose to accept you at your word. So be it!

If parents have a good knowledge of right/wrong and they practice that in their lives and passed it along to their children, is this a "bad" belief that must be severed from the parents in order to grow up?!

To suggest any of us on here are still waiting for parental approval for our next move, is inaccurate. To suggest a family grudge is what motivates, is inaccurate. To suggest that someone's life is stifled because they have not grown up, is inaccurate.

Ummmm ... okay ... I think? I mean, I don't see or read any "confusion of purpose" in what I've said (it all seems pretty consistent to me), but I guess that's what makes people different. So I guess we can agree to disagree on this?

Anyway, here's the bottom lines:

(1) I'd really like to review the filings -- that's first and foremost.

(2) I'd LOVE to be able to share what I really think about particular issues that you guys and gals talk about here. I've been BSing and arguing about political stuff in the off-topic sections of national messageboards for years, although always at the national level (you know, "Bush is a war criminal, Inconvenient Truth is a masterpiece that ought to be heeded," etc. ... nothing about local stuff). I was a philosophy undergrad and I'm a law school grad -- I live to argue and be a pain in the ass. It's what makes me so annoying.

(3) The reason I can't indulge number (2), above, with respect to this board, is because of the EXACT issue to which you keep returning: "that small little extenuating circumstance of this being a political blog about the town in which presumably your father is the chief executive Town Manager." Dude, it's a political blog about the town in which I've lived since 1985, and in which I own my own house now, and in which I am now raising my own family. A guy I work with (who also lives in or near Vienna) showed me this site. Because we live in Vienna, and because the elections were coming up. I had never heard of it until then.

You (well, not just you, others, as well) keep returning to the suggestion that I have some ulterior motive, and that it is somehow connected to who my father is. I can't BEGIN to tell you how far off base that is. Well, I suppose I HAVE tried to tell you, but it hasn't had any effect. So what would happen if I started giving my opinion on the "Historic District"? What about my opinion on Church Street? Or my opinion of any of the number of individuals you guys and gals discuss on this site? All of that would, somehow, be attributed in some sense to my dad. Which sucks, because it just isn't how things work in my family -- if you don't know us, you just won't understand. So I steered clear of the actual issues (though for the most part, I didn't understand them, and still don't).

Look, I can recall having one "discussion" with my father about a town issue -- I guess I wasn't totally forthright when I say that we "never" talk about these things, as I do remember this particular episode. It got so heated between us that we didn't speak for, I think, maybe two months after that. Not a word. For two months. What we talked about isn't important -- the point is, the assumption/presumption that we see eye-to-eye about anything or everything in Vienna is just plain unfounded. I can really only speak to that one issue, in fact, and about that one, I can ASSURE you that we are NOT on the same page. Maybe it's a good thing that we don't discuss this stuff. We might never speak again. Haha (only half-kidding, I think).

(4) My dad is the straightest shooter you're EVER going to meet. Painfully straight. That's one of the reasons we never discussed his job amongst the family (or at least in my presence). Any suggestion to the contrary is absurd.

"vienna mommy" -- I'm not talking about judgments like "good/bad" or "right/wrong." I'm talking about objects like, "Historic District," "Maud Robinson," "Town Green," etc., and the process by which you fit those objects into your concept of "good/bad" or "right/wrong."

Whether you think "Town Green = Good" or "Town Green = Bad" is, to some extent a product of your parents, sure, in that they tried to teach you "good" and "bad," usually by example. But that doesn't mean they taught you anything about "Town Green" and it also doesn't mean that you haven't, though independent thought (meaning not being told "no" and then put in a time out), redefined the contours or filled out the content of the concept of "good" or "bad." It is quite possible that in 1984 you would have reached a wholly different conclusion about a "Town Green" than you have today. Or maybe not. But the judgment that you make today, versus the one when you were 8 or 10 or 12 years old, is going to be exponentially more sophisticated. The younger you are, the more things are right "because they're right" or "because mom and dad taught me they're right." I think the older you get, the more you develop and appreciate empathy, the more you develop your concept of rights and duties, the more you fill out your subjective view of the world (and also, the more jaded you become). All of that affects your judgments of things like "right/wrong" or "good/bad."

I think that development makes it that much more difficult to tag a particular view today as being "because mom and dad told me so" or "well, that's what his parents must think." Maybe it's a little easier to draw an inference that what you say about something is a view that will be shared by your children ... but less so each year as they get older and more sophisticated and independent, right? But here, that's what people seem to want to say about me and my dad. And while it's belittling to me, it's unfair to my father.

That came out sounding convoluted, but do you see what I'm trying to say? I don't know how else to explain it, I guess.

This is all to say that I agree with you: I'm not trying to suggest that any of you are waiting for parental approval for your next thought or move -- I'm just saying that I want you to STOP implying that about ME. If I say something you don't agree with, that means you don't agree with ME: it doesn't mean that I share that view with or because of my dad, or that I share that view with or because of my Mom, or my wife or my child or my dog or whatever. It just means that I have that view, and you don't agree with ME. Likewise if I say something that you DO happen to agree with -- that doesn't mean jack re: whether my dog, son, wife, mom or dad would also agree with you. Get it? (Well, my son probably would agree with anything I say ... but he's just in a phase right now).

As far as whether a child's life is stifled by virtue of being a well-parented child ... that's an excellent question. I don't remember, I don't know, but I hope not?

Can I see the litigation papers, please? Pretty please? With a cherry on top?

Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs writes:

What signs have you personally designed that are up in the TOV?

I say:

Why the heck would I tell you? I would have to suppose that it could then become your purpose to go out and deface them out of spite, such is the vitriol that I sense here.

You just never know who you are communicatiing with here. I think that some posters use a new pseudonym every time they have something to say.

You think anyone on here would go and spray paint a sign of yours out of spite?!

CRAZY.

The curiousity was about the process you went through to get them approved. I smell FOIA requests for minutes for approval of signage designed by Steve Rigby.

Historic Vienna writes:

You are intellectually lazy.

I say:

Maybe I just do not have all the time in the world to go down to City Hall and check out all this stuff. After all, how long has it been since I entered into anything here? A week maybe? Additionally, were you to state your cases and cite your citings, but devoid of the histrionics, I might actually believe what you have to say a lot more readily.

However, I do not recall having contested a single thing that you have claimed concerning how the town operates in terms of sign approvals. I have simply said that in my experiences Vienna operates pretty much like other towns and jurisdictions that I have been in contact with concerning signs.

Please indicate for me where I have challenged your claims that the Board of Review acts in a fairly arbitrary manner? I have not done so to the best of my memory.

I did challenge your assertion that the plain signs that the shopping centers in the town have are the sole result of the machinations of Ms. Damon and Ms. Robinson. I happen to know, whether you believe it or not, that shopping centers pretty much everywhere, especially strip malls, tend toward extreme conservatism as to their architechtural stylings as well as their sign designs. These places are not built by or for liberal, art-oriented persons who are innately lavishly sylish. These places are typically built, designed by and frequented by consumers who are, for the most part, sedate and not wildly exciting in their tastes.

Do not think for a moment that what is evidenced along these lines in Vienna is singularly unique to Vienna, and exists solely by virtue of the extraordinary powers of the two women mentioned above, if indeed their powers are so extraordinary.

Adam M Schoeberlein writes:

So -- and try to follow me here -- the point is that I'm not 12 years old anymore -- my impressions of the world, and my reflections thereon, stem from direct, unfiltered and personal experience

I say:

You are having the same problem here that I am experiencing. In my case, because I happen to work for someone with whom many here have an argument, it is assumed that I act and think exactly as my boss does. This assumption is made without a single one of these persons here knowing me, having ever met me to the best of my knowledge(a hard thing to ascertain since they do not actually identify themselves), or having ever delved into who I am or what I am about. This is a phenomenen often referred to as a "knee-jerk" reaction, or in terms that you may use in your line of work, "baseless accusations without any merit whatsoever."

Rigby frames pictures. Signs? Well, the bet is that he has never appeared before Damon's (his boss) board to have a commercial sign approved in Vienna.

Steve, et al.:

Well, in fairness to "Historic Vienna," and Susan Stich and her husband (Susan uses her name here, so I suppose it's okay to actually type it?), I've been absolutely WHORED by a homeowners' association before. Well, technically, my wife was, I guess, since it was her townhouse. It was over (of all things!) the color of the siding (wrong shade of "blah puke brown beige let me die off white crap") we put on the townhouse. I checked and re-checked the bylaws, covenants, etc., and I couldn't see their argument for putting a lien on her place. To make a long story short, what I took to be their arbitrary and capricious implementation of imaginary/vague standards resulted in a $3000 concession at the closing table.

Along with all their other I'm-a-bored-dumb-b****-who-needs-to-feel-important acts, I was FURIOUS. FURIOUS almost beyond rational thought ... and sometimes beyond.

From what I've read here, I take the "Historic District" To be an HOA of sorts. And "Historic Vienna" and the others appear to be taking the acts/decisions of the "Historic Committee" (or whatever it's called) to be akin to what I went through. I don't know the facts well enough -- that's why I want to see the complaint, presumably drafted by a less-emotionally involved person (read: lawyer), so that I can read them all in one place, in a less emotionally-charged form of writing -- but at least this is what I'm getting from the site. Because I seriously start to shake and sweat at the mere mention of HOAs, even to this day (that's an exaggeration, but not by much), I think I understand the angst.

But yeah, I think the expression of that angst toward certain people might be misplaced (I'm including me and my pops in that list, primarily). Whatever, like I said, I just like going "blah blah blah" and the owner of this site is letting me go "blah blah blah," so there you go. Haha.

Adam

To Adam, Don't protest too strongly. Don't think email addresses cannot be looked up just like IP addresses. Raise your right hand...

Steve, regarding your comments: "I have been before many a review board in reference to sign applications. I know full well about the processes and the aggravations associated with same. If you think that Vienna is bad, try getting an approval for Old Town Alexandria."

For one, Historic Alexandria is a real historic district not like anything in Vienna. Vienna doesn't even come close to what has been done in Alexandria. They have registered their historic homes on National and Official Recognized Historic Registries. Vienna Has Not.

Alexandria has a well drawn out set of directives with specific guidelines for preserving their historic homes and buildings, Vienna Does not. See this pdf file: http://alexandriava.gov/planningandzoning/bar/pdf/designguidelines.pdf

Take a look at their well organized historic site:
http://alexandriava.gov/planningandzoning/historic_design_guidelines.php

So, if your comments regarding Alexandria is supposed to make Vienna citizens happier, you are an idiot. The simple fact that people like Damon can subjectively decide who gets what simply because she either likes you or she doesn't is just plain wrong. I would much rather have what they have in OHA simply because they don't allow for people like Damon to decide who gets what.

They have a real historic district with appropriate guidelines that have been drawn up by experts employed by National and University Historic Associations, not the way it was done in Vienna: the garden club group, and Maud's old time friend, her weatherman who drew up the walk on the hill brochure, who knows nothing of historicity.

The only property the TOV DID have on any nationally recognized registry, the Moorefield House, was torn down and destroyed. Do you call that Historic Preservation? DO you think Vienna [read Maud, Cole, Seeman, and their Garden Club Historic Veinna, Inc] are preserving anything historic just because they put up a bunch of red signs and sell old books and pretty nick nacks in the Freeman Store?

If you do, you are a dolt.

Sincerely,

Long Time Vienna Resident

Historic Vienna at it again:

Rigby frames pictures. Signs? Well, the bet is that he has never appeared before Damon's (his boss) board to have a commercial sign approved in Vienna.
+++

Put your money up!....sucker!

As you pretty much put it to me, I'll put it to you. You'd better be checking on the facts before you start running your mouth about stuff of which you know nothing.

Vienna Resident said:

If you do, you are a dolt.
+++

Thank you, thank you, thank you. At least you have the decency to predicate such a charge against me on the basis that I would have to have done something tangible to be so labelled. Others here just hurl out the labels without substantiation, losing a lot of potential credibility in so doing.

I did not make a contrast between Alexandria and Vienna in order to make residents of Vienna happier, so hopefully I have thus avoided the idiot moniker.

I also never would have thought that any government that placed a developer in charge of, or even as a member to a board supposedly dedicated to "preservation" was placing preservation at the forefront of their ambitions.

Hopefully, I have thus now avoided the dolt thing.

However, I reiterate, you cannot believe anything that I say. Always remember that I am but a spewer of misinformation and appear here solely as a propounder of the "Maud" party line. It has thus been written by those who speak only truth, no BS, so it must therefore be true.

I still await the definition, in context to this website, as to what is meant by the term "pending lawsuits." I know what an unflled lawsuit is, which is actually no lawsuit at all, and I know what a filed lawsuit is, which is actually a lawsuit. This "pending" thing has me continuing to scratch my head.

"IT Worker":

Seriously, you (and your other iterations) make me want to beat myself about the head with a blunt object.

*** Shakes head and picks up Easton Stealth Comp ***

I know what an unflled lawsuit is, which is actually no lawsuit at all, and I know what a filed lawsuit is, which is actually a lawsuit. This "pending" thing has me continuing to scratch my head.

You mean you have not been able to look over at your boss Shirley and ask if the Town is currently defending (3) lawsuits regarding the historic district? While you are at it, can you tell us the exact times that you have appeared before the Vienna Commercial Architectural Review Board?

Steve:

I think "pending" just means that they've been filed, but not closed yet (that is, no decision yet). Of course, it could also mean that there has been a decision in the trial court, but that the adversely affected party has appealed and that appeal is awaiting decision, etc. Either way, I definitely think that at least one complaint has been filed -- see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800999.html (scroll down to where the article discusses Stich's platforms ... it mentions that she's a plaintiff in a suit against the Town vis-a-vis the historic district).

Also, I think some of the council minutes reference the litigation -- some of the minutes are pretty awesome in a train-wreck sort of way, and make me wish I went to the meetings with popcorn and a six-pack ... in particular, there was a meeting, I think, in October/November-ish 2005 that sounds like it was a doozy.

Anyway, there are other mentions of the suit in local newspapers. I don't see a reference to three separate suits, but it may be either that they've been consolidated, or maybe each article is in fact referencing a different one.

Of course, all of this is conjecture on my part, since I haven't seen any papers, and the council appears to go into closed session to discuss all litigation (to try to preserve the attorney-client privilege, I think).

Anyway, clearly I've hit a dead-end here trying to get a look at the papers. Oh well. At this point, there's been too much build up, and it would probably be anti-climactic to actually read them. I'll just have to die wondering ... or wait to read about it in the papers or on this blog once there's been a decision or decisions, I guess. I really have to get some work done anyway.

Happy blogging.

Historic Vienna:

You mean you have not been able to look over at your boss Shirley and ask if the Town is currently defending (3) lawsuits regarding the historic district? While you are at it, can you tell us the exact times that you have appeared before the Vienna Commercial Architectural Review Board?
+++

I have asked her about this, long, long ago and again the other day. She says she knows little or nothing of any of the details about any such lawsuits.

I cannot, and at this time, will not provide you with any detailed information about any sign applications and approvals that I have obtained through the Town of Vienna. I take this position out of regard for those clients for whom I performed the work.

Be advised that I know I have had four, and I think five separate applications made and approvals granted by the Architectural Review Board for signs within the town limits of Vienna over the years. There could be more, I just do not recall.

I would not have personally put in an appearance in all instances, but my client would have. None of my applications have ever resulted in any problems, and unlike your next assumption, that had nothing to do with my relationship with Ms. Damon.

In at least two of those applications, perhaps others as well, it would have been unknown to Ms. Damon that I had anything to do with said applications.

Those applications mentioned above were made during an extended period of time while I did not work at her place of business during the normal daytime hours, and consequently she did not know the name of my sign company at the time, and it may well be that my personal name did not even appear on the sign application.

Shirley Damon is a known liar.

And it appears you are too. First you say you have appeared before this board, but now you give the nonsensical explanation above. You did not appear before the board by your own admission and now you say there will be no record of your name anywhere. You are just another Town crony blowing hot air.

I think the person who boasts about his lawsuits but is completely unwilling to post them on his blog is the one spewing hot air. You can blank your name out and stay anonymous, so what's the big secret? Is the problem that you're trying to pull a stunt like that DC judge who's suing a dry cleaner for millions over a lost pair of pants? Or is the problem that they sound really, really stupid and you know you'll lose all credibility if anyone sees them?

HV, why do you have a picture of Andy Warhol on this post?

Oh, you mean to tell me that's NOT Warhol in the security vest?

Coulda fooled me....

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate for the ladies to have worn Hostess Vests?

Obviously Shirley Damon was caught in a lie here, Steve. You "new" posters always have an agenda when posting here. It's obvious from the start. Inevitably it turns out each of you are two degrees (or less) of separation from Mama Maud. What a coincidence! Of course you don't present yourself that way initially, eh? Just when you are smoked out. This is when, predictably, (violins/tissues) the "HV is bad, everybody calls me names, me can't posts me posts no more, WAH routine starts". Let me tell you a little secret, the "WAH Routine" has been WORN OUT by your predecessors! C'mon, when Brian Trompeter starts writing articles about "the tone of HV" you know it's an old act. Please, get a new one. See, the two of us that post here (There is just two of us still, right?) don't care engage someone who IGNORES THE OBVIOUS!

So, Steve, simple question. I mean REALLY simple. No manifestos, please. Answer this SIMPLE question: Do you believe Shirley Damon knows about the lawsuits regarding the historic district after reading HV's post above? (A) YES or (B) NO.

Hey, just (A) or (B) will do. No Chewbacca. Thank-Q!

So which is more relevant to truth and justice in Vienna: (A) lawsuits involving the historic district, or (B) picures of the mayor in a goofy securiy getup? Evidently, this blog's answer is (B). Want to prove me wrong? Post the lawsuits. Thank-Q!

This will be my final post to this site. I write my posts as clearly and concisely as I can manage within the constraints of the time available to me to do do. My attempts at clarity do no good. All too many folks here see only what they are predisposed to see, and for that seemingly intractable reason, I am outta here.

Did I have an "agenda" whenI first logged on here. Absolutely. I just wanted to participate, that is all I that I desired to do. It is too bad that otherwise seemingly intelligent persons have to stoop to such low degree at times, and fail to be able to see past their blinders, unable to properly comprehend or understand and respond to what is written by others.

So, let me leave with this final stab at an attempt at clarity:

I wrote that I was not present before the Board of review "in all instances". That clear and concise statement is responded to by HV in the following manner: "You did not appear before the board by your own admission."

HV clearly either did not read my statement, or did not comprehend it.

I wrote "and it may well be that my personal name did not even appear on the sign application."

HV responds with: "and now you say there will be no record of your name anywhere."

HV's response does not comport with what I had written. While I precisely indicated that my name MAY not be on an application, HV presents an absolute, claiming that I wrote that there "WILL BE NO RECORD" of my name.

Let me say that there were two reasons why I said that my name MAY not appear on an application. Firstly, to the best of my recollection, there is no requirement or request at all on a Vienna sign application for the name of the sign company that is to perform the work. Neither is there, to the best of my recollection, any requirement that anyone other then the applicant sign the application. There may have been such requirements, or there may be such requirements at this time, but I simply do not remember, and I have no blank applications before me to verify this.

The sign company, or the person who will be making and/or installing a sign may not even be known to the applicant at the time the application is filed. The purpose of the application process is not to pass judgement upon the sign maker, and the Board of Review is, to the best of my recollection, not even involved in that process at all.

To sum up, as far as I recall, I have never had to sign an application in Vienna because I was not the applicant in the first place. However, that is not to say that I did not appear before the Board, along with my client, to see the process through.

Finally, as to this website, it is clear that I did not make the cut, and was considered to be an inadequate candidate for inclusion in the choir. I really did not know that was what was going on here when I first ever posted. I now know.

Ta, ta.

WAH!