Comments by Matt
Previous | Page 3 of 13 | Next
Posted on December 1 at 7:45 a.m.
Actually, four wines on this global list is pretty impressive. You two entirely missed the point.
Posted on October 26 at 9:19 a.m.
Hi all,
Thanks for reading and being such big fans of the paper and our writers.
To be clear, this move to less columns per month was Starshine's decision, not The Indy's, as her career is blossoming with other work opportunities right now.
We wouldn't dare cut back on the Best of SB 2011's top columnist ourselves, but we appreciate that she's still dedicated to doing as much writing as she can for the paper. And we wish her well on her concurrent adventures as well, as I'm sure you all do too.
Thanks again,
matt
Posted on October 9 at 7:49 p.m.
You certainly have a point, Bill, but I would ask: How many drinking and driving accidents are currently occurring in wine country? We don't really hear of any, and if it was a big problem, then you'd think that we would at least know of some.
On <em>Sideways</em> Author Goes <em>Vertical</em>, and Sober
Posted on October 8 at 6:53 a.m.
Bill
Your line of argument doesn't make any sense. You say we don't discuss the alcoholic nature of the matter, yet there it is in this article, discussed at length. I'm confused.
On <em>Sideways</em> Author Goes <em>Vertical</em>, and Sober
Posted on October 6 at 3:39 p.m.
To Jeff:
Sorry for the misinfo on the status. Threatened is different than endangered, and I've made the mistake a couple times, it seems. Otherwise, however, I think the article is quite fair, some might say overly so, to the fishermen who will be impacted by the plan.
To Steve:
Sorry you disagree with my assessment, but no one at the hearing even attempted to discount the information about commercial shellfisheries that was published as part of the notice in the Federal Register.
It reads: "Selected fisheries, both commercial (sea urchin, crab, lobster, and sea cucumber) and recreational (lobster), would likely be eliminated in mainland coastline areas predicted to be re-occupied by sea otters over the next 10 years: Point Conception to Carpinteria (lower bound) or Oxnard (upper bound)."
Everyone can see for themselves here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-...
Posted on September 22 at 9:27 a.m.
Yes, there is such an agreement, but I was merely correcting your statement that the owners bought it as ag. They did not. The current option is dependent on a deal, so the traditional "they bought it as ag" argument doesn't quite work here. Other arguments, however, work perfecty well.
Posted on September 21 at 8:29 p.m.
While I'm in the keeping the record straight mood, Georgy's statement about the purchase, while a common claim, is also incorrect. When the University Exchange Corporation bought the property in 1957, it was indeed zoned for urban use, specifically highway serving commercial. The zoning change happened in 1980.
Posted on September 21 at 8:38 a.m.
For the sake of keeping the record straight, and as someone who sat through the whole hearing, I can attest that franklin411's characterization of the crowd is incorrect.
Those opposed appeared by and large to be much less moneyed than those in favor of the rezoning, and there was a greater degree of ethnic diversity (Latino, African-American, Chumash, foreign-born, etc.) than can be said for almost any other development issue that I have witnessed in 12 years of reporting in this region.
Posted on July 15 at 11:28 a.m.
For the record, the information I received on hunting did not come from Ranger Dodge. It came from Andrew Madsen, as the article explains. Ranger Dodge and I only spoke about roads when I was on deadline, although I now wish I had asked him about the hunting too. Sorry for the errors.
Previous Month
Posted on December 2 at 2:35 p.m.
John Locke, this is an Opinion article, not a news report. Please understand the difference.
On Whole World Watching