Richard Forsten’s Response
I have decided to take down my previous post “Delaware is a small state” about a conversation overheard in a local restaurant about alleged plans to hack DL. Our tipster took a picture of the alleged plotter, and since I had no idea who it was, I posted it here in order to identify the man and dissuade the alleged hackers from attacking the site. The gentleman was identified at Richard Forsten by our readers and by other sources. Mr. Forsten then commented on the post, offering a response and, to my mind, a reasonable explanation to the overheard conversation. I am posting that response below and offering our apology.
Hi everyone. Always nice to be recognized. Maybe this is my 15 minutes of fame, although hopefully I’ve got a better 15 minutes ahead of me than this silly post.
For the record, neither I nor the person to whom I was speaking was talking about “sabotaging” Delaware Liberal. Give me a break.
Not that it matters, but let me briefly review the conversation which someone obviously did not understand (easedroppers rarely do).
Naturally, as an Appo School Board member, I have been in many conversations over the past few days about the recent defeat of the referendum. It continues to be a hot topic. I continue to be very surprised that the referendum was defeated, as I thought for sure it was going to pass easily. Given that I also thought Romney would win the presidential election, I have now officially sworn off trying to predict elections, but that is another story.
Anyway, while I was waiting for my dinner companion to arrive, I was speaking with someone about the referendum on my cell phone (that someone would be my wife, who was also my dinner companion). We were talking about how the referendum was defeated and what a surprise it was. Personally, I don’t think a few anti-referendum signs scattered around the district had much of an effect on the vote, and, quite frankly, I don’t think one or two robocalls made the day before the election could really make a difference either. Given the near total lack of converage in the press, I thought the referendum would sail through easily. I was wrong about that.
The subject of Delaware Liberal came up in the conversation because of its post yesterday criticizing some opponents of the referendum for remaining anonymous and claiming that out-of-state deep pockets must be involved. I expressed my belief that the post was just plain wrong. In fact, anyone involved in politics can tell you it doesn’t cost very much for a few yard signs and robocalls, so the notion that this could only be done by deep out-of-state pockets is just off base. Maybe, just maybe, some of these folks are choosing to be anonymous because they don’t want to suffer the slings and arrows of venomous attacks like the one here, and maybe, justified or not, they are afraid of being recognized and attacked by those who supported the referendum. As long as everyone is debating on the merits (the way they should) and not calling opponents names (the way they should not), it really shouldn’t matter whether anonymity is used or not.
Anyway, Delaware Liberal came up in the conversation because I asked whether the person had seen the post. The person I was speaking to hadn’t seen the post. At no point was there any conversation about hacking Delaware Liberal. None. And why would there be?
From there, we discussed an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal about internet piracy and the ongoing “war” between video pirates and content providers who are trying to stop illegal copies of shows being posted on the internet. We talked for several minutes about that story (it’s actually quite interesting) and the ways in which content providers are constantly trying to shut down illegal sites.
Again, at no point was there ever any conversation about “sabotaging” Delaware Liberal. The accusation is groundless and libelous. Quite frankly, I am owed an apology. This is why the press tries to check with all parties to a story before running a story and this whole thread should, in my view, be taken down.
If I had to guess, and was inclined to give the “easedropper” here the benefit of the doubt, I suspect they overheard something about Delaware Liberal and then something about taking down sites and then jumped to the conclusion that I “must” have been talking about taking down the Delaware Liberal site. Wrong wrong wrong. The conversation had moved on to NBC and other content providers trying to take down sites that have illegal downloads.
And so, an innocent conversation, not overheard correctly, leads to a blog post with a completely false accusation. But then again, easedroppers never get things right.
Talk about irony. A blog post attacking folks for being anonymous leads to a blog post containing an anonymous attack on me. Oh well.
Any apology forthcoming?
I am emailing Mr. Forsten as I we speak to offer that apology, but will offer one publicly as well. I apologize to Mr. Forsten for the implication that he was engaged in a plot to hack Delaware Liberal. I would have loved to resolve this offline, but since I had no idea who the person in the photograph was until I posted it online, and since my primary concern was protecting the security of the site, I had to find out if the threat to the site was real and dissuade the alleged plotters from it by revealing that we knew about it. So now that we know the threat was not real, that overheard conversation was incorrect, I apologize to Mr. Forsten for the implications drawn from the earlier post and for any inconvenience he suffered today.
If Foresten is being honest in his reply, and I have no reason to believe that he isn’t, this is somewhat naive:
Until we know where the funding came from, and the secrecy that surrounds the opponents of the referendum is lifted – it is reasonable to assume that this was a well funded, highly organized operation.
The discussion about the Appo referendum is a separate issue, and everyone should feel free to discuss it.
You know, you could have posted it without any information about hacking, turned comments off and asked readers to message you. That would’ve avoided a lot of this and dissuaded the alleged plotter by simply posting his photo as a wink/warning to him.
And I apologize if I sound harsh, but stuff like this is what I expect from the Don Ayotte’s of the world, delving into bashing a person over a baseless accusation. We should be better than that.
Noted.
True story: Ronald Reagan was overheard making a comment and took some heat for it. When asked about it later, spokesman Larry Speakes said “No, the President said it’s sunny and you’re rich.”
See? There was a simple explanation after all.
And how cool was it to have a Spokesman Speakes?
Yeah, in hindsight, that would have been better and it is what we will do in the future if we ever need to crowd-source something again.
Del Lib needs to slow down and discuss issues without the harsh editorial comments. The situation regarding Mr. Foresten is one more example of how the far liberal left shoots themselves in the foot but making unwarranted attacks on others. It was a rush to attack and a failure to think.
Even if the host of this site was attempting to “identify” Mr. Foresten it is clear that they were willing to do so using their normal harsh manner.
Very sad.
Well put, integrity counts.
Ok, IntegrityCounts, you are doing what you accusing us of. If we, or I, had no integrity, I would not have taken down the post, corrected the record and offered the apology. Ask yourselves this, would any conservative site admit that they were wrong and apologize?
Good Lord what I miss when I’m gone! I would have LOVED to see that post. Thank you Mr. Richard Forsten for identifying your dinner companion. It would have been a real shame if there was a subsequent picture to really tintillate this gang. You were a good sport to respond to them.
Fine work Del Dem with the apology. Chop Chop. I like that when it is necessary. Good on you. Now jason–about those boots getting on and that race around the block….I think I’ll return to the other post to continue. See you then.
Jason, I don’t know about robocalls, but leave the word ‘yard signs’ out of your comments. They are cheap. Really cheap!
Also, it seems as if you respect Joanne C. and her right to vote no so why wouldn’t you believe that there are others like her who voted no?
lol, my second time today posting at the same time as someone. Joanne, I wrote Joanne C. because I wasn’t exactly sure of your last name as we were typing at the same time
Sorry we missed the original paranoiac thread. That would have been fresh icing on the cake from last week!
BTW…..you lot are certifiable!
How hard was it to call John in the first place before you posted an overheard conversation from second hand sources then allowed people you do not even have evidence of being there identify the person who allegedly said it? I am stunned that he just didn’t sue. You guys are making blogs look bad. Please stop it.
Now, one of your commenters attacked Don baselessly. Can your person give one incident of “what they expect”? The person claiming rightfully that you can do better is doing the same themselves in the very comment that chastised you.
Yo Republican Dave and IntegrityCounts, cut the crap. Delaware Dem apologized for his error. Progressives do that when they are wrong. Check out the Daily Caller and Fox News, they just double down when they are caught in falsehoods. Please IntegityCounts point me the way to the source of integrity.
Well gosh, I think Del Dem did the right thing and told him so, and believe him. But I’m having no luck getting jason to an epiphany of error. Can you help? I can forgive him too :). I’m sure he’s kicking himself already for having taken a vacation and missing my original outcry :). It’s OK jason.
This is exactly why real news outlets don’t print unverified information. You took an eavesdropper’s word for the gospel truth and came pretty close to getting your butts sued. Your sense of outrage – “How DARE they!!!!” – overwhelmed your common sense, and you didn’t bother to call him and get his side as soon as he was ID’d. You’re damn lucky Mr. Forsten is a pretty easy-going fellow.
I hope this results in some procedural and policy changes – I.e., no posting rumors from creepy restaurant snoops who need their hearing aids checked.
Geez, we used to talk about shutting DL down all the time back in the ever-lovin’ glory days of W.
Back when the Illuminati had us all on the six-figure payroll, with full dental.
You couldn’t stop by the Old Whistlestop Conservative Cafe without hearing floating talk of taking out that bare-chested icon of grassroots liberal pudgeology.
Ahh…..those were the days. In the shadows of the Reedy Point Bridge, meeting our handlers and getting our assignments.
AT speaks truth and doesn’t even know it. Remember, it is impossible to parody Republicans.
BTW – Appo truth is done here. After a couple of posts this morning that had no point other than trying and get under my skin by being personal, I’m sure he (she?) isn’t surprised.
The unwritten Anon Code says that while anonymous, you can’t get personal with a known local person (except politicians).
heh, sorry I missed the photo too. That would have made my day.
Anyone who remembers the 2010 election year and Republican David’s blog, DelawarePolitics.net is laughing their ass off right now at his comments. That blog hasn’t had a scrap of integrity since the original owner left.
Remember RDs insistence on keeping his funny Hitler/Holocaust “joke” up even after the Anti Defamation League asked him to please take it down? He only removed the post after the local newspapers started covering the story.
How about his post on how coat hanger abortions were just a “myth” perpetuated by the left? I never saw a retraction for that post filled with lies or an apology to literate people everywhere for trying to spread those lies.
Delaware Dem,
Thank you for your apology, which I accept. I think you owe my wife an apology as well. Hopefully something good can come from all of this.
Richard
If you mean quickly putting together another referendum to adequately fund Appo, and passing it – I agree.
Let’s see if developer-connected opponents of the Appo operational referendum make a stink during the next CAPITAL referendum. I mean, the anti-tax principle is the same, right?
Richard, I extend the same apology to your wife as well, and sorry for the oversight in not mentioning her in the original post.
Jason330 — I am on record as supporting a second referendum. In fact, we (the Board) scheduled this referendum when we did so that in the event it failed there would be time for a second referendum. Obviously the district will need to address the concerns expressed by many who voted “no” on the past referendum and we will do that.
Puck — I have no clue what “developer-connected opponents” made a “stink” about this past referendum. Rather, for all the intrigue and suspicions about Appo, no one seems to have focused on the fact that Colonial defeated a similar referendum by an even bigger total vote margin and without any yard signs or robo calls at all. Maybe, just maybe, the voters were paying attention in both places and didn’t like either of the referendums. Maybe, just maybe, the message from the voters is for the districts to come up with better referendums. Anyway, it just means we’re going to have to work that much harder to get the next referendum passed.
Delaware Dem — thank you again.
Fair enough. Better doesn’t necessarily mean smaller, it just means the districts have to give back more in return. Like more transparency, accountability, or improved services.
True enough, puck. But history predicts it being smaller. In this case, my guess is that it will be definitely be smaller since the main point against this referendum was the price tag – which was the easy, but not necessarily accurate, sell. I’m not seeing a way to keep the figure the same – that ship not only sailed, it was sunk.
This seems to have been DD’s sneaky plan to get a sane Republican chatting here. Now we see!
Richard Forsten,
Since you claim to no longer represent Bayberry, can you tell me, as an APPO School Board member, who is the rumored legislator(s) working behind the scenes with APPO and Blenhiem Homes to shift the district lines so that the workforce housing North Bayberry development falls into the more lucrative APPO district?
Quote: “On the Bayberry work force housing project, the developer is attempting to have all of the project joined into the Appoquinimink district as they “can get higher prices” as opposed to parcels/ lots being in the Colonial district. Unnamed State legislator’s were said to be involved in this matter. Given that both of these districts were unsuccessful in their tax increase referenda yesterday I doubt that any effort to pile more expense on local property owners to benefit real estate developers will be viewed favorably.”
This came to light during the referendum vote. Quotes are taken from a direct conversation with an APPO district employee. It sounds like an issue the school board should know something about.
Most of Bayberry (>75%) is in Appoquinimink according to the map of the district. I think it would be very reasonable and responsible for any developer undertaking a project to simplify matters like a single school district. If the development had been there prior to the district alignment, they would not have split it apart between two districts.
Seems like a whiner looking for a whine. If you’re that thirsty, I would aim at the farce that is “workforce housing” in a state that can’t possibly do more to chase business across the border to Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We should just call it commuter barracks.
Hey Nancy–Good luck with that wild tale. Given Appoquinimink hasn’t signed off on any permitted housing expansion in years and years with the county–I really don’t think, they would embrace the full parcel WHICH WAS MADE EXPLICITLY CLEAR PRIOR to building, it would be two different school districts. Colonial wouldn’t want to give up new housing tax assessments either. So whatever “rumored” legislator you are “rumoring” about–it could very well be likely that legislator(s) may have constituents in both districts. Do ya thunk it would fare real well to the constituency on either side of that little maneuver? The last time we incurred a boundary change over a neighborhood, was Grande View–an established older community, where only about one block of these older homes, went to Colonial, the rest to Appoquinimink. Purely a “housekeeping” change after YEARS of established boundary. To contrive inclusion at this point in the build-out, as a selling feature or rate maker I don’t think is going to sit real well with anyone affected, except the builder, buyer, and real estate agent. And, just to be clear–I KNOW Appoquinimink has made it real clear, “thinking” you bought in Appoquinimink is neither reason for admission, or “choice”.
And lastly, there is still ONE more road in the district, where houses on one side go to Appo, and houses on the other side go to Colonial–a whopping 8-10 houses probably. You better believe, before a housing community gets the “all clear”–this little group better be taken care of to their preference–or I will be a park ape over whatever “rumored” legislator(s) you are referring. We have VERY ATTENTIVE legislators serving this community–do all eavesdroppers hang out at the Chesdel or something?
Go fuck yourself, Mel S.
They (the developers) pulled that bullshit in Red Clay when Jarrell Farms and neighboring developments were built in the late 1980s/early ’90s.
Realtors marketed these developments as being in the H.B. duPont/A.I. duPont feeder patterns despite the fact that they were clearly NOT in this feeder pattern.
County officials were bought off & suddenly Jarrell Farms = Hockessin = A.I.H.S. feeder.
Fast forward a decade or 3 & we have a brand new North Star Elementary school, filled w/ white kids & “desirable” (read wealthy Asians and Indians) brown kids.
Meanwhile, poor old Alex Jarrell is spinning in his grave, trying to figure out how all these houses were built on his farm, and why there is a retirement community scheduled to be built on the remaining few acres he owned prior to his death.
One more thing–GO FUCK YOURSELF, Mel S. !
LOL “commuter barracks” – I will pass that one along.
@Joanne, you may be right. This was a district employee talking so look there for the rumoring.
BTW, Bayberry is trying for even MORE density along Boyds’ Corner now too. DelDOT’s reaction was surprise if not alarm. They are saying in response that they will get ‘anther bite at the apple’.
I presume that is an indication that DelDOT will be able to force the developer to pay more for his roads since this new density request is outside of the very secret and unseemly 2004 established “Bayberry Infrastructure Agreement” hammered out between Ralph Reeb, Nathan Hayward and Pam Scott which forced a whole lot of public dollars over to Jay Sonecha’s benefit for the spanking new roads and sewers needed to be serving his ‘City’.
http://www.sncca.org/DelDOT-Developer%20Deals.pdf
And speaking of funky marketing…..Bayberry North is a WFH community where the fixed rate homes are significantly lower priced and have waivers from Home Owner Assoc. fees etc. that are presently not advertized and not disclosed upon sale to the market rate buyers.
Didn’t mean to tap a nerve there, Roiling in Dismay. Sorry to hear of such horrid manipulations up there in Pretensylvania. Egads, who knew PA and MD’s leftovers could be such a catch!!! Sumbody’s got a real WEDGE-y!!!
But I digress……pulling the Dreaded Rear Admiral *within* a district feeder pattern is not the same as promising one district but delivering another.
Still within a developer’s rights to try and simplify things. Unless as Joanne C. points out the boundaries were explicitly set, knowing full well that portions would be in one vs. the other, regardless of build date.
Doesn’t really matter. Colonial and Appoquinimink are both headed to mediocrity. One just doesn’t know it yet.