The headline should have read: Cutie-patootie gets shot!!

The headline should have read: Cutie-patootie gets shot!!

1. With all due respect, you must not have looked very hard, and using the Examiner as a source, come on. From an article published on 6/24 the debt has been reduced to $77,000: http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-06-24/news/29697622_1_pride-weekend-new-treasurer-pink-pistols

Yes, we opted to use a number supplied to an Examiner reporter by Behan, as opposed to an unattributed number cited by the Chron. We noted that the specific number cited was expected to decrease.

We appreciate the respect, thank you, but I am not sure what “using the Examiner as a source, come on” is intended to indicate — I’m well acquainted with the Ex, and think it’s an solid paper, with quality reporters. No publication’s perfect, but I think the folks who work there are definitely committed to getting the story right. If you have information on the Examiner that we do not, I’d love to hear it.

2. There is nothing in the post you linked to that says that the shooting victim was a spectator, it only says that he was part of a group that was arguing with other people around the area of the Castro. I don’t have time to find the quote right now, but officials at the time said that the shooting last year was”totally” unrelated.

I said “suggested.” Interestingly, the author of that post was the commenter immediately below me (I promise that was unplanned), perhaps she has more insight. But I don’t have a dog in the “was Powell at Pink Saturday or not” fight, I said that it’s a good question.

3. (edited for space, scroll up to reread!)

These are all interesting points! Perhaps every single publication in town, as well as city officials and event organizers are “sloppy,” and you’re the one person who has it right, fighting the good fight by posting comments on websites (for which I again thank you).

Or, perhaps, and I suspect this is what Brock was implying, you, like many folks on many topics, are frustrated to see reporting that does not align with your views.

And I know how people like that feel! I’m an animal lover, and when I see reporting on “humane slaughter” I privately grumble about the quality of the reporting in a far nastier way than you have commented. But I’m self-aware enough to know the issue is not the reporting, the issue is that I don’t agree with the tack that’s being taken, because it fails to align with my views.

But perhaps everyone is getting the story wrong, and you’re the only one with the right take. If so, we’re even more honored to have you on the site, and are thrilled at your insights. Thank you.

1. With all due respect, you must not have looked very hard, and using the Examiner as a source, come on. From an article published on 6/24 the debt has been reduced to $77,000: http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-06-24/news/29697622_1_pride-weekend-new-treasurer-pink-pistols

Yes, we opted to use a number supplied to an Examiner reporter by Behan, as opposed to an unattributed number cited by the Chron. We noted that the specific number cited was expected to decrease.

We appreciate the respect, thank you, but I am not sure what “using the Examiner as a source, come on” is intended to indicate — I’m well acquainted with the Ex, and think it’s an solid paper, with quality reporters. No publication’s perfect, but I think the folks who work there are definitely committed to getting the story right. If you have information on the Examiner that we do not, I’d love to hear it.

2. There is nothing in the post you linked to that says that the shooting victim was a spectator, it only says that he was part of a group that was arguing with other people around the area of the Castro. I don’t have time to find the quote right now, but officials at the time said that the shooting last year was”totally” unrelated.

I said “suggested.” Interestingly, the author of that post was the commenter immediately below me (I promise that was unplanned), perhaps she has more insight. But I don’t have a dog in the “was Powell at Pink Saturday or not” fight, I said that it’s a good question.

3. (edited for space, scroll up to reread!)

These are all interesting points! Perhaps every single publication in town, as well as city officials and event organizers are “sloppy,” and you’re the one person who has it right, fighting the good fight by posting comments on websites (for which I again thank you).

Or, perhaps, and I suspect this is what Brock was implying, you, like many folks on many topics, are frustrated to see reporting that does not align with your views.

And I know how people like that feel! I’m an animal lover, and when I see reporting on “humane slaughter” I privately grumble about the quality of the reporting in a far nastier way than you have commented. But I’m self-aware enough to know the issue is not the reporting, the issue is that I don’t agree with the tack that’s being taken, because it fails to align with my views.

But perhaps everyone is getting the story wrong, and you’re the only one with the right take. If so, we’re even more honored to have you on the site, and are thrilled at your insights. Thank you.

Great job, Appeal, on getting this story straight… so to speak.

Great job, Appeal, on getting this story straight… so to speak.