disinterested3rdparty 
Member since Nov 20, 2009


Stats

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “You Don't Know Jack

seedplanter, you seem to have information other than what's presented in the article. As the article makes clear, the IP address was for a broadband account at Marcel Diallo's home, not at the blackdot cafe. The email was sent at a time when the blackdot cafe was not open. Given the facts, arguments that Diallo had nothing to do with this are laughable. I don't know about how you have your home networking set up, but mine is not open to the public to use for whatever reason that they might see fit. Particularly given the history between Diallo and Allstadt, ie Diallo's threats of violence etc revealed in court documents and highlighted by this article, I have no problem believing that Diallo sent the email. This isn't a matter of innocent until proven guilty. Defamation is a tort, not a crime. It isn't a matter of innocence or guilt at all, but rather an issue of liability for acting like a jerkoff in a society that frowns on jerkoffery. Absent any defense, which Diallo has not offered apparently, It's clear that Diallo did a jerkoffish thing. The question for the jury at this point would be not one of did he or did he not send the email. He clearly did. The question would be does that meet the threshold for defamation in California, and if so, what sort of damages is Allstadt due if any. Challenging the jerkoffery evidence, as far as I can see, is a nonstarter.

Posted by disinterested3rdparty on 11/22/2009 at 3:55 PM

Re: “You Don't Know Jack

seedplanter and kirstin miller, i'm curious, do you think that the validity of the VB farm project justifies Diallo defaming and threatening Allstadt because his opinion as a board member was that the City Slicker Farm project was more worthy of limited grant money?

you're obviously people who are up on this sort of community activisim, so you have to know that not every good idea is going to get funded. Your comments seem to me to be offered as a defense of Marcel Diallo's actions after his project was turned down. But I don't see the connection. Surely it can't be good for the sort of work you are rightly advocating for someone to personally attack members of the board controlling grant money just because another project was favored over the one that they are working on.

I guess I just don't understand how any of what you are saying is relevant to the subject of this article, which is that Marcel Diallo's behavior towards someone who clearly cares about his community is both destructive and divisive in a community that could clearly use a little more cooperation and tolerance.

This divisiveness I think is quite clear in the comments of Diallo partisans that imply that all of this is some conspiracy cooked up by Allstadt and his friends to ruin Diallo's reputation. I don't see how anybody could take such an argument seriously. Based on the evidence for his actions as presented in the article, it seems to me that Diallo is doing a fine job ruining his reputation all on his own.

Posted by disinterested3rdparty on 11/21/2009 at 11:14 PM

Re: “You Don't Know Jack

it seems to me that the issue of race and activism in the community is something of a red herring and interested parties should focus instead on the real issues raised by the article. These are:

1.) someone, who was using Diallo's personal internet account at 2 am, tried to defame Allstadt by sending a racist and homophobic email to significant political figures that Allstadt has to interact with in the course of his community development work. While it's clear that there's no judgment against Diallo yet, it's clear he's got some explaining to do at the very least to show that he was not the person acting so maliciously and childishly.

2.) The larger issue, whether there is a scam going on or not--although the fact that Diallo doesn't live and vote in the neighborhood he wants to revitalize strikes me as telling--is that there appears to be a lot of money going into projects in this neighborhood that's not accomplishing a whole lot. Community revitalization is never going to happen through half-assed schemes to open arts venues being organized by a single organization. Reduction in crime requires things like neighborhood watches, increased police foot patrols, and real legitimate job opportunities for the people who see crime as their best option. None of those things will result directly or indirectly from the sorts of projects that Diallo seems to be supporting, and worst of all it seems that even where those projects are funded they seem to be done in ways that are wasteful and don't even improve the quality of life in the community the way that such projects should.

It seems to me that there are people who have a problem with the approach that Diallo and his comrades are taking in their use of grant money and as a result Diallo et al are responding not by being inclusive, but by being exclusive of the interests of their neighbors. That is tactically unwise from a community organizers point of view.

Posted by disinterested3rdparty on 11/20/2009 at 3:53 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2017 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation