Lo and behold, this gem pops up:

Editor of Alameda Journal Refuses to Intervene in Complaint About Alameda Journal Blog

Don,

The following is an example of how the Alameda Journal media demonstrated its journalistic integrity. Measure H is mentioned but only incidentally. This example demonstrates how some of the local media perpetuate and exaggerate disinformation. I am sending this example to you in order that your readers benefit from knowing about this incident.

On April 4, the Editor of a web site called “theislandofalameda.blogspot” published an opinion article by me and an opposing opinion by another person regarding Measure H. On April 21, a web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal published an opinion by Eva [sic] Pearlman that stated “Tom Pavletic can blame Alameda’s school funding troubles on a bloated administration…” The article to which Ms. Pearlman referred was the April 4 article published on the “theislandofalameda.blogspot.” My article on “theislandofalameda.blogspot” did not contain the words “bloated” or “administration” and did not suggest the School District had a bloated administration.

Ms. Pearlman reports to Connie Rux, Editor of the Alameda Journal. On April 29, I sent an email to Ms. Rux requesting that “…the offending text written by the [Ms. Pearlman] be immediately removed from [the web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal] and that a correction be published on the website.” On April 29, Ms. Rux responded that “…blog sites are places where opinions, discussions and views are exchanged. If you want to question the piece, respond to Eve's blog site, as do others when they disagree (or agree) with her comments. It's an open forum for discussion.”

I do not believe blog sites should be a place where lies are exchanged. I do not plan to respond to Ms. Pearlman on the web site sponsored by the Alameda Journal. I chose to publish an opinion article on “theislandofalameda.blogspot” because the Editor of that site invited me to publish an opinion, and after talking with the Editor, I had a strong sense that she would be fair. In other words, I trusted her journalistic integrity.

Moral of the Story I: To paraphrase Thomas Paine, it is the madness of folly, to expect honesty from those who have refused to be truthful.

Moral of the Story II: Never give up.

Tom Pavletic

[gratuitous pointing out of name misspelling added to point out that Don Roberts who usually points it out did not.]

I haven't really touched on the many many many letters that have been produced by Tom Pavletic only because, well,  I figured that other people would probably be more offended by the stuff that he writes than I was.  

Boil this all down to "Waahhhh someone paraphrased my underlying opinion from my hundreds of letters about Measure H, FOUL!!"

The scary thing is not that Tom P. simply doesn't understand what the purpose of a blog is, which was aptly described by Connie Rux, a place to share opinions, offer views, and have dicussions.   The beauty of blogs is that, unlike newspapers or "news-themed internet sites" there is not the reliance on an editor (I use that term loosely for the latter) to publish your opinion on a subject.   I believe that Eve Pearlmanhas taken a rather freeflowing approach to her comments section in which as long as you have proved that you are not a spam bot and you are real person by having one comment approved, all your comments from then on will immediately turn up on her site.   If Tom P. felt as though he was mischaracterized on Eve P.'s site then he has the option to log on, type his comment in the little comment area and hit "Submit Comment."  

Instead Tom P. chooses the route of least resistence and goes over Eve P.'s head straight to her editor (although if there is an editor editing someone's blog, it's not really much of a blog, a hands off approach to blogging from a "higher power" is probably best). 

The scarier thing is that Tom P. appears to not understand what the purpose of quotation marksare.   See, in this case Tom P. is  is saying that Eve P.'s piece was "offending" because it had said that he had said that the AUSD administration was bloated.   Here is the sentence that Eve P. wrote:

Tom Pavletic can blame Alameda’s school funding troubles on a bloated administration...

Now if Tom P.'s allegations were true, Eve P. would have written the sentence like this:

Tom Paveltic can blame Alameda's school funding troubles on a "bloated administration"...

Which would then imply that phrase was taken from something that Tom P. had written as opposed to being what it actually is: Eve P. paraphrasing what she believes was and is the nut meat of Tom P.'s theses.

But the scariest thing comes as "Moral of the Story II: Never give up."   Which implies so many things.   The first might be a letter writing rampage which eventually winds its way up the MediaNews food chain all the way to Dean Singleton.   That would actually be relatively benign because when I read it my first thought was, oh no, are we going to be subject to yet another ridiculous defamation lawsuit?   Before Tom P. heads that route, he might want to do some reading prior to filing a claim.

But hey, Eve P. can take heart in the old adage: There's no such thing as bad press because what Tom P. has ostensibly done is ensure that folks who had not previously read that blog entry of Eve P.'s will go and do just that.   And they will probably take a gander at the rest of her blog as well.  I guess in blogging terms it should be better described as "There is no such thing as bad traffic."