Berkeley’s downtown post office is listed for sale

The downtown Berkeley Post Office at 2000 Allston Way has been put on the market. Photo: Keoki Seu

The downtown Berkeley Post Office has officially been put on the market. The landmarked building at 2000 Allston Way, the source of much campaigning to prevent its sale over the past year, has been listed with USPS Properties for Sale.

No price has been listed for the 1914 Renaissance Revival-style building. When Berkeleyside talked to the realtor, CBRE, they said they are not releasing the price. Details on the listing are slim, including only the fact that 48,500 sq. ft of the total 57,200 sq. ft are available.

USPS announced that it intended to sell the building in June 2012 and relocate services to a smaller space in downtown Berkeley. Opposition to the decision has ben voiced by distinct groups at the local, state and federal level. The Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to try to stop the sale. A campaigning group, Save the Berkeley Post Office, has organized petitions and community meetings, and been in consultation with groups across the country who are protesting the divestment of post office properties. Protesters pitched tents outside the building for almost almost a month, until the encampment was asked to leave in August.

The Council is also considering a proposal, put forth by Councilman Jesse Arreguín, which would see a zoning overlay imposed on the the civic center so that uses of historic buildings like the post office, Old City Hall and the Veteran’s Building would be restricted to activities serving the public.

Not everyone agrees that such zoning restrictions will be helpful, however. Berkeley Design Advocates, a a membership organization of planners, architects and engineers that works to support good planning and design in Berkeley, wrote to Mayor Tom Bates last month to say they such a move could prove a turn-off for the types of commercial developments of the building that might create jobs and bring economic growth to downtown.

“We believe that continuing to fight for no change in the post office’s current operation is futile and will lead to unexpected and unwanted outcomes,” they wrote.

USPS meanwhile is requesting the Council find a mutually acceptable solution. In a letter dated Oct. 1 , referring to the zoning overlay proposal, it wrote: “We would ask that the City Council not fast-track or otherwise accelerate any pending actions under consideration… to allow for thoughtful consultation by the Postal Service, the city and other consulting parties.” It agreed to the city’s request for an extension on the comment period, through Nov. 12.

At 2:45 p.m. today, councilman Arreguín released the following statement: “It’s not often that one encounters such brazen bad faith -even in politics! The USPS cannot on one hand completely disregard community input while urging for a mutually beneficial solution with the other. All the while, the USPS disrespectfully lists the property for sale in violation of the Section 106 process. I have no words for USPS’ conduct.”

Berkeley Design Advocates is hosting a small exhibit of plans showing adaptive reuse of various post office buildings and potential reuse of the downtown post office. The exhibit is in the joint lobby of the Wells Fargo Bank and NextSpace at 2081 Center St., 8:30-5:30 weekdays, through Nov. 1.

Op-Ed: City needs to be creative to ensure good use of Post Office (09.13.13)
Berkeley Post Office clean-up was unplanned, say police (08.30.13)
Accounts clash on reason for post office camp departure (08.29.13)
Postal Commission rejects Berkeley mayor’s appeal (08.28.13)
Protester stabbed in thigh at Berkeley Post Office camp (08.16.13)
Feds agree to hear mayor’s plea to halt post office sale (08.12.13)
U.S. Post Office erects fence at Berkeley’s Elmwood site (08.09.13)
Berkeley post office protesters decline to move (08.06.13)
Protesters told to leave steps of Berkeley post office (08.03.13)
Protesters stage a sleep-in to save the Berkeley post office (07.29.13)
Locals, city fight on to stop sale of post office (07.19.13)
Berkeley’s political firmament rallies for post office (05.03.13)
Post Office to sell its downtown Berkeley building (04.22.13)
Developer eyes Berkeley’s historic post office (08.01.12)
Chances are slim of saving Berkeley post office (07.23.12)
Postal Service plans sale of Berkeley’s main post office (06.25.12)

Berkeleyside publishes many articles every day. To see all our stories in chronological order, and read ones you may have missed, check out our All the News grid.

Print Friendly
Tagged , ,
Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comments policy »
  • AnthonySanchez

    If they have indeed listed the property for sale, they have done so illegally while the Section 106 Public Comment period is still open until November 1.

    Mayor Bates was correct a few months back when he called the USPS folks involved with the potential sale as “double-dealing sons of bitches.” While trying to make a quid pro quo to work with us to finding a mutually acceptable solution (see Oct. 1 letter), they are threatening a law suit behind closed doors and now they are listing the property for sale.

    All the while, we have developers and those who stand to profit from such a transaction hovering above the potential liquidation of public assets for private profit like vultures, tacitly endorsing in the least the Tea Party idea of privatizing our public commons. Most upsetting is that this “crisis” was artificially manufactured by the Republican Congress in 2006 for the purpose of strangling the USPS so that FedEx, UPS, etc. can get in on the action while public property is transferred for private gain. People forget that the USPS is in fact operationally profitable.

  • Rob Wrennn

    Last Wednesday, the Planning Commission voted to moved forward with creating a zoning overlay, unanimously voting to direct staff to come back with a list of uses based on a list of uses common to all the zoning districts in the Civic Center Historic District and uses listed in the referral from the City Council and adding public markets along the lines of the Ferry Building in San Francisco. It was understood that the commission might decide to narrow the list of uses that staff brings back for their consideration. Speakers at the very well-attended public hearing at the PC favored creation of a zoning overlay by better than 10-1.

    What can be done with the Post Office, if it is sold, is already constrained by its status as an historic landmark building on the National Register of Historic Places. The City’s downtown plan says that any additions to such historic buildings must be compatible with the scale and character of the building. Potential buyers would be wise to wait and see what uses the City ultimately allows in the Civic Center Historic District, which includes not only the Post Office, but Old City Hall, the Veterans Memorial Building and other civic buildings.

  • Markos Moulitsas

    Why would it be illegal for a property owner to sell their property?

  • AnthonySanchez

    As in why would it be illegal for an owner to sell this property in this particularly case at this particular time?

    Or why would it ever be illegal for any owner to sell their own property in the rhetorical sense?

    I presume you meant the former.

    In that case, I apologize since I also presumed that including “while the Section 106 Public Comment period is still open until November 1….” would be sufficient for those who do not know what Section 106 is to reasonably infer that there is a legal and procedural process by which the USPS, a government agency, would have to abide by in order to sell public property that also has an historical designation.

    Specifically, a brief summary of the process of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act can be found here:

  • Autumn

    There are so very many times that property owners aren’t allowed to sell their property (mid-lawsuit? mid-divorce? mid-estate-transfer? etc), and double that when it’s a governmental entity.

  • The_Sharkey

    Here’s hoping for a community-minded buyer with deep pockets and vision. It’s such a beautiful space, I hope someone is able to transform it into something positive for downtown.

    It’s too bad our city leaders are more interested in pandering to a screeching minority that hates change than in trying to work with the USPS to find an excellent buyer and turning this historic opportunity to our advantage.

  • M.E. Lawrence

    Now, now, A.S. Vultures are fine, useful birds in their own way, unlike these people.

  • The_Sharkey

    A lot can be done in a historic building while respecting the structure and retaining the scale and character of the building.

  • AnthonySanchez

    If anything, hasn’t this process better positioned that outcome, worse come to worse? It’s certainly another way of looking at it, but valid nonetheless.

  • Doc

    This is a rare and exciting opportunity for Berkeley. Hope the mayor and the less revolting council members are up to it.

  • m.fa

    The USPS seems to have already sold a 2.2 acre parcel on 1150 Eighth Street for $2.3 million. Wondering if the buyers of this parcel are also circling the main post office.

  • mapping the games

    They listed the property and highlighted the total vs available sq. footage to try to warn away appeals such as the one that Tom Bates filed. Bates’ appeal was premised on the idea that the sale of the property represented a closure rather than a relocation of the downtown post office, unless the downtown post office had a bona fide alternative location lined up. The closure of the downtown post office would require a public process that USPS has not performed.

    By suggesting that 8,700 sq. ft. won’t be available to the buyer, USPS execs are thumbing their noses and saying they’ll keep the post office right there, then, and sell the rest if need be. It is a counter to Bates’ boast that he doesn’t think anyone will rent them a suitable space to relocate downtown.

    Is it correct to assume that the behind closed doors lawsuit threat regards the proposed rezoning, perhaps claiming that it constitutes an illegal taking?

  • FosterBoondoggle

    Whether or not the USPS is “operationally profitable” is entirely irrelevant to whether keeping the building as a public post office is its best use. Are we somehow better off with a minimally used, block long building sitting there, with one or two service windows in front and nothing going on in back (if the USPS moves their back-office functions elsewhere), rather than having some other use? (Heaven forbid that another use should be – gasp – profitable to someone.) And what if the USPS moves all its downtown operations elsewhere and leaves the building empty? How are we better off?

    All this talk about “privatizing the public commons” is really besides the point. If the “public commons” is not being used for things that are as highly valued as they once were, do we just keep on doing them in the same old way regardless? What exactly is the goal here, other than “everything should stay the same and nothing should ever change because … tradition!”

    Berkeley “progressives” are in a sorry state when Mr. Daily Kos himself is taking up the free-market side of the argument.

  • Rob Wrenn

    Having heard about 35 people speak in favor of a zoning overlay at the hearing, essentially all of them opposed to the sale of the Post Office, I wouldn’t use the adjective “screeching” to describe them. With a few exceptions, they made well-reasoned arguments and some were quite informative. I also doubt that theirs is a minority viewpoint. I was on the Planning Commission for eight years and I don’t recall any PC hearing with a larger turnout. Probably close to 100 people attended some portion of the hearing and subsequent commission discussion.

    The Postal Service may nonetheless sell the Post Office building, hopefully leasing back some of the space therein. And something needs to go in Old City Hall now that the School District has moved its offices. The future use of the Veterans Building is also uncertain as some or all of the homeless services provided there might move if the City goes forward with developing the Berkeley Way parking lot. So the City needs to decide what sort of uses would be appropriate in the Post Office, Old City Hall and the Veterans Building, as well as the other ten properties in the Civic Center Historic District.

    Since I haven’t seen it reported anywhere, here is the list that staff are working on including in the overlay draft language they will bring back to the Commission in November:

    From the City Council referral to the Planning Commission:
    -Offices, Other Professionals and Government, Institutions, Utilities (but not offices for financial services, insurance, real estate, medical practitioners)
    -Group Class Instruction for Business, Vocational or Other Purposes
    -Gyms and Health Clubs (The YMCA is part of the Civic Center Historic District)
    -Dance, Exercise, Martial Arts and Music Studios
    -Theaters, including Motion Pictures and Stage Performance
    -Live Entertainment
    -Community Centers
    -Parks and Playgrounds (Civic Center Park is part of the district)
    -Public Safety and Emergency Services

    From List of Uses common to the mixed use and residentially-zoned parts of the district:
    -Any telecommunications facility besides microcell
    -Child Care Centers
    -Clubs, Lodges
    -Community Centers (also in Council referral)
    -Dwelling Units
    -Microcell Facilities
    -Surface Parking Lot with less than 8 spaces
    -Public Safety and Emergency Services (also in Council referral)
    -Public Utility Substations, Tanks
    -Religious Assembly

    Schools were on both lists but the Council called for deletion in its referral.

    Commissioners also wanted staff to work on public markets. There is no definition in the zoning ordinance, but it would presumably mean allowing retail food products and related restaurants to allow something like the Ferry Building market. There was also some mention of museums, but I don’t know if it was included in what the commission passed.

    Various commissioners raised questions about some of the above uses and some are likely to be deleted from the final list. But it works better for staff to put together overlay language for the whole list and then delete those that don’t have support on the commission. Councilmember Arreguin, who represents Downtown and the Historic District, has drafted ordinance language related to an overlay which staff will also consider as they put their draft together.

  • AnthonySanchez

    “And what if the USPS moves all its downtown operations elsewhere and leaves the building empty? How are we better off?”

    Please describe how that makes logical sense? Why pay rent somewhere else when you own a building that you have not sold yet? That’d be like renting a unit down the street while you own a house that has buyer in line? This is a made up threat that will not pan out.

    “Berkeley “progressives” are in a sorry state when Mr. Daily Kos himself is taking up the free-market side of the argument.”

    I’ll leave that to Mr. Daily Kos. Very interesting, I agree. I am not sure how “progressive” it is to allow the husband of a sitting Senator market off buildings paid for with public money for a tidy sum. Call my young self “old fashioned,” but graft, or the appearance of it, is not very “progressive.” In the heirarchy of values and principles, does “better use” justify impropriety and ideological partisan design? Is it really “any means necessary?” Which process is inherently more progressive: the deontological or the teleological?

    The fact that the USPS is in a forced position to effectively privatize is very relevant -again, one of those “old fashioned” “progressive values.”

    “everything should stay the same and nothing should ever change because … tradition!”

    Sounds like an oversimplified, anti-intellectual ad hominem. Might as well say Obstructionist NIMBY, Retrogressive, Amber-hued Preservationists, or my favorite, recalcitrant nostalgia brigade. I think that says more about the accuser than the accused, and goes against the meaningful civil dialogue that Berkeleyside has been carefully attempting to cultivate.

  • guest

    that sounds like the kind of question a libertarian would ask

  • The_Sharkey

    No, it hasn’t. At all.

    Instead of welcoming the change and embracing the chance at something new, you and the other city hall residents have made national news out of doing everything you can to fight the sale and making it clear that you’ll do whatever is necessary to try to stymie development of the property.
    What you have done is, in fact, the opposite of working to find an excellent buyer for the property.

  • No. The buyer of that lot was Urban Adamah, a Jewish-themed community agricultural organization. They are still fundraising to close the West Berkeley deal, and I don’t think they are interested in a downtown building.

  • Guest

    I don’t know the numbers, so I won’t guess at them, but using logic:

    On the one hand, you have the ongoing costs (building maintenance, cleaning, power, heat, other utilities, whatever taxes they’re required to pay, etc.) that the USPS is incurring at their current oversized location.

    On the other hand, you have the cost of rent for a modestly-sized storefront (comparable to the USPS North Berkeley station, maybe?) someplace downtown, probably not directly on Shattuck.

    I’m guessing that those two numbers might not be all that far apart….

  • Rob Wrenn

    If the Postal Service has decided to continue using a part of the building, that’s a victory for the City, something that wouldn’t have happened in the absence of protest by opponents of the sale and by the City Council. If they are going to stay that might also be a sign that Bates was right and that the Postal Service was having trouble finding a suitable alternative site in the 94704 zip code area. If the Postal Service was more competently managed, not constrained by Republicans in Congress, etc., it would lease out the space it doesn’t need while retaining ownership. It could use the revenue it would get to support postal operations.

    Selling off public assets is rarely a good idea. But if they are going to sell, a lease-back of the front part of the building is next best thing. Much better to have the downtown Post Office where it is than in some drab space like the Social Security office downtown or like the Sather Gate or South Berkeley branch post offices. Of course, the City still has to decide what kind of uses are appropriate for adaptively reused civic buildings in Berkeley’s Civic Center Historic District.

  • guest

    Complaining about a sitting Senator’s husband selling public buildings? How many times have you voted for Feinstein? Bet it was more than once. Bet you’ll do it again, too.

  • Rob Wrenn

    The City Council unanimously opposed the sale. Are they out of touch with their constituents? Our State Senator Hancock and State Rep Skinner got the California legislature to oppose the sale. Are they out of touch? Hundreds of letters were sent to the Postal Service opposing the sale. Is there a Nixonian silent majority in Berkeley that supports the sale? I am not aware of any polls or surveys on the issue, but for every person who goes to a demonstration, writes a letter, attends a meeting, there are many others who share their opinion but don’t take the time to express it publicly. I have no doubt that a majority of Berkeleyans would like the downtown Post Office to stay where it is.

  • mapping the games

    If the Postal Service has decided to continue using a part of the building, that’s a victory for the City, something that wouldn’t have
    happened in the absence of protest by opponents of the sale and by the
    City Council.

    I agree but it rises to the level of a sappy consolation prize. There remains more for which to fight.

    If they are going to stay that might also be a sign that Bates was
    right and that the Postal Service was having trouble finding a suitable alternative site in the 94704 zip code area.

    It’s a small town. He’s got no reason to make something like that up. If I were the USPS execs I’d almost take him at his word. Heck, if he says something like that in public and a landlord in 94704 disagrees, said landlord would just contact USPS with talk of an offer.

    It could be that somebody else’s chess game tricked him up to reach the point we’ve got to: perhaps to encumber the sale in ways that favor something like a BDA-ish “marketplace” pitch over some random out of town REIT or Cal land-grab.

    Selling off public assets is rarely a good idea.

    No kidding.

  • Bill N

    Yes, they are sometimes out of touch with their constituents but I don’t expect them to please me all of the time. I am also unaware of any polls or surveys of the issue perhaps because the “cause” is to narrow and not applicable to the city as a whole like jobs, streets, parks and schools. I happen to not be opposed to the sale (not in favor but not opposed) because maybe we can have a higher and better use for the majority of the building that actually adds to the tax base of the city (just watch out for UCB).

  • mapping the games

    This isn’t about where it would be “better” to have a postal retail desk. In order to evade a Tom Bates-style challenge to selling the building, USPS must be able to convincingly argue they will offer continuous retail service in this area — either the current location and near. The reserved square footage in the “for sale” notice suggests they are prepared to require a buyer to let the postal retail stuff stay put. If the postal retail stuff stays put, the legal basis for Bates’ challenge is moot.

    Regarding the other question: I don’t know if Cal is “interested” in the parcel or not but it is a potentially good fit for them. They are written in to the downtown plan. They have expansion plans. City of Berkeley is expressing interest in maintaining the property as public use and ideally, public ownership. Blum is, among other things, a Regent. UC could probably conjure up the $ to buy it or it could pass through a flipper’s hands first. They should be interested.

  • The_Sharkey

    Recently, at about the same time that a “permanently banned” poster came back.

    There’s some discussion of it here:

  • FosterBoondoggle

    Leaving aside tin-foil-hat theories about the USPS bribing a sitting senator through her husband (and why would the leadership of the USPS want to do that?!?) is it really the business of the city to be micromanaging the financial decisions of the USPS? First class mail usage per capita fell by more than 30% between 2000 and 2010, so it’s not an enterprise with a stable customer base and business model. Is the city going to be deciding henceforth what the right number of windows are to be open at what time, and exactly how many delivery people should be working and when? If not, what business is it of the city to demand that this specific building be kept for its current use?

    Fancy words like “deontological” and “teleological” signal an empty argument. Do you really think that Kant would have had strong views about whether the Post Office should keep operating a building with a nice facade just because it hurts some Berkeleyite feelings that it could get a different use.

    The GSA “rationalizes” government owned property all the time (though this isn’t technically federal property). If the city has some better use for the building, great. Lets have the city buy it and use it. But please be explicit about what you think should happen, without getting into empty talk about “selling off buildings paid for with public money” – how it was paid for 80 years ago hardly seems to bear on whether it would be a good idea to find another use for it now. No one is proposing to give it away for free. Or is the view of your “young self” that everything the government has ever owned can never be sold?

    In spite of reading these articles and comments I’m still at a loss
    to understand the (non-tin-foil-hat) argument against the sale. Concern
    for the postal workers’ union? Anxiety about yet another underused
    downtown building? Hurt feelings? A generalized view that the federal
    government should be “doing more stuff”, not less? Or is all this fuss just an attempt at throwing enough sand in the gears to try to force a better deal? (And what would that look like?)

  • guest

    The moderators should be doing a better job of controlling The Sharkey.

    In this thread alone, he has several vicious ad hominem attacks that violate Berkeleyside policy and should not have been posted.

  • The_Sharkey

    Good job on the censorship, Berkeleyside moderators.

    Just axing a paragraph because you didn’t like the tone of my reply calling out the intellectual dishonesty displayed here by you-know-who.

  • The_Sharkey

    So, in order to complain about what you see as ad hominem attacks you’ve made up fictitious quotes (search the page, I never said either of those things) that you then attributed to me as part of a post attacking me?

    Just because you don’t like my comments or opinions doesn’t make them personal attacks. If you have problems with specific things I’ve said, use real quotes and let’s talk about them. Don’t attack me for things you’ve made up.

  • Tim Ereneta

    Why would a wikipedia biography include a mention of anyone’s husband’s cronys?

  • AnthonySanchez

    I’ve never voted for Feinstein. I still remember her vote, among other things, for the Flag Burning Amendment while I was in college.

  • AnthonySanchez

    I can see where you are coming from, and that is fair.

    At the same time, I see the City having gained more leverage on the issue.

  • AnthonySanchez

    Tasers aren’t before Council, not a priority, and we’re skeptical about them. Happy now?

    We are one of the busiest offices on the 5th floor (some offices aren’t even always open). I apologize we didn’t take the time to comment on an issue that had enough comments to indicate that Council isn’t likely to take it up soon and that they are very cautious. Would another comment from Jesse to that same effect have made a difference? I think not and it’s a waste of time to dwell on the lack of comment when there are issues more immediately before us.

  • AnthonySanchez

    “Leaving aside tin-foil-hat theories”

    More ad hominems.

    “about the USPS bribing a sitting senator through her husband (and why would the leadership of the USPS want to do that?!?)”

    This makes no sense. Either through misunderstanding or by design, this is a false and illogical construction to refute the possibility of corruption. The more logical possibility is the other way around: That Feinstein and Blum have used their connections and position to inappropriately profit from the Government.

    “If not, what business is it of the city to demand that this specific building be kept for its current use?”

    Actually the proposal at hand is about ensuring civic oriented uses at the site -not just the precise, exact, existing use.

    “Fancy words like “deontological” and “teleological” signal an empty argument.”

    Do they (they actually mean something)? I think ad hominems and incivility do a better job signaling a scarcity of substance.

    “Or is all this fuss just an attempt at throwing enough sand in the gears to try to force a better deal? (And what would that look like?)”

    This is actually a fair question amid your other questions. This could play a role, as well as resisting the idea that our public assets are being “forced” to be sold off to private parties as a part of a partisan design called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. I invite you to read it to gain a bit more understanding why progressives are fighting the sale of historic Post Offices -it is not that Government shouldn’t sell surplus at all ever; this is a unique, manufactured situation:

  • guest

    Once again, The Sharkey engages in an ad hominem attack about “intellectual dishonesty.” There was no “intellectual dishonesty” and nothing “duplicitous” here. These ad hominems are violations of Berkeleyside policy and should have been moderated.

    Since The Sharkey keeps whining about censorship, maybe it would be better to ban him from the site permanently – as he was once banned temporarily. He obviously approves of banning people from the site, and he doesn’t like being moderated. You could follow his preference by banning him rather than moderating him.

    Moderators, please don’t be influenced by his whining about censorship. Your job is to improve the quality of the site by promoting civil discussion.

  • move_on_sharkey


  • The_Sharkey

    Once again, The Sharkey engages in an ad hominem attack about
    “intellectual dishonesty.” There was no “intellectual dishonesty” and
    nothing “duplicitous” here. These ad hominems are violations of
    Berkeleyside policy and should have been moderated.

    Nope, not at all. You-know-who was doing his normal song and dance routine of making baseless insinuations and then shying away from it when called out on his underhanded tactic only to double down on the baseless insinuations moments later. The baseless insinuations are duplicitous. The pretending that’s not what he was doing when called out on it is intellectually dishonest.
    So far Berkeleyside has never banned anyone permanently from commenting. They made a show of banning you-know-who after he used the comments section to harangue and abuse the writers and editors with lies and attacks and issue legal threats against people who disagreed with him, but he’s back to commenting regularly now and they don’t seem to mind.

  • guest

    Actually the proposal at hand is about ensuring civic oriented uses at the site -not just the precise, exact, existing use.

    The argument from city hall has been to oppose the sale in any way possible.
    Let’s not kid ourselves here, the “ensuring civic oriented uses” bit only came up when you guys started to get worried that completely blocking the sale might not be possible.

  • p_chazz

    This building is a gem, and would be a natural for creative re-use. Preservationists should stop trying to stand in the way of progress and let thePost Office sell the building. The Post Office would get some much needed scratch, and the building will get a new lease on life.

  • FosterBoondoggle

    That’s just wonderful. Now I know someone I can thank if a Republican wins the next race against her. It must be great to never have to accept compromises.

    I also thought her position on flag burning was reprehensible, and wrote her to say so. But the choice to not vote for someone whose views are more or less aligned with yours just because they’re not perfect is what got us 8 years of GWB.

  • An Thrope

    Look, stop with the histrionics already. Make sure the building is preserved, that postal services aren’t adversely affected, and allow progress to happen. It’s gonna happen anyway; tantrums won’t help that. I thought Progressives were supposed to embrace progress. Jeez.

  • skeptic

    Actually, Anthony, I don’t think the phrase “tin-foiled theories” is an ad hominem attack, since it is attacking the theory, not the person. You could be a great person and still have a silly thought.

  • FosterBoondoggle

    Damn. You beat me to it.

  • lol

    >claim there were several vicious attacks
    >don’t quote a single one

    Par for the course.

  • AnthonySanchez

    Unlike Sen. Boxer, her races were never in any real contention. Should that have not have been the case, I, like many others would vote for the one that would do less harm. I think you are being adversarial for the sake of it, just like many others who comment on bside with anonymous handles.

  • AnthonySanchez

    I can waste my time and break it down for you, but a theory cannot wear a tin-foil hat -it is therefore a theory of or similar to one of a tin-foiled hat donning person. Rather than interact with the substance and merit of a “theory,” using “tin-foil” serves to dismissively characterize the “theory,” and by implication the person who proffers it.

    I would appreciate if dialogue on Bside can improve even further if people can contribute constructively, rather than sneaking in a few incendiary remarks in lieu of intelligent conversation.