I do not want to pick this fight, I did not want to pick this fight, I did not want to pick any fight at all. But someone in this thread obviously wants to pick a fight.

If you don't want me to post here, just ban me. It has obviously come to that. It is clear that I could post a piece calling for the public flogging of Dick Cheney and you would find some way to express your fury ("in a typical gesture of Clintonian triangulation, Gatemouth did call for use of nipple clamps or the cat-o-nine tails"). I am told that the President of the Borough of Brooklyn regards one piece I wrote about him as the perhaps the single nastiest personal attack he ever endured; as I recall, you thought it was soft on him.

But I am puzzled by your obsession with my "conflict" in this particular context. I have not written in this post, or any of the posts I've linked here, about anyone I ever took a check from in the 31 years since I first started taking checks for working campaigns (the candidate was Brendan Byrne), or anyone who ever hired me for employment in my the 32 years since I first accepted government employment (at the tree crew for the Bergen County New Jersey Department of Public Works). And yes, Michael, I lied when I said I came from Texas.

Further, it is no secret that I once worked on Marty Connor's staff--you posted it here several weeks ago, I admitted to it, and it was discussed in a thread. I last was on his payroll in 2002. I've also worked for David Dinkins, so I guess I owe Dan Squadron and Rudy Giuliani apologies for not disclosing this before mentioning their names in a critical manner. You have also mentioned a conflict of interest regarding myself and Shelly Silver; as far as I know, the only conflict there is that my name is probably on a list Judy Rapfogel keeps in her pocket of people who are never to be hired by the Assembly Democrats. Beyond that, I was once paid for some campaign work by Joe Hynes, whose 1994 campaign for AG still owes me $200. I'd discuss others, but I think going back two decades is probably sufficient disclosure.

My writing relates in no way to my current employment, except that I avoid discussing certain topics. I am aware of no role Vito Lopez might have played in my obtaining my current job, since at the time I was hired, the only campaigns I'd worked in Vito's turf were for people running aginst the candidates he was backing. If you count petition binding as campaigning, I guess you can add that more than once I bound petitions for people Nydia Velezquez was running against Vito's candidates.

As the awareness of my identity has grown, the list of topics I've chosen to discuss has shrunk considerably. I think that, in certain instances, this has prevented me from saying some things people at TDG might not have minded hearing, but as Bob Dylan once pointed out even birds aren't free from their sky chains (NOTE TO MILLSTONE: can you believe I keep finding occaisions to refer to that awful song?). Lately, I've had occaision to make jokes about such disclosures, by posting pieces which began by outlining a particular purported conflect I may have, but really, aren't my pieces long enough without each containing a warning label?

Frankly, I think my nom de blogue appearing in the by-line is probably warning enough that one is reading biased and slanted commentary. I have rarely claimed otherwise, and when I have claimed it, it has only been in a few specific instances where it seemed justified under the circumstances.

Anyway, I thought the TDG position was that who anyone supported in 2002, or who supported them at that interval, is not relevant. How can what I did in 2002 be relevant, but what some candidate did at that time be off-limits? Would it help if I said my support of Marty Connor was because of zoning?