New posts

Teresa

SoWal Guide
Staff member
Nov 15, 2004
29,316
4,298
South Walton, FL
sowal.com
My only "perceived grievance" on a personal level is a result from Daniel Uhlfelder - in effect calling me a Nazi because I (we - over 600 parcel DEFENDANTS) elect to fight for our private property rights ("and that his Jewish grandparents immigrated to this country because of oppression like this"). That's a lot of hostility being projected by a supposed respected member of our community and a PRINCIPAL spokesperson and attorney for customary use.

Oh, maybe it's my imagination, but didn't Daniel's cohort JUST POST on this thread? You know, the one that won't engage me. Could he not speak on behalf of Daniel and/or FBFA, since it was Daniel, a Florida Beaches for All spokesperson?

This is the last post regarding Damiel's Nazi really disgusting analogy. I think Reggie's thread title is more than obviously still spot on.


Now I get it. It's ok to refer to someone as a Nazi as long as it's heartfelt. Sad.

Trump's not here either. Doesn't stop all the Trump bashing.
Good point. Speaking of nazis and political bashing, perhaps this whole discussion belongs in the lounge.
 

Lake View Too

SoWal Insider
Nov 16, 2008
7,380
4,070
Eastern Lake
Your outrage is so outrageous.:lol:

Seriously don't take his comment so seriously. Because the comment was foolish. Defending your stance by hanging your hat on that comment makes you look foolish.
I cannot agree more. People get called Nazis fairly frequently. If you are a big person, and you know you are morally right, you should be able to laugh it off. If you a small person, I guess you let it fester, and you proclaim your outrage ad nauseum.
 

Auburn Fan

Beach Lover
Oct 4, 2018
82
67
Auburn
That's hilarious; good point JodiFL. Here you have the same 6 or 8 people talking in circles in this echo chamber of a thread. 20,000 views. Ha ha. Estimate 19,700 are of them reading their own stuff and replying to their own stuff. I would not exactly call this a "high engagement" thread by any stretch of the imagination. Reminds me of someone with 42 twitter followers. Where are the 6500 adoring fans representing and appreciating the viewpoints expressed? Another echo chamber there as well. "Just a handful."

Mr. Rauschkolb, if engaging on this thread is so insignificant, then why are you?

An 'echo chamber' is a metaphorical description of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system.

Sure. It's a catchy little term to throw around by those who like to continuously speak in false narratives to the uninformed masses, but the term certainly does not not apply here.

Why? Because this forum is anything but closed. In fact it's very open to the public. Reggie opened this discussion asking some honest, serious, heart felt, thought provoking questions. Many informative facts followed by others (who must remain anonymous thanks to the documented intimidation tactics such as doxxing and staged video ambush by the agitators. That's right. Pro-property rights advocates are fearful of speaking out or even "following" similar groups because of such effective intimidation targeting spurred by a vicious social media campaign.)

And, where are all those opposing replies and answers to the questions presented in this long thread? After 20,000 views? And it's a very hot topic. If there was indeed any factual opposition, it surely would be presented here. Resoundingly so.

Dave, unless you have some insider knowledge of the specific metrics of this platform, perhaps you should reconsider your assumption about those 20,000 views. You might just be wrong. Perhaps they are actually representative of a silent majority now absorbing all these facts that have not been refuted. Not once.

Merely "calling" a fact "alternative" is not good enough for the majority of the educated professionals in our area. (I'm referring to the educated professionals who actually spend money in the upscale restaurants and shops advertised on this site. The ones who are very busy with their professions and giving back time serving the community and don't have time to be keyboard warriors.) Oppositional so-called "replies" filled with only emotional opinions or mere repetitive, disrespectful graveside memes by a known local troll seriously turn off the educated reader from even considering to engage here, so you can't really blame them.

The lack of factual opposition is indicative of a silent readership now scratching their heads, wondering if they have been bamboozled from the beginning by orchestrated social media campaign that has been quite misleading, built on emotion, not facts. And certainly not sound principles of public policy. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are having their eyes now opened, in that "lightbulb -Ah Ha" moment, as they realize the deep and revelatory hypocrisy of the instigators and agitators of the customary use battle.

Overdevelopment greed is what is truly driving the CU bus. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are now actively re-evaluating this whole customary use legal battle. A battle that will accomplish nothing over the next decade other than create deep painful social divisions and needlessly cost millions of taxpayer dollars. Funds that could have been spent on so many community amenities to the delightful benefit of our county's citizens and visitors. So many other wonderful ways we could have spent those millions of dollars. Oh, let me count the ways.

But development greed has successfully orchestrated a propaganda machine to convince a community to actually foot the bill on their behalf, for the sake of more overdevelopment. Slick move by the power brokers.

I genuinely feel sorry for the good people who have joined the CU bandwagon thinking that this is all on behalf of their grandchildren. No. It's about turning over the control of the commercialization of the beaches from private home owners to a county government. A local government not exactly known for its reputation for honesty when it comes to development and commerce.

The silly point you were trying to fabricate here Dave is completely without merit, and obviously yet another attempted distraction from the very serious issue at hand that we were trying to openly discuss in this forum. It surprises me that you think so many people would be fooled by those cotton candy words of yours. Go ahead. Enjoy your frivolous fun and make light of this dreadful community division that you have single-handedly spearheaded over the years, causing a great deal of personal pain for thousands of very innocent people on both sides of the CU battle. It's not funny to us at all.

Dave, if the facts presented here in this open public forum are incorrect, then where are your 6500 adoring fans presenting factual corrections?

Or maybe you can shed some light personally, Dave. Tell us just one fact that was presented in this thread that is not actually true. Just one. Go ahead. I'll wait.

It's pretty simple, Dave.
Renaming a truth chamber an "echo chamber" doesn't make it so.
 
Last edited:

Jim Tucker

Beach Fanatic
Jul 12, 2005
1,041
409
Mr. Rauschkolb, if engaging on this thread is so insignificant, then why are you?

An 'echo chamber' is a metaphorical description of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system.

Sure. It's a catchy little term to throw around by those who like to continuously speak in false narratives to the uninformed masses, but the term certainly does not not apply here.

Why? Because this forum is anything but closed. In fact it's very open to the public. Reggie opened this discussion asking some honest, serious, heart felt, thought provoking questions. Many informative facts followed by others (who must remain anonymous thanks to the documented intimidation tactics such as doxxing and staged video ambush by the agitators. That's right. Pro-property rights advocates are fearful of speaking out or even "following" similar groups because of such effective intimidation targeting spurred by a vicious social media campaign.)

And, where are all those opposing replies and answers to the questions presented in this long thread? After 20,000 views? And it's a very hot topic. If there was indeed any factual opposition, it surely would be presented here. Resoundingly so.

Dave, unless you have some insider knowledge of the specific metrics of this platform, perhaps you should reconsider your assumption about those 20,000 views. You might just be wrong. Perhaps they are actually representative of a silent majority now absorbing all these facts that have not been refuted. Not once.

Merely "calling" a fact "alternative" is not good enough for the majority of the educated professionals in our area. (I'm referring to the educated professionals who actually spend money in the upscale restaurants and shops advertised on this site. The ones who are very busy with their professions and giving back time serving the community and don't have time to be keyboard warriors.) Oppositional so-called "replies" filled with only emotional opinions or mere repetitive, disrespectful graveside memes by a known local troll seriously turn off the educated reader from even considering to engage here, so you can't really blame them.

The lack of factual opposition is indicative of a silent readership now scratching their heads, wondering if they have been bamboozled from the beginning by orchestrated social media campaign that has been quite misleading, built on emotion, not facts. And certainly not sound principles of public policy. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are having their eyes now opened, in that "lightbulb -Ah Ha" moment, as they realize the deep and revelatory hypocrisy of the instigators and agitators of the customary use battle.

Overdevelopment greed is what is truly driving the CU bus. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are now actively re-evaluating this whole customary use legal battle. A battle that will accomplish nothing over the next decade other than create deep painful social divisions and needlessly cost millions of taxpayer dollars. Funds that could have been spent on so many community amenities to the delightful benefit of our county's citizens and visitors. So many other wonderful ways we could have spent those millions of dollars. Oh, let me count the ways.

But development greed has successfully orchestrated a propaganda machine to convince a community to actually foot the bill on their behalf, for the sake of more overdevelopment. Slick move by the power brokers.

I genuinely feel sorry for the good people who have joined the CU bandwagon thinking that this is all on behalf of their grandchildren. No. It's about turning over the control of the commercialization of the beaches from private home owners to a county government. A local government not exactly known for its reputation for honesty when it comes to development and commerce.

The silly point you were trying to fabricate here Dave is completely without merit, and obviously yet another attempted distraction from the very serious issue at hand that we were trying to openly discuss in this forum. It surprises me that you think so many people would be fooled by those cotton candy words of yours. Go ahead. Enjoy your frivolous fun and make light of this dreadful community division that you have single-handedly spearheaded over the years, causing a great deal of personal pain for thousands of very innocent people on both sides of the CU battle. It's not funny to us at all.

Dave, if the facts presented here in this open public forum are incorrect, then where are your 6500 adoring fans presenting factual corrections?

Or maybe you can shed some light personally, Dave. Tell us just one fact that was presented in this thread that is not actually true. Just one. Go ahead. I'll wait.

It's pretty simple, Dave.
Renaming a truth chamber an "echo chamber" doesn't make it so.
Not sure what your problem is with Dave but it is obviously personal and has no place here. Axe grinding is not allowed and not tolerated. You have crossed the line from attacking the issue to attacking a forum member which is not allowed. Keep on topic and stop the insults. You discredit those on your side of the issue.
 

FactorFiction

Beach Fanatic
Feb 18, 2016
494
409
Not sure what your problem is with Dave but it is obviously personal and has no place here. Axe grinding is not allowed and not tolerated. You have crossed the line from attacking the issue to attacking a forum member which is not allowed. Keep on topic and stop the insults. You discredit those on your side of the issue.

It's interesting that people interpret questions to Mr. Rauschkolb as a personal attack. Since he is both the self and publicly proclaimed leader of the customary use "fight", he is the logical person to answer questions and/or refute the facts presented here. The buck often stops with leaders of an organization and they are typically the ones to speak for said organization. Is asking him to address questions unreasonable?

If, on the other hand, those who are clearly on the CU side of the issues simply don't want to hear anything from the other side, just say so or ignore the posts. If SOWAL doesn't want to hear from property rights people on this site, then say that. If this is an open forum, then maybe if we all open our minds a bit, maybe, just maybe, we can learn something from each other. People on both sides deserve respect. It's just not that hard.
 
Last edited:

Jim Tucker

Beach Fanatic
Jul 12, 2005
1,041
409
It's interesting that people interpret questions to Mr. Rauschkolb as a personal attack. Since he is both the self and publicly proclaimed leader of the customary use "fight", he is the logical person to answer questions and/or refute the facts presented here. The buck often stops with leaders of an organization and they are typically the ones to speak for said organization. Is asking him to address questions unreasonable?

If, on the other hand, those who are clearly on the CU side of the issues simply don't want to hear anything from the other side, just say so or ignore the posts. If SOWAL doesn't want to hear from property rights people on this site, then say that. If this is an open forum, then maybe if we all open our minds a bit, maybe, just maybe, we can learn something from each other. People on both sides deserve respect. It's just not that hard.
Calling someone out in an aggressive way on the internet is like standing in their front yard and yelling for them to come outside. Would you do that? Probably would be more polite and productive face to face.
 

Dave Rauschkolb

Beach Fanatic
Jul 13, 2005
1,006
790
Santa Rosa Beach
That's hilarious; good point JodiFL. Here you have the same 6 or 8 people talking in circles in this echo chamber of a thread. 20,000 views. Ha ha. Estimate 19,700 are of them reading their own stuff and replying to their own stuff. I would not exactly call this a "high engagement" thread by any stretch of the imagination. Reminds me of someone with 42 twitter followers. Where are the 6500 adoring fans representing and appreciating the viewpoints expressed? Another echo chamber there as well. "Just a handful."

Calling someone out in an aggressive way on the internet is like standing in their front yard and yelling for them to come outside. Would you do that? Probably would be more polite and productive face to face.

As they hide in the shadows behind their anonymous identities. It’s really kind of hard to take any of these people seriously if they’re not willing to speak as themselves. I take responsibility for every word and action I say and do. I never even thought for a second to represent anyone but myself when I got on this forum so many years ago.
 
Last edited:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
As they hide in the shadows behind their anonymous identities. It’s really kind of hard to take any of these people seriously if they’re not willing to speak as themselves. I take responsibility for every word and action I say and do. I never even thought for a second to represent anyone but myself when I got on this forum so many years ago.
Are you referring to Lake View Too, bob bob, poppaj, Dawn, EZ4144, MRBS, Duchess, Jenksy, L.C. Bane, mputnal, buster, Leader of the Banned, Emerald Drifter, ShallowsNole, or jodiFL on this thread? How do you know Jim Tucker, James Bentwood, Pam Hicks are not pseudonyms? They are not in the Walton tax rolls used to look up Reggie Gaskins
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

Besides who would want to subject themselves to the CU anti-social media vitriol like with James Linch and many others and staged beach altercations like at Vizcaya and other private properties?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FloridaBeachBum

Beach Fanatic
Feb 9, 2017
463
112
Santa Rosa Beach
Calling someone out in an aggressive way on the internet is like standing in their front yard and yelling for them to come outside. Would you do that? Probably would be more polite and productive face to face.
The point of Auburn Fan post IMO is about CREDIBILITY. In an open forum if someone posts a fact, opinion, or belief shouldn’t the open forum members be able to discuss the post and person’s point and credibility and why? Shouldn’t the person who posted the original opinion be accountable for the post if questioned and name be used too if someone disagrees and explains why?

Because you ally with the original post-er and do not agree with the someone questioning the original post by the post-er; that raises to the level of “axe grinding” and “attacking” and should be censored? There has been far worse attacking property rights advocates on this thread alone.

Auburn Fan questioned the post-er's analogy and credibility of the original post [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy] and why, and went on to express that developer over-development and Walton Commissioners complicity allowing it was the counter point.

If someone makes a public statement like; “I personally am a beachfront owner in Seaside with my restaurant” and posts it in the public domain; but is NOT a beachfront owner, why shouldn’t that person’s credibility be challenged and name used so we know who is being questioned and they can respond to the challenge if they so choose?

Questioning credibility of the posts and those who post here should not be censored. If you are questioning how the credibility of a post is made? Heck some people claim it is common to call people Nazis all the time and they should just laugh it off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bob Wells

Beach Fanatic
Jul 25, 2008
3,547
1,506
Are you referring to Lake View Too, bob bob, poppaj, Dawn, EZ4144, MRBS, Duchess, Jenksy, L.C. Bane, mputnal, buster, Leader of the Banned, Emerald Drifter, ShallowsNole, or jodiFL on this thread? How do you know Jim Tucker, James Bentwood, Pam Hicks are not pseudonyms? They are not in the Walton tax rolls used to look up Reggie Gaskins
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy

Besides who would want to subject themselves to the CU anti-social media vitriol like with James Linch and staged beach altercations like at Vizcaya?
Mine is my real name. I have said what I believe in a respectful manner. I do understand why some use pseudonyms but at the same time I think part of the problem with hiding behind one is you are personally NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR WORDS. I could say and do some outrageous things behind a mask. I may not be as polite behind a screen name and I think that is part of the issue here. Just my opinion.
 
New posts