A lesson from the "South West Washington Opinions" page, provided by Thomas Higdon.

So, among other groups I'm a member of is the South West Washington Opinions page.

To set the table for this post, I'm completely opposed to the State GOP Senate's handling of the gas tax jack.

I'm opposed to the fact that the allegedly Republican-controlled senate acted much more like democrat controlled senates of the past.

I'm opposed to the emergency clause on this bill, designed to reduce/eliminate the opportunity to gather signatures to fight it out in the polling booths.  (Euphemistically speaking.  We have all mail voting, so we no longer have "voting booths" available.)

I'm opposed to the GOP's successful effort to keep a referendum clause out of this bill.

And I am absolutely opposed to my Senator's support of such a bill after she pledged not to vote to raise the gas tax as a part of her 2012 senate campaign, stating:

Screen capture from Senator Rivers' campaign page before she took it down a few days ago.

Note the lack of disclaimers on this pledge... the failure to mention her intention, which was to actually vote for the largest gas tax increase in our state's history.

And here's the irony of it: had the GOP-controlled state senate added a referendum clause to this bill, I would have no quarrel with it.

But then, I'm about the will of the people unless that will is tainted by deliberate, calculating lies... such as Tim "The Liar" Leavitt falsely claiming he opposed tolls, or Scott Weber, falsely claiming he would work to eliminate his position as an elected official... or Ann Rivers, promising not to vote for a gas tax increase to get elected... and then acting like it never happened.

She also failed to mention that when she ran for the House in what I seem to recall was something like a 6 or 7 way race.  One wonders: would she have been elected to the House if she had come out in favor of this package or a package like it?

Why is it that seems unlikely?

Anyhow... "the people have spoken and I have listened."

Seriously.

I guess this is just going tone deaf.

That said, yesterday one "Thomas Higdon" wrote the following in this group that I've been following:

I replied thus:

I was eager to review his response and any of the follow-on responses of which there are two at this particular moment.

Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Mr. Higdon had blocked me!  And as a result, I had no idea that follow on comments were made and no way to reply to them!

So, I couldn't even see his post OR my response.

Now, that's fine.  It's his right.

Rather intellectually dishonest as far as that goes, but that IS his right.

I just thought up a cure for that sort of thing, which I implemented in the group itself.  (Post the screen captures in this thread in the group itself with an explanation.)   But who would have thought that a fellow group member would block someone for calling an elected Senator to task for what appears to be... on the surface at least... a violation of their honor and their promise?