Where is this in the Agreement?


Another lie. Rogers is clearly making up this first sentence from the council majority’s upcoming “argument” in favor of a new terminal:




Bullshit. The only reason this is coming up now about the “beloved” boarding procedure is because we’ve been harping about it repeatedly here as an example of a great feature of the classic current facility and why it shouldn’t be torn down.

This has NEVER come up before in the many discussions over the planned terminal, and it’s not spelled out in the Agreement.

So Rogers is full of crap. He got this from us here to use as a phony selling point. He’s also gone on record in the past in his old Leader columns as expressing contempt and dislike for this 1940s style Casablanca method of getting off an aeroplane as reason why we need a new facility. For chrissakes, he’s made fun of it!

Beloved, hell. You’re full of shit Will. You hate it, and it’ll never happen. And like the FAA would even go for it to begin with?



Filed under Uncategorized

41 responses to “Where is this in the Agreement?

  1. chad

    He could be using “beloved” sarcastically I suppose.

    • semichorus

      In his mind I’m sure, but he’s ostensibly trying to use it as a selling point.

      He’s full of crap too, because he adopted the issue from me, and then he’s lying about it ever being a reality.

      For years this 1940s style boarding has been used as one of THE reasons why we need a new terminal. So this booster crowd is just incorrigible in its dishonesty.

      Whatever works, and then he has the audacity of accusing Gordon of being “Trumpian.” That whole advocacy statement is classic Rogers.

      • Anonymous 3

        “he adopted the issue from me”


        • semichorus

          No one else has talked about it as being a positive during this campaign. No one.

          Let me know when you get to 2 million hits, ok? Those aren’t distributed pageviews like Facebook. They’re where people specifically seek out this site.

    • Anonymous 3

      But he wasn’t. Jimmy is full of shit when he says that Rogers derided the read loading stairs. He never did.

      • semichorus

        You’re woefully misinformed.

        Rogers used to make fun of that quaint disembarking method in his old Leader columns. It was the whole stairway 1940s process he ridiculed — he was quite derogatory about it, never liked it, and negatively pointed to it as remaining intact if people chose not to replace the terminal.

        He’s lying if he denies this.

  2. chad

    I get it. I think in his mind he was doing that, using it as a selling point, but in his heart was feeling rather much the other way. He’s got an odd self-censor.

  3. Burbanker

    Chad his self-center is very self centered and his heart is putrid with self centerdness. The man is self absorbed and evil

    • semichorus

      I think you give him too much credit as well. Rogers is just an expedient asshole. His whole bio proves it. I loved learning about the inter-state drug dealing stuff especially, vis-a-vis the Broadway, and the Times attack letter from 1985 about Martin Bernheimer that was done on behalf of his then-employer.

      All surreptitious. Natch.

      These kind of carpetbagging clowns used to be a dime a dozen in Southern California. They also tended to be especially attracted to white- ass Burbank from the 70s-80s. It was easy pickings, and had a certain comfort level for them.

      Saw it all the time.

  4. Tim

    Ok ok I just get this sick feeling when I see the Rogers guy on the council show. It’s like a feeling that he is psyco and could hurt people. I think they have cops on the look out for if he loses it and goes total crazy on people.

  5. Anonymous 3

    “He’s also gone on record in the past in his old Leader columns as expressing contempt and dislike for this 1940s style Casablanca method of getting off an aeroplane as reason why we need a new facility. For chrissakes, he’s made fun of it!”

    I don’t believe you. Provide a citation or retract your allegation.

    And you give yourself WAY too much credit, as ever.

    Young life did not destroy Risotti. Rogers’ superior campaigning did. Roger knocked on 22k doors, Rissotti knocked on ZERO doors, he ran a pure mail campaign, which as we saw, does not work in Burb.

    • semichorus

      Rizzotti went all over town, and Will didn’t get enough of a surplus to make those personal visits much of a factor.

      I’m impressed too how so many of those visits resulted in no votes at all. What was the turnout again? So much for the charm of his presence getting 90 percent of his visits to the polls

      YL hurt Rizzotti considerably. Terrible, terrible publicity that Rogers benefited from immeasurably. I started it and then maintained the story. Everyone else got it from me. The chronological proof is there.

      I’m not even sure Rogers and Golonski even knew about it until I discovered the homophobic linkage. They never brought it up earlier.

      • Anonymous 3

        Where is your citation of Rogers belittling the rear loading.

        You can’t. You pulled it out of your ass.

        • semichorus

          Oh, NOW I get.

          Is Rogers engaging in equivocation now by trying to create a phony distinction between “rear boarding” and “stairways”? Or are you.

          They’re both the same. I’m not aware of any airport that has rear boarding without stairways, and there’s few of those. That accounts for all the good Burbank YELP.

          He’s made fun of the whole 1940s schmeer down there anyway. They all have.

          • Anonymous 3

            Suit yourself. Show us the citation regarding stairways.

            But in the advocacy of the new terminal vote published by Rogers on his web site, the pro side specifically mentioned the retention of the rear boarding feature.

            The only reason to like stairs is that it makes rear boarding possible.

            And ask the disabled how much they like the stairways.

            • semichorus

              You’re pretty confused about it all, aren’t you?

              Since you’re admitting that “rear boarding” is dependent upon stairways, and that (get real) there’s no way in hell that they’re going to have 1940s stairways at a new site, then by necessity the “pro side” is full of shit to be promising it to the voters.

  6. Anonymous 3

    You claim that Rogers REPEATEDLY belittled rear loading.

    You should be able to cite one example.

    Except that it is a perfect lie.

    • semichorus

      He’s belittled the entire antique stairway/boarding process in past Leader columns. He knows I’m right, too.

      Is he actually trying to deny this?

      In fact, all the boosters have, and for years. It’s like No.1 on their list of complaints about the current facility.

      So now — after I first bring up the Yelp — it’s “beloved”?

      You people are so god damned full of shit. Not only that, maintaining this procedure at a 21st-century facility will NEVER happen. So that’s another lie from your crowd.

      • Anonymous 3

        If he has done it so many times it should be easy to provide a citation.

        Prove it or shut the fuck up.

        • semichorus

          There’s nothing to “prove.”

          Let him lie about it — if indeed he is now trying to claim that he likes that system, and never said anything bad about it in the past.

          He knows I’m right– and I suspect others around him do as well. So go fuck yourself.

          It’s all a big lie anyway — there will NEVER be the same rear-boarding system at a new terminal. It’d defeat the whole purpose of their revamp!

  7. Anonymous 3

    So you can’t do it. Despite your claim that Rogers bagged on the rear loading feature repeatedly, you cannot provide a single citation.

    Why lie? Because you have NOTHING in your argument against a new terminal.

    • semichorus

      I’m not going to go trudging through 10 years of Leader microfilm just to prove that Rogers is a phony. He consistently made fun of the anachronistic boarding procedure at the Burbank Airport to the point of ridicule about how dumb and retrograde it all is, and if he’s now trying to claim the opposite — or sever the inseverable “rear boarding” issue from that of “stairways” — then he’s a bald-faced liar.

      I haven’t seen him try to do so, so what are you talking about? What he’s done now is try to pose it all as “beloved.” Which coming from him is hilarious.

      For any of the boosters to do so is dishonest, because this is THE big issue they have with the current terminal. So now it’s beloved eh?

      • Anonymous 3

        Bullshit. The stairs are a tiny portion of why the terminal needs to be replaced, So much so that they are going to be retained.

        And what IF Rogers had written against them in the past? Which he did not. How is that contradictory to recognizing that rear boarding is “beloved”? Even if he thinks it is stupid, which he does not, there is nothing hypocritical about recognizing that it is :”beloved”.

        Shit you have no clue as to logical thinking.

        • semichorus

          If this antiquated boarding system is indeed now considered to be “beloved,” it’s only because of my efforts (and a lot of Yelpers who I’ve pointed out) to make a really big deal about how cool it is.

          No one else has been talking about it. No one.

          Not Rogers, not the Authority, not the city, not even any of the old ROAR people.

          Just me — for about the last four months.

          And they are NOT going to be replaced in the 21st century. Get real.

          • Anonymous 3

            The new terminal will use 2 sets of stairs per plane.

            See you in a few years when it is a reality on the ground.

            And you will deny ever saying otherwise.

            • semichorus

              There certainly aren’t gonna be stairways, nor rear boarding for the airlines even if they do install double “jetways” (or whatever they say they call them) — which they won’t be installing anyway.

              Yeah. Stairways in a $400 million “21st-century replacement terminal!”


Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s