The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
mypoint wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:26 PM:
samaker wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:40 PM:
gateonfire wrote on Jan 5, 2009 1:58 PM:
GregN. wrote on Jan 5, 2009 3:14 PM:
I don;t think they are ignoring those drivers, I think they are ignoring the area all together.
Have you ever noticed that these check-points are generally in city limits, or just on the out-skirts?
I don't think we'd ever see something like that up on Main Street in St. Helena, or half way down Silverado Trail.
Those who are caught out of town are probably those who are caught inside our city limits.
It's a shame, but I would hope law enforcement would make a bigger presence in the upper valley. "
yourmom wrote on Jan 5, 2009 7:43 PM:
jmo wrote on Jan 5, 2009 9:50 PM:
PS: sounds like there was an ugly separation......sorry to hear...the innocent are often the victims.
Perhaps reason-nator will chime in!!!!after all it is a new month for the same "O" same "O". "
civil rights advocate wrote on Jan 5, 2009 10:23 PM:
jmo wrote on Jan 5, 2009 11:09 PM:
By now most every informed Napan knows that the DUI Checks Points in Napa are funded by a special appropriation; so the question becomes, how effective are they against normal county sheriff and CHP patrols etc.????
Where is reason-ator when I need him now???? "
reason-ator wrote on Jan 6, 2009 2:02 AM:
This list is GREAT. I just love it.
I think those people who were named after people who got DUIs DESERVE to be punished for choosing parents that would give them that name. They made very poor choices of parents, and deserve to be shamed.
I rode my bike home at midnite. Only one person almost hit me- the one with a blue rectangle next to their ear. Thank goodness they weren't drunk, or else they may have been dangerous.
Until the NapaVal Enquirer prints the name, every day for the whole month, of the people who got cell phone tickets while driving, they really can't claim to be fair and balanced, can they.
Somehow, I suspect the newspaper people HAVE to endanger people as part of their job. They have to use the benefit of modern communication to be more effective at their jobs, so I'm sure it's routine for them to talk on a cell phone as they drive from story to story to be more efficient. Of course, they're just as impaired as a drunk driver while doing so, but THAT'S not important. It's more newswothy to subject DUIs to humiliation while they themselves endanger us as a matter of routine, I suppose.
Really respectable. Blame jmo for getting me started.
Sorry, jmo. I'm trying to be funny, and I hope it comes off that way. "
Dwayne wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:02 AM:
The financial support from the vintners gets people elected, and those are the people in power who tell the lower echelon not to mess with the tourists...
Nice political world we live in, eh... "
selim wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:33 AM:
And in terms of practicality, a DUI can cause more damage on a city street than highway 29 or Silverado; there are more pedestrians, more buildings more closely together...you get the picture.
So what if there are more Napans than "outsiders" on the DUI list? Why should we locals get a free pass? The laws apply to us, too.
As for the folks driving 15-20mph below the limit, most of the folks I've seen doing that on Silverado Trail were just idiots who didn't know where they were going. I can't tell you the number of times I've been stuck behind someone going 40mph on Silverado Trail, slamming on the brakes at every other winery entrance, only to pull over after 10 minutes and start unfolding a map. "
wipemedown wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:41 AM:
SO lets point out some more people so we can all feel just a little bit better.
VP Cheney had two DUIs within a 8 month period
Mel Gibson had one DUI
Warren Moon Had one DUI
All Gore III had one
Matt Roloff had one
Mickey Rourke had one
Heather Locklear had one
Ray Liotta had one
Mike Tyson had one
Oh OH and new addition
Charles Barkley with one
Wooo
Maybe this list isn't doing enough....
Maybe we should require convicted dui offenders to wear a really big red hat everywhere they go so they must constantly live with the guilt, shame, and dishonor.
Lets make it an impossible struggle to live a life of repentance and dignity.
We still have people driving under the influence with the list running so lets step it up.
If we still have people driving under the influence after dui offenders are running around in really big hats then we obviously take the next logical step.
Lapidation on the Copia campus every saturday night. "
Paddy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 8:53 AM:
Give us the real addicts and a little symbol next to the name for every occurence greater than 1. "
reason-ator wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:04 AM:
Paddy, I hate to say it( yeah, right, sure I can almost hear people saying.... ), but I'm much more comfortable with a drug user staying at home and hurting nobody but themselves than I am with people risking the lives of innocent people on the roads with their negligent driving, whether it be drugs ( which includes alcohol ) or cell-phone pre-occupation.
What I'm not comfortable with is me judging other people. Or judgemental people. Which this shameful shame list encourages. "
krusty wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:24 AM:
Three! And we don't even know if any of them were tourists. "
Rigg wrote on Jan 6, 2009 11:38 AM:
jmo wrote on Jan 6, 2009 12:27 PM:
Paddy wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:00 PM:
The shame-factor of this page has probably kept hundreds off the road knowing they risked making this list. If even one stayed put it's worth it. Though I'd hate to be the guy making that one bad choice and having to live with this. It's a conundrum. "
reason-ator wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:30 PM:
Seriously ? If so, it kept them from falling off of their flying pigs.
Paddy also said " If even one stayed put it's worth it. "
If that were so, I'd have to ask whether it's worth the damge and loss of loved ones that some may suffer.
Believe me, if I actually thought that a drunk with car keys in their hand could shrug off the thought of killing themselves or someone else, the huge financial losses of a DUI ticket, but INSTEAD think about getting their name in a small town, low-circulation, tabloid wannabe, I'd be in favor of this list.
But in my mind, this list being a demotivator is akin to someone standing on the railing of the Golden Gate bridge, and deciding not to jump because they're not sure if their watch is waterproof. But maybe people are more vain and self-absorbed than I am. "
tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:45 PM:
Just curious why you won't post a comment about a certain person on this list. I commented about a certain gentleman that was not a personal attack or degrading comment and did add constructive dialogue to this story and you didn't post it. DO you not post anything that has to do with a specific person on this list? Just curious "
John Richards wrote on Jan 7, 2009 11:38 PM:
Why don't we print the date of birth and Social Security number too, while we're at it. Once you start messing with people's privacy, the slippery slope doesn't know where to stop. "
reason-ator wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:36 AM:
You left out addresses and phone numbers. "
Napan since 1965 wrote on Jan 11, 2009 10:23 AM:
Personally, I think the list is effective--at least with people who have enough grey matter to stop and think of the "embarrassment factor" before they choose to drive while impaired!! "
reason-ator wrote on Jan 11, 2009 11:42 AM:
Why do you think that people who DON'T think about killing themselves or someone else, who DON'T think about losing their car, who DON'T think about losing thousands of dollars, and who DON'T think about losing their jobs because they aren't allowed to drive anymore - why do you think those people are smart enough to ( after not thinking about all that other stuff ) are going to think- " Oh, wait, I might get my name in the paper. " ?
Remember, these are supposedly impaired people. I can't believe they're going to think about the most minor of consequences compared to the others. Survival is one of the most basic on human instincts. If they can't think about staying alive, I doubt they're going to think about their name getting in a newspaper- especially if they're from out of town and nobody they know is going to see this paper. "
realist2 wrote on Jan 12, 2009 5:10 PM:
reason-ator wrote on Jan 13, 2009 12:28 AM:
I heard someone at a party once say that he hopes to get his name on the list. We were laughing about the list, and he managed to slur something about hoping they spelled his name right. Since he had already said he had a ride, I have to hope he was joking. But people think about stupid things when they're drunk. "
Napa97 wrote on Jan 14, 2009 12:49 PM:
steph wrote on Jan 18, 2009 10:17 AM:
Sorry about a person's SHAME or loss of dignity, but that is self-imposed. If people are talking about you because you were convicted of DUI, and it bothers you, you may think twice about doing it again. And those who are listening to the conversation or taking part in it are only reinforcing society's expectation that our fellow citizens will not drive DUI because it puts you and me and my kids at risk of becoming another statistic.
I do agree that driving while calling/texting and speeding violations should be pubished alongside the DUI list, because those people, too, are putting us all at risk of DEATH or serious permanent injury. "
reason-ator wrote on Jan 18, 2009 12:37 PM:
But NOBODY should have to suffer just because someone else with the same name made a mistake.
The reality is that innocent people with absolutely NO connection to the guilty parties are vicitmized. I'm sure the NVR knows that it happens, and that they are negligently causing harm and damage to innocent people. And they also know that they can get away with it because it will be difficult to prove while they can hide behind a cloak of "benefitting the community ".
In a world where we are becoming more and more intolerant of teasing and bullying, the NVR belittles themselves and cause themselves harm because they have a bone to pick.
I know that they have lost subscriptions because of their childish tactics. And credibility. It's the modern newspaper now, where newspapers are losing business and losing face without a clue that they are doing it to themselves. "