Allen,
Couldn't justify spending any more time on this before the election, but my responses below to the last message you sent me Oct. 30...
Starchild,
My comments marked with ***
Allen
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
To: Allen Rice <amrcheck@yahoo.com>
Cc: Phil Berg <philzberg@att.net>; Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>; Flavio Fiumerodo <ffiumerodo@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, October 30, 2010 9:30:50 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-activists] ca lp website
Allen,
"Only" to pass on a complaint? I can assure you that it is my desire to pass along only quality complaints which I consider it a good use of your time to read (*** It is a tad arrogant of you to assume you are in a position to decide what are the good uses of my time),
Please don't be so sensitive! I simply meant that when forwarding material, I make judgment calls about its value, as anyone who values the time of those receiving it is going to do.
and that Phil's complaint met my discriminating standards. Naturally I would hope that you would be gratified to receive such a complaint -- but if not, you are free to complain to me about it, if you feel the wording of your initial response has not already sufficiently accomplished this purpose. 
In response to your numbered points below...
(1) Why are you being so sarcastic?
*** It seemed better than to simply describe Phil's complaint as whiney.
Which you have now effectively done anyway.
(2) Thank you for providing the breakdown on the division of labor.
*** Glad to provide it, though common sense might have told you I am in no way controllng the content of the LPCA web pages.
You acknowledge below that you were "maintaining" the candidates' page on the LPCA website. "Common sense" suggests to me that a person who is "maintaining" a web page has at least some control over its content.
(3) No one ever said anything about the page or asked for any input that I was aware of. Not sure what "email link" you are talking about (*** The one in the bottom right hand corner -"contact"- which solicts comments, and has been there since day one.).
Thanks for clarifying that. But I'm not too surprised you didn't receive any unsolicited criticism via that link. How many people were even aware the page was up three months ago, let alone that critical feedback was desired?
Presumably the two days before Election Day is when voter traffic will be highest, but if you feel you have better uses of your time that is of course your decision as a volunteer. (*** Gee, thanks,)
Sarcasm again -- totally unnecessary. BTW, I note that Terry Floyd reports traffic was so high on Election Day that it caused the site to crash.
(4) Why not divulge your own preference? (***In this context, it serves no purpose)
Here's how it looks -- you wanted to be contrary even in a case where you don't really disagree with what I was saying. Hope not, I'm just telling you how it looks from where I sit.
You're usually not hesitant to offer an opinion. The approach I was suggesting would still let people immediately see the offices they are concerned about, listed along with other offices. If there were a large number of candidates such that people would likely spend more time looking over the list to find what they were looking for than it would take them to click through, it might make more sense to have it the way it is now; but I think the number of candidates is limited enough that this wouldn't be an issue. That's just my take on it.
*** Good luck with your campaign.
Thanks. But as you know, it's mostly not about luck; rather it's about stuff like getting the word out, which is what Phil and I were concerned about here.