Comment

Comment by JL Gawlik on May 5, 2011 at 6:34pm

That is the best way to do it. Debbie G., i think? Handled herself very well in Tallahassee from what i heard she had several liberals actually thinking after she just told them the facts. That is the only way to turn our country around is with the facts. I have to go and start researching the Folio story, i can bet you things have been twisted. Folio has a very nasty reputation for doing that. Personally i do not understand how people can lie about the facts and then look at themselves in the mirror and sleep at night.

Comment by JL Gawlik on May 5, 2011 at 6:27pm

J.R., Both were actually reporter face to face verbal interviews, learned my lesson quickly, i felt violated. Sometimes i tend to ramble on, but with the news media i have learned to be short and not friendly or personal and always keep your emotions out of it.

A few years back i had to refuse to talk to anyone over the phone or answering the door, some teens my son, knew of from school, left a dead skinned fox on our door step. The fox was killed attacking their chickens. A story was done by one of the neighbors and they said that nut was killing small dogs and skinning them.

 

Always short, concise and to the point with facts.

 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 5, 2011 at 6:19pm

JR, I don't know for sure if the TU has it, but most newspapers accept your comments and keep the authority to edit them to a smaller size if needed.  Depending on the editing, it could actually lose some of what you really meant to say or maybe even turn it into what they thought you meant (if that makes sense).  They ask for so many characters, and if you exceed that in what you send in, it will most likely be edited to bring it into the size requirement..............so I guess you have to keep it short and sweet :)

Comment by J.R. on May 5, 2011 at 6:15pm

Roma, you're right, they do need a disclaimer.  They also need a posting policy, guidelines, and someone to check to see that they are followed.  Of course, that would be an extra expense, but one that would likely be lower than paying a judgment.  Also, regarding the guy whose home was searched and his possessions seized without probable cause and a search warrant, where does he go to get his rights, possessions and reputation back?  That really is scary and could set a precedent for similar actions against other free citizens.  Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?  It appears they tried and convicted him for an imaginary crime, and did so in advance, since that seems to be the net result. Could be he was the one they picked to make an extreme example of, for it screams "this could happen to you, too, if you dare to openly disagree with this administration." It really is a chilling video.

JL, what the Times Union did to writings you sent to them, was highly unethical, and could possibly be a First Amendment violation.  It also could be more serious than that if they changed the content and meaning of what you wrote, then published it with their changes and attributed all of it to you. That would appear to me to be a material false representation of what you wrote.  I can't see how they would have a right to rewrite what you wrote and attribute the finished product to you. When you send something to the T-U or a radio station, send it in an e-mail, fax, or certified letter so you can prove what you, in fact wrote and sent to them. If they did it online, it might be a computer crime.

It's been my experience on this website that, when someone provides new information that updates and corrects something we've read and posted about, we have thanked them and made a correction or retraction. None of us are deliberately posting false information or writing anything with the intent of misleading or damaging anyone in any way.  But, then, none of us are trolls, and they are often very good at aggravating a person, in an effort to get them to write something inflammatory that the troll, or whoever employed him/her, can use against that person. 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 5, 2011 at 6:14pm

I thought the media was supposed to check out things like "he said" and "she said"?  I would think it was a pretty good idea to do so since not everyone can remember exactly what someone said and as you point out, some people will choose not to quote someone exactly but to instead takes bits and pieces until it doesn't even mean what was said.  The thing that seemed to be a bother was the idea that some folks were making suggestions about what might be done.  I just looked back through, and I don't see anything there that isn't something someone would have thought of all on their own, and Debbie has documented everything to back up anything she said as in "the facts and only the facts". 

 

Thanks Jl for your thoughtful recommendations and advise!

Comment by JL Gawlik on May 5, 2011 at 5:03pm

Well, i will say what i say, and always check my facts, the ones that really irritate me are the ones who state, show me, when they can look it up themselves. We can always state that we were educated in the public school system and did not realize what we were typing actually meant. *G* This is ridiculous to have to fear what you say could be used against you. I am sure by now i am on someone's list but i always try to state the truth and am very thankful when someone corrects. 

 

What i do not understand is HOW can a person take someone's words and then delete part of what they said and point that out as the whole content of what they stated? That is disingenuous, just downright lying. I have had the Florida TU and a news station once cut out some parts that i stated and completely change my  whole statement around several times so i am very cautious when speaking to news media, just keep it short, concise and to the point and there is not much they can play with.

Comment by J.R. on May 5, 2011 at 4:19pm

No, that isn't right.  If she signed up like everybody else signed up, she was a member.  And for her to be restricted from copying anything written/posted, every member would necessarily have to have been informed that they were restricted in the same manner.  There is no disclaimer that I'm aware of on the site that it is a closed site and that the copying or use of any material on the site is restricted or protected in any way.  If it is there, somewhere, I was never informed of it. A few members have asked to use something I've posted and I responded that they were welcome to do so.

Regardless, there should be some guidelines for posting comments and everyone who posts comments to the site needs to be well-informed that they are requested to give careful thought to what they post.  You can get a point across without making accusations, simply by using qualifying words or phrases such as "alleged to have..." or "reported to have..." We should never make a point blank statement that something is true unless we have solid research or documentation to back it up.

The only writings that can't be copied are those that are copyrighted.  Some of my writings are copyrighted in the Library of Congress. If I posted them here, I would put the copyright symbol and my name with what I posted.  I don't know if a disclaimer such as "The FCTP is not responsible for content posted on this website other than that which is approved or posted by officials who represent the organization," would be sufficient.  A copyright attorney would have to be consulted on that. 

I just know that I read, re-read, and edit what I post and have actually copied and deleted some of my comments, then changed the wording of them and reposted them, just to be on the cautious side.  None of us should ever say or post anything that isn't factual or that reflects negatively on the FCTP or creates a legal problem for FCTP.  I don't mean to sound preachy, but these are my opinions and I certainly don't want to become liable for writing/posting something I can't document. That's never a good thing to do, no matter where it's written. It pretty much boils down to common sense and good judgment.

By the way, what I wrote was essentially what you posted below, that Mr. Hemmerly had no right to remove and dump signs belonging to Matt Schellenberg without Schellenberg's permission, that he was observed doing so, and the signs were removed from private property belonging to Sleiman Industries. Those are proveable facts.  It is also proveable that doing so was not part of Tony Kemmerly's job description in his appointed membership on the Jacksonville Planning Commission. 

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 5, 2011 at 3:55pm

Roma, I am not really quite that naive.  I also know people who go into the other camp, but they do not go there and post blogs to threaten "the natives"  :).  I am not part of this anyway and don't live in Mandarin (thank goodness).

Comment by Patricia M. McBride on May 5, 2011 at 2:14pm

JR, the thing is, this is a closed site (and not open to the public but only other tea party members).  Ms. Rhonda came here, signed up and pretended to be a first coast tea party person for the purpose of snooping around.  I told her, and believe I am right, since the site is closed, she has no business copying anything she finds here and trying to use it since nothing we do is out there for the general public and therefore would have no impact on Hemmerly at all.  And if the signs were on Sleiman property, Mr. Hemmerly's argument that he was removing signs that were improperly placed will have no more bearing than him removing the signs from my front yard cause he thinks I don't have them in the right spots out there!  I don't think anyone said a single thing that would cause anymore of a problem for the gentleman in question than he has caused for himself and trying to blame us for what he did is lame. 

Comment by J.R. on May 5, 2011 at 9:42am

Yes, we do have the right to discuss things like this online, but we do have to carefully weigh our words when we do so... especially when dealing with trolls who are here to agitate and cause trouble. Nothing would please them more than to be able to create grounds for a lawsuit by goading one of our comment contributing members into writing something they could use against the Tea Party.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page