Jared,

In this case, yes and no and I will explain why. As I said before, you knew Paul didn't like you or your views. You engaged in dialog with him knowing full well how he felt about you and that he had a history of fighting with others, so you had a paper trail on your side. What you should have done was ignore his comments right at the beginning and file a complaint with KTLA and Mr. Waldron. You had the Terms of Service behind you. You could have asked your friends here to file a complaint on your behalf as well. All would have worked to get Paul's posts pulled quickly. I can understand how emotion came into play, but you needed to keep a cool head. So yes you can defend yourself, but how you defend yourself is the question.

Larry

You didn't answer my question of: "So Larrry are you saying that i have no right to protect myself from false misleading defamatory statements that are posted in a public forum?"

will you answer it please?

no problemo Larry..

My ideas do not require moderated of the blogs, just writing of new code for the web site and adding some controls. So if you see changes here, then they are using my ideas. Thanks for answering my question.

When someone calls you a subversive which is an unsubstantiated claim and with the New DHS memo that has gone out as to what is a domestic terrorist, i don't need false statements which might put up a red flag, I have ever right to quash any false statements about me..

i wasn't trying to change Paul's mind.. I was trying to stop false and misleading statements which had no basis in fact.

So Larrry are you saying that i have no right to protect myself from false misleading defamatory statements that are posted in a public forum?

Go ahead and contact Mr. Michael Waldron at KTLA he may like your ideas..

But remember that this KTLA blog is un-moderated...

As for a comment you made in an earlier post "He may have called you a subversive because you presented subversive ideas. This is a case of if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck. It's a duck"

I asked Paul to prove that what i was saying were subversive ideas or to prove his claims or back up his statements towards me.. Which he never did so everything he was saying were unsubstantiated claims and lies hence my calling him a liar...

My claims of him lying about me was not not an unsubstantiated claim hence my calling him a liar.. I told him that if i was a subversive as he claimed then it was his duty as a law abiding citizen to turn me in to the FBI for being a subversive.. Which he said he wouldn't do because he claimed that they already had me on file, SO i called him a coward only to prove that his calling me a subversive was an unsubstantiated claim(which after hind sight was a mistake on my part and i will admit it)

IF you would like i can present you with everything that was posted and removed, for i kept a copy of it and emailed it the Mr. Waldron.. Of which Mike has a copy of also..

wadada

Jared, you didn't answer my question as to why you would get in a dialog with someone you know dislikes you. Did you think you could change his mind? If someone thinks you're a subversive I think it's past the point of changing someone's mine. I will be contacting Mr. Waldron at KTLA, I have some ideas that will help keep something this from happening and it will keep the soap boxing down as well and it should make coming here a better experience for all.

thank you Larry for your opinion...

I'm surprise this discussion is still going on, talk about beating a dead horse. Jared you said you used HR 1966 Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act to handle this problem. I looked it up, it's not a law as yet, it's still in committee. You keep saying you were the victim here, and that you make it sound like it was a one sided attack. That's not the case from what I read, as I stated it takes two to fight. As I see it you are equally or at least partial in violation of the KTLA's terms of service with your own name calling "inflammatory attacks of a personal, racial or religious nature." And I have to ask, if you knew that Paul didn't like you or your views, then why get into a dialog with him considering his past history with others? To me that seems to be asking for trouble. In fact by continuing the dialog you escalated the fight, when you could have just walked away from it. But since the posts are gone, the other party is absent and we are only hearing one side this whole thing is nothing more than a Kangaroo court.

Sammy

No, I handled it with HR 1966 Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.. And KTLA's terms of service..

It was Waldron and the KTLA webmaster came up with the choice of pulling the messages i just asked for a way to stop being attacked for posting..

They said it would be up to them as to what actions they took..

From what i understand the reason they removed the messages was to see if there were any new attacks towards me from Paul.. Which is why i said it was best to pull both of our messages and thanked them in my post....

AS far as i know Paul has not been banned fro the blogs... I believe HE has banned himself, as he once said that he would do if i was to stay on the blogs..

Mike also has a copy of my email to KTLA's Waldron so he knows what was sent to them..

Mike and I as others from this blog, talk to each other outside of this blog...

wadada

First you said to pull both messages, then you say you didn't ask to pull anything. Well, which is dude? Either way you should have handeled it the way Mike did.

Sammy Ruiz

You aren't being quite honest in stating that was barging about having someone messages pulled..

I said it was best for them to pull both of our messages.

I didn't tell them to pull anything that was decided by the Waldron and the KTLA webmaster..

I called about cyber bullying and how i was being attacked for posting..

So i thought i'd set the record straight...

wadada

Jared

Sammy -

Thanks for following up, I appreciate it. And after reading what I could, I see your point. That is one reason why I like writing back and forth with the few that like to with me as well. You can follow up on a point that may not have come out right.

Just so you know where i'm coming from, in the past around election time, I saw many comments made about republicans this or that, but when something was pointed out about a democratic politician, these blogs came alive with supporters. The few republicans that came out to offer their opinions were quickly attacked and then seemed to just give up as they were ganged up on. I thought and still do think that was wrong. For the record, I never claimed here to be a republican (but would consider myself a fiscal conservative and yes, I did vote for the Republican candidate) and no, I do not like when Democrats take a beating. I do enjoy however, when hypocrisys are pointed out that they lie on BOTH sides. Poor decisions are made on both sides of the political spectrum. I do not agree that Republicans are the bad guys and the democrats are heroes, like many here feel, as you may have noticed. But, I do feel right is right and wrong is wrong and that is more important than the "R" or "D" by someone's name. Fair enough? So, hopefully, we can continue to discuss issues and again, thanks for following up with your explanation.

Bottomline: different opinions do exist and we all should be allowed to share them without being called names. We can and should point out if a statement posted is incorrect.
Anyway Sammy, thanks again...
-m

In any case,

Dude, let me say this. I know you and Paul had your battles, that's why I mentioned your name, but you settled them like men. I'm guessing you didn't go and cry to KTLA about it. What got me is the way Jared went and brag about how he got someone's comments pulled and I assume got him kicked off the blogs as well since Paul has not posted anything since. That's just not cool. As for the comment about you, I'm a democrat, and I love it when a republican gets a beating, and I guess you enjoy it when the tables are turned as well. That's all. I also like a good fight, because it does spice things up around here. As I pointed out to Jared, to say you are against censorship and then use censorship to get rid of someone you dislike makes you a hypocrite. I have to go with what Larry said, it takes two to fight. And if Paul got kicked off for what happen, so should Jared. Fair is fair. I know Jared will say how I am wrong but dude that's how I see it. Take it for what it's worth.

Sammy -

Someone had asked me to go back and re-read prior comments since my name was mentioned. Apparently there was some dialogue back and forth between a couple of individuals that caused quite a stir that I was unaware. You then posed the question to Jared:

"He didn't like mike either, but they seem to get along later, you would have to ask him what happen to make the change."

The short answer was (and if you had followed our dialogue then you'd agree) I wrote that enough was enough for the sake of others on this blog. This should be a forum where diverse views can discuss various topics. We have since moved on. Although it took some time. So again many apologies to the readers. But, I do recall a certain interjection from you during one of the tirades to "finish him off" referring to me, so you are just as guilty at enciting unnecessary comments. Hopefully, we've all learned to leave a comment, post our opinions, but above all respect differing points of view.
-m

i wasn't thinking when i posted that and i take it back. Sorry Paul and peace dude.

Sammy

Thank you for pointing out that Paul comments towards me were driven by hate...
The world needs to rise above hate...

We need less hate in the world....

wadada

Dude, Paul hated you and everything about you. You knew that, everyone knew that. He didn't like mike either, but they seem to get along later, you would have to ask him what happen to make the change. Anyway I'm done talking about it.

Sammy Ruiz

Only after you prove it is such with evidence.. Just because someone makes a claim that something is subversive doesn't make it such.. Unsubstantiated Claims if you are not backed up by facts are considered lies.. If some individual is going to say that i personally am trying to destroy the country present your facts.

But when someone refuses to present the facts to back up their false defamatory claims one only wonders if their motives to discredit is based more on hate and prejudice rather then based on facts...

As i've always said that if one feels that what i am posting is not correct then point out where i'm wrong with facts, not just name calling...

wadada

"you can say the idea's presented are subversive" So what you are saying is your posts could be considered subversive to some people? I ask you this dude. Do you believe in what you post? If so then how do you consider being called a subversive an attack if the person considers what you post subversive and you believe in what you post? I posted that pot should be legalize and enjoyed someone down the line is going to call me a pot head or worse. Should I consider that an attack?

You mean KTLA's "Mr. Waldron should know that."

Mr. Waldron works for KTLA, talk to him about what the vision of the blogs are not me.....

And if these blogs are only for what the topic is about then many others would have to be removed also..

wadada

Jared,

I wasn't talking about what happen before, I wasn't there. I was referring to what happen in the last few days. As I said, you both are at fault. It takes two to fight. You both should be banned from here if you can't conduct yourselves like adults. Either one of you could have taken the high road and walked away, but you didn't, you both acted like school kids. And I stick to what I said before that these blogs should not be a soap box for someone's political views no matter what they are unless that is what the subject is about. There are other outlets for that on the Internet where people who are looking for that kind of information can find it. If there are two hot buttons for people, it's politics and religion. Your Mr. Waldron should know that.

Larry wrote:

"But you called him a coward and liar."

Only after being attacked first on almost everything i posted(Flaming) for a few days.. And being attack for almost a year first i'm a mental case...

Also i suggest you talk to Micheal Waldron.. These Blogs are not for only commenting on "what Frank, Eric and Sam blog about nothing more" but a forum of open ideas without attacking each other..

Larry a fundamental right is to be able to protect ones self and if you are always attacked you still defend.. Are you denying this right because you also don't agree with what i post?

wadada

jared,

I have been following this since it started and would like to add my two cents if you don't mind. First off, you are both wrong. He may have called you a subversive because you presented subversive ideas. This is a case of if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck. It's a duck. But you called him a coward and liar. Two things most men who have blood in their veins would take offense to. That escalated the fight to the a heated exchange between both of you. You both are equally at fault and I think you both should be banned from here for that reason. I also have to agree with Mr. Ruiz, that these blogs should not be a soap box for someone's politcal views, but for comments on what Frank, Eric and Sam blog about nothing more.

Sammy

I'm going to come back to this and interject..

"you can say the idea's presented are subversive[but without unsubstantiated claims, hence prove my ideas wrong] but not call me personally a subversive"

wadada

Yes sammy

But without the personal attacks... Sharing ideas aren't attacks, it is about talking out of ideas that are presented even if we don't agree.. but not personal attacks, I didn't attack others, other then in defense after being attacked.. you can shot the idea down, which is the reason for my keep asking to disprove.. you can say the idea's presented are subversive but not call me personally a subversive.. Sammy there is a difference which is what we are contracting with KTLA for the use of their site.

You forgot the comment that it was "best to remove both our post." so my post were removed also..

When i post articles i make sure that were i get them from it is okay to repost before i post them here, if it is not okay, i post a short part and a link..

As you read the terms of service..

Do not provide User Content that:

contains copyrighted or other proprietary material of any kind without the express permission of the owner of that material.

contains vulgar, profane, abusive, racist or hateful language or expressions, epithets or slurs, text, photographs or illustrations in poor taste, inflammatory attacks of a personal, racial or religious nature.

is defamatory, threatening, disparaging, grossly inflammatory, false, misleading, fraudulent, inaccurate, unfair, contains gross exaggeration or unsubstantiated claims, violates the privacy rights of any third party, is unreasonably harmful or offensive to any individual or community.
violates any right of KTLA.COM or any third party.

discriminates on the grounds of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation or disability, or refers to such matters in any manner prohibited by law.

violates or encourages the violation of any municipal, state, federal or international law, rule, regulation or ordinance.

interferes with any third party's uninterrupted use of KTLA.COM.

advertises, promotes or offers to trade any goods or services, except in areas specifically designated for such purpose.

uses or attempt to use another's Registration Account, password, service or system except as expressly permitted by the Terms of Service.

uploads or transmits viruses or other harmful, disruptive or destructive files, material or code.

disrupts, interferes with, or otherwise harms or violates the security of KTLA.COM, or any services, system resources, accounts, passwords, servers or networks connected to or accessible through KTLA.COM or affiliated or linked sites.

"flames" any individual or entity (e.g., sends repeated messages related to another user and/or makes derogatory or offensive comments about another individual), or repeats prior posting of the same message under multiple threads or subjects.

Dude, did you not post "Thank you Micheal Waldron and the Web master for removing posts after my call." lf so, you did censorship of another persons views here that you did not agree with. From where I come from dude that's called hypocrisy. So I say again, fair is fair.

And since we are talking about censorship and rights. Hey KTLA what's with you guys? You afraid to run ads for to legalize pot and to tax it like alcohol and cigeretts so we can add money to the state coffers and save some of the cut backs like the closing of some of the best beaches in California. Legalizing pot is a good thing, everyone should partake, it would be a more mellow world.

these blogs are supposed to be a free exchange of ideas..

Some people and their ideas you won't agree with and some you will..

And when you want to censor ideas that you don't agree with we all loose a bit of our freedoms..

Remember it isn't popular speech that needs to be protected it is unpopular speech...

I don't agree with Husler Mag and what it presents but will stand for their rights to publish what they want...

I really can't believe that Americans would want to censor ideas just because they don't believe in those Ideas it is unamerican to censor.....

wadada

Hey webmaster if you are going to remove posts, you should remove all posts that have nothing to do with the subject of that blog. This should not be a soapbox for one person's political agenda. Fair is fair dude.

How Long Before the Fed's Days Are Numbered?
by Michael J. Panzner
Author of When Giants Fall and Financial Armageddon
Posted: July 7, 2009 07:59 PM

It's no stretch to say the Federal Reserve is garnering a lot of attention these days.

On Wall Street, there's a big debate over whether the Fed's next big move will come too soon or too late. In Washington, the Administration is promoting a plan to give the central bank new powers to oversee systemic risks. Over in the House of Representatives, maverick Republican Ron Paul has gathered more than 245 co-sponsors for a bill requiring an audit of the Fed. In the media, there are questions about whether President Obama will allow Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to keep his job when his term ends in January. And finally, some commentators are wondering whether this allegedly autonomous institution will retain its independence in a post-crisis world.

But few seem to be asking what I believe is the key question: how long before the Fed's days are numbered?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-j-panzner/how-long-before-the-feds_b_227437.html

Thank you Eric.

Happy 4th of July.
Let freedom ring!