Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Being slandered by innuendo on the Crier by truth4wayland

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Angry Being slandered by innuendo on the Crier by truth4wayland

    Kim,

    Although you have setup a thread on 'nasty comments' already, I feel that this thread needs to now be posted and visible as a standalone.

    I would personally appreciate it if you would leave this thread up by itself and not combine it.
    I do not intend to reply back to this thread.. but others are certainly welcome to do that.

    Consider this link and this comment:
    http://www.wickedlocal.com/wayland/h...ting-on-change

    truth4wayland
    "The way certain people are promoting this and the way they seem to get the company to respond makes it appear that their is some sort of financial benefit coming to the supporters."

    This anonymous truth4wayland posted a comment referring to 'certain people'. Who are those 'certain people' - I must assume that the main 'certain person' is Alan Reiss and even though truth4wayland did not name me directly, he pointed to me directly. Any court of law would agree with that.

    truth4wayland should also note that there have been other very visible supporters of Electronic Voting and the mud that he slings also lands on them too.

    truth4wayland also goes onto say: "makes it appear that their is some sort of financial benefit coming to the supporters."

    This is the point where innuendo is used to create slander and libel.

    Without proof truth4wayland uses his anonymity like a knife to degrade my reputation, my purposes and my hard work and efforts to have pulled off a free trial for Wayland for the exclusive purpose of seeing whether technology can help to solve the numerous issues around New England town meeting.

    In my short political life in Wayland I have faced criticism by my detractors on many occasions but those criticisms were based on philosophy and point of view... I never had a problem with that and I was always willing to jump into the debate to listen to their point of view and to make sure I had mine heard too. That is the way it is supposed to work.

    But innuendo leading to slander and libel is a circumstance that has not occurred for me until today Saturday May 29th, 2010 and it was done by truth4wayland an anonymous poster who has the ability to hide and cower behind his handle.

    Today I have launched an investigation as to who truth4wayland is with the CRIER and its parent GATEHOUSE media. This is not over. So truth4wayland you have a nice memorial day weekend and you think about this.

    Over the next year I will be working hard for Wayland by working with a newly forming committee headed by our moderator on bringing a successful e-voting demonstration to Wayland ATM 2011. The voters of ATM 2010 voted for this with a thunderous YAY and they deserve no less then a well executed and useful demonstration so they can make an informed decision going forward as whether they should want it, should rent it, should lease it, should share it or should buy it.

    All of the people who have helped and supported the effort to bring solutions town meeting I thank you for your valuable help. This was not a solo effort and I could not have done this by myself.

    As for who I work for and whether I receive any financial gain....
    I have posted a statement as an answer to a question on the newly re-created website

    www.ElectronicVoting.info See the tab FAQ

    Please go there and read my personal statement and I would expect that this issue should not come up again.
    Do you hear me truth4wayland, whoever you are?

    I have added the PDF copy of the article and the offending thread in case it gets deleted.
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 05-29-2010 at 09:56 AM. Reason: Added thread from Crier in case it gets deleted

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Alan, I sympathize. I know that I have myself been the target of comments I thought were libelous on the Crier boards (slander is spoken, so I think you're talking just about libel here), and it's not a pleasant situation to be in.

    With my layman's knowledge of the law, however, I have to say that I really doubt this particular comment, couched as opinion, is actionable. The writer says, as you quoted: ""The way certain people are promoting this and the way they seem to get the company to respond makes it appear that their is some sort of financial benefit coming to the supporters." (My emphasis added). Makes it appear... so they aren't saying that there is any financial benefit that they know of, just that he/she has that perception.

    I agree that the comment is not appropriate, and I see that Mike Wyner has closed that thread (effectively deleting all existing comments and not allowing any new ones). I appreciate the effort you have put into bringing electronic voting to Wayland Town Meeting, and I sincerely doubt that there are many people out there who assume the financial motivation truth4wayland raised. That's the good news - I think your reputation is intact, and this sort of comment hurts most the person who makes it. If truth4wayland has a question about your motives, it would be far better to ask you off-line than to seem to accuse you online.

    Next, truth4wayland adds: "I have heard JohnF make similar comments about development of the CVS and others about the TownCenter. Why does everything have to be tainted this way? I think this is a great opportunity for Wayland to improve but so are the other projects." JohnF denied that allegation in the next post. But truth4wayland is right about one thing -- without recalling who made the posts, there have been many posts accusing various people of financial conflicts of interest over recent years.

    I would love to see the Crier require identification (at least declared to the Crier), and until they do, we will always face anonymous posters who slash at people unfairly. Sometimes people will do it even with their name attached, but at least then we know who is involved and can face the accuser.

    All that said, however, I do see the concern the Crier has with identification. I saw what happened, for example, when Melissa Orlov chimed in on a thread, how she was made out to be an aggressor, when she was defending her actions -- actions which had been attacked via a hearsay argument in which she was referred to anonymously (this post, I will note, would no longer be allowed with our rules now including an explicit prohibition against hearsay). I think we can all appreciate the predicament she was in. She knew (or had strong reason to believe) it was her phone call which was being portrayed, and she wanted to explain the circumstances. She did that the only way she could, by claiming it. But in claiming it, she was then accused of defending herself against something she personally had not been accused of (since the accused was described without name attached). I'm sure you can appreciate her Catch-22. She seems to be a pretty strong person and has let it go, but I'm sure this kind of thread would be intimidating to many others who might like to post with their name attached.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Unhappy No more libel by innuendo - and thats that...get it ?

    OK, I will respond to you Kim,

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Alan, I sympathize. I know that I have myself been the target of comments I thought were libelous on the Crier boards (slander is spoken, so I think you're talking just about libel here), and it's not a pleasant situation to be in.
    Yes, libel, you are right that is the written form of slander.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    With my layman's knowledge of the law, however, I have to say that I really doubt this particular comment, couched as opinion, is actionable. The writer says, as you quoted: ""The way certain people are promoting this and the way they seem to get the company to respond makes it appear that their is some sort of financial benefit coming to the supporters." (My emphasis added). Makes it appear... so they aren't saying that there is any financial benefit that they know of, just that he/she has that perception.
    Who would the certain people be? Clearly, I as the lead petitioner, the one that made the deal with Options Technologies Interactive to provide a free demonstration for ATM 2011 I must be the main 'certain person'. The comment pointed right at me, directly at me and if it were to go to a court, I think the case for libel could be made.

    This is why I said slander (libel now) by innuendo. Because that is exactly what it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    I agree that the comment is not appropriate, and I see that Mike Wyner has closed that thread (effectively deleting all existing comments and not allowing any new ones).
    I asked for the comment to be deleted based on a violation of their own rules which includes no personal attacks.
    They decided to take it further and close the entire blog on that article, also taking out one that I made personally, to make sure that no further libel by innuendo would take place. I do thank them for that... for being truly responsible.

    They are also working on other information for me related to this incident.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    I appreciate the effort you have put into bringing electronic voting to Wayland Town Meeting, and I sincerely doubt that there are many people out there who assume the financial motivation truth4wayland raised. That's the good news - I think your reputation is intact, and this sort of comment hurts most the person who makes it. If truth4wayland has a question about your motives, it would be far better to ask you off-line than to seem to accuse you online.
    Well it makes me smile to hear your appreciation... so I appreciate that too.

    The first time the notion that Alan Reiss is doing this for financial gain came to my attention was on my way out of town meeting when a gentlemen asked me on the way out of the field house about who I work for. I told that person everything I put it into writing on my site and which is now posted on the FAQ. It is my hope that people go to that site and look through it because it contains much information about many aspects of using technology to solve town meeting problems. And they can read my written response to who I work for, how I did this and the fact that I do this only as a volunteer for my home town and my neighbors of 21 years.

    I do not want to be accused of any conflict of interest or financial gain on this matter going forward. If I am I will take immediate and decisive actions on each and every incident. No one should accuse without proof... never accuse by innuendo. I don't believe in it and I don't practice it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Next, truth4wayland adds: "I have heard JohnF make similar comments about development of the CVS and others about the TownCenter. Why does everything have to be tainted this way? I think this is a great opportunity for Wayland to improve but so are the other projects." JohnF denied that allegation in the next post. But truth4wayland is right about one thing -- without recalling who made the posts, there have been many posts accusing various people of financial conflicts of interest over recent years.
    Couple things here:
    1. Who is JohnF?
    2. Where is the exact text stored so I can read it and see for myself?

    Given that, I would be able to make a personal judgement (and I will do that in private) as to the degree to what was said. Other than that, this is heresay and this is NOT allowed on this discussion forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    All that said, however, I do see the concern the Crier has with identification. I saw what happened, for example, when Melissa Orlov chimed in on a thread, how she was made out to be an aggressor, when she was defending her actions -- actions which had been attacked via a hearsay argument in which she was referred to anonymously (this post, I will note, would no longer be allowed with our rules now including an explicit prohibition against hearsay). I think we can all appreciate the predicament she was in. She knew (or had strong reason to believe) it was her phone call which was being portrayed, and she wanted to explain the circumstances. She did that the only way she could, by claiming it. But in claiming it, she was then accused of defending herself against something she personally had not been accused of (since the accused was described without name attached). I'm sure you can appreciate her Catch-22. She seems to be a pretty strong person and has let it go, but I'm sure this kind of thread would be intimidating to many others who might like to post with their name attached.
    You brought up Melissa Orlov not me.

    I still want to know why when I asked the question how she would defend something she wasn't accused of on your DF and then said that it narrowed it down to 5,000 people (or something like that), I was then accused and attacked .... my observations were dead on and I got dragged right into it and never received a retraction or apology.

    And yes, and I let it go too. So I'm no longer asking for it. I just don't care about it anymore.

    Notice my smiley face is still not smiling but getting better.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post

    Couple things here:
    1. Who is JohnF?
    2. Where is the exact text stored so I can read it and see for myself?

    Given that, I would be able to make a personal judgement (and I will do that in private) as to the degree to what was said. Other than that, this is heresay and this is NOT allowed on this discussion forum.
    1. JohnF is the name of a poster on the Crier site. He was involved in the exchange you provided in the PDF in your original post.

    2. There have been many threads over the years, but, as you know, it is virtually impossible to search for them. You have to know which article they are on and search for the article. You can't search for the comments themselves. And often the very worst are taken down.

    I recall several alleging financial conflicts for a School Committee member. Sorry, can't provide links.

    A recent one was on this thread on which a poster named "Javamom" had posted: about a rumor alleging a conflict involving the CVS developer. I won't post it here, but would be happy to email the text to you directly if you would like or you can check with Mike Wyner. I emailed Mike Wyner and suggested that he should not allow anyone to post a rumor.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Red face Some really good advice now...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    I emailed Mike Wyner and suggested that he should not allow anyone to post a rumor.
    First, its nice that you, Kim, decided to communicate with me on this transgression. I was beginning to feel lonely.

    I used to have this expression that went something like this:
    "There are two type of problems in the world, my problems and their problems". Now I'm sure that this doesn't sound very charitable and I only use it when I'm not happy or when I'm trying to make a point... like with my 19 year old... when he's handing me a boatload of excuses.

    In this instance however, its clear that libel by innuendo didn't begin on Saturday with truth4wayland but what I really want to say to the audience that cares to read this is this:

    If someone opposes electronic voting then oppose it on its merits and lets lay it out there for open and honest discussion.
    I'm trying to do this by re-vamping the www.electronicvoting.info website.

    But, opposing electronic voting by libel through innuendo that Alan Reiss is 'on the take' isn't going to get the desired result. In fact, not only is it a loser argument, simply because its not true, but those who choose to do it will galvanize people who might be on the fence about this high tech method of voting and the concept that privacy in voting is really a good idea.

    Besides, I'm a pretty relentless person and I don't being libeled. So if you *truth4wayland* are intent on libeling then make it somebody else's problem... not mine.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    I used to have this expression that went something like this:
    "There are two type of problems in the world, my problems and their problems". Now I'm sure that this doesn't sound very charitable and I only use it when I'm not happy or when I'm trying to make a point... like with my 19 year old... when he's handing me a boatload of excuses.
    ...
    Besides, I'm a pretty relentless person and I don't being libeled. So if you *truth4wayland* are intent on libeling then make it somebody else's problem... not mine.
    But Alan this isn't just your problem, it's our problem. The use of innuendo to impugn reputations is prevalent on the Crier board. Take this post made just hours ago by WaylandWatcher (my bold emphasis):

    Quote Originally Posted by WaylandWatcher
    "But there still is an imbalance and SOS and the selectmen are very tightly coupled. SOS was very helpful to them in getting the vote out so they could defeat their opponents and so that they could be in office. This is well known. And remember, 7 of the most powerful people in Wayland met at the head of SOS at a closed door meeting last year to give a 'state of the town' presentation to the PAC who supported them. So this tight coupling is just one manifestation of the control that SOS has. Although a similar meeting of the same magnitude is not as well known to have occurred in 2010. It may have occurred but just not quite as 'in your face' as it was in 2009."
    This is not right! So WaylandWatcher doesn't know about a meeting having occurred, but asserts that it "may have"?! It is not "well known to have occurred". This implies it did occur, but that occurrence is not well known. The follow-on sentence is a little weaker, but speculates that it "may have". So WaylandWatcher doesn't like SOS, and that somehow makes it OK for him to speculate about what sort of things they "might have" done. I can imagine all sorts of things various people "might have" done, but I hope none of us think it would be appropriate to guess about them publicly.

    Though this post comes from someone more aligned to your own thinking and isn't "your problem", Alan, I contend that it is "our problem". I hope, Alan, that you will join me in deploring this type of behavior, this use of innuendo to damage reputations, and will publicly denounce it along with me. To have credibility on this issue you must care not only about the injuries done to you personally, but also to those done to others. Just as I have publicly denounced the posting by truth4wayland, will you denounce the one by WaylandWatcher?

    I've attached a PDF of the comment in case it is removed: TC comments by WaylandWatcher.pdf

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default Apples to Oranges

    In one, you've got a private citizen being libeled by an anonymous poster.
    In the other, you've got an anonymous poster questioning the actions of elected officials.

    One's considered illegal, the other is considered fair game.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    In one, you've got a private citizen being libeled by an anonymous poster.
    In the other, you've got an anonymous poster questioning the actions of elected officials.

    One's considered illegal, the other is considered fair game.
    John, WaylandWatcher's post is about SOS just as much as it is about the Selectmen. I don't agree that either post rises to the level of libel. Both, however, are inappropriate and should not be condoned. When we publicly speculate about behavior that might have occurred (as truth4wayland did about "certain people" and WaylandWatcher did about SOS) rather than investigate and report, we are crossing a line.

    I'd really like to know what Alan thinks.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default It comes with the territory

    If some paparzzi-type starts following you and your husband around, taking pictures of you everywhere you go, it's called harassment.
    If that photographer does the same to Madonna and her new boyfriend, it's called earning a living.
    (Personally, I'm not crazy about the fact that it's OK in the latter example, but it is what it is, whether I like it or not.)

    Just like Madonna's boyfriend, SOS is as much a part of the story as the BOS, since it is SOS with whom the BOS was perceived to be in cahoots. So it seems to me that whether or not you may find it distasteful, no line was crossed here.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    In one, you've got a private citizen being libeled by an anonymous poster. In the other, you've got an anonymous poster questioning the actions of elected officials. One's considered illegal, the other is considered fair game.
    Neither is illegal. Both are deplorable.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default Bananas and Horse Petuties

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    But Alan this isn't just your problem, it's our problem. The use of innuendo to impugn reputations is prevalent on the Crier board. Take this post made just hours ago by WaylandWatcher (my bold emphasis):
    I've just read it. Look like my "Were You Invited" video from last year has gotten out into the public mind... good for that poster !

    There is no comparison between the two. In one case the poster is pointing out a known fact that did occur last year which is not illegal but rather a political tactic. I also didn't read that WaylandWatcher said that any particular member of Wayland's town government was 'on the take' or that any particular member of SOS was 'on the take' from Wayland. Both of these groups are practicing their political philosophies and they are acting in a lawful manner. They are able to work together to form a power bond which effectively runs Wayland. Thats not slander or libel its a political observation.

    In the case of *truth4wayland* he was directly speculating on an action which would be illegal and would damage the personal reputation of a person who he directly point to.

    Gee Kim, seems like you are defending rather heavily the innuendo libel of *truth4wayland* ... why is that?

    P.S. Oh and by the way... the truth4wayland post was seen by a 3rd party as being so severe that the entire blog was taken down.
    I just looked that the exchange between WaylandWatcher and wayland voter and its still up.

    So now your mission Kim to prove your point is to convince the Crier to take down that blog.
    Go for it.

    One more time and I'm done with this thread... for real
    He who will libel me by innuendo as being 'on the take' on electronic voting WILL pay the price.
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 05-31-2010 at 10:50 AM. Reason: PS

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    its a political observation
    Alan, the sentences I referred to were not observation, they were speculation about an event that as far as I know has not occurred, but which through "innuendo" WaylandWatcher implied had already occurred a second time. No, this act was not illegal, but it has been used to demonize SOS so implying it happened again would be attempting to further demonize them. Since "SOS" referred to in this way are specific individuals, just as you are a specific individual, the two posts have more in common than you care to admit.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Gee Kim, seems like you are defending rather heavily the innuendo libel of *truth4wayland* ... why is that?
    I quite specifically did not defend truth4wayland. I believe I used the word "inappropriate" to describe his/her post. The real question is why you are defending WaylandWatcher.

    If you only have a problem with attacks directed at you, but not with posts directed at those who disagree with you, then why should anyone else care when you are the target? My point is that all such posts are inappropriate. Don't post based on rumor, don't post based on speculation. Questions are fine, but posing them in such a way that they imply bad behavior is wrong, whether the poster agrees with you or not.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Gee Kim, seems like you are defending rather heavily the innuendo libel of *truth4wayland* ... why is that.
    Are you impugning Kim's motives? Isn't that exactly what you're kvetching about?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default I knew kvetching was a word but I never knew how to spell it until now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Perlman View Post
    Are you impugning Kim's motives? Isn't that exactly what you're kvetching about?
    I don't know Steve, truth4wayland is impugning my motives.
    And it seems to all be OK because of 3 more cyber characters named JohnF and Javamom and WaylandWatcher.
    All I can say is that when I finish my 450 page book entitled "New England Small Town Politics" there is going to be a chapter on this.

    Thats what I'm kvetching about.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    I don't know Steve, truth4wayland is impugning my motives. And it seems to all be OK because of 3 more cyber characters named JohnF and Javamom and WaylandWatcher.
    In other words, Alan, you're saying that it's ok for you to impugn Kim's motives because an anonymous poster on the Town Crier website impugned yours (which you justifiably resent)? Do you just not get what's wrong with this or do you not want to acknowledge it?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •