Raw Story Loses credibility

Last week Raw Story posted a headline about being threatened by someone who didn't like them using copyrighted material on their web site. I read the article and found no evidence of a threat. So I wrote Raw Story and complained about their dishonesty. They changed the headline, but now it is back.

"Raw gets legal 'threat' for article"

But there was no threat.

It seems that Raw Story would rather have attention for lying than for telling the truth. Oh well.

If you read Raw Story, please write them and ask them to be honest in their reporting.

The article clearly stated that they received a letter threatening legal action of previously publishing a "copyrighted" letter. As a small outfit a legal battle could end their service. So instead of publishing the letter in its entirety they used excertps to make the story.

of the article in which action is threatened.

begins with sentence about cease and desist order.

They were not threatened with any action.

You should read about cease and desist orders and how the process works.

The point of the cease and desist is the implication of "or else."

Some things are processes of several steps, in this respect the C&D order is not unlike moving a pawn to start a chessgame, even though checkmate on the king is the goal and many moves away.

wasn't it? That's rather a threat imo

Saying "stop" is NOT the same as saying "I'm going to hurt you"

this is really dumb semantics

It is a legal definition.

But the real issue is Raw's credibility. After my first complaint they wrote me a letter thanking me for my "good catch" and they changed the headline. Two days later they changed it back to the dishonest "Threat".

It seems clear to me that they are more interested in sensationalism than accuracy.

my first action was to send them a letter saying "stop". It was meant as a threat and they took it as a threat.

This is a lesson to anyone who wants someone to stop doing something that gives rise to a legitimate civil law suit: remember to tell them that IF THEY DON"T STOP then YOU WILL SUE THEM.

if the activity discussed in said letter continues.

That constitutes a legal threat, if you don't believe me, ask any attorney.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

As one who long questioned Raw Story when they passed along someone elses story as their own, I hadn't seen them mentioned much on here lately.

I've recieved and sent C & D letters...and yes, they are issued as a warning (call it a threat if you will) to take possible future legal action, but is far from being a "threat to shut a business down". It's when the recipiant of the letter ignores it or continues to blatantly violate a copyright or whatever the C & D letter addresses that the real legal action can take place. Generally just removing the offensive material or revising it is all these letters are about...it's a whole different animal to spend thousands of dollars going to litigation. If anything it's to prevent litigation. If Raw Story violated someone's copywrited work or presented information that is libelous, how else to you notify them that they better clean up their act...send a love note?

Cheers...

the word "threatned."

about a law suit. Where did you get that idea?

of copywrited material. That is a threat, and if they think thier claim is true, or they have money to harrass you with, they can sue. That means you have to retain an attorney to protect your rights. Instead of having to go to that expense, they altered the content of their website. That was definately a threat. I would be interested in seeing a copy of the email exchange with Rawstory you say you had.

What do you think a cease and desist letter says?

"Please cease and decist. Thank you. Have a nice day."

They say, "You have infringed my clients copyright. Please cease and decist. If you do not remove the copyrighted material from your website with X days of receipt of this letter we will take any and all legal remedies availabled to my client."

The whole of my complaint is that RS headlines do not match their stories. You can make up stuff all day, but the bottom line is that the article did not explain or even confirm the headline.

for a copy of the email exchange you said occurred.

make RS liars.

RS could publish a copy of the letter and clear this up.

But if you're not contending the alleged fact that they received a cease and decist letter, then I think your argument about the content of that letter is a little odd, since only a really bad lawyer would send a cease and decist letter without saying that her client was going to use avaliable legal remedies should the recipient not cease and desist.

Like I said, do you think those letters DON'T threaten legal action as part of the request to cease and decist?

Are there any other headlines you didn't like at RS? Because the one that allegedly broke the camel's back seems like it so light-weight that there must be dozens of headlines that were much more outrageous.

wide birth in terms of the story that follows. This is not even an example of that. The title matches the story.

You will find that the phrase "threatening legal action" is a perfectly acceptable use of the word. You're fishing on this one.
The Professor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease_and_desist
Cease-and-desist letters

A cease-and-desist letter is a letter demanding that the recipient "cease and desist from" continuing certain behavior. The behavior in question can include publishing materials or making statements that the letter's sender considers copyright infringement, trademark infringement, patent infringement, slander, or libel. The letter typically threatens legal action if the recipient continues to publish the materials in question or make statements similar to the ones in question. It is similar in form, although not in function, to a demand letter, which alerts the recipient to a pending claim for money damages, usually as a result of a tort or a breach of contract.

There have been criticisms from civil liberties and free speech groups that cease-and-desist letters are often used by wealthy individuals and corporations to bully their less-monied opponents into silence, as many people will comply with even an unjustified cease-and-desist letter due to their unwillingness to engage in an expensive lawsuit. Such groups call this a chilling effect on free speech.

In the US, a recipient of a cease-and-desist letter put in a "reasonable apprehension" of litigation may respond through a declaratory judgment proceeding in their own jurisdiction.

in court, if the defendant refuses to stop actionable insult, willful/mindful of the nature of the offense. imo

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Which is a threat.

...of legal action. It's intended to frighten the recipient into compliance, which is exactly what happened. Not only was it a threat, it was a successful one.

In his "cease and desist" email message, Canter declared, "The Center is the exclusive owner of the copyright in and to this letter. The Center has not authorized Raw Story to reproduce this letter... Accordingly, Raw Story has infringed the copyright of the Center in and to this letter. You are instructed forthwith to delete this letter and all other copyrighted materials of the Center and to cease and desist from further infringements."

You see, it lacks an ultimatium, which would have constituted a "threat".

Such an ultimatium would have been something in the form of, "or we will sue you" - THAT would have been a threat.

I applaud the OP for his legal mind and seeing that, while a reasonable person could have interpreted this as a "threat", legally, in a court of law, it was not. There is no threat.

The headline would more legally read, "RawStory receives cease and desist orders from National Center for Public Policy Research lawyer for publishing controversial letter."

On edit, I would like to add that the OP is being rather pedantic, and headlines often play with the details esp in what I believe is an immaterial difference.

I have caught Raw over sensationalizing their headlines with "almost truth" They are beginning to operate like a supermarket tabloid and it brings discredit to everything they do.

I just don't think a material misrepresentation was made. Sent from their lawyer, the threat (for legal action) was clearly implied, and I don't think a reasonable person would think otherwise.

If someone were to show me this letter and ask me, "what if I don't do what they want?" the message (threat) is clear.

If I were Rawstory, I would have no problem having this "misrepresentation" judged by the court of public opinion.

Such as comparison would be favorable, IMO, when judged against what the big, money making, widely distributed, broadcasted main stream media gets away with every day.

For some reason, RawStory, complete with its two juice cans and taught string, should live up to higher standards than NBC, ABC, CBS and the New York Times.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out http://www.mediamatters.org

But two wrongs don't make a right.

But if you really want to clean up left wing blogs, you should prioritize - start with capitol hill blue.

If the owner of the copyright in the letter believed an infringement was occurring it could've sued without even bothering with a cease and desist letter. The purpose of the cease and desist letter is to put the alleged infringer on notice so that if they continue the allegedly infringing use they could face more severe penalties for willful and repeated action. I'm a copyright attorney and I can tell you that I would advise any client of mine who received a cease and desist letter to regard it as a serious threat. It would malpractice not to.

onenote

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean a threat is a threat, and asking some to "stop" or you will take action is a threat.

n/t

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've no problem with anything they publish.

They got a cease and desist order. That's a legal threat.

It ups their credibility because it means they are catching a powerful someone's attention. Good for RS. :thumbsup;

edit: Why should a C & D order give them less credibility in your eyes? That doesn't make sense. :shrug:

The original headline said they received a threat.

I read the story and found no threat.

I wrote them and asked the to be more honest in their headlines.

They changed the headline and wrote me to thank me for the "good catch".

Two days later they returned to the false statement that they had received a threat.

That is how they lost credibility in my eyes.

Cease & desist letter - £8.00 inc. VAT


A cease and desist letter is a short letter to someone (individual or company) telling them to stop doing something. Using your trademark. Using your property. Damaging your property. Damaging your reputation. Setting their dogs on your sheep. Failing to keep a promise.

The letter explains what they're doing; that it causes damage; requests that they stop with a threat if they don't.

http://www.legalpulse.com/site/legalweb.nsf/DocView/D4A0ABF0CCC0FC1D80256DD400614DA6

The headline said there was a threat.

The article did not say there was a threat or what threat there might have been.

You may see that as honest journalism. I find it deceptive to the point of dishonesty.

a Cease & Desist letter is the first step toward filing a law suit. It's quick, cheap and most times effective. And it is a threat. It is to put them on notice that someone is paying attention and feels damaged in some way.

not a personal threat,but it is a threat.

If you have an issue with Raw Story, that's one thing.


It seems to me you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

that it is a threat. How bout you ask them before spouting bull?

lost credibility, though it is not Raw Story.

second headline is
"After critical article, conservative nonprofit accuses Raw Story of violating copyright"

It's a bogus threat anyway. The letter now belongs to the person it was addressed to, who gave it to the reporter. NCPPR is bluffing and bloviating.

Generally speaking, the recipient of a letter only owns the tangible item, not the copyright in the content of the letter. Thus, the recipient can show the letter to friends, can sell it or give it to someone else, but cannot cause the reproduction, publication or display of the letter. THere are certain exceptions, including fair use, but don't assume that just because the recipient was the one who gave the letter to the reporter means that there could be no case of infringement. (By giving the letter to a reporter, the recipient could be found guilty of contributory or even vicarious infringement).

onenote

:shrug: It's one of the best independent sources of news that we have.

and finding them to be mostly bogus. They have betrayed my trust.

Perhaps you've misread the rest.

Perhaps the stories do back up the headlines, but you don't get it.

You know. Kinda like this one.

If an assertion of a legal threat (which is true since they have been threatened with legal action) amounts to a betrayal of trust for you, there will be no news source that will satisfy you.

I consider RS to be a reliable source. Your OP hasn't changed my position.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You pick this as your attack on Raw Story.

Mountain--- Molehill

of deceptive headlines. For example a few weeks ago they published a headline that said the DA was going to investigate the fatality in the Cheney shooting. But there was no fatality. They changed the headline after I complained. This is just the lefty style of Limbaugh journalism.

It is just as easy to tell the truth as it is to lie. So why don't they tell the truth?

they speak of it as a "threat". "The threat of a lawsuit"; "Microsoft threatens legal action against software pirates"; etc. I think that's the sense in which Raw Story used the word.

Perhaps I missed that. Please quote.

I understand that you don't understand that some would call that a threat of legal action, but really, the point is that if you don't stop whatever the order is about, legal action will be taken. That's the purpose of the order -- so that if it is not complied with, legal action can be taken.

Listen, I thought at first that I understood what you were saying. The headline might have been a little sensationalist and you felt they were trying to say that they had been physically threatened or something, but the fact of the matter remains that they were contacted through legal channels about something they had published. I don't have a problem with them using the word "threat" to describe what is going on.

about was the possibility of litigation -- an action that follows non-compliance with a cease and desist order. As others here have already stated, there is an actual legal definition for a cease and desist order, and a historical sense of the meaning; the Poster might do well to refer to such before making serious accusations.

To demand literal explanations and substantiation of EVERY statement made in print belies a pessimistic and antagonist viewpoint, in my view. To meet such a "standard" would require print articles to be exceedingly long and difficult to read after wading through all the "proofs" -- much like reading a scholarly journal article in which every term is defined to death and every reference to a concept duly noted.

Also, sounds to me as though RS tried to be accomodating with Poster's assertions until they realized that the Poster was in error, and corrected their course accordingly (a day or two later). Sour grapes, maybe?

I would like for the Lefty sites to be superior to the wing nut trash. That requires scrupulous honest. Raw Story doesn't live up to my requirements for honesty in reporting.

Raw story has done a pretty decent job of being on-target, and careful with their facts. I've seen them change their headers when the story didn't hold true to their original assertion. Therefore I don't agree with your complaint at all. I see no rationale behind it save pettiness.

Making comparison to Rush is pretty damn low. He and other right-wing nutjobs LIE their asses off. Big difference between you having a difference of opinion with wording of article (meaning of "threat") vs outright unsubstantiated and unapologetic lies. You know better, or ?????????

When he changed the original headline. Perhaps you should email him and tell him what you think. rawstory@gmail.com

you're stretching a small point and trying to drum up complaints out of thin air - why?

I posted one complaint about RS and you call it a crusade. Do you work for Raw Story? It sounds like you were trained by them in Headline writing.

i don't know what your motivation is but I can guess. i doubt very much that it's because Raw Story called a "cease and desist" letter a "threat."

There it is, innuendo that YOU are ATTACKING them, that YOu've ALWAYS HATED THEM, that it's some kind of Religious Fervor that animates your simple question.. you are some kind of fanatic for DOUBTING the one True RAW STORY.

This is why I use the term "RawBots".. anyone remember "BevBots"?

Scorched Earth policy for all NONBelievers. get used to it.

It's like the Pod people, only they seem to have some sort of "Playbook" for dealing with traitorous dogs like you, who are obviously on a mission from hell, and unpatriotic, and are forcing Lefties to "fight each other", so if you DON'T stop making these remarks the very fabric of Liberals can be torn asunder..

Isn't THIS an attack against a DU'r? If I called him a Freeper, would it be much worse?

(I've got your back Cosmic, and WE have been SUED by Michael Savage for a Half a Million dollars.. now THAT is a THREAT..)

what's your point? where do you get "religious fervor"? you're not going to turn Raw Story into Bev, friend. I am not a "pod person" - you will not get anyone to agree with that assessment. I disagree with the OP. I think his complaint is manufactured and ridiculous. And so would you if you didn't have a personal beef with RS. Now you'd like to use this drummed up complaint to attack RS because of your personal problem with them. It's not cool, friend. You should re-think this.

or a BEEF with them?

Haven't you been paying attention? I have ALWAYS complained about Raw STory, about them posting as a "news org" in LBNs from the minute I saw it. About them playing the "Perils of Pauline" News Installment plan to keep folks hitting the refresh button on their pages, kicking their ad numbers UP and making them money, only to find out that it was a BULLSHIT story, or a media story already posted on yahoo or MSNBC..

I'm NOT allowed to have a BEEF with that? I CANNOT disagree with HOW they push their agenda?

Instead *I* am accused of being some low life idiot that is "MAD" at them, like some kind of BUSH HATER?

C'mon.. you're better than that.. don't insult both of us with statements like that, please?

Oh, it's just that guy who HATES THEM... Pay no attention.. he just WRONG..

It is SLIMING me, and you know better. If you know my history you know that I've worked for YEARS to defeat this administration, can you tell me when *I* have misrepresented myself or my site while being a progressive? Tell me what you know and I'll tell you MORE about what we've done..

I TOTALLY agree with the spirit and title of the OP, and would back him up all day long.

I'm just about ready to expose Raw STory so I don't have to take this kind of condescending crap from their "fan base" who I think are at least partially deluded, mad with potential HOPE..

I've been saving screen shots, DU links, articles from RS with time codes, dates, etc so that I can finally make people realise that "maybe" they ARE in it for the Money, maybe they don't just make "innocent" mistakes..

But like religion, feel free to believe what you want, crap all over people that tell the truth as they see it, go nuts.. it seems like some here have gone nuts, it gets SO hateful.. if you notice I am usually (unless someone personally calls me names or attacks my character) sticking to PROBLEMS they have in Reporting FACTS.

And that's how I'm going to keep it. I don't want to pull out the RS "file" but at some point when I get sick of being accused of ridiculous vendettas, and surrounded by snarky remarks, except for those that know me, and don't like RS either, and defend their points of view, and then get called "MY ATTACK DOGS.."

MY ATTACK DOGS.. think about that.. WHY would someone make a statement like that..

These are my FRIENDS, who know ME for my time and effort all these years, you know my character, who I've helped..

To call THEM "my attack dogs" doesn't sound Bizarre to you?

It sure as hell sounds that way to me, and that's not MY beef.. that's someone else's very strange statement, and they show up to "put out fires" as what some of us are saying is TRUTH, and they don't want that to become common knowledge..

There's your FACTS. No beef. Just facts.

All I have to say for now, it's 7am where I am at, and I've been up all night working on progressive causes again.. I haven't gotten more than 4 hours of sleep a night for more than a year working for progressive causes.

But of course *I* am just some kind of idiot who only has a "personal" problem with Raw Story.

Think about it, just stop for a minute and realise that IF someone is farming the DU for bucks with half baked stories, hopeful stories, that turn out NOT to be true more than often.. wouldn't that be a Travesty? Wouldn't that be dishonest?

Are you saying it's not possible at all?

Well, it is, and it's happened before. Hope is the poor man's bread, and when Bev Harris ran around here screaming that she had the "smoking gun" she walked away with a SUBSTANTIAL amount of DU members CASH.

If it is happening SLOWER, as in boiling the frog, then it's the same thing, and IF it is happening the I have an obligation to let it be known that it is what I believe.

If I'm wrong, well then, I'm wrong. But please don't accuse me of such pettiness when I have worked FAR longer than Raw Story and not too long ago, our site was in the top 10,000 websites, before we decided to run off and make films.

We know how this all works, and that is why we are worried, you maybe should be too.. stop and re-examine parameters once in a while, just in case you may be wrong..

and I'll do the same thing :)

you're just rambling at this point - attack dogs? :shrug: I'm confused. Please get some sleep. To equate ANYBODY with Bev Harris is the cruelest of insults and I hope you are choosing your words carefully.

where someone from RS keeps saying Bizarre things like my sending in my "attack dogs", etc.. it's a real as mom's home baked pie.. interesting thread..

Bev Harris was a BIG liar, but lots of little bs articles will do the job just as well -- especially when any page you go to on a site has 10 or more advertisements all earning money.

Reminds me of a circus when I go there, more of a freakshow actually.. can't even read the stories taken from other sources as they are surrounded by ads, ads right in the middle of the text, boxing monkeys at the tops..

Used to be only porno sites and heavy corporate sites had ads that deep..

Too bad.

Okay, so now, I'm "rambling", and before that *I* have a "personal" BEEF with Raw Story (not like anyone else does here, and of course a "rambling" person does not have control of his mental facilities).. it appears YOU are choosing your words carefully, and to be honest the way words are used by those I call RawBots, are chosen very carefully as well. A "Crusade", etc, etc.. Some pretty Bad Connotations in some of these postings whenever someone doesn't like Raw STory, there seems to always be something "wrong with THEM"..

Funny, ain't it?

Uh, go read your own posts, a CRUSADE is associated with religious fervor, why do you think the media went NUTS when Bush first called the Iraq war a "CRUSADE"? As far as I know Cosmic posted one piece, a Crusade would involve MANY attacks, so either you know he's regularly attacking RS or you are using a term to dishonor him, which is it?

and another thing..

Cosmic is NOT ALLOWED to have an OPINION.

What HE believes is NOT TRUE, unless YOU let him. If you do not ALLOW it, then HE is not ALLOWED to believe it.

*I* Am not allowed to think that RS USes OTHER people's links, photos, writings, etc for their own benefit, MY THOUGHTS and FEELINGS on this ARE NOT ALLOWABLE and MUST BE STOPPED.

WHEN did people on the DU decide WHAT WE ARE TO BELIEVE, a Concerted group of "fans" that will rend and tear and say the most personally Accusatory things about ANYONE that doesn't AGREE with them..

They will call you NAMES, suggest that you are one a CRUSADE, that you are "not making sense", Looney for thinking other than they do..

WHEN DID the fans of Raw Story become the "Jello Sheriffs" of the DU?


WHY do YOU not IGNORE people that call Raw Story a joke or a farce, or whatever? Why so VEHEMENT to the point where the Rawbots show up and make pointed REMARKS about people's integrity in general, their sanity, that they are on a CRUSADE?

Why don't YOU save those remarks for people like DELAY, FRIST, etc, instead of YOUR OWN TEAM MATES RIGHT HERE? And THEN to come our and say that this ONE PERSON is making the progressive movement FALL APART - it's astounding and used for a reason. A cheap shot, pure and simple, and simple minds will parrot it, and that's what the RIGHT WING DOES, not US...

Seriously, anyone who doesn't TOE THE LINE is treated like they've STOMPED on a BOX of puppies... I'm getting tired of it..

From now one I DEMAND FACTS, and NOT NAME CALLING, or calling people's sanity into questions, no snarky remarks..

But this is going to mean that *I* personally WILL SUPPLY links and proof that what I am saying is TRUE. And I believe that the DU is being treated as a "cash machine", or has been in the past, more so - for Raw Story..

A nice little enclave to tap into as an ATM machine, just figure out anyway you can get them to go to your site and keep hitting the "refresh" button...

First of all I would like to know WHAT they have given BACK to the Progressive community, besides the usual drivel like HOPE, WORDS of WISDOM, etc -- what Tangible Investment have they returned to progressives? Have they cost Libby MONEY? How about Limbaugh, cost him any money? Have they started a Katrina Relief fund?

Do they even write their own stories? WHERE do their photos come from?

I'd like some Factual answers please, and don't roll your eyes and say, "oh, he's the one that goes on and on about 'attack dogs'" -- when that was used by a member of Raw Story when describing my FRIENDS, and others who question what Raw Story is actually doing..

It's one thing when you use the right wing's playbook to fight them, it's another when you use it to enrich yourself..

I would like for them to be the BEST site on the web, REAL SCOOPS, put the Corporate media links for your story at the TOP of the page - which I noticed RS did when mentioning the Libby Parody site, the LIBBY SITE was at the TOP of the Page, while the last line contained the Parody link..

WHY?

at some future time. use a dictionary!

that they ACTUALLY SAID that they WOULD SUE or TAKE LEGAL ACTION?

TRUE OR FALSE?

Read the THREAD.

You and "cosmic" seem to be the exceptions.

I have been reading the thread, which is why I bothered to comment. Argument seems to be around whether sending a cease and desist letter constitutes a "threat". As it is the first step in taking civil action I'd say it does consitute a threat, whether or not the letter explicitly states an intent to pursue further action.

Further more, "cosmic" makes his own sensational "headline" and is unable to show that RS lacks credibility. Rather the OP and the posts made since only paint the Poster as petty, intentionally obtuse and overly literal...hallmarks of a closed mind, IMO.

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/contract/cease.htm">Here is a sample C&D:


Now that is a legal threat.

There is a long history on the internet of companies sending empty legal threats to website operators who are well within their fair use rights. Here is a website that documents the legal letters that are sent to website operators.

Edit:

From Fraud Aid:



An empty threat is still a threat.

:rofl:

And possibly beyond.

A cease and desist letter IS a threat. No, it isn't sticking a gun upside your head, but it is a threat of legal action to come if you don't "cease and desist".

And just because RS changed their headline, then changed it back doesn't mean that they are being somehow deceptive. I think it is more of a sign that they have a factchecker who found, like the vast numbers of posters on this thread, that a cease and desist order is indeed a threat.

Perhaps you too should employ a factchecker on this matter, since you can't seem to grasp the concept that a cease and desist order is indeed a threat. I would recomend that you call up a local copyright attorney. Or check into copyright law. Or ask a paralegal. Or ask a first year law student. Etc. Etc.

Give it a break. Please.

I'm frankly surprised they don't receive more of them, I got tired of going to their site for another one of the "breathless" exposes, to find out that it was actually a MAINSTREAM media article previously published. They do it all the time, after they get "caught" they then say that they posted the Mainstream article AFTER they'd already had the "scoop"..

I'd believe Capitol Hill Blue before I'd believe RS.

They do not employ in my opinion any journalistic standards other than sensationalism, and many sites are catching onto it - I know a lot of major progressive sites that are frankly sick of it, and I don't like being peppered with ads only to find out that the REAL LINK to the REAL SOURCE is slapped in at the bottom of "their" article.

I was so scandalized at their attack (shotgunning me with accusation and insults, desperately trying to get something to "fit" that their watchdogs here would jump on, AND claiming that I had "attack dogs" when some people agreed with me who know I'm a fairly decent guy) - on me for me bitching about their practices and how they'd given me NO Atribution for some very hard charitable work that I was on the verge of telling them to NEVER associate my site with theirs.

All I'm going to say about that one, let the flaming by the RawBots begin :)

We cannot use the same emotional button pushing tactics, and half truths, speculation that gets dismissed if found to be wrong, and then claim to be "better" or more newsworthy than the right wing or the corporate media.

And in the end, interestingly enough, they use a corporate media story to "prove" that THEY are "correct", which I find to be the biggest irony of all.

I don't have to like Raw Story, and they don't have to like me or appreciate my work, but for someone to tell me that I don't "deserve my talent" to me is simply a nutty thing to say, bizarre.

But ENJOY them by all means, WRITE for them, join the club - but don't be surprised if/when they may not be taken seriously in the future, too much of this going on at that site, just my opinion, bring on the HATE, that's how it usually comes, just like the right does, no simple disagreement, only a "scorched Earth" policy for those that REFUSE to think of RS as an actual News Organisation.

Let me add that this does not include someone name "John" there, who has been straighforward with me and solved the problem, tho I did have to post the actual Press Release sent out to everyone that included Takebackthemedia.com along with Buzzflash, and sent by Buzzflash, when even he had mentioned that he got a Press Release that didn't mention TBTM. It wasn't true, but he at least fixed the situation, so for that I appreciate him.

but by all means pile on - we desperately need more infighting on the left

that he minute someone ON THE LEFT with a Proven track record, demands accountability from someone PURPORTING to be on the Left that somehow that constitutes INFIGHTING and must be stopped at ALL COSTS, NO matter if there is a PROBLEM or not?

So If I steal someone's car and they are a liberal, then they should just "get over it" as it's infighting and we don't want to have our own circular firing squad, even tho a progressive, ME, have stolen their car?

Or their STORY? OR their WORK, and am making money from it, and complaining that the person who has gotten NO attribution is representing themselves as some sort of VICTIM?

Look, we have a DUTY to police the Left, if WE don't do it, ALL of us can be held up to ridicule and scorn.

Like some of these nuts running around thinking they have HUGE stories about Election Fraud, SMOKING GUNS that PROVE that Bush didn't win.. when that's NOT TRUE, and many people KNOW IT.

SO we're supposed to just SHUT UP and let these nuts run around making us ALL look like nuts?

How about those who think that ALL of the people on the Planes that hit the World Trade Center were CIA agents, taken OFF the planes before they hit?

Am *I* supposed to stand around and say, "Oh YEAH, sure don't want to cause a STINK and say they are FULL OF SHIT.." because *I* WANT to be associated with sensationalists, or actual Conspiracy NUTS, because they are LIBERAL..

SO it's OKAY, huh?

Personally I demand STANDARDS of Progressives and Liberals MUCH more stringent than the SCUMBAGS that run the Right Wing, and it is our DUTY to make FACTS the issue.

So anyone that wants to throw that tired cliche "More infighting on the left" at me, DON'T.. it's silly, and it's a CLICHE. Use your cognitive powers and realise thate WE have a RESPONSIBILITY to be BETTER than the right to win.

and now you are equating them with Bev and the most extreme 9/11 theorists. i have always supported you and Take Back the Media and you might ask your friend American Stranger, we have actually met and hung out together at a Palast event in NYC several years ago. I am your supporter. But I don't like to see Raw Story dragged through the mud over personal beefs, and I don't like to see you supporting this guy's exaggerated, ridiculous complaint jsut because you have a personal beef with them over credits. i think you're on the wrong path symbolman. i think you should chill out. as an impartial observer who supports both sites and is not in any way affiliated with any of them, i think you need to calm down.

I have a BEEF with Raw STory and always Have, it has Nothing to do with their not attributing my name when it was in ALL the websites and press releases, even on the Editor & Publishing website.

I have a right to have a Beef with them. I don't trust them. I don't like the way they do business. I don't like the way they talk to people, and that's not including me. I don't believe that they are the next coming of Christ like some do.

And I speak up when I see what looks to me like wrong doing, especially when Liberals and progressives are doing it.

I am welcome to my opinion as are they.

I think that many people are confusing Style over Substance, and that it's a mistake, and I am trying to alert RS to the fact that they are being taken less and less seriously by major progressive sites as I am hearing, and since they refuse to answer any emails, and attack me the minute I open My mouth I have no choice but to Disagree with their actions when I see them making Progressives look BAD.

I am agreeing with Cosmic here, I have agreed with other DU'rs who find RS's techniques repugnant, and I am seeing what I believe to be the same style of attacks against anyone who disagrees with RS as I saw with Bev Harris detractors.

Glad that you support or supported me, but I disagree with your way of handling "attacks" (questioning of RS's Motives and actions) on them - once again, I am being told to "stand down" or "shut up" in the nicest possible way if it concerns RS, and I won't.

I don't run around stalking their threads, but if someone has a beef with them as I do and says it in public, I AGREE as is my right.

Believe me I would LOVE to see them do the right thing, to pass along SCOOPS that are REAL, and not speculation, filled in later with facts, while parts of the speculation that didn't fit before disappear.

I don't see it as journalism, and in this thread I agree with Cosmic.. I've voiced my real experiences with C & D's and that of others, below, and that is that you DON'T Sensationalize it.

You SOLVE it. Privately. They may get in trouble by PUSHING it with these guys legally, and I'm actually assisting them by telling them to do what they had told Cosmic they were going to do in the first place.. to DROP IT. Deal with it other wise.

I don't trust them, and it's beyond any "beef" as people put it so crudely. I don't carry Grudges, it's not in my nature. I solve problems that I see affecting people, progressives to the best of my ability.

and that includes HONESTY.

So thanks for the advice, but no thank you. They need to clean up their act. If anyone is dragging them through the Mud, it's THEM, not me, or anyone here that disagrees with their practices.

Or are is it just kneejerk agreement because you're anti-Raw Story in general at the moment? Because the complaint in the OP is ridiculous. Are you saying you agree with any complaint against RS? You seem to be.

I don't run around stalking their threads, but if someone has a beef with them as I do and says it in public, I AGREE as is my right.

Or do you actually agree with the specific complaint in the OP?

to proving absolutely no wrong doing on the part of Raw Story for someone that appeared to say that they were taking NO SIDES in this.

I agree with the COMPLAINT of the OP about RS's TACTICS, that they are not to be trusted - but like I said, IF, and I have not looked at this volumious thead, but think someone posted that there was an actual THREAT TO SUE Raw STory (IS THAT TRUE?) then I would have to agree that Raw STory was threatened.

IF SO WHY did they take it down, and then put it back up again? WHY did they claim there was to be 26 INDICTMENTS by Fitzgerald, and the NEVER MENTION THAT AGAIN?

All related Stephanie..

I love your Precursor remark, "BECAUSE THE COMPLAINT IN THE OP IS RIDICULOUS." Stated as FACT. Sandwiched between a Knee Jerk and an Agreement that I (as a "traitor" to the progressives) somehow "agree" with some Right Winger AGAINST Raw STory..

Your line of questioning is hilarious really.

You stated that you don't understand what *I* am talking about before?

Well, you're not making a whole lot of sense right now..

"MR Symbolman, is it TRUE that you are STILL Beating Your WIFE?"


Old Trick.. you must be a paralegal.. not quite a lawyer..

NOBODY has called you a "traitor" to the progressives, certainly not I. I am asking if you actually agree with the specific complaint outlined in the OP. Apparently you do.

I really suggest you get some sleep. I'm not going to argue with you any more, not because I agree with you, but because it's pointless, and because I like and respect you.

We have heard a lot of legality about C&D letters, but we haven't heard from a JOURNALIST. So, what do journalists say about this? Should the article explain the headline? Should it elaborate on the headline? Should it verify the headline?

The interim headline, between the two "threat" headlines simply said that RS received a C&D letter. That was truthful, honest and accurate. Why did they feel a need to change back to something less accurate, less honest, and less truthful?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I got a C&D letter from a government official, because he was sorely offended by an editorial I had authored for a Native American journal. To be honest, I could appreciate that he was offended by the editorial, because it exposed this government employee as a snake. My co-workers at the journal were upset by the C&D letter, and considered it to be intimidating. I took it to one of my attorney friends and had him review it. He said, and I quote, "He's trying to threaten you. If he wants to go to court, he'll lose." I wrote back, and requested that the fellow follow through on the threat, because I felt it would create more publicity for the case we were working on. He did not.

I agree with Stephanie on this issue. I do not think Raw Story is perfect, or that any progressive media is. But I think there is a huge difference between a sincere disagreement on an issue of significance, and a crude attempt to smear them. It's about the same as the distinction between sugar and shit in my book.

and they never use sensationalist headlines.

Do you ever read/listen to Mother Jones, Greg Palast, Democracy Now, etc? The left does have good journalism.

I understand your point, and can empathize with your anger. But, that's hardly germane to the point in the OP. The OP is off base on this no matter how angry you are with Rawstory.

The Professor

and agreeing with Cosmic that THIS IS NOT Journalism, along with the rest of my statements.

Most sites (and it has happened to us at Takebackthemedia.com) when presented with a Cease and Desist, do not bandy it about like a Prize Bass.. they do NOT publicise it, for that could lead to MORE legal jeopardy.

They issue a "RETRACTION", or an "Apology" so that the rest of the journalist world can TRUST them. ANd they argue the C & S in private, between lawyers, or themselves and the injured party..

This is more like an Ex Wife outside the courthouse screaming for all to hear, "MY Ex Husband is Threatening me! Help me!" Damsel in distress.

It wouldn't have anything to do with their penchant for getting people to come to an ad riddled page on their site, to make even more money (which is also added legal jeopardy if there IS an actual injury), or to show how they "Won't back down", hanging tough, when that's exactly what you DON'T DO..

You solve this outside of the public eye, do not advertise it, and take Cosmic's fine and helpful advice, and act like JOURNALISTS.

Mixing my beef with them with the facts I was stating about the OP is disingenuous to some degree, isn't it?

. . . it sure was a bit confusing! Like i said, if you're at professional odds with them, i can understand. That stuff happens, and i'm in no position to take either side. (I don't know enough to take side, no matter who i know or don't know!)

But, i think the complaint in the OP is pretty lame, since a C&D letter is a clearly implied threat. That makes the headline semantically and legally correct.

Your beef with them is fine by me. I just couldn't square how that added weight to the Cosmic's original post.

The Professor

...not on my list of reliable media sources....and it annoys the hell out of me if they appear on the LBN page.

If the new wave liberal media wants to be taken seriously, I'd appreciate they'd lose the tabloidy headlines and stick with facts, which includes naming "sources close to the sister of the lawyer's nephew" sorta stuff.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This is not a FACT, it is YOUR belief, and even you can be wrong.

Once again, another attack against anyone who doesn't believe that Raw Story is the second coming.

Would you like to compare activism, amount of work done to fight the right? Connections in the REAL progressive world?

By what standards are you basing this?

I'm truely interested. SHow me this isn't a shameless, and baseless attack against my character and credentials Please.

I am your friend. You know that. So I will point out to you, as a friend, that the post which you call a "baseless attack" against you was, in fact, addressed to the OPer. Not towards you. I think that you are not objective in this thread, because you have an on-going disagreement with Raw Story. Your disagreement with RS has included issues that are worthy of discussion. The OP here is distinct from your concerns. It is nonsense.

cannot I NOT agree with Cosmic? Is he to be culled from the herd, chipped off to one side and dogpiled on? What he is saying is part of my ongoing disagreement with what Raw Story stands for in my opinion. I think that they are mostly sensationalistic, that they blow stories a LOT of the time, but are never held accountable for them..

He is asking them to hold themselves accountable, and I agree.

Meanwhile the fans move in and rip people who disagree to shreds with fangs and claws extended.

I won't let a person be attacked when I agree with him, his posting, his stance, and the fact that RS won't do the "right thing" on many occasions. It's not just MY BEEF, it's EVERYONE'S PROBLEM.

If RS acts as it they are a news organization and then goes about tossing journalism rules out the window, while demanding the same such from the Right, then they have NO CASE, and are dragging their happy little pals along with them.

I don't want to see it happen.. just like I don't want Drudge to be taken seriously, nor Libby who we lampooned for being a Traitor.. should I have just called him a bad guy, but since he's so low on the totem pole that it's no big deal, and NOT made a site to funnel money from his notoriety away to Progressive Causes?

I call 'em where I see them, and WE need to be Sterling CLEAN before we can attack the right while doing the same thing, as WE get hammered ten times as HARD for less infractions.

I have no beef with you, and I agree with you on probably 99% of what you say, but I do not think RS is responsible in any forme or fashion.

If they want to say the same about me or my site they are free to do so, but I will stack up Histories of who's "screwed the pooch" between them and I if it comes to that, and Prove they are not the Premier News Liberal team as claimed.

is a good thing.

About 2500 years ago, one of history's most insightful people was asked what would he do, were he to be given political power? Confuscius replied that he would insist that people use the correct meaning of words.

The C&D letter in question is, by definition, a "threat." For anyone to pretend otherwise is to attempt to substitute a "false definition" for the correct meaning of the words. A "false definition" creates confusion; when one does it in sincerity, it is ignorance; when one creates such confusion from insincerity, it is a lie. Either way, it can only serve to confuse the truth.

The people who have attempted to correct this error in the OP are not saying that Raw Story is perfect, or always correct. People can easily agree with you on some of your concerns, but recognize that they are distinct from the OP. Likewise, someone like Stephanie -- who is in my opinion one of the most intelligent and focused DUers -- can make a distinction between an imperfect media source, and an unnecessary attack on a media source that attempts to be progressive in a time when that alone opens them to malicious attacks.

A C&D letter is a "love note" in reality (and I'm being facetious here to be funny), and that it's true purpose to to stop someone from doing something.

We all know, or anyone that has gotten one, that the sphicter muscle get's very tight, sweat pops out, and you run for the phone to call your lawyers.

But anyone with experience knows that it's the LEAST of a "potential" "threat"...

It's a STOP sign. You run it, you MIGHT get a ticket. If you STOP then nearly 100% of the time it is NOT a Threat.

The truth is, it's a WARNING, not a THREAT, which is where the "sensationalistic" portion comes in.. you can't make as much money off the ad riddled pages of your site it you have as a headline, "Bad Person WARNS us to Stop doing something.." No, it has to say, "EVIL SPAWN RIGHT WINGER THREATENS Raw STORY.."

Dog bites man is not a story, Man bites DOG, IS..

A C&D is probably less dangerous than a traffic ticket in reality..

But of course if this is their first one then, gee, I guess all is forgiven.. since we got served by Michael Savage (with NO C&D, which is really a courtesy letter), we know a few things, and what really happens is someone knocks on your door, hands you a sheaf of papers and THEN you start shitting BLOOD..

We can also claim that Bush is an Imperfect Politician, but that does not keep him from the responsibility for his actions.

I still agree with Cosmic, and do not trust RS's Penchant for "breathless anticipatory dribbles of 'news'" to keep folks coming back for MORE, MORE HITS on their ads, more visitors, etc.

It's the money game as I see it, most sites that I admire work from donations, and NOT corporate sponsors, how can you claim to be APART and more HONEST than the CORPORATIONS when your site is FILLED with their ads?

I don't buy it. I respect YOU and Stephanie, but not them. and it is NOT personal, it's the Business of Progressive Politics and I have been involved in trying to keep it CLEAN for a long time. We can't accuse THEM while WE take their money.

Sorry, if you disrespect me now, or don't understand my meaning - but that's how it is, how I feel, and it won't change until they do.

I am not trying to be antagonistic. Please don't take it that way. I love your work. Have used your videos to counter right wing email. I have donated to your site. I think you have a legitimate beef with Raw.

Here, IMO you are arguing symantics though...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=warning
3 entries found for warning.
warn·ing Audio pronunciation of "warning" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wôrnng)
n.

1. An intimation, threat, or sign of impending danger or evil.
2.
1. Advice to beware.
2. Counsel to desist from a specified undesirable course of action.
3. A cautionary or deterrent example.
4. Something, such as a signal, that warns.

and of the dictionary, and the SPIRIT Of the Law, and in the spirit of the law a C&D, is a warning.. is a warning a "threat"? You can warn someone NOT to touch the toaster, but the toaster is not really THREATENING THEM..

These guys are telling them to STOP. Instead they decide to POST that they are being THREATENED.

SOmetimes what you asked for becomes true.. the letter is one of the most basic of all legal papers.. it says STOP THAT.. does it say , OR WE WILL SUE YOU INTO THE STONE AGE?

I forget.. someone posted it here.. did they THREATEN TO SUE THEM?

If they did then I will agree with you that it can be considered a threat.

But that's not what the OP was about.. he asked them to do something entirely different, they said, "SURE" according to what he said, and THEN changed their minds.

It's the "changing of their minds" that bothers me the most.. that seems to happen a lot over there.. one day it's 26 Indictments, the next day, that was NEVER SAID..

THIS is what bothers me. you never know what they are going to say next, and so many people seem to LEAN on these guys, and I don't know why.. I've never seen them print a retraction, say they are wrong on their site, to even admit on the DU that they screwed up the story, it was sheer conjecture..

Instead they actually BLAMED THE DU ONCE for BELIEVING THEM.. I have it, the thread is AMAZING..

Be glad to post it at some point..

but yes, if they THREATENED to sue them, then sure it was a threat..

Doesn't make me like RS's techniques any better..

Thanks for your support.. I don't have time for this, I'll just sit back and watch them do their business. Knowing what I know it will be very interesting. And for anyone's information that's interested, I DO NOT discuss Raw Story other than when I've had my rows with them on the DU. I DO NOT mention them in any emails or correspondance with any other persons. Sometimes I get emails sent to me from progressives and that's why I actually come here to WARN them that they'd better get a better story to speculation ratio going, and soon..

thanks for setting me straight..

I have been the target of a C&D letter from a government employee years ago. The attorney who advised me called it a "threat."

Although we disagree on this issue, I continue to agree with 99.9% of the opinions you express on DU.

they are not just "correcting" Cosmic, they are calling him names, questioning his sanity, comparing his OPINION (which is he allowed is he not) to a CRUSADE - the vitrol spewed at those who do not appreciate the tactics used by RS is VILE, and calculated to destroy his credibility and integrity, and is INSULTING.

I could make a laundry list of the more than SNARKY remarks, personal attacks on character made against people who simply DISAGREE.

Is that remotely FAIR?

That's all I'm asking. IF he had said that Takebackthemedia.com is NOT to be trusted and people were abusing him, *I* would personally tell them to STOP talking to him that way, ignore him if you don't agree - let the thread DROP, whatever.

But this is like being hounded by a pack of pitbulls.

How many people have been used as writers on RS, or do some of these people have some sort of Vested interest? The passion to destroy people who disagree is one of my MAIN problems with all of this..

I'm trying to make my claims as straightforward as possible, but when I make an innocent remark like I'm tired, having been up all night, I'm practically accused of not being of sound mind. This is ridiculous and savage.

YOU do not stoop to these levels and that's why I appreciate you.

You are an honorable person in my eyes -- plus you have an outrageous sense of humor. I think that even vigorous debate is a healthy thing for DU .... and hope that everyone attempts to keep things on an honorable level, which tends to require keeping a sense of humor.

That said, I think that it is worth noting that the majority of people view a C&D letter to be a threat. It's not a death threat. It's not the KKK burning a cross on one's lawn. But it is, and is intended to be, notification that one could be sued in a court of law. You note that you have experienced such a threat from a weasal; likewise, I had a threat from a government employee who was pissed that I wrote the truth, and exposed a large lie that he was participating in.

In the situation between some at Raw Story and yourself, there are other disagreements. It may be that they could be resolved; it may be that they run too deeply to consider attempting a resolution, at least now. But either way, it is obvious that there is a potential for a disagreement between individuals to become larger, and uglier, and divisive. And it can reach a point where people here are less able to recognize that although, for example, H2O Man may be "wrong" on 5% of something or another, that does not make me -- or you, or the folks from Raw Story -- wrong on the other 95%.

One thing that is important .... at least it is important to me .... is that even when we disagree with others, that we not make blanket judgements .... and I think that is, in large part, what you are saying. Just as we cannot do without lively discussions and heated debate, we do not have the luxury of being self-destructive. Yes, it is an option, but we will lose the opportunities that today offers .... and today, Raw Story and other sources are offering valuable information on the Plame case, including things that progressive folks won't find in the corporate media. And because of that, I can say without any chance of being wrong that there will be dishonorable efforts to discredit progressive news sources. That is what likely makes people a little suspicious, not of you, but of the OP's focus on discrediting RS for word useage that was correct.

And that is all I want to say on this dark and dreary subject.

That used to be the catch phrase of my generation. Judging from some of the replies here, that concept seems to be dead. If you question authority you must have an agenda, you must be on a crusade, you must be a fruitcake of some sort. One of the biggest problems with the republicans is that they accept everything * says without question. I hope the Left can do better, but I don't have a lot of faith in that outcome.

It is not our responsibility to question whether the Apollo astronauts really landed on the moon, nor should we waste energy quibbling over whether or not their bare feet actually touched the lunar surface.

We know the administration has said it is going after sources giving away secrets to journalists. Any organ that has claimed to have sources in the White House or other places could find itself looking at an aggressive govt. pursuit.

they don't have as many "inside" people as they claim, it's becoming more clear to a lot of progressive sites, and I'm hearing about it..

When I have not "attacked" them, which sometimes I'm NOT when I give them suggestions, but it's called that anyway - I am trying to give them advice, so they can get their reputation back in order, or clean it up a bit..

But between some of their minions and the Name I Dare Not Utter, I and other's are ruthlessly assaulted with spurious claims that defy logic, have nothing to do with our statements, and once again, the catch all claim is the "fighting amongst themselves will ruin the whole liberal movement.." which is code for , "HEY YOU SHUT UP.."

I admit that I'm not the best in the deportment department, but once I've been slimed I'm pretty much pissed off enough to tell whatever truths I know, some of which are self evident.

once again RS never has to explain their actions and only apologise under duress. Amazing to me actually. Except for John there, he DID apologise and I to HIM.

that is merely an opinion, and not one I've spent a ton of time forming

you'd use such an incredibly flimsy and lame charge as this. There's nothing wrong with their headline.

RS has been sent an email alerting them to this thread. If they want to publish the threat letter, this would be a good place to do it.

if i were them i wouldn't have anything to do with you and your bogus agenda

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider a cease and desist letter as a legal threat. Writing to ask someone to stop doing something isn't worth the paper is written on without the threat, directly promised or implied, of further legal action behind it.

As for this nonsense about a copyright, the only way that could possibly apply is if Rawstory themselves stole the letter. If they received the letter from someone who was meant to receive it, then it was the recipient's personal property, who was free to do with it as they pleased. I consider the C&D to be not only a threat, but a bogus one.

:headbang:
rocknation

One of the FINEST Legal ROCKING MINDS in the country let alone the DU :)

Be careful RockNation.. if you are seen to close to me you may be accused of being one of my "attack dogs" :)

I'm not kidding, and that's the funny/sad part

there, now they went and made me cry..

thanks for clearing that up..

Hyping headlines and not following up in the body of the story. I believe that this is dishonest journalism. Since I have observed this behavior before,I thought it was worth pointing out the pattern.

Why doesn't the story tell us what the threat was or explain how a C&D letter is threatening. The whole threat business is a red herring, it is propaganda not news.

are the ones behind the C&D letter.

:headbang:
rocknation

substantive like when RS claimed that articles in the NYT and NY Daily News (IIRC) "confirmed" their reports that Hannah and Wurmser had turned state's evidence. The articles cited did no such thing as one could see since RS had linked to them.

I thought it was rather egregious to claim confirmation of their "scoops" by other media when there was no such confirmation. When RS posted a thread and asked for specific examples of inaccurate reporting, I mentioned that. As I recall I got no response and the article with its claim of "confirmation" was not corrected. Here's the post/thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5229763&mesg_id=5231662

I think that issue was substantive and egregious. In contrast, arguing whether or not a C&D may be regarded as a "threat," either implied or explicit, is IMO a bit silly by comparison. Clearly YMMV.

...such that it is.

If you don't like Raw Story, quit reading them, and quit complaining about them on this site.

with me to begin with. I got sick of their teaser headlines that never really led to anything. Raw Story is a site to avoid if interested in fair and honest journalism.

court for harassment. It's the first step and often is all that's required to, as my attorney said, "put the fear of the courts" into a person.

I feel that your perception and the perception of my attorney of this action are not the same. It is a threat of further legal action if they don't stop what they're doing, thus the wording.

I have no problem with those that don't care for Raw Story, to each their own and all of that. Personally, I stopped reading it because the page takes too long for me to load. However, this argument you presented in an attempt to discredit them isn't based on facts, but rather just your mistaken perception of a legal term.

The OP is mistaken. Period.

to not be true.

On the other hand, if you want to see sources that are almost always dubious, check out Wayne Madsen or Capital Hill Blue.

If you have something to say, don't be coy or beat around the bush. Just come out and say what's on your mind. (grin)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

as "George W. Bush" is to "Adolf Hitler" :evilgrin:

YMMV

Steven P. :kick: