advertisement

TODAY'S QUESTION: Should Missouri decriminalize the sale of yellow margarine?

Sunday, December 27, 2009 | 12:01 a.m. CST

Currently it is illegal to sell yellow margarine in Missouri.

Though the state no longer enforces laws that restrict the sale of imitation butter, the penalties could still make those who sell illegal dairy products spend up to a month in jail and pay a $100 fine for first-time offenders, and the punishment for repeat offenders is six months in jail and a $500 fine, according to a 2008 Associated Press report.

The law was likely put into practice to protect Missouri’s dairy industry from imitation butter in the early 20th century, according to the Missouri Department of Agriculture.

Technically this means the Missouri Department of Agriculture reserves the right to prosecute any person who violates the law as it exists today. Walmart, Gerbes and Hy-Vee are actually committing crimes by purchasing these items and putting them on their shelves.

For the second year in a row, State Rep. Sara Lampe announced plans to repeal the law.

While it seemingly makes sense to remove a law that is not being actively enforced, is the amount of time and resources that will go into repealing a virtually innocuous law worth the effort?

Should Missouri decriminalize the sale of yellow margarine?

 


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

John Schultz December 28, 2009 | 8:30 p.m.

Whatever you do, don't ask Chuck Dudley what he thinks of margarine.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking December 29, 2009 | 8:42 a.m.

Psst - Hey Man, you wanna buy some good $#!+? Blue Bonnet! The two pound tub! Just got a new shipment in!

It's a bit unnerving to know I've been a criminal since I got here. I use margarine for certain cooking (stir frying things like broccoli and cauliflower) that I prefer not to use butter or oil for.

If the law isn't being enforced, get rid of it.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ayn Rand December 29, 2009 | 10:04 a.m.

John, what happened to Chuck? His profile is gone. Did he get banned here, too?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 29, 2009 | 11:59 a.m.

He got the ban-hammer for something he said, I don't recall what exactly.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 29, 2009 | 12:46 p.m.

Didn't you and Chuck start your own forum?

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance December 29, 2009 | 1:49 p.m.

Comment sections are least readable now

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 29, 2009 | 2:15 p.m.

Chuck had his forum standing by, but there were some people not comfortable posting there (I never registered an account, for instance) so Rick Gurley set one up:

http://www.cfsbb.com/phpBB3/index.php

(Report Comment)
Eric Cox December 29, 2009 | 3:01 p.m.

The law is the law, I don't support the states arbitrary enforcement.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 29, 2009 | 3:07 p.m.

Rick Gurley, who set this up?

(URL removed by Missourian editor)

That person started a forum that you belong to? Wow. Just wow.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 29, 2009 | 4:45 p.m.

Oh Mike, you and Rick should go have a beer and discuss things.

(Report Comment)
Clara Allen December 29, 2009 | 5:45 p.m.

Yeah Mike. Lunch even.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 29, 2009 | 8:01 p.m.

Ha ha ha. Not interested.

But more interesting to me is what an odd suggestion that is, especially coming from you, John Schultz.

You've interviewed me on the radio a couple of times (filling in for Gary Nolan) and I've sent candidates to your Libertarian forums over the years. I've always had a high regard for you and your beliefs, which I see as first and foremost, standing up for the little guy (and gal).

You represent a political party -- the Libertarian Party -- that's often the first to speak out for basic freedoms.

The first to say "NO WAY" to rich and powerful folks who conspire to take land without due compensation or circumvent other important human rights and dignities.

But then you suggest that I "have a beer and discuss things" -- what things, I can't imagine -- with a guy who's essentially cyber-stalking a young woman at the Columbia Tribune -- and whom you know has also cyber-stalked my family and me.

This young woman at the Trib is not the powerful publisher, but a worker bee doing a job she probably has to do lest she not pay her rent, buy her food, pay for health insurance, or any of the rest.

For doing her job, Rick has posted her personal information, credit information, driving record, home address, parents' names, even a picture of where she lives, lacing virtually every word with a creeping, discomforting menace.

He's punctuated each blog post with a crudely-sexualized pose of an angry tough guy grabbing his crotch, while advertising that he's actively "digging through this young woman's life" and "combing through her most personal information" while "looking forward to some real 'juicy' stuff after Christmas," all in an apparent attempt to humiliate or harm her, given his many references to her "inadequacies" and "low self esteem."

And here you sit, as the local representative of the Libertarian Party, basically laughing at all this, and dragging it over to Rick's forum so everyone else can laugh at it too:

http://www.cfsbb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.ph...

You did this same kind of thing when I was running the Beat Board, which I shut down over this kind of garbage.

Your condoning behavior puzzled me then, and it puzzles me now.

Why is it okay for Rick Gurley to invade this woman's personal privacy, using his credentials as a private investigator to dig into her personal life, all apparently to frighten or scare her?

If the Kraig Kahler mess should have taught us one thing, it's that this sort of harassment can easily go too far. It's borderline illegal IMHO, and I'm surprised Blogger tolerates it.

That said, doing it to me is one thing. But this young lady?

What did she do to deserve this and why is it apparently okay with you?

(Report Comment)
Maria Oropallo December 29, 2009 | 11:12 p.m.

@Columbia Heartbeat - not sure why you are dragging up what might or might not have taken place elsewhere. But I recall that several of us from your old board had the same issue with something similar done at the Beat Board. And several of us invited you to a sit down so we could discuss it openly.

Back to topic. The law is senseless, unenforcible and out of touch with the general public's wishes. The problem is that changing the law requires too much effort that could be directed elsewhere, so some laws, like many of the so called "Blue Laws" are left on the books to be resurrected on slow news days.

The answer is to institute a process by which changing these outdated laws without going through the legislative rigamaroll that seems to delight underlings in Jeff City.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 29, 2009 | 11:13 p.m.

Let's construct a little back story for those not familiar with it.

You banned Rick from your forum due to some of his posts. That's your right, it's your forum and you can accept whom you want and boot out those you don't want participating. Most of the active forum users were not happy with that action, thought it was heavy-handed, and posted as such on your forum. There was talk by some about moving en masse to Chuck's existing forum. You closed your forum down and apparently don't want to meet with some of the former forum members who wanted to discuss the whole mess with you. And that is why I posted the link to this story over at Rick's forum (and mentioned having a beer in a previous comment), because some of those forum members who have migrated over there still wonder why Mike Martin didn't want to talk with them about the closure of his forum.

I don't think I've ever said that what Rick posted about Ginger Lopez or you was OK. Frankly, I don't care what Rick does in his spare time as he long as he doesn't cause harm to another person or their property (one of the key tenets of libertarianism), but I'm not condoning the behavior either. Rick should be discussing this with Jim Robertson or Hank instead of dumping on Ginger, who I presume is doing as instructed. Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, so Rick is the one who has to answer why he thinks posting information about Ginger Lopez counters his claims that the Tribune is not the bastion of free speech that it claims to be (due to her moderation of their user comments and her possible banning of his user account I think).

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 30, 2009 | 9:31 a.m.

No John, the Beat Board forum users I heard from -- many of whom had stopped posting -- were not happy with what they considered threatening, abusive, and ill-advised language -- both on the site and in other arenas, most of it coming from people who had been banned at other forums for similar abuse.

Taking it too lightly and even egging it on myself, the cyber-stalking garbage became the final straw after I was warned about its potential consequences -- and the liability for abetting it by letting it slide -- by people I know and trust.

That was why I shut down the Beat Board. It had become, on too many levels, a forum of voyeurs watching abusers on the excuse that every utterance -- no matter how crass or intimidating -- was "free speech."

On a more important note, I'd urge you to spend some quality time on Libertarian business.

Your website -- which is the top Google hit for the term "Boone County Libertarian Party" -- hasn't been updated for three years:

http://boone.lpmo.org/press/press.html
http://boone.lpmo.org/press/2007/PR-2007...

and makes a terrible first impression on visitors:

http://boone.lpmo.org

I know -- candidates and others I've referred to you over the years have told me so.

As a result of inaction on the part of local party leaders, Boone County Libertarians fail to get traction at precisely the time we need a reasonable third party alternative.

Candidates and causes near and dear to Libertarian hearts need you, John Schultz, to step up with time, money, and support to have a fighting chance in Boone County, which as you well know has been plagued in recent years from power grabs at nearly all levels.

Arguing on the Internet with Chuck Dudley about anti-margarine laws for days on end or parsing the actions of a cyber-stalker won't get Libertarians elected, nor will it move your organization forward in any meaningful way.

You can be angry at me all you want for shutting down a private forum with no explanation to a group of bad actors, which I would do again in a Columbia Heart Beat.

But more importantly, I'm not the face of a nationally-known political party in this community.

You are.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 30, 2009 | 11:02 a.m.

Well Mike, if you are volunteering to help spiff up the website or put me in contact with a volunteer to do so, I'm all ears. We who have been in the Libertarian Party for a few years, especially in Missouri, have started asking people who say "the party should do X" if they are willing to do that job or pay for someone to do it. There seem to be far too many people (and not just Libertarians) who want "something done, right now" but by someone else and at no cost to them.

I had someone who volunteered to jazz up the website about a year ago. I liked most of what they did with a couple small additions needed, but never heard back from them. The fact is the site serves basically as a placeholder I can direct people to for more information about our monthly lunch meeting and to sign up for the email list. If someone wants to know more about libertarian philosophy, I have links to the state and national sites, as well as a few other good resources for further reading. Frankly, a pretty website is not high on my list of outreach activities.

A whopping FOUR active Libertarians and a thousand dollars in donated funds postponed the smoking ban by over a year and nearly defeated it, even when outfunded and outmanned by our government-employed foes. Members of the Missouri Libertarian Party, including myself, helped collect signatures for the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights petitions to end eminent domain abuse. And I'll do it again when the courts throw out the petty lawsuit that the Missouri Municipal League has filed to delay their new petitioning efforts. I've been the sole person to raise concerns about red light cameras the three times it has been before the city council. I donate money monthly to the state and national parties, as well as Missouri and local candidates who I think deserve it. So don't tell me I need to donate time and money to promote my candidates or beliefs, I think my track record speaks for itself.

(Report Comment)
Rob Weir December 30, 2009 | 3:56 p.m.

Hey, all: I removed the URL in Mike Martin's post that points to the blog about Ginger. I think what several commentors are saying also reflects my view -- while Mr. Gurley's blog certainly legal, it's creepy at best. I just don't want our site driving traffic to it.

Rob Weir
Director of Digital Development
The Columbia Missourian
weirr@missouri.edu

(Report Comment)
Jason Entermyer December 30, 2009 | 4:15 p.m.

I don't miss Chuck, but at least he wasn't long winded!

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 30, 2009 | 5:42 p.m.

@John Schultz:

How long have the Boone County Libertarians been around?

You're telling me you need "volunteer" help to fix up a website that you could do yourself using Blogger or Word Press and your current URL? Nonsense. It's just laziness to leave it in that deplorable condition, nothing else.

And if a "pretty website isn't high on your list of outreach activities," what is? Websites are a major first impression builder. And you've clearly got some smart, young, motivated souls, like Liz and Steve (last names redacted).

What are you doing to attract more people like that? Arguing with Chuck Dudley?

And let's look at this. "A whopping FOUR active Libertarians and a thousand dollars in donated funds postponed the smoking ban by over a year and NEARLY defeated it..."

Sorry, John, but "nearly" doesn't cut it in politics.

"Members of the Missouri Libertarian Party, including myself, helped collect signatures for the Missouri Citizens for Property Rights petitions to end eminent domain abuse."

That effort has gone where, pray tell? And other than a timid question to a council candidate, I didn't see you do Jack P. Squat when it came to the Bengals-History Museum fiasco. NEXT!

"So don't tell me I need to donate time and money to promote my candidates or beliefs, I think my track record speaks for itself."

Echoes of Harry Reid. If your Libertarian candidates are using this kind of unapologetic, blame-the-critic rhetoric on the campaign trail, no wonder none are getting elected.

You have no one running for city council; no one running for county commission; no one running for school board (two of which are non-partisan, but regardless, no one of a Libertarian stripe stepping up).

Have you bothered to interview ANY of the current council or mayoral candidates? If not, why not? Sid and Jerry have been running for months.

Outside of arguing with Chuck Dudley almost hourly -- and defending cyber-stalker rights -- just what ARE you doing with your time?

(Report Comment)
Carlos Sanchez December 30, 2009 | 7:26 p.m.

@Columbia Heartbeat your blog is not hand coded by you nor on your own server you lease so why are you on John about his gimpy site? Wouldn't it be laziness to not hand code your own site or blog?

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance December 30, 2009 | 8:26 p.m.

@Carlos,

No, Columbia Heartbeat didn't hand code his site. Actually not having to hand code the site seems to have puzzled Mr. Martin on why the Libertarians haven't updated their website.
@ Columbia Heartbeat
If I reminder correctly, the Boone County Libertarians elected a libertarian to school board in the 90's. His name was Kevin Goodwin I believe. Also wasn't that teacher that ran for 2nd ward council of libertarian persuasion?

Libertarians will not do what it takes to become a viable party. That takes knocking on their neighbor's doors and targeting a winnable race. Instead they have their monthly meetings and talk about how wonderful that nearly 18 years of party recognition in the state, they haven't elected not one person to the state legislature. Libertarian won't win eating at steakhouses and complain about big government. Martin is right, get off your arses and be activists

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 30, 2009 | 8:51 p.m.

Gee Mike, if sure seems awful weird of you to bash on a lil ol' county party website. It is what it is and serves its purpose. It may not be pretty, but in case you haven't noticed, Libertarians are about ideals and principles, not glitz and glamour. I've had another recent contact who might spruce it up a bit, but it's not a priority. I had a ping at our lunch meeting a couple months ago from another potential volunteer who might redesign it a bit, but it's not intended to be a content site. If you are sending people my way and think they won't like the website, you can give them my number or email address - I'll be sure to wow them out of their socks.

So nearly doesn't cut it, eh? I guess Bob Pund, Candi Iveson, and Barb Bishop, whose campaigns you contributed to, should have never filed for candidacy? Should Sid have not run for county commissioner against a well-established incumbent? Should you have never filed for school board?

Regarding Bengal's, I talked with the owners at least twice in person and did some research with a couple knowledgeable resources on potential actions they might take. I spoke against the city's ordinance before the council (I believe this was the meeting it was tabled). I also spoke with Jerry Wade at his "office hours" the Saturday before as you might recall since you were there, as was Jack Rader.

We may have a couple Libertarian candidates or somewhat-libertarian candidates running in the April elections, but I'm not going to out them yet as I'm not sure they're decided. I don't need to interview Jerry and Sid as I know where they lean. I've spoken to a couple other candidates and found them a bit more to my liking, but I'm a single person. After Chris Janku's flip-flop on the smoking ban post-election, I'm a bit hesitant to endorse local candidates again and Libertarian Party bylaws also present party members from endorsing members of another party in partisan races.

I'll tell you what I haven't been doing lately, and that's altering words that people submit to a citizen journalist. Is that the trick to get things done?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 30, 2009 | 9:06 p.m.

Tim, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you've never been to one of our lunch meetings (which seem to accomplish about as much as a Muleskinners meeting) and have no idea what we discuss or believe. You seem to flat-out hate Libertarians and a free-market/personal responsibility philosophy based on previous comments, so that's not a real surprise. Toodles!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 31, 2009 | 1:56 a.m.

Rob Weir December 30, 2009 | 3:56 p.m.
Hey, all: I removed the URL in Mike Martin's post that points to the blog about Ginger. I think what several commentors are saying also reflects my view -- while Mr. Gurley's blog certainly legal, it's creepy at best. I just don't want our site driving traffic to it.

Rob Weir
Director of Digital Development
The Columbia Missourian
weirr@missouri.edu
----------------------------------------------------------

My blogs Mr. Weir are an experiment and a demonstration. I must say that Mike's comment drove over 20 people to my blog..

I wanted to take a look at the reaction that people like you would have, who print whatever they want to print in their media vehicle; when someone like me prints something that is COMPLETELY LEGAL in MY media vehicle. It would seem that your right to free speech and a free press is just that, while my right to free speech and a free press is "creepy"? Is this correct Mr. Weir?

Rick.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley December 31, 2009 | 3:05 a.m.

Okay, I have read this back and forth banter, and I feel like I am entitled to defend myself here..

Mike Martin falsely accused a local man here in Columbia of murdering one of his colleagues. Now, Mike made an attempt to be discrete about it, but key members of his forum, and a neighbor of this man that Mike accused of murder knew who Mike was accusing of this terrible crime. In Mike Martin's attempt to play "Magnum P.I." in the press, he caused a citizen of Columbia some discomfort, with no proof and no regard for this man's presumption of innocence; and he did so simply to satisfy his ego. So, I DID in fact show Mike how it feels to be a victim of this type of "media muckraking", and I don't really care how Mike feels about it.

Mike wants you to believe that he is concerned for Ginger Lopez, but how can a man that would accuse another man of murder in the press and proudly proclaim that he solved this murder with no proof or regard for the person he is accusing without proof, be concerned about anyone other than himself? He can't; he is completely too arrogant to be concerned with anyone else other than himself. His "defense" of Ginger Lopez is simply a selfish ploy to try to get back at me for showing him how it feels to be a victim of his brand of
irresponsible “muckraking”.

Ginger Lopez is NOT following orders from Hank and Jim. What she is doing is dispensing her own brand of censorship on the forum there at the Columbia Tribune. And she has banned MANY people because she PERSONALLY did not like what they had to post. That is an abuse of authority. In everything we do in life, there are reactions. One can’t abuse their authority over a mass of people and expect there to be no negative reaction for doing so. It is not even reasonable to believe that having public records about one's self posted on the Internet is even distressful. We see this all of the time, all over the Internet, everyday. A reasonable person knows that in modern times, our public records are already accessible on the Internet by the public.

Any information you see on my blog, is information that is publicly available to ANYONE on the Internet. There were no special credentials used to get it. It is all a matter of public record. It is all freely accessible to anyone that wants it. And it is anyone's right to post records that are deemed as public records. There is NO “stalking” involved in my blog posts. If that were the case, then the Columbia Tribune would be stalking every arrestee that they list an age and address for in their Arrests and Summons section.

What is happening here is a person that is abusing her authority is getting a taste of how it feels to not be able to exert control over a publication about herself.

Rick.

(Report Comment)
Maria Oropallo December 31, 2009 | 8:00 a.m.

In the past two months, I have personally talked to two individuals who were quoted in articles on The Columbia Heart Beat blog. They each denied saying what was quoted and were angry enough to want to speak out. One did by commenting on the blog itself. The other met with folks from Rick's forum and strongly denied the statements were made as quoted - that person even brought the email exchanges between self and Martin to prove it.

I'm new enough to Columbia not to know that many people. And I've met two who are quite upset at their names/words being misrepresented. But I remind them and others, that Columbia Heart Beat is not journalism - it's a blog. Someone's opinion expressed in an public format.

The murder case that Rick refers to was a sticking point for many people on the old Beat Board. If nothing else the case, if it is ever prosecuted by authorities, might be negatively affected by the affects of the Heart Beat Blog.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin December 31, 2009 | 11:44 a.m.

@John Schultz:

So you're telling me that you've had not one, but several recent offers to help spruce up your Party website and that you've basically blown them off?

Wow. Just wow.

But it's far from just your website that's problematic for a party struggling to get its voice, at precisely the time such a voice is most in demand, as our two major parties are collapsing in on the weight of their own corruption, and threatening to pull the rest of us down with them.

According to your website, you haven't done one press release since what -- 2007?

Not one. Why not? Nothing to say? How can that be?

I realize you spoke to a couple of people and the city council about the Bengals-Museum eminent domain mess, but wasn't that just you?

Politicians respond to pressure in numbers.

The local Libertarian party, under your leadership, should have been on that downtown eminent domain mess like stink on a monkey, issuing press releases and other media edicts that would make clear how seriously Libertarians take all that stuff.

You should have had every Libertarian in town stand UP at that city council meeting you addressed, followed by interview after interview on local TV and radio stations about just how seriously you take this abuse of power.

Every year, you should put out written candidate surveys, and host at least one candidate forum.

You have a strong voice in Gary Nolan, but sadly, don't seem to really have an idea what to do with him (maybe he doesn't want to be involved -- I don't know).

And like I said earlier, you have some marvelously bright, motivated young talent in town now -- people who understand the power of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media that I don't see the local Libertarian party using much.

I agree with Tim Dance. Libertarians won't win eating at steakhouses, complaining about big government -- and blowing off volunteer help.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz December 31, 2009 | 2:12 p.m.

Mike, I said no such thing about ignoring volunteer help! I had one person who did a partial redesign, but never finished it and never responded to my emails. I have had another person express some interest in a redesign but he has not committed to anything solid yet. Just for you, I'll ping him again and see if he is still interested.

In case you haven't noticed, declared Libertarians are a small minority. I think the few of us who are active in Columbia do what we can. Do I wish that more people would help out? Darn straight, but I can't force people to fight for liberty. Nor can I make people contact their city council member or show up at those meetings when I send information about local issues to our email list. I'm hoping to get some traction (using those folks you mentioned) regarding the downtown camera ordinance, but it's too soon to tell how active everyone else will be or can be.

To address a couple of your specific issues:

Press releases - I don't send them out routinely. There have been one or two sent out in the past year, but I think those were event-specific (one I can think of off the top of my head is the candidate forum/fundraiser that was held for LP vice-presidential candidate Wayne Root). Usually I don't copy press releases that don't have a long-term value or remove them after the event.

Gary Nolan - Gary does a good job spreading the word, but he's not the party spokesman. I think he is also limited to some degree in just how much he can expound (the Eagle is not an instrument of the party either). One thing I wish he did a bit more is mention the local party, I'll drop him an email about that.

Candidate forums/survey - I'm not convinced that another forum in addition to the League of Women Voters, the Chamber of Commerce, the NAACP, etc. would be advantageous. I could be mistaken about that though. As for surveys, do the local Dems and Reps do such a thing? I can usually get a pretty good feel for a candidate's stance via the local media's stories and how "libertarian" they might or might not be.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin January 1, 2010 | 10:11 a.m.

@Maria Oropallo:

As I thought you knew, I became concerned about the cyber-bullying that was taking flight from the forum I moderated -- the Beat Board -- via Rick Gurley, who apparently used to live in North Carolina.

He continued it in earnest after I terminated his account, as was the case with Ms. Lopez at the Tribune. Because the forum was self-moderated via a Wiki-style system, his was the only account I ever terminated.

After I received information (below, plus some Casenet criminal links) and complaints from other forum members -- about threatening and intimidating exchanges I was not previously aware of -- I immediately closed the Beat Board.

Since then, you have alternated between publicly complaining about me -- and inviting me to lunch with, of all people, Mr. Gurley.

Though I thought I made clear what was going on -- to you, John Schultz, and several others -- I hope you'll consider this a final explanation, and that you and John won't continue to badger me about having lunch, beers, etc. with Mr. Gurley, well-intended though you may be.

2 get jail terms in bail-bond cases

LILLINGTON, N.C. -- Two men described by state officials as "self-imposed bounty hunters" were sentenced to jail last week after guilty verdicts in Harnett County District Court.

Ricky Brian Gurley of Kinston and Frederick L. Malinofski II of Goldsboro were sentenced on Sept. 17, according to the state Department of Insurance.

Gurley was convicted of operating as a bail bondsman without being properly licensed by the Department of Insurance.

He was sentenced to 20 days in prison. The time is to be served once Gurley completes a 120-day sentence he is serving for his conviction Sept. 11 in Martin County Superior Court on charges of felonious restraint and unlicensed bail bond activity.

Malinofski was convicted of unlicensed bail bond activity, assault by pointing a gun, and breaking and entering. He was sentenced to 60 days in prison.

http://www.google.com/profiles/100310377...

North Carolina Offender Search
http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/offe...

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 1, 2010 | 11:30 a.m.

And this should be a further sign of what a TERRIBLE "Self-Proclaimed Journalist" Mike Martin is; actually he is a "blogger", but should more aptly be called a "babbler". There is no sign of fact checking in his articles. It is just his opinions layed out as if to be facts. Not even qualified with a statement that this is his opinion.

What Maria was trying to say to you, Mike is that you are an "arrogant, vindictive, bitter person" that has no concept of what News or Journalism is despite the fact you call yourself a "Political Journalist" or an "Investigative Reporter". She's just not quite as blunt as I am about it.

Everyone here knows about my background, Mike. It is no secret, you can find it on Google, You can actually find more detailed information about my criminal history on UseNet than you can anywhere else on the net. No big deal there.

Where you got sideways with everyone is when you outright LIED about what people said to you when you quoted them on your blog. You outright LIBLED a member of this community by accusing him of murdering one of his own colleagues. And you arrogantly proclaimed this to be true, and you attacked the people that called you on the lies that you used when you "quoted" them on your blog.

Your the worst kind of person out of everyone on this forum, Mike. You have to fuel your ego despite who you might damage in the public by doing so, even if you have to LIE to do it.

The reason that Maria invited you to talk with me face to face is that she wanted to hear me tell you to your face everything that I told you on your blog. I have not posted or written anything here that I can't tell you to your face, Mike.

At least with my blogs, they are fact checked, the information is as accurate as the public record information quoted on them is, the commentary is clearly my own opinion, and I am not outright LYING about the people I blog about. You'll lie and cause people damage and discomfort just so you can make the public believe that you discovered something that nobody else has.

I see you still have not denied my submission that you falsely accused a member of our community of murder on your blog? I see you don't deny that Kay Callison clearly called you out of intentionally misquoting her on your blog? I wish the citizen that you accused of murdering his colleague would chime in here and let the members of this forum know just what you had the nerve to accuse him of. But, unlike you I am smart enough not to post any information that might cause your posts to further discomfort him. By the way thanks for the hits on Ginger's blog, MIke. LMAO. If Mr. Weir (A REAL JOUNALIST) were not here to clean up your ignorant blunders on this forum, you would be complaining about my blog on Ginger, and then helping me to promote this same blog you are complaining right now; by posting a link to my blog. Talk about INORANT!

Rick.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 1, 2010 | 11:42 a.m.

Mike Martin - "after I received information (below, plus some Casenet criminal links) and complaints from other forum members -- about threatening and intimidating exchanges I was not previously aware of -- I immediately closed the Beat Board."
------------------------------------------------------------

This is funny.. Mike Matin closed his forum after he told everyone that a member of his board felt threatened by me. Then he later found out that the member he was referring to was a good friend of mine, and she met with other members of his forum in the Boone County Public Library and shared the email exchange between Mike Martin and herself, and complained that Mike Martin was outright LYING about his communications with her.

Remember this quote from Maria's earlier post: "The other met with folks from Rick's forum and strongly denied the statements were made as quoted - that person even brought the email exchanges between self and Martin to prove it."

Maria was one of the people that met with this lady at the Boone County Public Library and heard this lady complain about how Mike Martin was outright LYING to his forum members about her saying that she felt threatened by me. This lady showed us all the email exchanges between Mike and herself.

So what happened was, Mike Martin shut his forum down AFTER he actually got caught LYING to his formum members about communications between him and another forum member. He shut his board down IN SHAME! This man should have ZERO credibility with the readership here.

And Mike, we can rehash this right here if you want to do that?

Rick.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz January 1, 2010 | 1:04 p.m.

Mike, I can understand you not wanting to have a beer with Rick now, but I and other posters in your forum thought it odd that you never made it to one of the several lunches we scheduled via the forum. None of us agree on everything, but every lunch was cordial and entertaining, even those with Chuck and I both in attendance if anyone can believe that.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz January 1, 2010 | 1:55 p.m.

And Mike, I do want to thank you for setting up and running the forum for the time you chose to offer that service.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 1, 2010 | 2:40 p.m.

John, I know I could have kept what I have to say to Mike civil. I just don't think he could have handled it and kept the conversation civil.

I mean, all of what I have to say to Mike is certainly "harsh" and unpleasant. But it does not mean that I can't say it in a civil tone and in a respectful way. That is something that I have to do all of the time in my nline of work.

The reason that Mike did not want to confront me, was because I had already laid all of the ground work that proved he was lying to his forum members. I had already had meetings with several of the board members, and with one of the person's that Mike Martin had lied to the forum members about his communications with.

If Mike Martin really felt like he was wrongly accused of lying to his forum members, or libeling one of our community members, he would have shown up to confront me over this. Heck! We would have been in a public place, it's not like we were going to have a "boxing match" over this. Nope, he could have spoke his mind, and said what he had to say and I would have certainly done the same, and let the members that were there draw their own conclusions. But, Mike knew that most of the members that would be present had already caught him in a lie. That is why he never showed up.

Make no mistake, Mike Martin should be thanked for his forum. I think we were all grateful for that forum. I just don't think many people liked Mike Martin using that forum for his own personal agenda. But even that was tolerable, until he falsely accused a member of that forum of murdering one of his own colleagues. And at that point in time, I think it is fair to say that any decent person would take exception to that. That is when this whole thing went "sideways". And I think that was the one, singular event that got me as frustrated with Mike Martin as I still am.

Mike does not want to have to confront the issue that he falsely accused a member of our community of murder, all to make it appear that he solved a 3 year old murder case that Law Enforcement has not even closed yet; not with all of the people he would have had to confront over that. Mike does not want to have to confront the fact that he lied to his forum members by intentionally misquoting what one of his forum members conveyed to him in an email communication; not with as many people that would be there and know that he lied to them. Mike did not want to be shamed by having to confront these issues in public, in front of people that know who he is. THAT IS WHY MIKE DID NOT WANT TO GET FACE TO FACE WITH ME!

Rick.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin January 1, 2010 | 3:28 p.m.

Thanks John Schultz.

Because the Beat Board was essentially self-moderated, I didn't check in as often as I maybe should have, nor did I follow the lunch meetings much -- wasn't trying to slight anyone or blow anybody off -- I just didn't really follow when they were occurring.

Knowing now that many were not clear why I shut it down, I figured I owed you the courtesy of a full explanation.
I had explained all this privately to about 12 people -- including those who were complaining to me -- but did not include all, thinking that word would circulate. At least here, anyone else who didn't know does now.

Though I'm out of the forum business, I do have a whole new empathy for moderators at the Trib and Missourian, who work hard to make these online communities function. I thought I could do it better, but I was wrong. In any event, it was a good learning experience that I mostly enjoyed.

Anyway, enough of hijacking this Missourian thread to rehash ancient history. Happy New Year!

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 20, 2011 | 10:17 p.m.

I did not know the full extent of the Beatboard closing until now, reading this. In the meantime this was all happening with the Beatboard being shut down, I was dealing with identity theft of my name on Topix and some libelous statements made there about me, as well as threats made to me. I was stalked on that site, as well as a picture of my home put on it. Some days I posted on the Beatboard, and some days I did not - but there was a problem with a certain hostility on it that would have diverted others away from it - and that hostility had nothing to do with Mr. Martin. I believe he was most sincere in offering a forum for all Columbia citizens to participate - not just a niche group. He never commented to me about any of it, in any way - just allowed posting by any and all that wished to do so. A little after the Beatboard officially closed, I learned of it in a round-about way. I appreciated Mr. Martin's writings, and the opportunity to register and post on the Beatboard. I did have (and still do have) the highest respect for him and his writings. I apologize for just now getting a chance to read this, and to state this observation - and I would like to also add that anyone can read the statements of Mr. Shultz (here or elsewhere) and see that he is a man who is reasonable and can be counted on to be fair and objective in any comment he makes. Chuck Dudley - I have no problem with, either. Whatever reactions anyone else has had with any of these people I have mentioned, has not affected (nor changed) the respect and vote of confidence I hold for each of them. I can observe there is a general respect from the community of Columbia for these I have mentioned, and I second that respect observance, as well as hold that view from my seeing what they have placed in print in Columbia forums/blogs. -Delcia Crockett

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 21, 2011 | 7:53 a.m.

Correction: Inadvertently misspelled Mr. Schultz's name.

I apologize for the error.

Rest, STET.

: )

(Report Comment)
Delcia Crockett June 21, 2011 | 12:19 p.m.

Meant to include DK in comment of those held in high respect.

: )

Sorry about the omission.

Have a great day, folks!

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements