Due to the recent flurry of emails being sent to private email addresses with regards to the Midnight In Chicago blog site and initiative, this page has been added as of October 12, 2011 to address questions from readers and visitors. As with comments to blog articles, the Posting Policy is to be adhered to on this page as well.
Using any email address to contact the MIC initiative cannot be construed as having contacted the MIC initiative. We thank our readers in advance for their cooperation.
October 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM
Under any other condition I wouldn’t come here, however I thought to simply tell you. I have removed my blogs that mention you specifically from my blog listings. Yes, that means deleted. I cannot control where ever else they appear and the reasons for doing so are my own. If I have missed any specific mentions in my blogroll I will delete them upon finding them. This is only intended to inform, nothing else. I do not expect the same from you, nor shall I ask. I could care less. Again, this is ONLY to inform you that blogs specifically about your initiative have been removed or deleted by my own choice. Imagine it what you will (my reasons are my own and I will not share them with you). I will not contact you on the matter again.
October 16, 2011 at 5:57 PM
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO acknowledges Dave Wilde’s comments to this blog with regards to removal from blog listings on his blogs.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO cannot confirm that Dave Wilde has indeed done what he claims to have done.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO accepts Dave Wilde’s comments at face value.
October 18, 2011 at 10:56 AM
Oh fine, I know you’re more than resourceful enough to do this yourself but: Google search “Wildemans Words” followed by “Midnight in Chicago” or “MIC” or “Elyse Bruce” and scroll down through the results. When you see the blogs (and you know them) click on the links so you can see the words that say the page on my blog “no longer exists”. The fact you claim you can’t do this; (confirm that Dave Wilde has indeed done what he claims to have done) when you’ve more than demonstrated you can is hilarious. No matter. You now have all you need on the matter. I don’t know how to remove from search engines, but honestly only people who go specifically searching in the manner above will ever find those listings. Then they will find nothing else. Deleting those entries cannot be undone and if it were a matter of permissions it would say so (and not say “does not exist”). Now I really am done, proof provided. Good bye.
October 18, 2011 at 2:10 PM
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO acknowledges this comment by Dave Wilde (David J. Wilde, thewildeman2, DJ Wilde).
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO corrects Dave Wilde’s comment that alleges MIC stated MIC did not have the ability to verify comments made by Dave Wilde in his previous comment to this page.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO confirms that on February 2, 2010 at 8:15 PM Dave Wilde stated that at the time he wrote in over 30 blogs and had over 8,000 readers.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO confirms that MIC has never known the names of the 30 blogs in which Dave Wilde writes, either under his own name or under any number of pseudonyms Dave Wilde may have had at the time.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO further confirms that on February 2, 2010 at 8:15 PM Dave Wilde did not state how many of those 30 blogs are owned/co-owned and authored/co-authored by Dave Wilde under his name or any number of pseudonyms Dave Wilde may have had at the time.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO asserts that MIC cannot confirm that Dave Wilde has indeed done what he claims to have done.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO asserts that MIC accepts Dave Wilde’s comments at face value.
January 2, 2012 at 2:59 AM
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO confirms that on October 16, 2011, David Wilde aka DJ Wilde aka Dave Wilde aka David J. Wilde aka thewildeman2 aka Wildeman’s Words posted that he had deleted the defamatory blog entries he wrote about the MIC initiative as well as about Elyse Bruce.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO confirms that the blog entries in question, along with comments, were still available with comments intact on David Wilde’s Facebook page in the NOTES section in December 2011.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO is not in a position to offer an explanation as to how Mr. Wilde, the author of the defamatory blog entries in question, could overlook the fact that the aforementioned blog entries he had written and which he claimed were deleted, were still available to the public via his Facebook page.
MIDNIGHT IN CHICAGO confirms that when Mr. Wilde wrote “this is ONLY to inform you that blogs specifically about your initiative have been removed or deleted by my own choice” Mr. Wilde was not forthcoming with the facts as they pertained to the MIC initiative and the defamatory blog entries written by Mr. Wilde.
February 27, 2012 at 9:10 AM
“If I have missed any specific mentions in my blogroll I will delete them upon finding them.” I hadn’t looked at or taken any note of my “notes” section since around February 2010. Since you have a friend “watching” you can confirm that easily. All anyone had to do was point it out and I would have deleted it immediately as I just quoted myself above. Now they are deleted.
I am not interested in speaking with you or about you. The fact that you can’t find anything more positive to do is not my problem.
I have written and am writing now, “leave me alone” and instruct your followers to do the same. I consider their attacks in your name to be directly influenced by you (whether you deny it in any fashion or not). You do not, nor have you ever had permission to post any aspect of my personal life in your blogs (the fact that the items can be “accessed” publicly is not an excuse and there has been damages), especially in the defamatory manner you yourself have used. That goes hand in hand with allowing your “commentors” to make derogatory and demeaning posts that violate your own posted rules. And no, I will not tell you what the implied damages are. You do not have my permission to use my name, quotes, or any other works in your blogs. If you do and continue to do so and leave such for the public to access in your blog, named of your “initiative”, you and your initiative will be considered directly responsible.
As for “not being forthcoming with information”; I am not legally obliged to give you any information at all. The fact that I chose to inform you that I deleted anything was little more than a courtesy. I didn’t have to tell you word one about it. It’s too bad that you and your initiative can’t be professional enough to do the same. If all you can do is gossip about others, I can’t see how you really help anyone. I digress, it’s not my problem.
I repeat, leave me alone and instruct your followers to do the same.
March 11, 2012 at 5:25 PM
Public figures and limited purpose public figures – which is what the courts would consider you to be, Mr. Wilde — cannot sue for defamation, libel, slander, etc., unless there is proof that the writer or publisher knowingly published false information about said public figure or showed reckless disregard for the truth.
In case you are unfamiliar with the term “limited purpose public figure” it refers to someone such as yourself who has placed himself in a recognizable position with regards to particular public controversy or controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issue or issues involved. A person can also become a “limited purpose public figure” by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. Such is the case with your advocacy with regards to autism spectrum disorders, bipolar disease and your position in 2010 as the lead advocate for the Carole Reynolds situation.
It may interest you to know that a person can also become an “involuntary public figure” as the result of publicity. Whether that person wanted or invited public attention is immaterial. To illustrate this situation, an “involuntary public figure” would be someone who was accused of a high profile crime and subsequently acquitted of said crime. In such a situation, the person may find himself or herself unable to pursue actions for defamation even if they have proven their innocence after charges were laid.
Fair comments are permissible and not actionable in accordance with the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Posting to online message boards, and articles and comments on blogs are also allowed as fair comments. To illustrate this, you may wish to acquaint yourself with Colt v Freedom Communications, Inc.
April 13, 2012 at 7:09 PM
“You do not, nor have you ever had permission to post any aspect of my personal life in your blogs (the fact that the items can be “accessed” publicly is not an excuse and there has been damages), especially in the defamatory manner you yourself have used. That goes hand in hand with allowing your “commentors” to make derogatory and demeaning posts that violate your own posted rules. And no, I will not tell you what the implied damages are. You do not have my permission to use my name, quotes, or any other works in your blogs. If you do and continue to do so and leave such for the public to access in your blog, named of your “initiative”, you and your initiative will be considered directly responsible.”
Wow!
And this is said AFTER you take down posts on your blogs about Ms. Bruce and her initiative in which you do all of the above without her permission, including letting your “commentators” post derogatory and demeaning posts about Elyse and MIC that violate your own posting rules.
Let it rest, please. The world has moved on. Meanwhile. Let’s applaud Elyse, Thomas, and the guest bloggers here for putting up such interesting posts!
And BTW, how is old Zakh doing? Just curious. The donors should know, don’t you think?
October 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Dear MIC. Would you be interested in creating a new Autistic organisation made for our benefit? We should take the reins of power if we cannot trust those with it.
October 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM
MIC believes that education and awareness are powerful tools that allow individuals and families to make informed decisions.
MIC is interested, however, in asking you why you are suggesting the creation of a new autistic organization when there are already a number of established organizations whose primary focus is autism spectrum disorders?