Sam's Mediterranean/Politics

 InfoInfo TalkTalk
Search:    

Controversy

Sam's Mediterranean may have given free food and drink (or prepaid/tab style food and drink with access to the kitchen) in the Spring of 2002 to some members of the 'Free Palestine' group, a group that (according to Paul Lanzi1) has publicly called for the destruction of the Israeli state during protests on UC Davis campus. The allegation of giving free food/drink was denied by supposed Sam's 2002 employee, Talina Marian (in the discussion below), citing her eye witness account.

This may not necessarily constitute financial support or approval, as Sam is known to give some (usually repeat) customers some leeway if they find themselves short on cash. In this case he generally accepts an IOU or gives out a free meal. Others have also pointed out that Jewish/Israeli groups have been given similar services, so the connections trying to be made are rather questionable.

Keep in mind that it is an unproven allegation (and would be difficult to prove), but ethical buying is important to some people, from free trade coffee to gyms with CEOs that fund anti-abortion groups. On the gripping hand... mmmmm... baklava...

Discussion

Comments:

Note: You must be logged in to add comments

2005-07-08 09:34:06   First of all, I don't think that the Controversy section above is relavant. The only "Occupation" I care about is having one of Sam's spicy chicken shawarmas occupy by belly! The food there is excellent and the staff is friendly. 5 Stars and 2 thumbs up! —JustinLing

2005-08-30 22:40:33   Why delete the whole section? I think there are some folks who do care to know about such controversies regarding a local establishment as it may determine whether they will do business with them in the future. That said, I do think that a reliable source for that information should be provided. —IrenePark

2005-08-30 22:57:57   I edited it. The contoversy is false. I've know him for 4 years and worked there when he needed extra help. He doesn't give finacial support to any group on campus, period. Its sad someone would make that statement without confirming it. Ask Sam! —XavierMoralez

2005-08-30 23:04:57   I witnessed this happening and I'm the one that originally added the comment to this page in the Wiki. I stand by my statement, and if you are of a political slant, you should know that Sam's financially supported and hosted meetings of the "Free Palestine" group on campus in the spring of 2002. This group publically called for the destruction of the Israeli state. I personally witnessed a group of 10-15 individuals, all wearing black t-shirts with "Free Palestine" written in white block print chant "death to Israel" for approximately half an hour on the quad in the spring of 2002. Then, approximately an hour later, I saw many of the same individuals (still wearing the t-shirts) holding a strategy meeting inside of Sam's while not eating food. Several of the people wearing the shirts went behind the counter and into the kitchen area on seperate occasions and emerged with food and drink for the people at the table. Presumably, either they had the blessing of the management or were stealing. —PaulLanzi

2005-08-30 23:26:29   What? 1. How many groups have meetings at Sams? LOTS. 2. Do you know sam? NO. 3. I wonder what your political slant is? (iam not muslim). 4. Sam knows a lot of people and yes I've seen the "Free Palestine" group there as well as Israeli/Jewish people there who go into the back as well, and talk to Sam. 5. Sam is generous to everyone, he always leaves politics out of the resturaunt. 6. You have'nt talked to him, for you to say something that would hurt is business or his reputation is unfair. Does sam control what people say or wear, NO. 8. Your saying a very politically charged statement about a man you don't know, never talked to, saw something in THE SPRING OF 2002!, yeah right. —XavierMoralez

2005-08-30 23:30:26   It doesn't matter whether the person knows Sam himself or not, but what a person has witnessed at the place of business. It's not like it was witness at Sam's house. Seeing a group of people going behind the counter and helping themselves does appear to be tacit approval or support of the group, whomever they may be. What Sam does and should control is who is behind the counter, who is allowed access to appear a part of the establishment. At the very least, it is very poor business judgment to allow that sort of behavior, regardless of how long ago it was, considering management hasn't, I believe, changed. —IrenePark

2005-08-30 23:37:37   Xavier — you didn't actually manage to refute anything I said. I saw what I saw, and I will never eat at Sam's again. I have put information as to what I personally witnessed onto this wiki page, and people can make their own judgements based on what they know of my veracity as to the truth and legitimacy of those statements. —PaulLanzi

2005-08-31 01:09:06   I've worked at Sam's since Spring '02.I remember that rally and I remember a lot of people from the "free palestine" group came to the restaurant that day.Paul, I believe you when you say you saw protesters that day at sams.Some bought some food,many didn't.However,you should know that we did not provide free food or drinks to anyone that day.Only family and employees get free stuff.Also, we don't contribute any financial assistance to any group on campus.I'm sorry what you saw that day offended you and gave you a bad impression of us.If you never want to come to Sams again that is your right.However, I'd like to make clear that making the statement,sams "financially supports" and "hosts" meetings for any specific group is false.Many groups do come to the restaurant,but we cannot control their opinions or ask them to leave because of their views(freedom of speech).That being said,please concentrate on our cooking rather than badgering each other. —TalinaMarian

2005-08-31 02:14:02   Sams does not hold meetings for any group! That means your accusation is OUT THE WINDOW. You are'nt sam and you down work there. I've seen meetings held at sams from all types of groups, some would not buy a damn thing. I lost you were you tried to connect what CUSTOMERS DID ON THERE OWN TIME with the views of sams establishment. Sam has never kicked anyone out for what there shirt or mouth said. You said, "Xavier you didn't really refute anything I said", really, I would say you have'nt supported your accussations on anything but assumptions. What did you really see? Your trying to connect what a certian group did to sams. Was sam or his employee's there chanting let alone see it. NO, THEY WERE WORKING! —XavierMoralez

2005-08-31 02:26:18   um, while Sam's may not have purposely held a meeting, Paul did witness "several of the people wearing the shirts went behind the counter and into the kitchen area on seperate occasions and emerged with food and drink for the people at the table." And since Talina stated that "Only family and employees get free stuff," it casts Sam's (the establishment) in a negative light. If people connected to the protest group were allowed access to the kitchen area, one assumes they are connected to the establishment, imho. —IrenePark

2005-08-31 02:26:38   It seems you a computer science major like me, so lets look at this logically. Whats your connection, That they got free food. Were they chanting when they go it? Then you write CONTROVERSY in h1, sams supports the destruction of Israel, basically. What??? Iam done, You dont know sam, you've never worked there. —XavierMoralez

2005-08-31 02:30:31   Uggghhh, Does Free palestine spell destruction of israel, not the last time i checked. Sorry your agrument does'nt hold water, You see what you want to see. Go talk to sam, see how peacefull a man hes is. —XavierMoralez

2005-08-31 02:30:44   Paul isn't the one who wrote "controversy" in h1, check the Info for this page, he just added what he saw in the comments. Someone else on the wiki make it a "controversy" section. Knowing Sam or working there has little to do with refuting someone's eye-witness accounts. Sam may be a wonderful person, but he also may have allowed people connected to the protest group to have kitchen access which is what makes the establishment look bad. Anyhow, we should all sleep on it. Good night! —IrenePark

2005-08-31 09:30:43   They let people into their kitchen? I'm shocked! Shocked I say! No doubt this means they support the complete destruction of Israel, of course! That is the only reasonable conclusion to make. —JesseSingh

2005-08-31 10:28:18   I'm one of those weird people who figures everyone has a right to their own opinion, and until they actually DO something about that opinion, I won't pass moral judgment on them. That said, I don't think allowing a regular customer, family member, or employee behind the counter is grounds to pass any kind of judgment except hygiene/safety. No matter what outfit they're wearing. My dad and I are regulars at several establishments back at home, and the owners (even if they disagree with my dad on some points) trust him specifically to go fix his own coffee or grab a croissant... I figure unless it's actually affecting YOUR food and YOUR service, the owners have the right to make their own decisions. —CindySperry

2005-08-31 11:41:11   The owner of Sudwerks donates to the Republican Party, whose President HAS destroyed states. The owner of curves supports anti-abortion groups. The owner of the Cantina supports Tsunami relief. The owner of Delta Venus supports, well that'd be a long list....you know I once heard Charles Manson attended Whole Earth..... —JimSchwab

2005-08-31 13:40:39   I've allowed white separatists into my home, but that definitely doesn't mean I support their beliefs. And I actually like to believe that one of them is married to a Jew today in some part because of the relationship we forged as neighbors. —AlphaDog

2005-08-31 14:52:55   I have the feeling that it's useless to continue, but I imagine that if, for example, some right-wing conservative pro-life protesters with inflamatory photos of brutalized fetuses and with ties to an organization that advocated violence against "baby-killer" doctors and nurses were to march over to Delta of Venus after a typical pro-life demonstration and then said protesters were witnessed helping themselves to goods behind the counter and having free access to the kitchen and such, that this would probably cause at least some of the liberal leftist hippies to question their patronage of Delta even though the owner himself might not to hold these same views as the protestors he gave more to than regular customers. And of course, not everyone would agree with them for having or expressing the opinion that allowing free rein to such people constitutes tacit approval of the group’s opinions, but such judgment is up to the individual and should be allowed public expression, no? Discussion is always good. —IrenePark

2005-08-31 16:22:05   Discussion is a good thing but this is the second time on this site that rumors and speculation have driven the discussion (the first being the Sigma Chi discussions). This article quite blatantly tries to tie Sam to "the destruction of a the Israeli state" through complete heresay. I can just as easily say Baskin Robbins supports eating babies because I saw a baby eater get free samples. And we can have a big discussion about why I'm an idiot but in the end my idle speculation may have cost them some business. —JesseSingh

2005-08-31 21:59:52   Uh, dumb question, but how about somebody ask him what his position is? —JabberWokky

2005-08-31 22:11:05   I imagine it'd be along the lines of "None of your business" or "Buy something or get out" :p —JesseSingh

2005-08-31 22:24:00   One time when I though I could use my ATM and I couldn't Sam gave me my meal for free, later when I went back to repay him he told me to forget about it. I work for various causes, by him "financially supporting" me does not mean he supports my causes. This seems to be guilt by association. —JimSchwab

2005-08-31 22:31:00   I don't know Sam, but having just eaten there for the first time the other day, I will say that I witnessed two members of the EMT going into the kitchen, talking to someone (presumably Sam) and leaving with food. Sam is apparently in cahoots with the Emergency Medical people, who are notoriously and vocally anti-death. —JackWalther

2005-08-31 23:02:42   Sam's son is an EMT, so that was likely him or one of his friends —CraigBrozinsky

2005-09-01 00:20:44   Look, it's not idle speculation. It's not rumor or hearsay, either. It's an eyewitness account — namely, mine. And to the point above about the Davis Public Library — it's a *public* library. Sam's is a *private* business. There is an enormous difference, legally speaking, between the two. I don't care that he let them into his place of business. I object to his financially supporting a group, whose politics I find disgusting, by giving them free food and drink. —PaulLanzi

2005-09-01 01:18:01   Again, guilt by association. As we have seen from other "eye witnesse" or "first hand accounts" many other people have been given free food and drink from Sam. Do you know why they were given food? How do you know the food was free? YOu are assuming that because they protested and because they wore the shirts is the reason they received the treatment they did. That is not a logical connection. You do not know the entire situation and to label Sam as someone who supports the destruction of Israel is premature. You call it an eye witness account. I call it memory. Memory is biased. —JimSchwab

2005-09-01 02:14:14   You can't even believe what you see half the time either. I couldn't care one way or the other where Sam stands on Israel or Palestine. Like Justin said at the beginning, I only care about have his food occupy my belly. I just think it's misleading to use the term "financially supporting". He runs a falafel shop, he may have given them free falafels. Equating a restauraneur giving free food to "financially supporting" may be technically true, but it's purposely manipulative. It makes him and his business sound sinister, which may have been your intent. It's only when a person reads the comments do they see this is a big hooplah over small potatoes (or, I guess, small bak lavas). I think I will reword the "controversy" to something that is more factual and less manipulative. —JesseSingh

2005-09-01 04:58:30   Controversy: A debate or dispute on a matter of opinion; a discussion of contrary opinions (from the OED)

So what /do/ you believe then, if not what you have just seen with your own eyes? Do we now discount all eye-witness reports ever made? Of course not. But yes, each person needs to determine for him or herself whether to believe another individual's account. Personally, I do not believe Paul is lying about what he saw, and I believe those who know him would also vouch for his honesty. But I don't expect you to believe me or him. I do, however, have the expectation of allowing others to read all the comments as-is and let them determine for themselves if it's just a "big hooplah."

And perhaps you personally may believe in a separation of food and state (as someone else put it ;) ), but why should you expect others to feel the same way when you next admit that this "may be technically true" in your own words. You admit that something is technically true but then accuse that same truth of being both misleading and manipulative, which I find to be contradictory. Doesn't truth lead us closer to the heart of the matter and not further away?

All this, in my opinion, is reason enough that this be allowed public debate. For you, small potatoes. Fine. For others, a bigger issue. Also fine. —IrenePark

2005-09-01 08:58:00   RE the phrase "technically true"... I believe the author of that comment was trying to point out that the letter of the law is often distinct from the spirit of the law [the law part not really being relevant in this conversation]. IMHO it's most always preferable to stand by the spirit rather than the letter. —AlphaDog

2005-09-01 10:12:02   JackWalther's comment had me laughing :) If some of you are really so concerned about it, wouldn't it be best to simply ask him his political views? If you choose to boycott it for political reasons (potentially free food years ago to some few members of a group you disagree with), a lot can be resolved by simply asking and knowing for sure. —ES

2005-09-01 10:31:46   Again, could somebody just ask him and solve this all? The worst case scenerio is that he simply declines to make a public position. —JabberWokky

2005-09-01 11:33:08   I believe Paul saw what he said he saw. I just think the original wording of this "controversy" was misleading. Rather than say that he saw a restauranteur possibly give them free food, he said that they "financially supported" a group from which members called for the destruction of Israel. It makes Sam's sound like the friggin' Hamas, without even mentioning what they actually did. Only when people pressed did he explain that this "financial support" came in the form of "possibly free frood". This is quite clearly being manipulative. As for whether or not this is controversial, I suppose it's a person's personal opinion. Most people who commented on this find it irrelevant. But to each their own. —JesseSingh

2005-09-01 11:42:50   I do agree with you that the phrase "financially supported" needed a concrete example for other readers to form their own opinions, which is why I asked him (outside of the wiki) to clarify what he witnessed. I do not think it was intentionally manipulative but rather, unintentionally ambiguous. That's my personal opinion of course. Neither do I believe that any sort of "majority rule" on the Internet, as suggested by your second to last sentence. ;) —IrenePark

2005-09-01 19:00:02   Your "eyewitnesse account" has a bunch of holes in it. You mention in your original account, "if you have a political slant." Does your political slant and bias colour what you see. Irene, it seems you were no there. So the only person who has this "evidence" that sam supports the destruction of Israel is Paul alone, whatever. I've been to house, eaten dinner at his table with his family, talked to him about the situation there. You on the other hand has never even spoken to him. When the protesters entered sams, did he know what they did that day? You don't even know if they got free food. Did you enter Sams first? Were they already there? I don't care what conspiracy you make up, if your gonna make accusations you better provide SOME DAMN PROOF. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-01 19:05:50   "Finacially supported" ,YEAH RIGHT! Did you even listen to us, Myself and Talina already told you sams does not FINANCIALLY SUPPORT ANY DAMN GROUP. We have worked there and know sam, so, are you calling us liars? All thats left of your "eyewitnesse account" is that they POSSIBLY got free food. Do you know the protesters or sam, do you know there relationship? is there one? Does sam know how they protested or there more controversial beliefs? —XavierMoralez

2005-09-01 22:37:40   I'm also an eyewitness to that day..I worked the friggin' cashier!!I gave no one free food.At sams, we have daily specials that come with free sodas, and all sodas have free refills. Paul probably witnessed this and mistook it as the whole meal came free.Also, that day it was only me and one person in the kitchen.When we are so busy it's hard to wait tables, so customers will come to the counter, sometimes the kitchen, and get their order.This may also explain what Paul saw.We are a small business, there's no way we can give that many people free food.It's financial suidide.Anyone with some business experience can tell you that. —TalinaMarian

2005-09-01 22:43:51   I think that this whole discussion goes to demonstrate how easy it is for something to get blown out of proportion. Hopefully the wiki can continue to be a common venue for clearing up these sort of issues. —JasonAller

2005-09-01 23:04:44   The wiki is, was and will always be a place for people to post the factual information they have, primarily about Davis and the institutions therein. I have factual information in the form of an eyewitness account. I have not changed the substance of that account, ever, and I stand by all my statements. I think it's laudable that Sam has given free food to people without cash and from the times I ate there before Spring of 02, the food was decent. That doesn't change the fact that I strongly object to the goals of the Free Palestine movement (namely, the destruction of the Israeli state) and I will not give my money to any business that lends financial support to their cause. I witnessed Sam's doing precisely that, and hence, I will not spend my money there- which is my right. In addition, I am doing a service to other users of the Wiki by providing them access to my eyewitness account. People draw their own conclusions from the data presented. THAT is the true power of the wiki. —PaulLanzi

2005-09-01 23:13:47   So it seems to boil down to whether you believe giving free food to members of a protest group (according to one person's account) in a negative or negligible light. Which, of course, is up to your personal opinion. Have a nice day! —IrenePark

2005-09-01 23:17:01   Is the 'Free Palestine' group different than Students For Justice In Palestine? Are there other similar groups on campus? —JasonAller

2005-09-01 23:25:52   As I noted in the change log for this page, SJP is the not the same as Free Palestine. —PaulLanzi

2005-09-01 23:28:30   I have a question Paul. You said "I think it's laudable that Sam has given free food to people without cash." Couldn't this have simply been the similar thing, without any political or social motivations? I've seen Sam do the same thing, he's a nice guy. Should he have purposefully discriminated (not the proper context for this word but still) against them due to their stance and offered them less then he'd offer any normal customer? Jim was given free food once, and he's a pretty active man on campus, but I wouldn't say Sam was "financially supporting" any of his numerous causes. I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion too, especially with loaded words. —ES

2005-09-01 23:49:07   Edwin, you're going to have to draw your own conclusions about my statements. If a group of 10-15 people, all wearing identical shirts and actively discussing strategy for a given campaign receiving free food and drinks is not a statement of support in your book, fine. It is in my book. BTW, your first amendement rights protect you from government interference. They do not give you protection from private enterprises, by and large. That's why you can be fired for, for instance, defaming your (private industry) employer. —PaulLanzi

2005-09-02 00:06:23   I never said you changed your account, I should have said 1st post instead of original. There is a problem, specifically you using the term financially support. You have no evidence. Your accusing a very generous man of supporting violence against a certian group of people. If you knew him at all, you would know your accusations are false. Your eyewitness account leaves a lot to be desired. By your own account sam has no connection to the protest. So everything those protesters did had nothing to do with sams. So they wore "Free Palestine" shirts into sams, so what. "Free Palenstine" means different thing to different people. The "Free Palestine" group use to hold meetings at cafe romas and miskas too, maybe you should accuse them of supporting the destruction of Israel. Iam sure they got free sugar with their coffee. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 13:24:39   Just called, and the phone rang for a bit with no answer. I'll call again in a little while. I'm going to give the man the respect of asking him directly. —JabberWokky

2005-09-02 13:34:59   Since your calling him anyways, I should tell you he already knows about pauls accusations. Talina is working there later today. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 14:04:52   Just called again. The question of how he feels about the Palenstinian movement is still up in the air, but I'd say that I have verified that they don't answer the phone often. ;) I'll call again in 30 to 60 minutes, should be in the restaurant's dead hours. —JabberWokky

2005-09-02 14:10:00   Doese anyone else feel the absurdity of calling someone to ask their political beliefs? Why are we targeting this guy? There are plenty of business owners which support controversial causes. Maybe the wiki should start calling all of them and putting their political thoughts on here. This is ridiculous. —JimSchwab

2005-09-02 14:14:36   If it's something you care enough about, why not? There's a lot out there about the CEO of Curves, for example. And a lot of Linux and Mac users specifically do not use Microsoft products for similar (not political but business ethical) reasons. It's up to the individual to decide if these are issues that he or she cares enough about to express. If Delta of Venus hired a vocal member of the KKK or Aryan Nations, I'd think at least some people would want to know about it. —IrenePark

2005-09-02 14:21:10   Yes it is absurd, It never should have gone this far. If paul was objective there would never have been any accusations. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 14:26:44   If JabberWokky calls sam and sam will obviously deny pauls accustaions. Are the two of you gonna stop? Will paul apologize? For some reason I doubt it. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 14:33:41   Its funny what you said Irene. Maybe Paul should have talked to sam in the first place before accusing him. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 14:41:04   Calls for objectivity are almost impossible to comply with since it usually means agreeing with another person's subjective opinion. I have no idea what would make Paul not have these opinions of his. As for me: I support his right to have and express these opinions as a private citizen regarding a place of business. I also support your right, Xavier, to think he's completely wrong and also for you to think that being associated with "Free Palestine" is not necessarily a bad thing, since it is, as you put it, different things to different people. If someone walked into Mishka's during the Townhall Meeting with Michael Moore and walked out in disgust without discussing it with Sinisa, I support their right to no longer buy coffee at that cafe and even to express their opinion about it on the internet. —IrenePark

2005-09-02 14:42:59   Well, then we will have to start asking ALL the owners of ALL the businesses their beliefs, who they associate with, who they might have bought dinner. The CEO of Cruves DONATES money to specific groups. Sam gave food to a group with a cause. Did he give them free food? We don't know, we have two witnesses with two different versions of the same story. Did he give them money? No. Did he say "die Israel"? No. We should all put on our brown shirts and go around making sure no one associates with people we don't like. —JimSchwab

2005-09-02 14:48:20   Jim, you can call up all the businesses you want with all the questions about your particulare concerns and issues if you care to. You can draw up a list of which places you will no longer do business with. You can keep those opinions to yourself or not. You can also decide which eye-witness account to believe. :) —IrenePark

2005-09-02 15:06:40   Will do —JimSchwab

2005-09-02 15:21:22   Niether one of you have awnsered any of my questions. A simple yes or no will do. Your example proves my point again. his "eyewitnesse" account does not prove sam supports the destruction of Israel, period. You know what he saw, not what he thinks. He formed a subjective opinion. And then he goes on to make accusations. Iam, sorry, I was under the impression accusations needed to be backed up with proof(you know evidence). So if someone called me a wife beater on the internet their opinion is as equal as mine. If he's going to make accusations on a local website with lots of traffic, I think(you know my opinion) he should have more objective proof. Considering the accusations can effect his business and lively hood. You know, he has kids and a wife to feed. He sould have said, i think sam supports the destruction of Israel, not sam supports the destruction of Israel. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 15:26:20   I'm not sure what question you are asking me specifically. Please go back over my statements and rephrase your question because I am unable to find it. —IrenePark

2005-09-02 15:51:56   I asked a lot of questions, maybe they sounded too rhetorical. I hate writing in this little rectangle. I hate to put sam on the spot, Iam not ever sure if he will want to respond(To him dealing with paul and his accusations is a complete waste of time). anyways, since someone is calling him: If sam denies Pauls accusations are the two of you gonna stop? Will paul recant his accusation? I guess their questions more for paul. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 15:58:29   I'm not going to stop supporting someone's right to express his or her opinion or decision to no longer do business with that establishment in a public forum. That's the only thing I can see of your questions that pertains to me. I am not Paul, so I obviously do not speak for or represent him in any manner. —IrenePark

2005-09-02 16:24:11   Its not an opionion he's making, its an accusation. If he does'nt want to do business with sams based on his opinion, fine. His accusation effects sam, his business, and his personnal reputation. Not to metion pissing off his friends. You've basically brought this discussion down an idea that its two OPPOSING OPINIONS. If its Pauls opinion, he should put I THINK before every accusation. You can't have it both ways. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 16:30:18   I think requiring everyone to preface each statement with "I think" is futile. I think Paul stated what he saw and then, I think, he formed an opinion on that. He then, I think, decided that maybe someone else out there would like to know what he saw, so he shared his opinion and his account. I think it's commendable that Sam and Sam's both have good friends. I think. P.S. I think I hate typing in these little boxes, too. Look, I think we share the same opinion about something! yay! P.P.S. I think I will not be able to be on the wiki so much over the weekend. I think I won't be missed. Have a good and safe Labor Day weekend. —IrenePark

2005-09-02 16:30:59   By the way, I don't have a problem with people discussing opinions either. There is a big difference between "i think" and "is". —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 16:35:06   no its not futile. I think Xavier is a wife beater. Xavier is a wife beater. Sam supports the destruction of Israel. I think sam supports the destruction of Israel. I think everyone who posted has this same problem with pauls account. People are looking at what he observerd and notice one cannot make the logical conlcusion that sam supports the destruction of Israel. Hence its Pauls opinion based on what he saw, not FACT. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 16:39:30   *sigh* —IrenePark

2005-09-02 17:06:07   *uggh* —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 17:09:54   I noticed iv'e resorted to making noises. Iam done. If sam gives me a response, i will post it. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-02 23:08:51   As a follow up, I had a delightful distraction this evening (I'm on the East Coast, 3 hours ahead) and never got a chance to call again. Xavier, what is the best time to catch him? I'll call again tomorrow. —JabberWokky

2005-09-03 13:22:24   Where to begin... To Jim's point, there are an almost unlimited number of groups out there that I wouldn't care about businesses supporting. A group that supports the violent destruction of innocent people is not amongst the groups that I'm OK with businesses supporting. I will not spend my money at any business I witness, or have it from on good authority, supporting such a group. You can spend your money there — I don't care. You can even give your money directly to such a group — I don't care. It is your decision to make and I respect your right to self-determination. In return, I ask that you respect mine. —PaulLanzi

2005-09-03 13:29:33   To as much of a point as I can assemble from Xavier's writing... I think you need to look up the word 'objective'. I witnessed an event and I reported on exactly what I saw with my eyes and heard with my ears. That is an objective eyewitness account. It would be admissable in a court of law. Newspapers use objective eyewitness accounts every day — go read about what's happening in NOLA and when you read that people are shooting at the helicopters, that's not a subjective opinion — that's an objective fact, as transmitted by someone's objective eyewitness account. That said, my decision not to support a business that supports Free Palestine *is* a subjective opinion and I've stated it as such. In support of giving applicable, substantive, objective knowledge to other people who hold the same opinion about the Free Palestine group, I have shared my objective eyewitness account here. —PaulLanzi

2005-09-03 13:35:58   I think that most people would agree that you and they both have a choice about which businesses to support with their money. Where the question comes up is right in your statement about witnessing and good authorities. What they have witnessed with regard to Sam's differs from what you experienced, so the question for them is one of how good of an authority on Sam's business practices you are. If someone saw the manager of a restaurant choking someone and reported that, but others came forward and said that they witnessed the heimlich maneuver and they had never known the manager to be violent, how seriously would you take the choking charges? —JasonAller

2005-09-03 13:41:45   You've got it exactly right, Jason. And as I stated in the 7th comment on this page, "I have put information as to what I personally witnessed onto this wiki page, and people can make their own judgements based on what they know of my veracity as to the truth and legitimacy of those statements." —PaulLanzi

2005-09-03 15:33:52   So the question remains what to do with this Controversy disclaimer. Two different accounts of the same event the contradict each other. We have accusations that can damage a business and a specific person. I would suggest that we change Sam's page, and have Paul leave a comment saying he will not eat there and why. The original comment and the current one suggest too much, that has not been substaniated. Paul's belief and account should go under Comments, not in the main body. What does everyone think. —JimSchwab

2005-09-03 18:26:07   Uh... Paul's original account/opinions/whathaveyou was under the Comments section. Someone else made it a "controversy" section in the main section... —IrenePark

2005-09-03 20:32:15   Well it doesn't really matter who put it under the controversy section, only the fact that it had been residing there for quite some time. I agree with Jim, have Paul leave his comment, including what he saw, without drawing any extra conclusions about Sam's beliefs. —JevanGray

2005-09-03 20:57:55   Deleted from the Sam's page. Go ahead and leave the comment or statement again, Paul. Then just trash this page imo. —ES

2005-09-03 23:37:37   Bad plan. Controvery over this has come up more than once and if we delete this page and the reference too it from the main Sam's page, we're bound to repeat it again. Look at the changelog for Sam's page — specifically, November of 2004. An abbreviated version of this same thing played out — it's useless to fight the same battles with different people. I'm rolling back to the change to Sam's page. —PaulLanzi

2005-09-04 00:33:26   The point is that you're putting something it front and center on the "Sam's" page, while other people (including employees from Sam's) are saying you misunderstood. I believe you saw what you said you saw, but I also think that this is a largely unresolvable issue without Sam saying specifically where he stand (which isn't any of our business in my opinion). So I think the best compromise, that respects both your views and Sam's business, is what Jim said. I think you can make a comment and in that comment link to this "Politics" page. I'm reverting your reversion. —JesseSingh

2005-09-04 00:57:18   Your account is hardly objective. Iam tired of you, really Iam. Sam has already told me not to waste my time with you, he's not going to. "I can assemble from Xavier's writing",whatever, good way to dodge my questions. your accusations based on your "eyewitnesse account" would not hold up in a court of law, thats the point. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 01:04:04   oh yay, reversion wars. —IrenePark

2005-09-04 02:03:15   Can you even see that the term "Finacially supported" makes no sense. People have already stated they have recieved free food from sams. The "Free Palenstine" group use to hold meetings at miskas and Cafe Romas too. Come on. When I was in high school, I asked my friend to buy me a soda while i went to the restroom. As I was walking to our table, he left, and i picked up the soda. Some kid then accused me of stealing it. If he knew that my friend purchased it for me, he would not have made that accusation. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 02:11:21   My example was'nt used as an analogy, but as an example of how little we usually know about a situation. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 03:16:31   Your court of law comment seems fitting. If you had to prove that sam "finacially supported" and "hosted" the "Free Palenstine" group, you would probaly be faced with a few questions. Can you please awnser a few of mine, please. 1. It seems you have defined "Financially supported" as providing free drinks and food. If otherwise please respond. 2.You have not mentioned "hosted" since your first post, please clarify. was the meeting advertised? Did sam take part it their "strategy meeting"? Did sam know the "Free palestine" group was going there that day? 3. Did you see sam at the protest or any protest with the "Free Palenstine" group? 4. Do you know if sam saw the protest? 5.Do you know the relationship between sam and the protesters? family? freind? customer? 6. Do you know sams personnal views on this subject? 7. Do you know sam? 8. Do you know if sam has given free food to others? 9. Would you call sam a generous man? I will have some more questions later. Please paul, respond. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 03:16:39   If you were on the stand giving your eye witnesse account, a lawyer would ask you these questions. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 03:19:55   Oh i should have metioned if you don'y know the awnser please respond with "i don't know." —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 03:27:07   10. Does sam know the views of all protesters? 11. has sam ever spoken to them about the Israel/Palestine situation? 12. Have the protesters ever been to sams house? 13. Do you know any of the protesters? 14. Did you arrive first? Did the group arrive first? 15. Did they go into the kitchen? 16. How much free food would you estimate they recieved? 17. Are they regulars? 18. Did they go into the back to use the restroom? —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 03:35:37   19. Was the Resturaunt busy that day? 20. What does a "Free Palestine" shirt mean to you? 21. Do you know what a "Free Palestine" shirt mean to sam? 22. How many protesters did you see at sams. 23. Where were you sitting in relation to them? 24. Did you leave right away when you saw them? —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 03:49:24   25. (They provide a place to meet, money, correct? someone please tell me if Iam wrong)UC Davis finacially supports the "Free Palenstine" group(according to Pauls definition). Have you given/giving money to UC DAVIS? 26. the "free palestine" group has held meetings at miskas and cafe romas. Would you define this as "They Hosted the meeting". —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 04:00:47   27. more of a logicall question: If a business gave free food to 1.me 2.you 3.Irene. Would you say that business "finacially supports" or "believes" in my political beliefs? —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 04:08:21   A jury would judge sam on your eyewitness account and your awnsers to the defendants lawyer. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 04:13:11   Oh yeah, in a court case they would also ask what your political beliefs are. I'am not gonna ask you or get into that. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 04:14:49   Another good one. How many times have you been to sams? —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 04:54:30   here is a good one: Have you ever heard sam say he finacially supports and hosts meetings for the "Free Palestine" group. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 05:07:50   How many times has the "Free Palestine" group recieved free food(according to you)? Once? Twice? do you know? —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 05:18:25   Hopefully you can understand my writing this time. I could go on and on. goodnight. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-04 07:09:49   512. If Sam left New York towards Chicago at 5 am driving 35 miles per hour, and Paul leaves Chicago towards NY at 7 am at 55 miles per hour, where would they meet and when? —ES

2005-09-04 12:40:12   yeah, i got carried away. Besides giving paul some real questions to answer, the first group of questions, i was also making a point of how little he knew about the situation, please see my earlier comments. Also, more importanly, if he was in court like in his example his testimony would amount to nothing. —XavierMoralez

2005-09-05 13:53:45   This isn't an interrogation and I won't be badgered about. My statements will stand or fall by their own merits, teamed with the trust that other wiki users have in my veracity. That is all. —PaulLanzi

2005-09-06 09:46:37   Well feel free to ignore any questions you want. Though whether you furnish me with an answer or not, I do wonder what you mean by "financially supported"?? It seems to be different than the meaning I get from using the dictionary. —JevanGray

2005-09-06 23:20:33   I don't doubt your veracity - as Jevan implied, it's the interpretations people draw that cause arguement. But in an earlier comment (23:04:57) you said they "hosted meetings". Was this said based on the single incident you witnessed? I agree with Jevan as well that "financially supported" is pretty loaded. Financially supported and hosted meetings implies a much larger, sinister occurance then potentially seeing a single event where they possibly may have been given free food (something Sam has been known to do on many occasions). —ES

2005-09-07 08:45:37   It used to be if you gave something away it was an act of generosity. Nowadays it's supporting terrorism. What have we come to? —SteveDavison

2005-10-01 18:47:05   WOW. This conversation makes it clear how little things get blown out of proportion. It seems clear that Paul saw what he saw but that his attack on the establishment amounts to nothing but heresay. His statements would simply not hold up in court at all. Eye witness testimonies are notoriously bad and thus it takes more than that to make your case. I too get free stuff from a friend of mine who owns a restaurant. That does not mean that if I walk in with my anti-Texaco shirt on that he's promoting my cause. There is simply not enough information to make such an allegation against Sam's and I think Paul should either qualify his statement or retract it altogether. If he wants to leave it as something suspicious he saw, that's fine...but to claim Sam's supports the Free Palestine group is ridiculous. Xavier, your questions to Paul were a bit over the top, but they proved a good point. We simply don't have all the facts. It's just a shame that Sam's reputation may be damaged but such inflammatory statements. —BrettCoder

"2005-10-01 19:01:45"   I don't get why it would have to hold up in court. Am I missing where Paul said he was pressing charges on some obscure legal statute? Or are we talking the court of public opinion? In the latter I think it has a chance. Even if the support given was minor, and in some people's opinions inconsequential, in other people's views any support is too much, even if it's merely "minor" and just given to "friends".

2005-10-23 17:59:58   And it honestley makes me sick that people try to find ways to start conflict. facts mean so much more than words.my dad has seven children and the only financial support comes from my dads hard work six days a week 12-15 hours a day.my father never supported a political orginization or any of that matter.Sam respects everyone and is very well respected.And for someone like you to use a political cop out makes me sick to my stomich.We probably have more Isreali customers than palestinians and my dad says shalom witch means peace not support of free palestine.So get you facts straight and come in and have a falafel on me and see what our family is all about.We father has never evean attended any of there events and whatever his beleafs maybe he will not jepordise his family only income to support a cause that can only be solved with both parties that go through these hard times and that is peace . —MoAbughannam

2005-10-23 19:27:35   If you really care about Isreal,maybe you should get your prioraties right and istead of trying to battle a 55 year old working man,you should spend your time communicating with the group and work together on making the situation there better because both sides have familys and friends living there and terror and people like you bring the peace process furter back. —MoAbughannam

2005-10-23 19:34:03   I am not gonna waste any more timew on this stupid issue but whatever your plan is goodluck you only make yourself look ignorenti thought this was comments about the food not a made up political attack on a small family bussiness. —MoAbughannam

2005-10-23 20:11:39   So what organization is too distasteful to give free food to, if not these pro-Israeli murderers? The KKK? NAMBLA? If Sam has a brain, he can refuse someone service, if it offends him. —ApolloStumpy

2008-10-25 17:01:48   Sam's is a great place to eat. The staff is extremely friendly and the food is always delicious and very inexpensive. Regarding the comments above in the "controversy" section. These are potentially libelous and really should be removed from this site. —Trena

2009-07-23 11:42:17   sounds like nit-picking by this paul guy. who cares —boing3887

This is a Wiki Spot wiki. Wiki Spot is a non-profit organization that helps communities collaborate via wikis.