Glenn Beck: Refounding America...

mhaze said:
Actually, they do. What part of that might be hard to understand?
Click to expand...

If it's the legal action presented here, then no, they don't. The action is strictly a trademark infringement claim, solely involving the domain name itself, and does not address the "allegations", or content, of the site in question.
 
Praktik said:
I am also concerned that in fighting this Beck has chosen an international body over a US court of law....
Click to expand...
This is ignorance on your part. The correct venue was used.

elbe said:
If it's the legal action presented here, then no, they don't. The action is strictly a trademark infringement claim, solely involving the domain name itself, and does not address the "allegations", or content, of the site in question.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you read the first affidavit by the plaintiff.

You will find that I have correctly indicated that the issues are addressed therein. (pp. 11c, 23c, 32, 37,41, etc)

Fishstick said:
If it's going as an uDRP procedure, he's gonna have a hard time doing it as a trademark issue. Paypal tried it with paypalsucks.com and got nowhere. Usually there needs to be an intent to profit from the trademark, and/or the site needs to be set up as if to confuse visitors into thinking they're on the actual trademark's site - either by layout or by domain.

Also, some of the documents from the response are hilarious:
Click to expand...
But you understand that the rules followed in the Paypal decision and several other similar ones were not followed by the defendant here. So I am not sure why you bring it up as a guidepost, unless you are not clear on the distinctions.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
But you understand that the rules followed in the Paypal decision and several other similar ones were not followed by the defendant here. So I am not sure why you bring it up as a guidepost, unless you are not clear on the distinctions.
Click to expand...

What rules are these that weren't followed by g[...]1990.com ? AFAIK an UDRP procedure based on a trademark claim for a domain name only has basis if a number of qualifiers apply, such as making money off the infringed site or making a page that intents to deceive visitors as if it were the real thing.
 
elbe said:
If it's the legal action presented here, then no, they don't. The action is strictly a trademark infringement claim, solely involving the domain name itself, and does not address the "allegations", or content, of the site in question.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The legal action addresses not one bit the question as to whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, and at best accuses the owner of the website of libel. That's all well and good, but meeting a question as to whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 with an accusation of libel in no way, shape, or form answers the question as to whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 in the first place. Besides, the accusation of libel isn't a legal accusation, since the complaint is filed on the grounds of trademark infringement, which again in no way addresses the question as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

I would suggest, mhaze, that if you truly wish to make an argument that trademark law somehow addresses questions about allegations of murder and rape, that you actually provide a real argument instead of tautologically referring back to the trademark case as being somehow self-evident of whatever quality you seem to wish to assign it (not unlike the religious and their bible). After all, since you seem to believe that the case addresses the question about whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, I'm sure you can elaborate in a non-inflammatory and cogent manner why you have come to this conclusion.
 
GreNME said:
Precisely. The legal action addresses not one bit the question as to whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, and at best accuses the owner of the website of libel. That's all well and good, but meeting a question as to whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 with an accusation of libel in no way, shape, or form answers the question as to whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 in the first place. Besides, the accusation of libel isn't a legal accusation, since the complaint is filed on the grounds of trademark infringement, which again in no way addresses the question as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

I would suggest, mhaze, that if you truly wish to make an argument that trademark law somehow addresses questions about allegations of murder and rape, that you actually provide a real argument instead of tautologically referring back to the trademark case as being somehow self-evident of whatever quality you seem to wish to assign it (not unlike the religious and their bible). After all, since you seem to believe that the case addresses the question about whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, I'm sure you can elaborate in a non-inflammatory and cogent manner why you have come to this conclusion.
Click to expand...
Are you tring to increase the number of Google hits for the bolded part in your post? :confused:
 
Darth Rotor said:
Are you tring to increase the number of Google hits for the bolded part in your post? :confused:
Click to expand...
My guess is it's an attempt to further the point that if you repeat something enough, as Glenn Beck et al do, then it becomes true, and thus is giving him even more of a dose of his own medicine.
 
I despise Glenn Beck, but, this "DId Glenn Beck Rape a Girl back in 1990" shtick has become as annoyning and obnoxious as Beck himself. Some people just do not know when a bit becomes old and tired.
 
dudalb said:
I despise Glenn Beck, but, this "DId Glenn Beck Rape a Girl back in 1990" shtick has become as annoyning and obnoxious as Beck himself. Some people just do not know when a bit becomes old and tired.
Click to expand...

I am firmly of the belief that repetition makes things funny. I have been thoroughly enjoying GreNME's posts in this thread, for example. The rape and murder a girl meme still retains a lot of hilarity for me - and its repetition has not yet reached the critical threshold where it ceases being funny.

I still chuckle to myself every now and then especially when replaying some of the "greatest hits" from the website lawyer in my mind...;)

"...like rays of light from the torch of liberty.."

GOLD!!!

Keep up the good work GreNME!
 
Fishstick said:
What rules are these that weren't followed by g[...]1990.com ? AFAIK an UDRP procedure based on a trademark claim for a domain name only has basis if a number of qualifiers apply, such as making money off the infringed site or making a page that intents to deceive visitors as if it were the real thing.
Click to expand...
The matter is presented in the document, do you want to be spoon fed ?

GreNME said:
Precisely. The legal action addresses not one bit the question as to whether Glenn Beck...., and at best accuses the owner of the website of libel.....
Click to expand...
In what sense does the accusation of libel not a full and complete answer?
 
Last edited:
Darth Rotor said:
Are you tring to increase the number of Google hits for the bolded part in your post? :confused:
Click to expand...
If so, Grenme is ranked by Google as...what, exactly?

Praktik said:
I am firmly of the belief that repetition makes things funny. I have been thoroughly enjoying GreNME's posts in this thread, for example. The ....meme still retains a lot of hilarity for me - and its repetition has not yet reached the critical threshold where it ceases being funny.....
Click to expand...
Could it be that this is due to the slowness of your mental processes?:)
 
Last edited:
This is the guy some are defending...

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130032

Beck falsely claimed Van Jones is a "convicted felon." On August 11, Beck said former White House green jobs adviser Jones "is a convicted felon, a guy who spent, I think, six months in prison after the Rodney King beating." In fact, as Eva Paterson, president and founder of the Equal Justice Society, has explained, "Van [Jones] has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime."

Beck told falsehoods about Sunstein's views on organ donation, rat removal. Beck falsely claimed on September 9 that Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, "believes that everyone must be an organ donor." In fact, in a book, Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler advocated for approaches to organ donation policies that "would be likely to save many lives while also preserving freedom" (emphasis added) and did not advocate for mandatory organ donation. Beck also claimed on September 9 that Sunstein said "you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain." In fact, in the introduction to a book of essays he co-edited, Sunstein did not advocate against rat removal, but rather said, "At the very least, people should kill rats in a way that minimizes distress and suffering." Sunstein also stated that, from a utilitarian perspective, "f human beings are at risk of illness and disease from mosquitoes and rats, they have a strong justification, perhaps even one of self-defense, for eliminating or relocating them."

Beck falsely claimed Holdren supported "forced abortion." On July 22, Beck said: "I mean, look at what's going on. We got czars coming out our -- they're shooting out of our butts. Czars like [science and technology adviser] John Holdren, who is -- there is great evil happening in our country. Holdren has proposed forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population. Oh, that's crazy. What, that was -- that was 20 years ago." Responding to Beck's claim, the website PolitiFact.com concluded that "the text of the book clearly does not support that. We think a thorough reading shows that these were ideas presented as approaches that had been discussed. They were not posed as suggestions or proposals. In fact, the authors make clear that they did not support coercive means of population control. Certainly, nowhere in the book do the authors advocate for forced abortions." PolitiFact ended its post on Beck's comments by stating, "[W]e rate Beck's claim Pants on Fire!"
Click to expand...


Three simple examples where if Beck were being honest and done a modicum of actual research he could have avoided these mistakes. Instead, Beck seems to say whatever he likes, facts be damned.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Is tu quoque thus the correct response? :confused:
Click to expand...
Diversion. My post was not about any inconsistency on Beck's part but was merely demonstrating he is willing to lie to promote his views. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
DavidJames said:
uber-skepticisim, when thinking is just to damn hard ;)
Click to expand...
I see no need to damn hard, nor do I consider it just whether one be skeptic, thinking, or none of the above.




DR

(Missing an "o" in your witty post there, so I make the joke on the typo)
 
Praktik said:
I am firmly of the belief that repetition makes things funny. I have been thoroughly enjoying GreNME's posts in this thread, for example. The rape and murder a girl meme still retains a lot of hilarity for me - and its repetition has not yet reached the critical threshold where it ceases being funny.
Click to expand...

Even if it stops being funny, keep doing it. It will eventually become funny again.
 
Ya and if people here really think this is unfunny, don't post in these threads!

Cause when I see a crotchety post with someone ho-humming about how "old" this is, well I crack a smile, and you are inadvertently perpetuating my enjoyment because on some level maybe other people being ornery amuses me...:)
 
mhaze said:
I suggest that you read the first affidavit by the plaintiff.

You will find that I have correctly indicated that the issues are addressed therein. (pp. 11c, 23c, 32, 37,41, etc)
Click to expand...

Interestingly, only the last two of those even come close to addressing the "accusations", but only acknowledge that the domain name is defamatory - again, only the domain name. This is a law suit about the domain name, not about the accusations made by the site. Are your partisan blinders so narrow that you can't see such a basic thing?

And honestly, it would be a mistake for Beck to address the "accusations" directly. His viewers would never even consider believing them and the partisan loons will fight it tooth and nail just because it's a rightwing personality under attack. Right?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Are you tring to increase the number of Google hits for the bolded part in your post? :confused:
Click to expand...

No, I don't think Google works like that. Even if it does I doubt that traffic to the JREF website is necessarily bad for people. :)

-----

Snide said:
My guess is it's an attempt to further the point that if you repeat something enough, as Glenn Beck et al do, then it becomes true, and thus is giving him even more of a dose of his own medicine.
Click to expand...

While the irony isn't lost on me (I keep it in a little jar on my desk), my real hope is that Glenn Beck eventually addresses the rumor that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom