Glenn Beck: Refounding America...

[GreNME]

The matter is presented in the document, do you want to be spoon fed ?

No, the document never answers the questions as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Perhaps you could find and post the applicable quote where you believe the question as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 is actually addressed and we can examine your reasons for believing so.

In what sense does the accusation of libel not a full and complete answer?

Last I checked, rape and murder does not necessitate libel. Since the filing that's been made has no jurisdiction on First Amendment issues and the suit itself is one of trademark infringement and trademark infringement is nto a key element of rape or murder (nor was it in 1990), invoking the word "libel" within the filing in no way, shape, or form addresses the question as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. While trademark infringement on the internet is indeed Serious Business, the obvious lack of public address on the question of whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, let alone the question as to whether or not Glenn Beck continues to beat his wife, are by far more Serious Business than online trademark disputes.

If Glenn Beck would only come clean with the information I think we all know he has about his innocence regarding the allegations about supposedly raping and killing a young girl in 1990, all of this senseless bickering could be quickly brought to an end.

 

[Whiplash]

Ok, Praktik has a good point about just ignoring it. I intend to do so from here, but I did want to just say one last thing about the entire meme.

I'd guess the reason that some of us find it annoying is that it's really not productive, especially here. It's like preaching to the choir.

Is there anyone here who doesn't get it? Or that the meme is going to have any positive effect on?

That may be my biggest problem with it. That I don't think it does anything productive. I doubt a single Glenn Beck fan sees this routine and smacks their head, V8 style, and gets it. I'm sure they will all just reject it out of hand (at best). Or it will (at worst) make them more likely to want to defend their little hero. Because you are attacking him in what they will feel is an unfair manner, even though he does the same thing. They are suffering cognitive dissonance for sure.

It just seems pointless.

But I promise not to whine about it anymore.

ETA: As to whether it's "funny", I don't think it is. For those that do, do you mean it's funny to poke fun at Beck? Then ya, I can see that. More power to you. But I don't see anything funny or appropriate to "joke" about regarding rape and murder. I wouldn't like this if it was done to my worst enemy. I wouldn't like it if it was being done to an extreme partisan on the left either. If someone did this to Lefty Sarge, I'd be defending him. It's not appropriate. It's not something to make jokes about.

Call me an ornery old fool, but it doesn't make me wrong.

 

[Upchurch]

Is tu quoque thus the correct response?

Not tu quoque. Ironic parody, wherein Beck is made the victim of the very same technique that made him so successful.

 

[mhaze]

.... ETA: As to whether it's "funny", I don't think it is. For those that do, do you mean it's funny to poke fun at Beck? Then ya, I can see that. More power to you. But I don't see anything funny or appropriate to "joke" about regarding rape and murder. I wouldn't like this if it was done to my worst enemy. I wouldn't like it if it was being done to an extreme partisan on the left either. If someone did this to Lefty Sarge, I'd be defending him. It's not appropriate. It's not something to make jokes about.

Well said.

But then, you are clearly not with the contemporary program of Saul Alinsky driven politics.

Rule 5: Ridicule your opponent. It infuriates them.

(But it doesn't. It is simply recognized as the use of Saul Alinsky's Rule 5).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Well said.

But then, you are clearly not with the contemporary program of Saul Alinsky driven politics.

Rule 5: Ridicule your opponent. It infuriates them.

(But it doesn't. It is simply recognized as the use of Saul Alinsky's Rule 5).

... By people obsessed with him like you.

 

[Cleon]

Interesting. I wonder how many of the people taking such umbrage at the "attack" on Beck took similar umbrage when Beck used the very same rhetorical tactic to accuse a congressman of working with America's enemies.

 

[godofpie]

Why I love GreNME-
Because he "hears that train a 'comin..."
Because he just wants to get to the bottom of the internet rumor about Glenn Beck raping and or murdering a young girl in 1990.
Because "life keeps draggin' on.."

 

[mhaze]

... By people obsessed with him like you.

Hahahah.

But I'm not (and I suspect you knew that.)

I only took an initially presented, illogical argument, decomposed it, and commenced arguing the subject from the opposite side.

Just for fun.

It would be more likely, one might surmise, that the one who initiated the thread was the one so obsessed. That was...who....hmmm.....

 

[mhaze]

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?
.....

Huh?

The content of the web page is part and parcel of determination of whether the domain itself is defamatory. See the cited cases. They clearly indicate that for example, GlennBeckSucks would be a valid name with appropriate content.

Therefore you have a direct linkage to the issue of whether the late addition of the phrase "This is a satire" is redeeming against the allegation of the site being defamatory and libelous.

The use of the words "defamatory" and "libelous" addresses the presuposed claims or supposed satirical claims of the website owner.

That was the issue you asked about and it's been answered. If you want to be technical, no, they are not currently pursuing a charge of libel against the perps.

 

[GreNME]

Huh?

The content of the web page is part and parcel of determination of whether the domain itself is defamatory. See the cited cases. They clearly indicate that for example, GlennBeckSucks would be a valid name with appropriate content.

Therefore you have a direct linkage to the issue of whether the late addition of the phrase "This is a satire" is redeeming against the allegation of the site being defamatory and libelous.

The use of the words "defamatory" and "libelous" addresses the presuposed claims or supposed satirical claims of the website owner.

That was the issue you asked about and it's been answered. If you want to be technical, no, they are not currently pursuing a charge of libel against the perps.

Invoking the words "defamatory" or "libelous" out of legal context, whether the invocations are in a legal document or not (remember: jurisdiction) really doesn't mean anything more than the reader decides to interpret while reading it. And you still seem to be of the impression that invoking those words in any way addresses whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. Again, you're more than welcome to quote wherever in that filing it states that Glenn Beck publicly confirms or denies having raped and murdered a girl in 1990, but you have yet to do so.

No one is making any legal accusations against Glenn Beck. Indeed, I would posit that a majority of people, like myself, don't think Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. But it would be best to lay any lingering doubts that whomever else might have, and this can only be done by Glenn Beck himself addressing the rumors that he may or may not have raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

-----

Why I love GreNME-
Because he "hears that train a 'comin..."
Because he just wants to get to the bottom of the internet rumor about Glenn Beck raping and or murdering a young girl in 1990.
Because "life keeps draggin' on.."

I'd love to move it all a little farther down the line, but the only way that can happen is if we can simply get an answer as to whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

 

[mhaze]

Invoking the words "defamatory" or "libelous" out of legal context, whether the invocations are in a legal document or not (remember: jurisdiction) really doesn't mean anything more than the reader decides to interpret while reading it. ....

And at the point where you claim that words mean whatever one wishes them to, buddy boy, you go on ignore.

 

[elbe]

That was the issue you asked about and it's been answered. If you want to be technical, no, they are not currently pursuing a charge of libel against the perps.

That right there. The legal action doesn't address the accusations and they (Beck and his representatives) shouldn't bother to. You claimed it had when it clearly, by reading the actual documents, hasn't. Mentioning the accusations, even negatively, doesn't not equal addressing them.

 

[GreNME]

And at the point where you claim that words mean whatever one wishes them to, buddy boy, you go on ignore.

Your evasion of my request to pony up actual evidence of your assertion is noted.

You seem to understand jurisdiction about as well as you seem to be understanding my position on whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. That's unfortunate, but not unexpected given the belligerent tone and insulting manner of your posts in this thread.

To make it clear to everyone: I do not believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I simply believe that he should face these rumors head-on and show the proof that he obviously has attesting to his innocence. I repeat: I do not believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

 

[quadraginta]

Your evasion of my request to pony up actual evidence of your assertion is noted.

You seem to understand jurisdiction about as well as you seem to be understanding my position on whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. That's unfortunate, but not unexpected given the belligerent tone and insulting manner of your posts in this thread.

To make it clear to everyone: I do not believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. I simply believe that he should face these rumors head-on and show the proof that he obviously has attesting to his innocence. I repeat: I do not believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

I don't believe that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, either.

It seems that many people feel the same way, which makes his reluctance to step forward and address the issue all the more puzzling. What does he have to hide?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Not tu quoque. Ironic parody, wherein Beck is made the victim of the very same technique that made him so successful.

Perhaps that's the thing, or perhaps the usual case of the worm turning, or maybe "ironic justice" rather than parody ... or maybe it's karma catching up with the self proclaimed Sick Freak. He was once funny. Then, I think, one day he started to believe his own schtick ...

 

[KingMerv00]

I'd like to point out the obvious if I could. Only the more conservative members of the forum seem to be tired of the meme.

Is that a commentary on liberalism or conservativism? You make the call.

(Just for the record, I like to think of Beck as too insane to qualify for any political party.)

 

[mhaze]

That right there. The legal action doesn't address the accusations and they (Beck and his representatives) shouldn't bother to. You claimed it had when it clearly, by reading the actual documents, hasn't. Mentioning the accusations, even negatively, doesn't not equal addressing them.

If, in a case:

Defendant(D) has registered and promoted the domain name which in it's wording connects person X with heinous crime Y .

The plaintiff(P) describes facts of the situation using the words:

"defamatory"
"libelous"

which refer to the actions of D.

P has asserted as part of the merits argnment "defamatory" and "libelous" actions by D.

X-->Y implicitly false, with malice in the accusation.

I only point out that when the intellectually dishonest repetition of the smear is made, ending with the "Why doesn't he answer" silliness, that he has, in fact, initiated that.

What's complicated? Time to move on from that smear tactic and Saul Alinsky Rule 5 to something new.

 

[GreNME]

I'd offer you a cluepon, mhaze, but rather than break the rules of the forum I'll simply challenge your faulty logic again (and watch as you continue to fail spectacularly). I dare you to provide even a shred of reasonable cause to believe that WIPO has jurisdiction in an alleged case of libel or defamation in the USofA. You can't, and the cognitive dissonance has caused a rupture in your Reality Distortion field as well as your sense of logic. No jurisdiction means the words "libel" and "defamatory" in the filing are meaningless rhetoric.

And you still have yet to provide any quote from the filing that addresses whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

You are right about one thing, though: it's not complicated. That's what makes you trying to perform mental gymnastics to try to show how the question of whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 has been addressed by Mr. Beck himself-- and failing-- so satisfyingly amusing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'd like to point out the obvious if I could. Only the more conservative members of the forum seem to be tired of the meme.

Is that a commentary on liberalism or conservativism? You make the call.

It's a comment on the internet, and the low quality of political discourse. I don't doubt that liberals, (and numerous conservatives) are a little tired of the "Obama wasn't born a US citizen" that is, for reasons beyond me, still alive and well.

(Just for the record, I like to think of Beck as too insane to qualify for any political party.)

What little of his rhetoric I've heard of late trends populist and nativist, when it is coherent.

 

[Brainster]

Well, Keith Olbermann has weighed in:

In answer to your email, I did not rape and murder three small boys in 1990. It was 1992, and there were four.