Glenn Beck: Refounding America...

[mhaze]

My wife had a couple if miscarriages. I can't imagine the absolute horror she would have experienced had an ex-friend of mine called and ridiculed her and me about it. I think I would have a hard time not going to this person's workplace and throttling them.

No matter how boozed up and coke freaked Beck was at the time, there are some things civilized humans do not engage in. I wonder if Beck ever apologized for that one?

Or if it is even a true story. Which is why I asked for the exact date, which it seems nobody knows.

So as I understand it this is:

A says that B says that C says that Beck said XYZ, date unspecified.

 

[GreNME]

Or if it is even a true story. Which is why I asked for the exact date, which it seems nobody knows.

So as I understand it this is:

A says that B says that C says that Beck said XYZ, date unspecified.

That's certainly a strong argument against him having said that, but if Glenn Beck could just come out and state that he didn't say anything to that effect it would hold more weight. At this time, Glenn Beck has not come out and confirmed or denied the allegation, similar to how he's not come forward and answered the rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. While the allegations that he made a phone call making fun of a miscarriage is more probable than Glen Beck having raped and murdered a girl in 1990, Beck could put both allegations to rest by simply providing proof on the matter for both.

 

[Lurker]

Or if it is even a true story. Which is why I asked for the exact date, which it seems nobody knows.

So as I understand it this is:

A says that B says that C says that Beck said XYZ, date unspecified.

Point taken. Of course, Beck could clear this up by just providing proof of the matter. While he is at it, he should also provide proof that he was not involved in the rape and murder of a girl back in 1990. To date he has not addressed either event and his silence speaks volumes.

 

[mhaze]

It would appear that attorneys think that retainer fees are sufficient to file trademark lawsuits. That you seem to be conflating that with Glenn Beck actually addressing the rumors doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
....

Third set of goalpost shiftings?

Gee....

• First, you are corrected on whether substantive action was taken.
• Second, you are corrected on the public having no standing.
• Third, you are corrected on whether Beck has standing.

You, sir are the Black Knight. Now go slither back under the bridge.

 

[GreNME]

Third set of goalpost shiftings?

Gee....

• First, you are corrected on whether substantive action was taken.
• Second, you are corrected on the public having no standing.
• Third, you are corrected on whether Beck has standing.

You, sir are the Black Knight. Now go slither back under the bridge.

Name-calling is not helpful to the conversation. I specifically asked why Glenn Beck had not addressed the rumors about whether he raped and murdered a girl in 1990. You provide the trademark suit he's filed as if that in any way addresses the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. It is pointed out that your answer did not show him addressing the rumor that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, but instead shows a lawsuit claiming trademark infringement. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you don't honestly think that Glenn Beck has a trademark on raping and killing girls in 1990, but you're more than welcome to refuse my benefit of the doubt and assert that Glenn Beck has a trademark on raping and murdering girls in 1990.

Your assertions that the public has no standing on the issue of whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 seems an unnecessary non-sequitur at best or a complete disregard for justice at worst, considering the trying of rapists and murderers in the court of the law is specifically for the good of the public at large. That isn't to say that Glenn Beck should be tried for the rape and murder of a girl in 1990, but if he could simply come out with the proof he most likely has attesting to his innocence then the issue of public interest on the matter would be removed. However, since Glenn Beck has not come forward with any comment in the positive or negative about whether he raped and murdered a girl in 1990, his own lack of action seems to be spurring the rumor on.

Your assertion about whether Beck has any standing is the most amusing of all, since your arguments seem to personify the sheer hubris of the questions of Glenn Beck's behavior in the past, the question of whether Glenn Beck phoned a friend's wife on-the-air and made fun of her miscarriage, the question of allegations that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, or questions about whether or not Glenn Beck has stopped beating his wife. You assert that Beck somehow has standing on the matter, despite his not once releasing a public statement on any of those topics since they've surfaced, and despite him having not provided a shred of evidence to prove wrong allegations that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990, that Glenn Beck called a friend's wife on-the-air and made fun of her miscarriage, or answered the question on whether Glenn Beck continues to beat his wife.

While I understand that you appear to feel compelled to make the arguments in place of Glenn Beck, please keep in mind that I'm not accusing you or Glenn Beck of any of these things. I'm simply asking why Glenn Beck has remained so ardently silent on these burning questions despite his otherwise loquacious media personality. That the best you seem to be able to do is attack me personally and make unsupported assertions is your own failing, and so far has little bearing as far as answering why Glenn Beck has yet to come forward with any evidence that he's innocent of having raped and murdered a girl in 1990, that he didn't actually call a friend's wife on-the-air to make fun of her miscarriage, or that he has stopped beating his wife.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I fear for Glenn's reputation. At least someone is willing to stand up and speak the truth.
http://christwire.org/2009/10/secre...tives-slander-fox-news-star-with-rape-charge/

Poes are getting easier and easier to make, I think.

 

[Cain]

Re: the miscarriage story

Or if it is even a true story. Which is why I asked for the exact date, which it seems nobody knows.

So as I understand it this is:

A says that B says that C says that Beck said XYZ, date unspecified.

Ah, I see, so you are a Beck apologist. Did you bother reading the article?
I'll quote from it now:

...Beck and his wife packed their bags for Phoenix in early 1987...

The animosity between Beck and Kelly continued to deepen. When Beck and Hattrick produced a local version of Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" for Halloween -- a recurring motif in Beck's life and career -- Kelly told a local reporter that the bit was a stupid rip-off of a syndicated gag. The slight outraged Beck, who got his revenge with what may rank as one of the cruelest bits in the history of morning radio. "A couple days after Kelly's wife, Terry, had a miscarriage, Beck called her live on the air and says, 'We hear you had a miscarriage,' " remembers Brad Miller, a former Y95 DJ and Clear Channel programmer. "When Terry said, 'Yes,' Beck proceeded to joke about how Bruce [Kelly] apparently can't do anything right -- about he can't even have a baby."

The author also interviewed Bruce Kelly.

I'm so sick of this kind of freakin' ******** that passes across my screen. You'll apparently believe anything on global warming, provided it's consistent with ideology, but you're all to ready to question an event that in all likelihood happened; the beauty is that if you concede it did happen, you apparently want to run to the excuse that Beck admits he was not proud of those days he was boozin'. I realize there's this stereotype about people with a conservative temperament -- how they believe people can be change, become rehabilitated (hence their anti-retribution views on the criminal justice system) -- but maybe, just maybe, Beck's past and present behavior might lead you to believe that he is every bit the douchelord he seems to be.

 

[mhaze]

Name-calling is not helpful to the conversation. .....

Really?

I'm so sick of this kind of freakin' ********

What you are sick of doesn't interest me particularly. I think I said it correctly:

A says that B says that C says that Beck said XYZ, date unspecified.
Cain--> Zaitcheck--> Brad Miller--> Beck

You seem to object to my asking for specificity which would yield:

Beck said XYZ on the morning tape of 2/13/2000 (fer example).

And for which there would be a transcript, containing the exact phrases used and context of some sort.

Which was all I asked about, whether the actual facts could be brought in as opposed to the allegation.

Obviously you favor the allegation only.

 

[Lurker]

What you are sick of doesn't interest me particularly. I think I said it correctly:

A says that B says that C says that Beck said XYZ, date unspecified.
Cain--> Zaitcheck--> Brad Miller--> Beck

You seem to object to my asking for specificity which would yield:

Beck said XYZ on the morning tape of 2/13/2000 (fer example).

And for which there would be a transcript, containing the exact phrases used and context of some sort.

You think there would be a transcript for a rock station's radio show back in 1987? REally? Can you provide any examples of such transcripts?

By the way, you forgot that the author interviewed Bruce Kelly also so that would be corroborating evidence.

 

[Cain]

Really?

What you are sick of doesn't interest me particularly. I think I said it correctly:

A says that B says that C says that Beck said XYZ, date unspecified.
Cain--> Zaitcheck--> Brad Miller--> Beck

This is desperation. We have not met in a public space where I say I read an article by Zaitcheck who quotes Miller, who learned of the affair from Beck. I've produced a link to the article, which you can read. The above construction, if we take it at face value, is an admission that you did not read the article. So we can remove "Cain" from the equation immediately.

You seem to object to my asking for specificity which would yield:

Beck said XYZ on the morning tape of 2/13/2000 (fer example).

And for which there would be a transcript, containing the exact phrases used and context of some sort.

Which was all I asked about, whether the actual facts could be brought in as opposed to the allegation.

Obviously you favor the allegation only.

The balance of evidence leads one to believe it happened. At least two witnesses do put it in a specific time and place. We're not talking about a violation of the laws of physics, or the notion that Beck raped and murdered a girl 1990 and got away with it. This is one of a number of cruel statements -- a pattern of behavior. If I produce a transcript, then how do you know it's not doctored? If I produce a tape, do you need to run voice analysis?

You're an apologist, pure and simple, and I don't think you're capable or interested in understanding the issue, probably because you're emotionally invested in defending your tribe, as evidenced by the pitiful arrow construction above, and grumblings of an exit strategy by saying Beck had admitted he behaved boorishly in his 20s. It's an all too common pose: stick your head in the ground and say, contrary to the balance of evidence, "I don't believe he said it," then come up for a moment adding, "and so what if he did??" Head back in the sand.

 

[GreNME]

Really?

Yeah, really. Why you jump from that into responding to someone else's post makes no logical sense.

 

[mhaze]

This is desperation. We have not met in a public space where I say I read an article by Zaitcheck who quotes Miller, who learned of the affair from Beck. I've produced a link to the article, which you can read. The above construction, if we take it at face value, is an admission that you did not read the article. So we can remove "Cain" from the equation immediately. ....

If you like. Although in my view the quality of the equation is raised if Cain is in it, and lowered if it rests on Zaitchek.

The balance of evidence leads one to believe it happened. At least two witnesses do put it in a specific time and place. We're not talking about a violation of the laws of physics, or the notion that Beck raped and murdered a girl 1990 and got away with it. This is one of a number of cruel statements -- a pattern of behavior. If I produce a transcript, then how do you know it's not doctored? If I produce a tape, do you need to run voice analysis?

You're an apologist, pure and simple....

Ridiculous. All I did was ask when did this event occur. You get all that (plus what i clipped) from reading the tea leaves.

Why the hypersensitivity and over reaction? It's not complicated.

Q. When did it happen?

A. Beats me. Zaitcheck didn't really say.

Q2. Oh. No other sources?

etc, etc.

 

[mhaze]

..... Your assertion about whether Beck has any standing is the most amusing of all, since your arguments seem to personify the sheer hubris of the questions of Glenn Beck's behavior in the past.....

So you think that a domain name can be registered and successfully held:

A. Where Mr. Smith registers domain name, where part of the phrase is John Doe.
B. Where the valid use of the domain name is disputed by said John Doe, who has previously registered trademark for all rights of the phrase "John Doe".
C. Where the case is brought for resolution before the central domain registry, and Mr. Smith does not have any direct relation or right to the phrase "John Doe" (eg, Mr. Smith does not own a company named "John Doe Tractors", as an example).

And you further think:

John Doe's legal standing to bring the case is questionable.

I can only say that you are ignorant of the rules concerning domain name disputes, and certainly of their interpretation.

On reflection maybe it is an obscure area.

But keep going, let's hear more.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Beck comes off as unusually cruel and unsurprisingly egotistical.

Clydie Clyde is/was a "character" Beck would perform.

Shock jocks saw an act that was succeeding, and tried to play that role.

Howard Stern: live, on air, booked two tickets on Air Florida to the 14th Street bridge shortly after the Air Florida crash on take off from Washington National (now Reagan) airport.

Big shoes to fill, for any shock jock. Most of them try to hard, to include Beck.

DR

 

[GreNME]

So you think that a domain name can be registered and successfully held:

A. Where Mr. Smith registers domain name, where part of the phrase is John Doe.
B. Where the valid use of the domain name is disputed by said John Doe, who has previously registered trademark for all rights of the phrase "John Doe".
C. Where the case is brought for resolution before the central domain registry, and Mr. Smith does not have any direct relation or right to the phrase "John Doe" (eg, Mr. Smith does not own a company named "John Doe Tractors", as an example).

And you further think:

John Doe's legal standing to bring the case is questionable.

I can only say that you are ignorant of the rules concerning domain name disputes, and certainly of their interpretation.

On reflection maybe it is an obscure area.

But keep going, let's hear more.

I don't know why you're making that argument, since not a single bit has anything to do with addressing allegations that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Oh, and you're wrong about the domain name thing, but I'm not taking your bait.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Point taken. Of course, Beck could clear this up by just providing proof of the matter. While he is at it, he should also provide proof that he was not involved in the rape and murder of a girl back in 1990. To date he has not addressed either event and his silence speaks volumes.

I see, the accuser need not provide proof of a crime, the charged must provide disproof.

Are you sure that's the position you want to take? (Or are you being funny and I missed it?)

DR

 

[quixotecoyote]

I see, the accuser need not provide proof of a crime, the charged must provide disproof.

Are you sure that's the position you want to take? (Or are you being funny and I missed it?)

DR

Well of course he isn't actually accusing Beck of anything, he's just noting the prevalent rumor that Beck raped a young girl in 1990 and the rumor that he recently stopped beating his wife (see here). No one's saying Glenn Beck actually DID rape a young girl in 1990 or actually HAS only recently stopped beating his wife, but it would certainly put an end to the public speculation if he simply stepped up and addressed these issues. That he doesn't sends an unfortunate message of its own.

 

[mhaze]

I don't know why you're making that argument, since not a single bit has anything to do with addressing allegations that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Oh, and you're wrong about the domain name thing, but I'm not taking your bait.

Oh my. A short memory. As we first discussed:

A. I state that X is false regarding the conduct of person Y.
B. I assert X about person Y.
C. Now let's all ask "Why does person Y not refute X?"
D. Y pursues legal recourse against A.
​

So you see, the allegations were answered with a legal method. Please continue practicing your intellectual dishonesty. I'll let you know when you pass kindegarden level. Then next we found you slithering around a bit:

Third set of goalpost shiftings?

Gee....

• First, you are corrected on whether substantive action was taken.
• Second, you are corrected on the public having no standing.
• Third, you are corrected on whether Beck has standing.

You, sir are the Black Knight. Now go slither back under the bridge.
​

And finally, we find you struggling with the concepts of disputing domain name legalities, which only sets new records of the utter cluelessness of the intellectually depraved.

You are indeed the Black Knight.

Oh. By the way - here is the master of the method you practice amateurishly. But I encourage you to practice often and well.

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Lenin
Russian Communist politician & revolutionary (1870 - 1924)​

 

[Praktik]

I don't see what's the big deal you'd think it would be easy to discount the rumours.

I have no problem saying it:

"I didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990."

The fact Beck hasn't come forward to say what should be a fairly simple thing for non-rapist-murderers to say is troubling.

 

[mhaze]

I don't see what's the big deal you'd think it would be easy to discount the rumours.

I have no problem saying it:

"I didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990."

Good, I would be concerned if you had done so while a six month old infant.