Glenn Beck: Refounding America... [Archive]

Tsukasa Buddha

10th October 2009, 05:40 PM

But what is he "Refounding" it into???

Observe, at the one minute mark of this hidden camera recording captured when I was *pretending* to be a prostitute, Linky. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0AinZqj7v0)

You see at the bottom two corners, the "base", if you will, are two instantly recognizable figures amongst the otherwise patriotic imagery:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_117064ad1292e5bc0f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17815)

The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and the His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Who are they, really? Why did Glenn include them in his vision for "Refounding" America? Did they get Senate confirmation?

Let's look at them:

How many know that King was a democratic socialist who thought that only "drastic reforms" involving the "radical reconstruction of society itself" could "save us from social catastrophe"? Consistent with Marx and contrary to bourgeois moralists like Charles Dickens, King argued that "the roots" of the economic injustice he sought to overcome "are in the [capitalist] system rather [than] in men or faulty operations" Linky. (http://www.blackcommentator.com/169/169_street_mlk_democratic_socialist.html)

Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama calls himself a Marxist monk, because “Marxism is more ethical, unlike capitalism”. At a gathering at the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIM-A), he said: “I am a Marxist monk, a Buddhist Marxist. I belong to the Marxist camp, because unlike capitalism, Marxism is more ethical. Marxism, as an ideology, takes care of the welfare of its employees and believes in distribution of wealth among the people of the state.”
Linky. (http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/I-am-a-Marxist-monk-Dalai-Lama/263190/)

Now, I don't know if Glenn is a Marxist, or a fascist, or a Socialist... But you have to wonder why he surrounds himself with pictures of radicals. What is he planning to turn America into?

These are just the facts, you can call me crazy, but you can't dispute the facts.

dudalb

10th October 2009, 09:02 PM

mhaze

10th October 2009, 09:11 PM

.... These are just the facts, you can call me crazy, but you can't dispute the facts.Ok, you are crazy.

Peephole

10th October 2009, 09:36 PM

Has he adressed the rape rumours yet?

psychictv

10th October 2009, 10:35 PM

This makes a lot of sense. I could never figure out the crying, as that seems like the behavior of a namby-pamby latte-sipping professor of feminist basketweaving from the People's Republic of Berkeley, rather than that of a hard nosed crusader for patriotic American values. And the "tea parties"? Does Beck want his viewers to throw the tea into the harbor or is he secretly implying that they should "smoke tea", drop out of society, and suck from the teat of Obama's Marxist welfare state?

Cain

10th October 2009, 11:40 PM

Glenn Beck is nuts, and hurting America on balance, but there loonies on both sides. The left has its share of uniformed demagogues. Whoops, please ignore those bland all purpose tropes; for a second, I thought I was dudalb.

Cain

10th October 2009, 11:45 PM

I don't know if this article has been posted in any of the Glenn-Beck-sucks threads. The author has an upcoming book on Beck: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/22/glenn_beck_two/print.html

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."

mhaze

11th October 2009, 07:26 AM

When did that happen?

Praktik

11th October 2009, 07:52 AM

Now, I don't know if Glenn is a Marxist, or a fascist, or a Socialist... But you have to wonder why he surrounds himself with pictures of radicals. What is he planning to turn America into?

These are just the facts, you can call me crazy, but you can't dispute the facts.

I'm confused. I think I would understand these connections better if there was a .jpg of a chalkboard with some writing on it showing these Marxist connections in a clearer way.

shemp

11th October 2009, 08:07 AM

This thread should have been called "Glenn Beck: Confounding America..."

Denver

11th October 2009, 09:30 AM

If anyone ever had any doubt that Mr Beck is primarily a ratings-monger, they should notice in every show he is touting some NEW INFORMATION he is about to release ("Tonight on TV!", "On the show tomorrow!", "Next week"), and being adamant about how important, and game-changing, the information is, and how YOU CANNOT MISS IT!

But, with this information being so important, he doesn't deem it necessary to just say it now.

mhaze

11th October 2009, 09:39 AM

Glenn Beck is nuts, and hurting America on balance, but there loonies on both sides. The left has its share of uniformed demagogues. .....Interesting ones?

Cain

11th October 2009, 10:20 AM

When did that happen?

The fascinating article chroincles Beck's early career in radio. The guy started in his teens! It's mostly about the antics and too-far pranks by rival DJs. Beck comes off as unusually cruel and unsurprisingly egotistical.

The station partnered Beck with a 26-year-old Arizona native named Tim Hattrick. More relaxed by nature than Beck, Hattrick expected that the two would share duties on the show as partners. But Beck had other ideas. His first day in the studio, Beck called Hattrick into his office and laid down the law. "I remember Beck sat me down and pulled out a notepad on which he had drawn a planet being orbited by satellites," says Hattrick. "On the big planet, Glenn wrote 'Me.' Then he pointed to the orbiting satellites and wrote names on them, such as 'Tim,' 'News,' and 'Clydie Clyde.' I'll never forget Beck telling me I was a satellite. He was younger than me but carried himself like he was 35 or 40."

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

mhaze

11th October 2009, 10:36 AM

The fascinating article chroincles Beck's early career in radio. The guy started in his teens! It's mostly about the antics and too-far pranks by rival DJs. Beck comes off as unusually cruel and unsurprisingly egotistical. Clydie Clyde is/was a "character" Beck would perform.

I would no doubt it. He admits to having been cruel and mean, etc, in his early days when on the downward spiral of booze and drugs.

But I was referring more specifically, to the date of the incident about the miscarriage.

Cain

11th October 2009, 10:56 AM

I think the article only goes to 1990. As I said, it deals with his younger years.

GreNME

11th October 2009, 11:32 AM

I think the article only goes to 1990. As I said, it deals with his younger years.

I wonder if the article addresses any other possible things that Glenn Beck was doing in 1990. It would be nice if Beck would just clear the air on one big question...

mhaze

11th October 2009, 12:09 PM

I wonder if the article addresses any other possible things that Glenn Beck was doing in 1990. It would be nice if Beck would just clear the air on one big question...

Apparently Beck's attorneys are handling the matter.

Case Details for WIPO Case D2009-1182

WIPO Case Summary

WIPO Case NumberD2009-1182
Domain name(s)glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.c om
ComplainantMercury Radio Arts, Inc. and Glenn Beck
RespondentIsaac Eiland-Hall
PanelistAbbott, Frederick M.
DecisionCase active

GreNME

11th October 2009, 12:12 PM

Upchurch

11th October 2009, 12:20 PM

Apparently Beck's attorneys are handling the matter.
If he has nothing to hide, why is spending outrageous amounts of money to shut down his critics instead of just denouncing the claims? Can anyone give me a rational explanation why Beck would use money and lawyers on this?

(argumentative source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5177731#post5177731))

leftysergeant

11th October 2009, 12:20 PM

Face it. The boy is out-and-out evil. It is, thus, natural for people to believe any evil thing they hear about him.

That he is an obvious lunatic makes even the least plausible stories more believeable.

No, as far as I know, the left does not have anyone as evil on any of the media.

Maybe some of the anarchists have.

mhaze

11th October 2009, 01:53 PM

If he has nothing to hide, why is spending outrageous amounts of money to shut down his critics instead of just denouncing the claims? Can anyone give me a rational explanation why Beck would use money and lawyers on this?

(argumentative source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5177731#post5177731))

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.

What is complicated?

Polaris

11th October 2009, 04:57 PM

leftysergeant

11th October 2009, 06:33 PM

The impression I get from listening to that ranting moron is that he wants to restore America to what it was in our pre-industrial glory days, when men were men and only they could vote (provided they were white and owned land.)

MattusMaximus

11th October 2009, 06:58 PM

Meh, it's just the latest attempt by Beck to keep his slavering fans tuned in and buying his crapola. It's sad that so many of them have no idea just how much money he's making off their ignorance & gullibility - my guess is he's laughing all the way to the bank.

GreNME

11th October 2009, 08:06 PM

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.

What is complicated?

Nothing complicated, just you thinking that suing for trademark infringement being the same as providing the public with proof that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990 shows that you have a poor understanding of what trademark law entails.

mhaze

11th October 2009, 08:11 PM

Nothing complicated, just you thinking that suing for trademark infringement being the same as providing the public with proof that Glenn Beck didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990 shows that you have a poor understanding of what trademark law entails.

But "the public" has no standing.

godofpie

11th October 2009, 08:23 PM

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

GreNME

11th October 2009, 08:36 PM

But "the public" has no standing.

You say that as if Beck does.

Cain

11th October 2009, 09:17 PM

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

Somehow I had not even heard about this web-generated rape and murder controversy, so I wondered why Mhaze pressed the year -- 1990. When I googled it earlier, the campaign against Beck was attributed to Anonymous, the group that goes after the Church of Scientology. That's all I thought they did, but Wikipedia lists a number of their other projects, and I gotta say, they definitely sound like one of the cooler terrorist organizations. Anyway, a commenter on the above-linked site writes:

Yeah the whole Glenn Beck “raped and murdered a girl in 1990″ is based off of a joke that Gilbert Gofried made at the comedy central roast of Bob Saget in which he stated repeatedly that Bob Saget “raped an murdered a girl in 1990.″

I think the police should question Bob Saget.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080818124001AA1ObSB

Polaris

11th October 2009, 09:28 PM

mhaze

11th October 2009, 09:36 PM

maddog

11th October 2009, 10:05 PM

Shhhhh... "Shemp" is actually Glenn Beck. Quiet, or you'll hurt his feelings and he'll cry. Oh, wait....

GreNME

11th October 2009, 11:14 PM

Somehow I had not even heard about this web-generated rape and murder controversy, so I wondered why Mhaze pressed the year -- 1990.

No, that was with reference to the supposed joke about the miscarriage.

I understand the nature of the later smear.

I'd agree that the Gilbert Godfried reference makes for a compelling case as the source for the rumor currently going around about Glenn Beck, and that in fact he had nothing to do with raping and murdering a girl in 1990.

It would just help put the issue to rest if Beck would simply provide evidence that he didn't do as the rumor claims. Trying to cover up the questions through trademark litigation doesn't reflect well on Beck's perceived innocence.

GreNME

11th October 2009, 11:17 PM

Arcade22

12th October 2009, 12:14 AM

leftysergeant

12th October 2009, 02:36 AM

Anyone who tunes in to Beck = ignorant moron. Ok, got it... :rolleyes:

Some people tune in just to hear what the lunatic right is banging on about now.

Taking him seriously, however, appears to cause brain damage.

funk de fino

12th October 2009, 03:55 AM

I tune in when I am in the USA, just to have a laugh, and remind myself that you really do let these numpties on TV.

It is mind boggling, the man is a ranting nutjob.

mhaze

12th October 2009, 05:25 AM

You say that as if Beck does.It would appear that the attorneys think so.

Lurker

12th October 2009, 06:44 AM

I would no doubt it. He admits to having been cruel and mean, etc, in his early days when on the downward spiral of booze and drugs.

But I was referring more specifically, to the date of the incident about the miscarriage.

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?

GreNME

12th October 2009, 07:25 AM

It would appear that the attorneys think so.

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.

Glenn Beck could end all of this by simply producing evidence that he didn't rape and murder a girl in 1990. Instead he's attempting to squelch the rumors without addressing the concerns, which is a pity since I don't think there's much to the rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

Do I think Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990? Not so much, really. I just think it would be helpful to the public discourse for Glenn Beck to provide proof that he is innocent of allegations that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990.

mhaze

12th October 2009, 07:33 AM

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

12th October 2009, 08:23 AM

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

12th October 2009, 08:41 AM

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

12th October 2009, 08:44 AM

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. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4) Now go slither back under the bridge.

GreNME

12th October 2009, 09:27 AM

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. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4) 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

12th October 2009, 10:09 AM

Cain

12th October 2009, 10:52 AM

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

12th October 2009, 12:54 PM

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

12th October 2009, 01:00 PM

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

12th October 2009, 01:55 PM

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

12th October 2009, 02:15 PM

Really?

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

mhaze

12th October 2009, 02:34 PM

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

12th October 2009, 02:49 PM

..... 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

12th October 2009, 03:14 PM

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

12th October 2009, 03:14 PM

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

12th October 2009, 03:15 PM

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

12th October 2009, 03:53 PM

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 (http://hasglennbeckstoppedbeatinghiswife.com/)). 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

12th October 2009, 03:54 PM

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. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4) 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 (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Lenin/)
Russian Communist politician & revolutionary (1870 - 1924)

Praktik

12th October 2009, 03:56 PM

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

12th October 2009, 04:00 PM

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.

elbe

12th October 2009, 05:01 PM

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:[I]Third set of goalpost shiftings?

The legal actions involved do not address the, rather silly, accusations. I think it's odd that you think they do.

leftysergeant

12th October 2009, 05:08 PM

The long and short of it is that the man is a degenerate, obviously brain-damaged from his early drug and alcohol abuse, devoid of a conscience and out of contact with reality.

Hard not to believe anything negative you hear about him, in light of what we know to be a fact.

GreNME

12th October 2009, 06:58 PM

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

< snip :cuckooclo >

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 (http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Lenin/)
Russian Communist politician & revolutionary (1870 - 1924)

Your argument style is similar to that of a five year old trying to play checkers with chess pieces. You're the one who brought up the trademark litigation, which is completely unrelated to and has no bearing on whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. In fact, your insistence that this piece of unrelated litigation somehow addresses a possible rape and murder of a girl in 1990 by Glenn Beck shows how little you actually have to contribute to the public discourse on the controversy. Your ad hominem attacks simply underscore that lack of contribution on your part.

As for your implying that I'm telling a lie, you're again making up allegations out of whole cloth. I have in no way stated that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. In fact, I highly doubt that he would have done such a thing. However, it is also a fact that Glenn Beck has utterly refused to address the allegations that do exist that he has, indeed, raped and murdered a girl in 1990. He could clear up the issue with a simple statement on his radio or television show, clarifying that he didn't actually rape and murder a girl in 1990. He could even take care of two allegations at the same time by also pointing out that he doesn't beat his wife, which I equally doubt he does, but am dismayed by his refusal to answer the question about whether Glenn Beck continues to beat his wife.

So, now you're adding lying about what I'm actually saying to the evasions and personal attacks when the issues are brought up. Even though we probably agree on the question of whether Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990, and despite our likely having the same answer to the question on whether Glenn Beck continues to beat his wife, you seem to insist on trying to make the argument about unrelated and nonsensical things.

Praktik

12th October 2009, 07:13 PM

I am also concerned that in fighting this Beck has chosen an international body over a US court of law. All signs point to his lawyers arguing under international precedents, rather than first amendment precedents enshrined in the American tradition of freedom of speech.

Is Beck a fellow traveller with the internationalists who want desperately to tie down American sovereignty?

Sure, he talks a good game. But when the chips are down he's not throwing his lot in with America.

Who is Glenn Beck?

MaryThierry

12th October 2009, 07:40 PM

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.

Random correction - these two sites are separately owned. :) (link removed as I haven't posted enough to be able to post links since the forum software changed.

mhaze

12th October 2009, 08:03 PM

The legal actions involved do not address the, rather silly, accusations. I think it's odd that you think they do.Actually, they do. What part of that might be hard to understand?

quixotecoyote

12th October 2009, 08:07 PM

Random correction - these two sites are separately owned. :) (link removed as I haven't posted enough to be able to post links since the forum software changed.

Yah, in fact, when I went to look for the first site, it was down. It's taking some heavy hits, apparently.

Oh, and

hasglennbeckdeniedrapingandmurderingayounggirlin19 90.com/ (http://hasglennbeckdeniedrapingandmurderingayounggirlin19 90.com/)

mhaze

12th October 2009, 08:10 PM

.... whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990....a possible rape and murder of a girl in 1990 by Glenn Beck.... that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. .... that he has, indeed, raped and murdered a girl in 1990. ....rape and murder a girl in 1990. .... beat his wife,....Glenn Beck continues to beat his wife.....whether Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990....whether Glenn Beck continues to beat his wife, you seem to insist on trying to make the argument about unrelated and nonsensical things.
Edited for breach of rule 12. Do not insult other posters.

GreNME

12th October 2009, 08:24 PM

Edited for consistency.

There's really no need to continue with the personal attacks or misquoting what I write. I've already said that I probably agree with your opinion on whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990. That you seem to insult me for agreeing with you on the question of whether Glenn Beck continues to beat his wife just makes your posts seem that much more unreasonable. All things considered, it seems the only disagreement we have is whether or not Glenn Beck should or has addressed the rumors in question. You seem to think for some reason that trademark litigation has something to do with allegations of rape and murder, while I think it would be worthwhile for the rumors about whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990 to be addressed.

Whiplash

12th October 2009, 10:41 PM

Good lord.. that shtick is getting old, fast.

Is there any statement I can make to put an end to it?

quixotecoyote

12th October 2009, 10:43 PM

No, but Glenn Beck could put an end to it by addressing the allegations that he raped and murdered a young woman in 1990. I'm sorry it's causing you discomfort that he hasn't done so. It is quite unfortunate.

Whiplash

12th October 2009, 10:48 PM

Actually I can't stand the guy, and if that rumor about him making fun of someones miscarriage is true, then I'd definitely write the son of a bitch off for good. I don't take that kind of thing lightly at all. That would be so far over the line... I personally would find it to be unforgivable.

And still, I think this meme is about half as clever as others seem to think it is. We get it already...

quixotecoyote

12th October 2009, 10:49 PM

It's growing on me.

Whiplash

12th October 2009, 10:50 PM

You might want to see a doctor about that.

quixotecoyote

12th October 2009, 11:01 PM

piff. Whadda waste offa straight line. :covereyes

Whiplash

12th October 2009, 11:35 PM

I was joking, should have used a smiley. Or perhaps made the appropriate joke. Pray tell, what response would you have preferred?

;)

cyborg

13th October 2009, 12:00 AM

Actually, they do. What part of that might be hard to understand?

The part where they clearly don't.

In what way does Glenn Beck suing for infringment of the use of his name address the allegations that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990?

A simple A -> B please.

quixotecoyote

13th October 2009, 12:03 AM

I was joking, should have used a smiley. Or perhaps made the appropriate joke. Pray tell, what response would you have preferred?

;)

How about, "If that meme was a cancer, you'd have less balls than Lance Armstrong by now."

:boxedin:

Lurker

13th October 2009, 04:53 AM

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

Now I forgot what I was raging about. If it wasn't about Obama not clearing up the whole birth certificate controversy then it was probably about Beck not addressing the rumors of his raping and murdering someone back in 1990.

Fishstick

13th October 2009, 05:11 AM

Apparently Beck's attorneys are handling the matter.

Case Details for WIPO Case D2009-1182

WIPO Case Summary

WIPO Case NumberD2009-1182
Domain name(s)glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.c om
ComplainantMercury Radio Arts, Inc. and Glenn Beck
RespondentIsaac Eiland-Hall
PanelistAbbott, Frederick M.
DecisionCase active

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:

We are not here because the domain name could cause confusion. We
do not have a declaration from the president of the international
association of imbeciles that his members are blankly staring at the
Respondent’s website wondering “where did all the race baiting content
go?” We are here because Mr. Beck wants Respondent’s website shut
down. He wants it shut down because Respondent’s website makes a
poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck’s
very rhetorical style. Beck’s skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he
wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected
legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him
that under the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, no
action in a U.S. Court would be successful. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine,
Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Accordingly, Beck is attempting to use
this transnational body to circumvent and subvert the Respondent’s
constitutional rights.

elbe

13th October 2009, 06:16 AM

Actually, they do. What part of that might be hard to understand?

If it's the legal action presented here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5166912&postcount=7), 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.

mhaze

13th October 2009, 06:44 AM

I am also concerned that in fighting this Beck has chosen an international body over a US court of law....This is ignorance on your part. The correct venue was used.

If it's the legal action presented here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5166912&postcount=7), 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.

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)

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: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.

Fishstick

13th October 2009, 06:58 AM

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.

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.

GreNME

13th October 2009, 07:30 AM

If it's the legal action presented here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5166912&postcount=7), 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.

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 (http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/) 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.

Darth Rotor

13th October 2009, 08:25 AM

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 (http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/) 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.
Are you tring to increase the number of Google hits for the bolded part in your post? :confused:

Snide

13th October 2009, 08:57 AM

Are you tring to increase the number of Google hits for the bolded part in your post? :confused: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.

dudalb

13th October 2009, 10:43 AM

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.

Praktik

13th October 2009, 10:46 AM

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.

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!

mhaze

13th October 2009, 10:55 AM

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

Precisely. The legal action addresses not one bit the question as to whether Glenn Beck...., and at best accuses the owner of the website (http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/) of libel.....In what sense does the accusation of libel not a full and complete answer?

mhaze

13th October 2009, 11:02 AM

Are you tring to increase the number of Google hits for the bolded part in your post? :confused:If so, Grenme is ranked by Google as...what, exactly?

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.....Could it be that this is due to the slowness of your mental processes?:)

Lurker

13th October 2009, 11:37 AM

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, "[i]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!"

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

13th October 2009, 11:40 AM

Instead, Beck seems to say whatever he likes, facts be damned.
Is tu quoque thus the correct response? :confused:

Politics Forum, where skeptcism goes to die. :p

DR

Lurker

13th October 2009, 11:49 AM

Is tu quoque thus the correct response? :confused:
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

13th October 2009, 12:08 PM

Is tu quoque thus the correct response? :confused:

Politics Forum, where skeptcism goes to die. :p

DRuber-skepticisim, when thinking is just to damn hard ;)

Praktik

13th October 2009, 12:16 PM

uber-skepticisim, when thinking is just to damn hard ;)

lol nice..;)

Darth Rotor

13th October 2009, 12:56 PM

uber-skepticisim, when thinking is just to damn hard ;)
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)

KingMerv00

13th October 2009, 01:47 PM

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.

Even if it stops being funny, keep doing it. It will eventually become funny again (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OverlyLongGag).

Praktik

13th October 2009, 01:54 PM

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...:)

elbe

13th October 2009, 03:07 PM

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)

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?

GreNME

13th October 2009, 04:11 PM

Are you tring to increase the number of Google hits for the bolded part in your post? :confused:

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. :)

-----

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.

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.

GreNME

13th October 2009, 04:24 PM

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

13th October 2009, 05:19 PM

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

13th October 2009, 06:16 PM

Is tu quoque thus the correct response? :confused:

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

mhaze

13th October 2009, 07:09 PM

.... 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

13th October 2009, 07:18 PM

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

13th October 2009, 07:44 PM

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

13th October 2009, 07:52 PM

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

13th October 2009, 08:23 PM

... 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

13th October 2009, 08:33 PM

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

13th October 2009, 09:06 PM

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

14th October 2009, 04:51 AM

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

14th October 2009, 06:07 AM

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

14th October 2009, 06:08 AM

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

14th October 2009, 06:35 AM

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

14th October 2009, 12:51 PM

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

14th October 2009, 01:13 PM

mhaze

14th October 2009, 06:13 PM

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

14th October 2009, 08:46 PM

I'd offer you a cluepon (http://image.grenme.com/thread/cluepon.jpg), 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

15th October 2009, 05:59 AM

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

15th October 2009, 10:09 AM

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.

:dl:

Tsukasa Buddha

15th October 2009, 02:42 PM

Sigh, Beck is still pimping the King.. :(

Darth Rotor

15th October 2009, 02:57 PM

Sigh, Beck is still pimping the King.. :(

Elvis?

INRM

15th October 2009, 06:37 PM

I think Glenn Beck is an agent provocateur.

KingMerv00

16th October 2009, 07:22 AM

I think Glenn Beck is an agent provocateur.

This just in: Pope is Catholic, sky is blue, INRM believes in a conspiracy theory.

GreNME

16th October 2009, 09:01 AM

I think Glenn Beck is an agent provocateur.

Are you suggesting that the gub`mint may have covered up any information about whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990? I must say that I find that about as unbelievable as the rest of the rumors. Perhaps Glenn Beck should address that as well when he finally provides proof of his innocence.

quadraginta

16th October 2009, 10:11 AM

Are you suggesting that the gub`mint may have covered up any information about whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990? I must say that I find that about as unbelievable as the rest of the rumors. Perhaps Glenn Beck should address that as well when he finally provides proof of his innocence.

I, for one, do not believe the rumor that Glenn Beck is a "sleeper" agent on the payroll of the "Liberal Elite Conspiracy" being used to make the right wing look even sillier than they manage to do all by themselves.

But as conspiracy theories go this one is easily more plausible than most of the others.

I really think he should address this publicly.

Brainster

16th October 2009, 01:03 PM

Boy, if Bobby Jindal ever does get elected, this forum is going to be Birther Central.

Polaris

17th October 2009, 11:50 AM

I suspect satire.

If that's satire, then the author should work for the Onion.

GreNME

18th October 2009, 02:50 PM

Boy, if Bobby Jindal ever does get elected, this forum is going to be Birther Central.

Does not compute. Care to elaborate?

quadraginta

18th October 2009, 03:17 PM

Does not compute. Care to elaborate?

I'm guessing it's because Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, which would probably disqualify him for POTUS.

GreNME

18th October 2009, 03:36 PM

quadraginta

18th October 2009, 04:06 PM

Well, while I often make a personal observation that life in the Deep South often seems like it's a whole separate country than the United States the rest of us live in, I don't think that comes even close to a qualification that would discount his eligibility for president.

You know that. I know that.

When it comes to Birthers I don't think the facts are relevant.

:)

(ETA: "We'll try to stay serene and calm when Alabama gets the bomb.")

GreNME

20th October 2009, 08:52 PM

You shouldn't ought to say stuff like that. It tends to get some people a bit touchy. They may decide to band together into some form of organization or confederation and do something about it.

TheDaver

20th October 2009, 09:59 PM

Oh, to heck with touchy. I would go even further and say that not only is the deep south a separate country from the USA… it’s a third world country.

quadraginta

20th October 2009, 10:50 PM

You shouldn't ought to say stuff like that. It tends to get some people a bit touchy. They may decide to band together into some form of organization or confederation and do something about it.

? ...

? ...

Nahh. Never happen.

:D

(In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that one of my grandfathers was born in Mobile, AL, the other was born in Newburyport, MA, and I was raised within rock throwing distance of the Mason-Dixon Line in a state that seceded from the Secession, so I can get a bit schizo about this whole topic. :blush:)

Richard Masters

20th October 2009, 11:28 PM

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

Glenn Becks reputation as a rapist and murderer is not deserved, but he hasn't really talked about the rape or the murder, so someone has got to stand up and speak the truth about Glenn Beck.

For the record, I'm not a liberal (according to your source this is a liberal conspiracy) and I think Glenn Beck is a Yellow Journalist.

Furthermore, I don't think you understand the whole joke. The "smear" on Glenn Beck is not intended as a smear. It's satire on Glenn Beck. It reflects reality.

Richard Masters

20th October 2009, 11:32 PM

Anyone who tunes in to Beck = ignorant moron. Ok, got it... :rolleyes:

I don't think you are a moron. It's just the way I feel. Please prove to me you are not a moron.

Brainster

21st October 2009, 12:01 AM

Does not compute. Care to elaborate?

Well, as I understand it, the whole point of you guys repeating the line about whether GBRAMAYGI1990, is that turnabout is fair play. Since Beck does that "I don't know whether X is true, I'm just asking," I can see the point. I do, but I also find it tedious and silly. Remember, I have criticized Beck endlessly on this forum. But I do it based on the actual stuff he has done, not some garbage claim that some website made up.

So is it hard to imagine that the same "logic" will apply around here if Jindal does get elected president. Oh, those nasty Republicans said Obama wasn't born in the USA, we'll say that Jindal wasn't based on the same non-existent evidence. Aren't we witty?

Becks an idiot. The Birthers are idiots. If you sink to Beck's level, is it hard to predict you'll sink to the Birther level?

quadraginta

21st October 2009, 12:35 AM

Well, as I understand it, the whole point of you guys repeating the line about whether GBRAMAYGI1990, is that turnabout is fair play. Since Beck does that "I don't know whether X is true, I'm just asking," I can see the point. I do, but I also find it tedious and silly. Remember, I have criticized Beck endlessly on this forum. But I do it based on the actual stuff he has done, not some garbage claim that some website made up.

So is it hard to imagine that the same "logic" will apply around here if Jindal does get elected president. Oh, those nasty Republicans said Obama wasn't born in the USA, we'll say that Jindal wasn't based on the same non-existent evidence. Aren't we witty?

Becks an idiot. The Birthers are idiots. If you sink to Beck's level, is it hard to predict you'll sink to the Birther level?

Well, that's the point of the satire, isn't it? This is stuff he's actually done. He actually takes some garbage claim from the internet, and says "I don't know whether X is true, I'm just asking."

Just like you said.

So you must agree.

Actually.

BTW. It's interesting that you bring up the Jindal question. There are suggestions here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5212200&postcount=127) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5227019&postcount=134) on the internet that his citizenship might be in doubt. There may be others.

I wonder why he hesitates to address these issues if there is nothing to hide. Perhaps Mr. Beck can get him to respond.

Brainster

21st October 2009, 08:36 AM

Thank you for illustrating my point.

quadraginta

21st October 2009, 09:24 AM

Thank you for illustrating my point.

You're welcome.

godofpie

22nd October 2009, 02:54 PM

Bump. Glenn Becks crack legal staff has been hard at work. (http://gb1990.net/legal/round2/1-BeckSupplemental/Mercury%20Radio_Eiland%20Hall%20Supplemental%20Fil ing%20Case%20No.%20D2009_1182.pdf)
But so have the good people at glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com
(http://gb1990.net/legal/round2/3-OurReply/D2009-1182%20surreply%20final%20-%20XMT.pdf)
It's the first time that I have ever seen "whoosh" in a legal document. We need more lawyers willing to go out on a limb and use sound effects in their briefs.

mhaze

22nd October 2009, 03:30 PM

quadraginta

22nd October 2009, 05:49 PM

the perp is Isaac Eiland-Hall,

probably this is the guy...

http://isaac.eiland-hall.com/

wonder if he gets hauled into US court after the WIPO stuff is concluded?

represented by -

So Marc J. Randazza, PO Box 5516, Gloucester, Mass 01930,

You mean after Beck loses this one he should pull a Falwell and get his butt handed to him a few times in the U.S. courts?

Good thinking. The site author might be able to get some expense money out of it that way.

GreNME

22nd October 2009, 08:31 PM

Well, as I understand it, the whole point of you guys repeating the line about whether GBRAMAYGI1990, is that turnabout is fair play. Since Beck does that "I don't know whether X is true, I'm just asking," I can see the point. I do, but I also find it tedious and silly. Remember, I have criticized Beck endlessly on this forum. But I do it based on the actual stuff he has done, not some garbage claim that some website made up.

So is it hard to imagine that the same "logic" will apply around here if Jindal does get elected president. Oh, those nasty Republicans said Obama wasn't born in the USA, we'll say that Jindal wasn't based on the same non-existent evidence. Aren't we witty?

Becks an idiot. The Birthers are idiots. If you sink to Beck's level, is it hard to predict you'll sink to the Birther level?

Well, that depends: if I've spent the night at a Holiday Inn Express more than once, does that work like compound interest?

Glenn Beck isn't that smelly dork with Aspergers that everyone else on the bus laughs at. Don't expect me to pretend he is.

GreNME

22nd October 2009, 08:33 PM

the perp is Isaac Eiland-Hall,

probably this is the guy...

http://isaac.eiland-hall.com/

wonder if he gets hauled into US court after the WIPO stuff is concluded?

represented by -

So Marc J. Randazza, PO Box 5516, Gloucester, Mass 01930,

So does this mean you have an answer to my challenge to you about explaining how an intellectual property complaint addresses whether or not Glenn Beck raped and murdered a girl in 1990?

No? Still doing the fingers-in-ears-screaming-la-la-la thing?

jadebox

26th October 2009, 02:40 PM

Beck's attorneys are pretty smart. They know it only takes a few minutes and a few dollars to register a domain name. If they are successful in this dispute, they know others will create domains with similar names and they'll be able to milk Beck for more money.

Of course, the attorneys could cut out the middle man and create the sites themselves. Then they could drag out the battle fighting themselves. And bill Beck $100 an hour for it. This could be the plot of the next Grisham novel.

-- Roger

godofpie

6th November 2009, 04:11 PM

WIPO (http://gb1990.com/)decides in favor of the owner of the website glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com The owner of the website, being a class act, relinquished (http://gb1990.net/legal/solution/Dear%20Mr%20Beck.pdf)the website to Mr Beck.

Fishstick

8th November 2009, 08:33 AM

AWPrime

8th November 2009, 08:46 AM

And apparently Glenn deleted the entire website.

quadraginta

8th November 2009, 08:56 AM

And apparently Glenn deleted the entire website.

Did he say "Thank you."?

Now that he's done so admirably on the international front I wonder if he'll take some of the cogent advice offered here and try to repeat his accomplishments in a U.S.court.

Fishstick

8th November 2009, 09:00 AM

And apparently Glenn deleted the entire website.

No he didn't. The site itself is fine at gb1990.com, GB probably just removed or changed the DNS records.

AWPrime

8th November 2009, 09:16 AM

No he didn't. The site itself is fine at gb1990.com, GB probably just removed or changed the DNS records.

That seems to be a separate website.

PLEASE USE GB1990.COM, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

You can get to this website by going to DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com and GB1990.com. Really, the latter domain is so much easier to type. Please note that the GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com domain has been given to Glenn Beck immediately. I no longer control that domain. Beck does.

Fishstick

8th November 2009, 10:00 AM

That seems to be a separate website.

Your own quote states that the two domains point to the same site. They're aliases. Before beck had control both domains pointed to the same site. All Beck (or whoever now actually controlls the long-form domain) did was remove the DNS records so now that domain points nowhere. It's impossible to delete a site if you only control the domain name.

gb1990 still points there however.

godofpie

8th November 2009, 01:29 PM

Your own quote states that the two domains point to the same site. They're aliases. Before beck had control both domains pointed to the same site. All Beck (or whoever now actually controlls the long-form domain) did was remove the DNS records so now that domain points nowhere. It's impossible to delete a site if you only control the domain name.

gb1990 still points there however.

I believe the confusion is over the specific disputed website.
This is the site that the WIPO court ruled on.

Firefox can't find the server at www.glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com.

* Check the address for typing errors such as
ww.example.com instead of
www.example.com

* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.

* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

The website www.didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com now points to the GB1990 forum. So I do think that Mr Beck killed the specific goose that laid the golden meme, but, as US pointed out, has anyone squatted on
.glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1992.com
glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1991.com
etc...?

Whiplash

8th November 2009, 01:36 PM

Apparently, no amount of appeals to honesty or dignity are going to derail this monumentally silly and pointless "glenn beck rape" juggernaut. So be it. Just keep in mind, I believe those of us against it have more than made a solid case against it. But people refuse to let it go, which makes it clear it's driven ideologically. It may not work, it may not accomplish anything, but we don't care. We are going to do it anyhow, because we hate Glenn Beck. I hate him too, but I won't stoop to this nonsense.

Fishstick

8th November 2009, 01:55 PM

I believe the confusion is over the specific disputed website.
This is the site that the WIPO court ruled on.

Firefox can't find the server at www.glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com.

* Check the address for typing errors such as
ww.example.com instead of
www.example.com

* If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network
connection.

* If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure
that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.

etc...?

Yes, and the reason you get that error is because the domain no longer points to the site. The site itself (which is still reachable by gb1990.com) is still active. There is a fundamental difference between the site itself and a domain, which is what the WIPO ruled on.