quote:

---

Holy crap. The WSJ actually used some guy who won't even stand behind his one "research " with his real name as a source. Well, my name is Eddie Murphy and I say that Randy is full of it. Print that.

---

This is kind of my thought as well. It's not like he's a source that needs protecting; everyone knows who he is. If you're that confident in your research, put your name behind it.

I'm pretty certain Bonfire96=Randy.

Hey Randolph - they should have asked you about raping children. That's your real area of expertise.


Anyhow - thanks for the pub. We want Aggie football in the news 24/7. The eyes of Texas are upon us bltch.

What kind of pathetic POS spends this much time / energy on a non rival?

I seriously could see this nut job doing something similar to the Bama moron who poisoned Auburn's tree.

When we win the title we better hire extra security around Reveille.

When the hell did it become appropriate to site an internet alias as a source..? The entire piece is completely irrelevant when you start quoting ficticious characters in your main argument... What a hack.

quote:

---

Hey Randolph - they should have asked you about raping children. That's your real area of expertise.

---

1. This: What kind of pathetic POS spends this much time / energy on a non rival?

2. It tells you a lot about the WSJ when they used an internet fake-named source for a blog entry.

3. Why has no Ag seriously outed this guy?

quote:

---

3. Why has no Ag seriously outed this guy?

---

digging tunnels posted in this thread and claims he knows him. Ask him.

digging tunnels,

Why have you not outed this guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_man_(football)&action=history


He's currently trying to edit Wikipedia to cite his WSJ article. I'm embarrassed for the horns to be honest. Legitimately crazy and obsessed.

It's definitely time to unleash the power of TexAgs on his sorry ass

PM digging tunnels

[This message has been edited by Wipey (edited 2/1/2014 11:36a).]

THIS


It's definitely time to unleash the power of TexAgs on his sorry ass

http://forums.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=2412478&forum_id=6

It would be awesome if Texags ruined his life.

Reading his posts, I'm pretty sure his life is already ruined.

Still trying to imagine what could make someone so obsessed by their school's arch rival that they would spend hundreds of hours of their personal time researching the rival's traditions in order to "disprove" them. It is mindboggling that the sips do this. It is also hilariously funny.

Sips are the Harvey Updyke of the big12.

Sips don't do this. ONE single tsip does this, and he is laughed at by most of his own fanbase.

quote:

---

Sips don't do this. ONE single tsip does this, and he is laughed at by most of his own fanbase.

---

Pretty sure there is a sip website run by other sips that publishes his research and his rambling Kaczynski-like manifestos.

But I agree that probably 80 percent of the sips don't fall into the Randy Duke category.

quote:

---

digging tunnels,

Why have you not outed this guy?

---

quote:

---

It would be awesome if Texags ruined his life.

---

My God.

The perfect guy to ruin his life is Mac Gregor. Mac can you start a dialogue with him until he commits suicide?

Thanks in advance champ.

Seeing what's it's done to McGregor, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

quote:

---

The perfect guy to ruin his life is Mac Gregor. Mac can you start a dialogue with him until he commits suicide?

Thanks in advance champ.

---

You're older and more experienced than me. I think you deserve this assignment, pops.

quote:

---

Seeing what's it's done to McGregor, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

---

I know.

quote:

---

It would be awesome if Texags ruined his life.

---

No it wouldn't. We don't need to validate his nonsense by retaliating. Just laugh and move on.

Good ****ing God this is pathetic.

quote:

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=12th_man_(football)&action=history


He's currently trying to edit Wikipedia to cite his WSJ article. I'm embarrassed for the horns to be honest. Legitimately crazy and obsessed.

---

Wow. What a pathetic existence.

quote:

---

You're older and more experienced than me. I think you deserve this assignment, pops.

---

How much good do you really think that drool and depends accidents would have in this situation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Randolph_Duke

quote:

---

My understanding is that someone has contacted Jason Cook at TAMU requesting a citation to the version used by the university to establish the version on their website but Mr. Cook simply has ignored all such requests.

---

FOIA request to get these emails?

NoneGiven, that was an AWESOME read. Wikipedia editors are baffled and annoyed at Duke's incessant vandalism of any and all A&M Wikipedia pages. Get a freaking life, Duke.

[This message has been edited by Wipey (edited 2/1/2014 1:31p).]

quote:

---

(Corrected to show first known use. I'm confused why the Wall Street Journal is not being accepted as a reliable source.) (undo)

---

quote:

---

(Undid revision 593461281 by Randolph Duke (talk) WSJ articles using random obsessed internet posters as sources are not credible) (undo)

---

It's like when Alex Jones tell you to look up his sources, and the sources turn out to be him.

quote:

---

You are drawing a conclusion based on a single source, that doesn't mean the phrase was "so common", merely that it was used in this instance. There is also a strong undertone here where you seem to be digging at the Aggies at every turn. It isn't necessary or appropriate.

---

Randolph's life work is coming undone. NOooooo!!

RD doesn't know as much about trademark law as he thinks he does. This quote explains the actual law behind First Use in Commerce dates. It comes from Standard Knitting v. Toyota, 77 USPQ2d 1917:

quote:

---

Fraud must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, and any doubt must be resolved against a finding of fraud. See Giant Food, Inc. v. Standard Terry Mills, Inc., 229 USPQ 955, 962 (TTAB 1986) and cases cited therein. Furthermore, fraud will not lie if it can be proven that the statement, though false, was made with a reasonable and honest belief that it was true. See Woodstock's Enterprises Inc. (California) v. Woodstock's Enterprises Inc. (Oregon), 43 USPQ2d 1440 (TTAB 1997).

The critical question is whether the marks were in use in connection with the identified goods as of the filing date of the use-based applications and as of the filing date of the statement of use in the intent-to-use application. If the mark was in current use, then the first use, even if false is not fraud. See Colt Industries Operating Corp. v. Olivetti Controllo Numerico S.p.A., 221 USPQ 73, 76 (TTAB 1983) ("The Examining Attorney gives no consideration to alleged dates of first use in determining whether conflicting marks should be published for opposition.")

---

In simpler language, the TTAB (the court that reviews trademark disputes) presumes against a finding of fraud in all cases, and since we were obviously using the 12th Man in commerce by the filing date (1994), then it becomes a non-issue.

Even failing that, nobody would expect a trademark attorney to do a thorough search of the Cushing library archives or whatever to contemporaneously fact-check the E. King Gill story when there were so many other sources repeating the 1922 date, so it wouldn't rise to the level of knowing misrepresentation in an opposition proceeding.

The USPTO is only concerned with "First Use in Commerce." Random articles from Iowa newspapers or wherever are irrelevant without commerce. And even on the off-chance it was shown used in commerce before whatever the revised date turns out to be, it would only be sufficient to give whoever could prove prior use in commerce common-law rights to use the mark alongside us, not to cancel the mark into a free-for-all.

[This message has been edited by Iosh (edited 2/1/2014 1:55p).]