quote:Thought Screech was going to jail for stabbing a guy, or did Handjob Duke save the day?
At least he has A supporter
Randolph Duke
778,779 Views |
3764 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by goodAg80
quote:
Kill Shot.
We're done now Randy.
Unless you want to insist it's a photo shop
This won't be over until Randy ends it all.
quote:Even Muy can make fun of that guyquote:Thought Screech was going to jail for stabbing a guy, or did Handjob Duke save the day?
At least he has A supporter
Wait.
Doesn't Muy have a hat just like that one?
Doesn't Muy have a hat just like that one?
quote:
Just thought the decline of the bet, taking such a high ground as being a warrior against corruption for no remuneration sounded contrived. Like he was expecting it and had the answer prepared.
Made me wonder.
The whole damn thing started out as a bet! Did he think we would forget about his "Michigan roommate"?
quote:He looks like a small-time athletic supporter.
At least he has A supporter
Safari is a kiddie diddler, count on it.
quote:Too be fair, he has previously conceded that Gill did come down but that he was not the only substitute de minimizing his importance....I know....just saying.quote:quote:Jan 3 1922 Ft Worth article
An article from the Jan. 3, 1922 edition of the Fort Worth Star Telegram has been found confirming that Gill was called in as a possible substitute in the game against Centre College. As can be seen in the second column of the page image here, the reporter on the game wrote, "The heat of battle began to tell and Coach Bible called Gill from the press box to respond to emergency."
Kill Shot.
We're done now Randy.
Unless you want to insist it's a photo shop
Asperger Duke is calling you out though!
Randy only presented a scenario where there may have been more substitutes sitting on the sideline. Of course he has no concrete proof of this. Nor does it change the fact that a student came down from the stands to assist his team if needed which is the crux of the 12th Man story.
And none of this matters in regards to our trademark.
Also, Randy is Dead.
And none of this matters in regards to our trademark.
Also, Randy is Dead.
quote:Cut it out
Wait.
Doesn't Muy have a hat just like that one?
Duke has many things right, and a few things wrong or, at the very least, has insufficient evidence to support his claim.
- Claim: Gill wasn't the last man on the sideline. This is true. He was the last available backfield runner, but not the last player.
- Claim: The players on the sideline were known. The exact number of people on the sidelines is unknown. Randy's count comes from the listed roster, yet at an awards banquet where bronze medals were given to the players, not all rostered players were given a medal. Players given medals would include those that didn't play in the game based on the reported medal count. There's insufficient evidence here.
- Claim: EE McQuillen created the "last man standing" legend. There is false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this as we don't have the broadcast, nor any written statements saying this was the case.
- Claim: That A&M's potential need for Gill was exaggerated. This is false, at least if we're to trust multiple sports writers who acknowledged that A&M's depleted backfield was a big issue, and made not of Gill suiting up because of it.
- Claim: That Gill wasn't linked with "12th Man" until 1939. Probably true. The only evidence that says otherwise is the Red Thompson letter, but that letter contains known inaccuracies that trumped up Red's role in getting Gill from the booth, thus should be disregarded.
- Claim: That his evidence invalidates the ownership claims over the trademark. Well considering no one involved in this internet debate is a trademark attorney, we're all full of **** no matter the opinion.
- Claim: Gill wasn't the last man on the sideline. This is true. He was the last available backfield runner, but not the last player.
- Claim: The players on the sideline were known. The exact number of people on the sidelines is unknown. Randy's count comes from the listed roster, yet at an awards banquet where bronze medals were given to the players, not all rostered players were given a medal. Players given medals would include those that didn't play in the game based on the reported medal count. There's insufficient evidence here.
- Claim: EE McQuillen created the "last man standing" legend. There is false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this as we don't have the broadcast, nor any written statements saying this was the case.
- Claim: That A&M's potential need for Gill was exaggerated. This is false, at least if we're to trust multiple sports writers who acknowledged that A&M's depleted backfield was a big issue, and made not of Gill suiting up because of it.
- Claim: That Gill wasn't linked with "12th Man" until 1939. Probably true. The only evidence that says otherwise is the Red Thompson letter, but that letter contains known inaccuracies that trumped up Red's role in getting Gill from the booth, thus should be disregarded.
- Claim: That his evidence invalidates the ownership claims over the trademark. Well considering no one involved in this internet debate is a trademark attorney, we're all full of **** no matter the opinion.
quote:Duke will use this as proof that you've accepted everything he's ever written and also that you're part of the Agspiracy. And you're probably now a party to his lawsuit... what an Asperger's-riddled moron.
- Claim: That Gill wasn't linked with "12th Man" until 1939. Probably true. The only evidence that says otherwise is the Red Thompson letter, but that letter contains known inaccuracies that trumped up Red's role in getting Gill from the booth, thus should be disregarded.
quote:
Geezus.
quote:Your speculation on these points is only aiding Duke...please stop. You can't say "probably true". You can say unknown. You also can't dismiss Red Thompsons letter because you think it has other inaccuracies. These are all personal accounts written long ago. Personal accounts tell part of the start but invariably don't tell all of the story.
Duke has many things right, and a few things wrong or, at the very least, has insufficient evidence to support his claim.
- Claim: Gill wasn't the last man on the sideline. This is true. He was the last available backfield runner, but not the last player.
- Claim: The players on the sideline were known. The exact number of people on the sidelines is unknown. Randy's count comes from the listed roster, yet at an awards banquet where bronze medals were given to the players, not all rostered players were given a medal. Players given medals would include those that didn't play in the game based on the reported medal count. There's insufficient evidence here.
- Claim: EE McQuillen created the "last man standing" legend. There is false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this as we don't have the broadcast, nor any written statements saying this was the case.
- Claim: That A&M's potential need for Gill was exaggerated. This is false, at least if we're to trust multiple sports writers who acknowledged that A&M's depleted backfield was a big issue, and made not of Gill suiting up because of it.
- Claim: That Gill wasn't linked with "12th Man" until 1939. Probably true. The only evidence that says otherwise is the Red Thompson letter, but that letter contains known inaccuracies that trumped up Red's role in getting Gill from the booth, thus should be disregarded.
- Claim: That his evidence invalidates the ownership claims over the trademark. Well considering no one involved in this internet debate is a trademark attorney, we're all full of **** no matter the opinion.
This post is very similar to the argument you tried to have on the SBNation fan page a couple of years ago. That didn't go well for you then. You should stop trying to meet him halfway. It fuels him.
quote:It seems pretty clear that the A&M student body was known as the 12th Man going back to about the time of Gill. My guess is that the Gill story was not how it started and that it had the same meaning as it does now, namely a raucous fan base was as effective as having a 12th man on the field.
Duke has many things right, and a few things wrong or, at the very least, has insufficient evidence to support his claim.
- Claim: Gill wasn't the last man on the sideline. This is true. He was the last available backfield runner, but not the last player.
- Claim: The players on the sideline were known. The exact number of people on the sidelines is unknown. Randy's count comes from the listed roster, yet at an awards banquet where bronze medals were given to the players, not all rostered players were given a medal. Players given medals would include those that didn't play in the game based on the reported medal count. There's insufficient evidence here.
- Claim: EE McQuillen created the "last man standing" legend. There is false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this as we don't have the broadcast, nor any written statements saying this was the case.
- Claim: That A&M's potential need for Gill was exaggerated. This is false, at least if we're to trust multiple sports writers who acknowledged that A&M's depleted backfield was a big issue, and made not of Gill suiting up because of it.
- Claim: That Gill wasn't linked with "12th Man" until 1939. Probably true. The only evidence that says otherwise is the Red Thompson letter, but that letter contains known inaccuracies that trumped up Red's role in getting Gill from the booth, thus should be disregarded.
- Claim: That his evidence invalidates the ownership claims over the trademark. Well considering no one involved in this internet debate is a trademark attorney, we're all full of **** no matter the opinion.
The Gill story made a nice enhancement to the concept.
As far as the trademark goes, the Gill story is irrelevant. It's the use of the term by the University as a specific identifier of a marketable facet of the school that matters. A&M's use of the term over the years is more than enough to warrant the trademark.
quote:Randy since you are replying to posts in this thread on Hornsports, Care to address this one?
Charles/Dan,
Since we are fully aware of you reading every word posted here. What happened when you tried this bull**it against Monsanto? Here let me help refresh your memory: What happens when Charles runs into real lawyers
You're right, we had something wrong...your dad was the pedo. Congrats?
Staff, go ahead and grab all lurker IP addresses that have hit this thread more than 100 times. Thanks.
The likely target someday when he finally goes over the edge.
- Claim: That his evidence invalidates the ownership claims over the trademark. Well considering no one involved in this internet debate is a trademark attorney, we're all full of **** no matter the opinion.
------------------
The salient point is that trademark attorneys for the Seahawks, Colts, Bills, etc have chosen to not use ANY of the these issues to try to continue the use of A&M's trademark. They have all stopped using it and removed mention of it from their material.
------------------
The salient point is that trademark attorneys for the Seahawks, Colts, Bills, etc have chosen to not use ANY of the these issues to try to continue the use of A&M's trademark. They have all stopped using it and removed mention of it from their material.
Is anyone besides Duke claiming A&M is not entitled to the 12th Man trademark?
quote:Interesting enough, the Seahawks have filed for new trademarks involving the number "12", but not the "12th Man."
- Claim: That his evidence invalidates the ownership claims over the trademark. Well considering no one involved in this internet debate is a trademark attorney, we're all full of **** no matter the opinion.
------------------
The salient point is that trademark attorneys for the Seahawks, Colts, Bills, etc have chosen to not use ANY of the these issues to try to continue the use of A&M's trademark. They have all stopped using it and removed mention of it from their material.
quote:
The Seahawks are continuing their march to own everything related to the number 12.
Paul Allen's Northwest Football LLC was granted the trademark for "12s" last week, ESPN's Darren Rovell reports.
The Seahawks now own 11 registered trademarks related to the number 12 and have filed for six more.
quote:
Rovell says other "12" references trademarked by the Seahawks include the number 12, the phrases "Spirit of 12," "Bring on the 12," "We are 12," and the number 12 on flags and banners.
LINK
Boy, they must have lousy lawyers--Randolph Duke.
quote:Well he posts it on every Horn board out there until they laugh him out of there. Plus he's been seen on Colts, Seahawks and Bills boards, basically anyone who A&M has to protect their trademark from.
Is anyone besides Duke claiming A&M is not entitled to the 12th Man trademark?
The guy is on some nutjob crusade. It's hilarious.
He posts anywhere the Corps is mentioned too. Guy has absolutely no life.
quote:
He posts anywhere the Corps is mentioned too. Guy has absolutely no life.
It keeps his mind off the Aggie Train rolling through his wife's station.
They folks on the shag - ridicule him as much or more than TexAgs. He's got no chance.
Randolph
quote:
The guy is on some nutjob crusade. It's hilarious.
Nutjob crusade describes it perfectly. He is powerless to stop himself from obsessing about Daddy A&M.
Guaranteed, he even has dreams about his war against **** at night and wakes up in the middle of the night thinking about ****. Throughout his day, reading threads on texags forums and making posts about Daddy A&M on the sip boards are the primary things he thinks about all day long.
Daddy A&M is the biggest thing in his life, by far, and nothing else is remotely even a close second.
quote:quote:Your speculation on these points is only aiding Duke...please stop. You can't say "probably true". You can say unknown. You also can't dismiss Red Thompsons letter because you think it has other inaccuracies. These are all personal accounts written long ago. Personal accounts tell part of the start but invariably don't tell all of the story.
Duke has many things right, and a few things wrong or, at the very least, has insufficient evidence to support his claim.
- Claim: Gill wasn't the last man on the sideline. This is true. He was the last available backfield runner, but not the last player.
- Claim: The players on the sideline were known. The exact number of people on the sidelines is unknown. Randy's count comes from the listed roster, yet at an awards banquet where bronze medals were given to the players, not all rostered players were given a medal. Players given medals would include those that didn't play in the game based on the reported medal count. There's insufficient evidence here.
- Claim: EE McQuillen created the "last man standing" legend. There is false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this as we don't have the broadcast, nor any written statements saying this was the case.
- Claim: That A&M's potential need for Gill was exaggerated. This is false, at least if we're to trust multiple sports writers who acknowledged that A&M's depleted backfield was a big issue, and made not of Gill suiting up because of it.
- Claim: That Gill wasn't linked with "12th Man" until 1939. Probably true. The only evidence that says otherwise is the Red Thompson letter, but that letter contains known inaccuracies that trumped up Red's role in getting Gill from the booth, thus should be disregarded.
- Claim: That his evidence invalidates the ownership claims over the trademark. Well considering no one involved in this internet debate is a trademark attorney, we're all full of **** no matter the opinion.
This post is very similar to the argument you tried to have on the SBNation fan page a couple of years ago. That didn't go well for you then. You should stop trying to meet him halfway. It fuels him.
Aiding him do what? Being a crazy ****? I think you're giving us both far too much credit.
Also, I never wrote a post on Good Bull Hunting about this, so I don't know what you're talking about there.
Oh good lord! He's starting to sound like the sovereign citizen / Bundy crowd. It's just as solid legal reasoning, anyways:
quote:
And as far as your comment about the requirements to establish a claim of fraud, you seem to forget TAMU is a governmental entity. The powers of the state government are limited to those granted under the state constitution. All that needs to be proven is that the trademark application was false and that when the state (the university) knowingly filed the false trademark application, doing so was outside the legal powers granted the state.
Since you are such a keen legal scholar, perhaps you can point out where the state is granted the power to knowingly file false attestations under penalty of perjury. If the filing of the trademark application was outside the powers granted the government, the trademark is in big trouble. Fraud does not have to be proven. All that needs to be proven is that the government didn't have the constitutional authority to file the application they filed.
Has "it" happened yet? Randy?
That's the thing - he tries to claim people knowingly filed this with false information, even though the information they had (like Thompson's letter), all indicated that this was true. Not to mention that "First Use" is mostly irrelevant to filing in this case since, even if attributed to Gill in 1922, it wasn't used in the sale or marketing of a good or service.
I just want to know where the registered letters are this god forsaken **** tard said he was sending out.
Featured Stories
See All
Arranging the horse-cart combo correctly is critical for Texas A&M
by Olin Buchanan
9:36
9m ago
157
Presenting Texas Aggies United’s Battle For Atlanta Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United