Prevarication Du Jour

WMS Radio Network201406132228ZFAN FICTION!!!!!!!11!!!!!1!!

UPDATE—Warner Bros. may have learned their lesson about over-the-top trademark claims back in the ’40s. The Marx Brothers made a picture called A Night in Casablanca, and WB threatened to sue because the title was to close too that of the famous Bogart movie. Groucho threatened to sue Warner Bros. for their infringement on the Marx Brothers prior use of “Brothers.” The whole thing quietly died.

26 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour

  1. as i recall, Schmalfeldt used to begin every episode of his Blood on the Microphone radio show with a clip of Brain saying, “are you pondering what I am pondering?” along with clips from numerous other shows, mainly cartoons.

  2. And now Bill is accusing us of calling a judge corrupt.

    For once, he doesn’t give a screen cap. Could that be because we didn’t?

    • maybe a reference to when he referred to the judge for the copyright suit being a Clinton appointee, someone in another thread made a comment along the lines of “so he thinks they will be corrupt??”


      • maybe referring to this?

        “A Reader on 8 June, 2014 at 08:13 said:
        12 0 Rate This
        He thought that judge Stansfield was clueless or corrupt or had the hots for Zoa, and that’s why the judge decided the way he did. Now, it looks to me that he’s implying a federal judge will do the same, but in his favor, because she is a Clinton appointee.

        on 8 June, 2014 at 10:46 said:
        8 0 Rate This
        Well, a prog is explaining that Clinton appointees are corrupt: will wonders never cease?

      • I have made several comments referencing BS’s implication that a Clinton appointee would necessarily be corrupt and ignore the law. They were sarcastic or ironic in tone, and I did not assert that any specific Clinton appointee is in fact corrupt. There are three possibilities: (1) BS has a problem comprehending what he reads, (2) BS is bonkers, or (3) BS is an inveterate liar. Take your pick.

      • LOL. I did not mean to intend an exclusive “or.” We lost much by not retaining the distinction in Latin between “aut …. aut” and “vel.”

    • I think he’s referring to comments regarding dissatisfaction with the courts in Maryland. He is the one who has consistently questioned the integrity of the judges on this case. The latest is his implication that a federal judge will rule in his favor simply because she’s a Clinton appointee, instead of on the merits of the case.

    • I think it is wrong to call Vaughey a clueless dingbat. (Oh NOESS he was attacked!).

      He knew, and knows the law, just chose to ignore it. This is the problem we face. Not people who are ignorant of how civil people live, but people who willfully break the rules.

      Is it possible that BK thinks that it is okay to present forged documents in court? Is it possible that Judge Runyon believes that there are no rules against doing so?

      These people know. And they do the wrong thing anyway.

      • Was Vaughey corrupt? Possibly: it depends both on facts not known and on the interpretation of what corrupt means. I for one would not call him corrupt on the basis of the publicly available facts.

        If corrupt means that he was bribed to give a verdict knowingly illegal, to assert that as certain would entail it is known as a certainty that: (1) he has the capacity to understand that the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States control his decisions, (2) he knows how to find cited cases, read them, and understand what they mean, and (3) he accepted something of value to disregard what he knew, or should have known, to be the law of the land. As far as I know, and I truly beg to be corrected if I am wrong, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that ANY of those predidicates is true.

        Under those circumstances, I believe it may well be wrong, and is certainly premature, to state that Vaughey is corrupt. “Dingbat,” however, whether lawless or not, seems to be giving him far too much credit. “Cretin” may be closer to the mark though that too may grossly overstate his capacity to sit on the bench (or even to play in the front yard unsupervised).

  3. Accused copyright scofflaw continues to post material from various sources, WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION.

  4. Wait, does WB even own a trademark on the word “Acme.” I mean if one is going to accuse randomly, it might be best to at least accuse of something that’s kinda sorta real.
    Indeed, for a time Acme was a commonly used company name. The Wikipedia page has *real* ads for *real* companies that used the Acme moniker (prior to WB turning it into an ironic joke.)
    The sorta received history is that after the popularizing of the yellow pages people choose the name “Acme” (which means “pinnacle” “above” “zenith” etc.) to be first in the book. Which is also why WB chose it for their humorously bad company. (YMMV on whether that’s true or not.)

  5. ever notice when someone is guilty of something, the almost always immediately start pointing out(or try to) how “others” have done the same thing? as if that somehow alleviates their own guilt??


Leave a Reply