Yo John Henry, when do you plan on putting out the RSPW book?
Scutt Farkus
being done yet. And yes, I've seen all the latest entries on your
lowgenius.com site.
Also, why is Mike "Van Pelt" Palij funding all this? Your server fees, your
bumper sticker fees, giving you the capital for your DVD business? Seems a bit
creepy to me.
D-Chance.
> Also, why is Mike "Van Pelt" Palij funding all this? Your server fees,
your
> bumper sticker fees, giving you the capital for your DVD business? Seems
a bit
> creepy to me.
Pity money...
D-Chance.
Stefan
news:20030805164310...@mb-m12.aol.com...
So this isn't just a rumor? It is true?
Stefan
Scutt Farkus
>From: "D-Chance." dch...@cox-internet.com
>Date: 8/5/2003 4:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <vj06196...@corp.supernews.com>
Maybe he's a sugar daddy or suitcase pimp.
Scutt Farkus
I have the email to prove it. I posted it in another post, but here it is
again, snipped for brevity (there's a lot of administarative stuff about the
FAQ):
We're taken care of for this month [ed. note: refers to the RSPW.net server
fees]
> thanks to the
> largesse
> of Dr. Mike Palij; he would appreciate that NOT
> being made public,
> since theoretically he doesn't read RSPW any more.
> Mike has been a
> big help to me over the last six months, having
> ordered stacks of
> stickers and DVDs from me (and indeed, he bought me
> the video card
> and DVD burner so I could open the DVD business at
> lowgenius.com) so
> I'd appreciate it if his wishes were respected in
> this matter. But
> we have at least until the end of the month to worry
> about it.
and later:
> I think that we may want to seriously consider
> finding a paper
> publisher for this once we've achieved version 3.0;
> it's ust
> something to keep in mind, but I think that the
> "Professional
> Wrestling Encyclopedia" is something that could very
> well find a
> niche market, and best of all we could issue a new
> edition every
> year
> or two with updated information. It's just a
> thought, but hell,
> we're all working hard on this, so why not try and
> benefit from it?
Stefan
/me shakes head.
Where is Palij...er..Van Pelt anyway? No news stories today
Stefan
Scutt Farkus
>From: "Stefan" s.da...@sbcglobal.net
>Message-id: <NbVXa.17192$Vx2.8...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>
Don't know, don't care. If and/or when he begins flooding the newsgroup, I'll
be killfiling him. I've started throwing a whole bunch of people in the
killfile and it's really made for a much easier read.
CrossfaceWalls
>Date: 08/05/2003 5:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20030805172409...@mb-m12.aol.com>
lol......basically everyone who doesn't agree with Panaro.
So what, that must mean about 4 posts a day come up.
******
"On September 11th, we were attacked by Saudi Arabians, based out of Germany,
Afghanastan, and Pakistan. And by that, I mean Iraq." - Bill Maher
CrossfaceWalls= Proud member of the BOB (Band of Brahs)
The_Bede
superiority!!!!!!!!11111oneoneonetwoonetwocheckcheckcheckonetwoonetwoone11!
"Scutt Farkus" <petep...@aol.comgoaway> wrote in message
news:20030805171529...@mb-m12.aol.com...
Scutt Farkus
>Date: 8/5/2003 9:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <IYYXa.238608$o86....@news1.central.cox.net>
>
>Why don't you TOS all their sites and emails? That will *prove* your
>superiority!!!!!!!!11111oneoneonetwoonetwocheckcheckcheckonetwoonetwoone11!
Eh?
Lord of Darkness
holder of the name "Low Genius" gets done with you
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 03:52:38 -0000, John Henry
<john...@lowgenius.com> wrote:
>What is THAT, Stefan (s.da...@sbcglobal.net)? Is that a
>rec.sport.pro-wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>
>> So this isn't just a rumor? It is true?
>
>No. It's a red herring, and it was done intentionally. My apologies for
>bringing Dr. Palij's name into it, but I figured a) he's not been around
>and b) he's a controversial enough personality that eventually, if I
>couldn't trust someone, they'd try to fuck with me by shooting on him.
>
>If you're out there lurking, Mike, sorry about this, but as you can see, my
>suspicions were well-founded. There are only four people with access to
>that message - Myself, Chad, ViNNY, and Fro. Chad just wouldn't do
>something like this. ViNNY and I have had our moments, but I thought we
>were basically seeing eye to eye on things. Fro and I haven't ever really
>had a major disagreement that I know of, but he's supposedly working on
>Jeff Small's pathetic attempt at an FAQ. So, unfortunately, I have to cut
>everyone involved off for now until the responsible party comes forward.
>If the other person is then willing to continue working with me on this,
>they will be welcome; if not, c'est la vie. I'll rewrite their
>contributions.
>
>As you can see, I've been planning on having to do so anyway.
>
>--
>John Henry
>-Now playing: Winamp stopped
>http://www.lowgenius.com - Games and stuff
>http://www.lowgenius.net - stickers and political incorrectness
>http://www.rspw.net - rasslin
>We're not hitchiking anymore....WE'RE RIDING~!
Avenger
Krusty
> No. It's a red herring, and it was done intentionally. My apologies for
> bringing Dr. Palij's name into it, but I figured a) he's not been around
> and b) he's a controversial enough personality that eventually, if I
> couldn't trust someone, they'd try to fuck with me by shooting on him.
>
> If you're out there lurking, Mike, sorry about this, but as you can see,
my
> suspicions were well-founded. There are only four people with access to
> that message - Myself, Chad, ViNNY, and Fro. Chad just wouldn't do
> something like this. ViNNY and I have had our moments, but I thought we
> were basically seeing eye to eye on things. Fro and I haven't ever really
> had a major disagreement that I know of, but he's supposedly working on
> Jeff Small's pathetic attempt at an FAQ. So, unfortunately, I have to cut
> everyone involved off for now until the responsible party comes forward.
> If the other person is then willing to continue working with me on this,
> they will be welcome; if not, c'est la vie. I'll rewrite their
> contributions.
>
> As you can see, I've been planning on having to do so anyway.
lmao @ all the rspw cloak and dagger..."red herrings"...sure thing
man...whatever you say Mr. Genius.
*snicker*
And just FYI. Any "FAQ" I put out won't be done by a stupid ass third grade
"editorial team". The reason so many people have expressed interest in me
working on an rspw faq is because *I'M* footing the bill for hosting, and
I'm making it completely open source. Anyone can have at it, anyone can add
or edit it, it's tightly controlled *by programming*, which I guess is
something you're not familiar with obviously. It's more than likely going to
exist as an open source XML document that will act as a web service feed for
anyone to consume at their pleasure. I haven't written a single question,
nor have I provided a single answer. I'm not the "editor" or whatever you
fancy yourself. I'm just the programmer.
There's no spams begging people to come see my website, it's all done via
mailing list. No Spam, No Begging, No crying like a fucking baby...just
programming and an FAQ worthy of the group that exists in a completely open
way.
So you take your abortion of a website and stick it up your white trash non
skill having ass. People gravitate to something that works...not something
that's going to be hijacked eventually for your own personal gain on the
backs of other hard working posters, you fucking imbicile. Notice the rats
abandoning your sinking ship? Tell you something?
Another world famous John Henry failure. Par for the course.
Lord of Darkness
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:56:39 -0400, "Krusty" <rspwk...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Avenger
Stefan
news:Xns93CFA50D04DABjo...@216.168.3.44...
> What is THAT, Lord of Darkness (lordofd...@post.cz)? Is that a
> rec.sport.pro-wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>
> > holder of the name "Low Genius" gets done with you
>
>
Not to take idiot's side or anything but...when the hell did you fill out
the paperwork and apply for it? And get approved?
Stefan
Oooh your so cool Brewster
>Date: 8/6/2003 4:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns93CFA545B60A3jo...@216.168.3.44>
>
>What is THAT, Krusty (rspwk...@yahoo.com)? Is that a
>rec.sport.pro-wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>
>
LOL! You...just...don't...get it
Stefan
> What is THAT, Stefan (s.da...@sbcglobal.net)? Is that a rec.sport.pro-
> wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>
> statutory rights are created protecting the trademark owner. However, the
> general rule often referred to as "first-in-time"--The first person or
> entity to use a trademark in commerce receives common law protection for
> the use of that trademark. Thus, this "first person" can prevent others
> from using that same trademark...even if this "first person" never
> registered the mark.
>
> Now, if someone can prove that a) they used the LowGenius trademark *in
> commerce* prior to 10-2001, or b) that they registered the T prior to 10-
> 2001, I *might* have a problem...but they can't, because while I *didn't*
> shell out the $750 for registration, I *did* shell out nearly $200 for a
> nationwide trademark search - federal and state-by-state, to the county
> level - before I started using it. Any claim to prior ownsership is
> completely fraudulent; Stevie is once again making up shit hoping that
> someone is stupid enough to believe it and therefore think him a fuck of
> a lot smarter and more relevant than he really is.
>
> End of story.
>
But you said you were the trademark holder. Now you are saying you
are't...which is it?
Stefan
Rockboy
> What is THAT, Stefan (s.da...@sbcglobal.net)? Is that a
> No, I'm not. Try reading it again.
>
Funny, I read this.
"I *am* the trademark holder, idiot."
And then this.
"I *didn't* shell out the $750 for registration"
Don't try and pass this off as ownership,
"I *did* shell out nearly $200 for a nationwide trademark search -
federal and state-by-state, to the county level - before I started using
it."
Doesn't cut it. If I set up a tent on some land and run a property
search on it, it doesn't mean I own it. If I buy a car and run a search
on it, but don't bother registering it, it does not mean I can drive it.
If I run a name search on a company, find it's not in use, and start
using it without registering it, it still does not mean I own it.
--
Rockboy
I think my life is passing me by
Poot Rootbeer
>>> Once a trademark is successfully registered with the USPTO,
>>> certain statutory rights are created protecting the trademark
>>> owner. However, the general rule often referred to as
>>> "first-in-time"--The first person or entity to use a trademark
>>> in commerce receives common law protection for the use of that
>>> trademark. Thus, this "first person" can prevent others from
>>> using that same trademark...even if this "first person" never
>>> registered the mark.
In theory, this is true (at least on a state level; the federal
trademark codes are not built upon common law).
In practice, though, the doctrine of "finders keepers" would afford you
very little protection were a trademark dispute to arise. It would be
your word about when you first used the mark against another
claimant's; and if the other party was unaware of your claim and
registered the mark themselves, that's going to tip the ruling in their
favor.
USPTO-granted certificate >>> printout of Google Groups post.
-Harvey Pootman
Rockboy
> Archive.org = independent verification. Plus the registration date of the
> domain.
Domain names are not a means of establishing a trademark, and you damn
well know that.
Rockboy
> Which part of
>
> "The first person or entity to use a trademark in commerce receives common
> law protection for the use of that trademark. Thus, this "first person" can
> prevent others from using that same trademark...even if this "first
> person" never registered the mark."
>
> don't you understand?
Domain name squatters say, "HI".
Oooh your so cool Brewster
>From: John Henry john...@lowgenius.com
>Message-id: <Xns93CFCB7219B05jo...@216.168.3.44>
>
>What is THAT, Stefan (s.da...@sbcglobal.net)? Is that a rec.sport.pro-
>wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>
>> "John Henry" <john...@lowgenius.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns93CFA50D04DABjo...@216.168.3.44...
>>> What is THAT, Lord of Darkness (lordofd...@post.cz)? Is that a
>>> rec.sport.pro-wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>>>
>>> > You arent going to be doing much of anything after the trademark
>>> > holder of the name "Low Genius" gets done with you
>>>
>>> I *am* the trademark holder, idiot.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not to take idiot's side or anything but...when the hell did you fill
>out
>> the paperwork and apply for it? And get approved?
>
>statutory rights are created protecting the trademark owner. However, the
>the use of that trademark. Thus, this "first person" can prevent others
>from using that same trademark...even if this "first person" never
>registered the mark.
>
>2001, I *might* have a problem...but they can't, because while I *didn't*
>shell out the $750 for registration, I *did* shell out nearly $200 for a
>nationwide trademark search - federal and state-by-state, to the county
>level - before I started using it. Any claim to prior ownsership is
>completely fraudulent; Stevie is once again making up shit hoping that
>someone is stupid enough to believe it and therefore think him a fuck of
>a lot smarter and more relevant than he really is.
>
>End of story.
You've been handing out legal advice for about 5 years, and it gets more and
more hilarious since you're wrong about 99% of the time. You've got maybe a
GED and no legal training. Like I said hilarious.
Oooh your so cool Brewster
>From: John Henry john...@lowgenius.com
>Message-id: <Xns93CFD2223FF4jo...@216.168.3.44>
>
>>> What is THAT, Stefan (s.da...@sbcglobal.net)? Is that a
>>> rec.sport.pro- wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>>>
>>> > "John Henry" <john...@lowgenius.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:Xns93CFA50D04DABjo...@216.168.3.44...
>>> >> What is THAT, Lord of Darkness (lordofd...@post.cz)? Is that
>>> >> a rec.sport.pro-wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>>> >>
>>> >> > You arent going to be doing much of anything after the trademark
>>> >> > holder of the name "Low Genius" gets done with you
>>> >>
>>> >> I *am* the trademark holder, idiot.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Not to take idiot's side or anything but...when the hell did you
>>> > fill
>>> out
>>> > the paperwork and apply for it? And get approved?
>>>
>>> Once a trademark is successfully registered with the USPTO, certain
>>> statutory rights are created protecting the trademark owner. However,
>>> the general rule often referred to as "first-in-time"--The first
>>> person or entity to use a trademark in commerce receives common law
>>> protection for the use of that trademark. Thus, this "first person"
>>> can prevent others from using that same trademark...even if this
>>> "first person" never registered the mark.
>>>
>>> Now, if someone can prove that a) they used the LowGenius trademark
>>> prior to 10- 2001, I *might* have a problem...but they can't, because
>>> while I *didn't* shell out the $750 for registration, I *did* shell
>>> out nearly $200 for a nationwide trademark search - federal and
>>> state-by-state, to the county level - before I started using it. Any
>>> claim to prior ownsership is completely fraudulent; Stevie is once
>>> again making up shit hoping that someone is stupid enough to believe
>>> it and therefore think him a fuck of a lot smarter and more relevant
>>> than he really is.
>>>
>>> End of story.
>>>
>>
>>
>> are't...which is it?
>
>No, I'm not. Try reading it again.
But you said you were earlier. So are you a liar?
Oooh your so cool Brewster
>Date: 8/6/2003 10:40 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <bgse8d$95g$1...@slb5.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>In article <Xns93CFE1B036...@206.127.4.25>,
> Poot Rootbeer <po...@dork.com> wrote:
>
>> John Henry <john...@lowgenius.com> wrote:
>> >>> Once a trademark is successfully registered with the USPTO,
>> >>> certain statutory rights are created protecting the trademark
>> >>> owner. However, the general rule often referred to as
>> >>> "first-in-time"--The first person or entity to use a trademark
>> >>> in commerce receives common law protection for the use of that
>> >>> trademark. Thus, this "first person" can prevent others from
>> >>> using that same trademark...even if this "first person" never
>> >>> registered the mark.
>>
>> trademark codes are not built upon common law).
>>
>
>is why there is now a WWE...
>
>> In practice, though, the doctrine of "finders keepers" would afford you
>> very little protection were a trademark dispute to arise. It would be
>> your word about when you first used the mark against another
>> claimant's; and if the other party was unaware of your claim and
>> registered the mark themselves, that's going to tip the ruling in their
>> favor.
>>
>
>the practice by someone that could and/or did prove ownership.
>
>Given the fact that Steve "I like little girls" Signorelli is a "bitter"
>internet stalking POS with a hardon for JH, Chad, Mike Palij, and/or
>anyone else that he saw as an enemy... *I* see a problem for your
>(lowgenius) domain name, money-wise if ya know what *I* mean.
>> USPTO-granted certificate >>> printout of Google Groups post.
>>
>> -Harvey Pootman
>
>(thinking Poot makes a valid point, but I'm NO lawyer)
That shouldn't stop you though from making sweeping legal pronouncement. Every
kook on RSPW does regularly.
Oooh your so cool Brewster
>Date: 8/7/2003 1:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns93D0C302B9Ejoh...@216.168.3.44>
>
>What is THAT, Krusty (rspwk...@yahoo.com)? Is that a rec.sport.pro-
>wrestling pin, ON YOUR UNIFORM?!
>
>> abandoning your sinking ship? Tell you something?
>
>support you in e-mail." I notice that for all your talk, you've managed
>to actually produce nothing.
And what have you produced? There's no active FAQ. You're big RSPW.net
project consists currently of outdated polls garnering anywhere from 1 to 10
responses.
On top of that, Krusty's been working on a FAQ for maybe a week. You've had
nearly two years to get your act in gear.
Oooh your so cool Brewster
>losers like you who have bought their way through life and never worked
>honestly at anyhin
LOL! There are really people who still think like this?
Krusty
> Jealous much?
Of what exactly?
Ahhh...see? I stumped you.
*snicker*
Oooh your so cool Brewster
>Message-id: <bguiag$ca8$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>In article <20030807084804...@mb-m02.aol.com>,
> petep...@aol.comgoaway (Oooh your so cool Brewster) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> > - JT
>> >(thinking Poot makes a valid point, but I'm NO lawyer)
>>
>> That shouldn't stop you though from making sweeping legal pronouncement.
>Every
>> kook on RSPW does regularly.
>>
>
>certain posters nutsacks... BTW collage boy, try reading what *I* wrote
>above again, it's called having an opinion, now FOAD.
Huh? What brought this on? What does any of this have to do with my comment
on everyone making legal pronouncements despite having no legal training (or
intelligence in general).
Chad Bryants Belly
house fly.
--
Chad Bryant's Belly
www.chadbryant.cjb.net