Think Pilferage

When smearing Fox just isn't enough, what do the haters do? They steal!

No sooner did we expose a shoddy, hack editing job by the unreliable propaganda site Think Progress, than they repaid the favor in a most unprofessional manner. It's a violation of journalistic ethics, netiquette, and basic honesty. And worse.

On Monday January 22 at 7:28 pm we posted audio from John Gibson's radio program: his response to criticisms from CNN regarding the Insight/Obama article. The next day, approximately 12 hours after our post, TVNewser commented on our audio and linked to it. So far, no harm, no foul.

The day after that--nearly 48 hours after our original posting--Think Progress suddenly came up with a commentary on Gibson's remarks. They give a very short excerpt, designed to make it look like Gibson was accusing CNN of covering up Muslim extremism at the school in question. Now obviously anyone who listens to the full-length audio knows that is not the case. But there's a further point here.

Alone with their carefully chopped transcript, they provide an equivalent, carefully chopped audio clip. How strange. If they taped Gibson's show on Jan 22, why did they wait 48 hours to post their clip? Why did they only do so after our original post, and after TVNewser publicized it?

The answer proves to be, as Sherlock would say, elementary. We believe they didn't have a clip because they didn't tape Gibson's show. Therefore they knew nothing about his comments until they read TVNewser and followed the link to this site. And seeing an opportunity, they filched our audio, hacked it down so it suited their purposes, and put it up on their website as their own work. They did not acknowledge J$P, or link to it, or in any way let their gullible readers know that they were trucking in the internet equivalent of stolen property.

The skeptics will ask: How do you know it's your audio? How can you prove it? Anyone could have taped the show and provided it to them.

Our secret revealed: every audio clip we post is one of a kind, because each is individually edited and customized. We shorten pauses, eliminate redundancies and "ums", and edit them down to their essentials. What's more, the audio signature is also wholly unique. To compensate for widely varying levels, we apply our own algorithm for volume compensation that continually changes the decibel levels to ensure maximum clarity for internet listening. Guess what? The "Think Progress" audio tracks at 100% with our original, from start to finish. Every pause the same length, every level change identical.

Anyone with the proper technical expertise can prove it for himself: take the two audio clips and convert them to WAV or AIFF files. Reverse the phase on one (making it the exact acoustic opposite) and then combine them. The audio vanishes: the identical, but inverse, signal cancels out the original, because the Think Progress clip has exactly the same edits, EQ, and level alterations as ours. That's definitive, and proves Think Progress to be cyber-thieves. All because they didn't want to link to the complete audio, for fear that the full context of the remarks would render their smear ineffective.

This blog displays a copyright symbol on every page. In addition, editing, improvement, or restoration of an audio recording produces a new product, which itself is eligible for copyright protection completely separate from that of the original audio. So along with the sleazy tactic of stealing our internet posting without permission or attribution, Think Progress also pilfered our copyrighted material and work product, without due compensation or color of law. We're going to enjoy this.

posted: Wed - January 24, 2007 at 11:57 PM j$p send

Puck
Oh those wacky Loons over at 'thinkregressive'. hoping to have another 'wither on the vine' moment. Sorry TP. there are outlets out here now to keep an eye on sleezy tricksters.

I like the words 'hack editing job' Johnny. The reason they waited so long was the fact the high school kids they pay minimum wage to do the job, don't start until after school's out.
January 25, 2007, 11:46:18 AM EST – Like – Reply

Hoodlumman
J$D, do you have any recourse besides calling Think Progress out on their theft?
January 25, 2007, 2:13:56 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Teams of high-priced lawyers are researching that issue even as we speak.

Well OK, I exaggerated a little. I'm going to ask someone about it.
January 25, 2007, 2:30:49 PM EST – Like – Reply

OverHere
If you want a cheap lawyer (aka Public Defender) to look into it for you let me know!
January 25, 2007, 2:32:48 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Yeah, I could call the ACLU!
January 25, 2007, 2:34:21 PM EST – Like – Reply

OverHere
OK, but I don't work for the ACLU.... lol
January 25, 2007, 2:35:55 PM EST – Like – Reply

Maria
Bottomline - why can't Gibson admit he's wrong? Oh I forgot you all don't usually take the high road.
January 25, 2007, 3:14:41 PM EST – Like – Reply

Narboink
That's quite a tantrum. I hope you pursue this into the highest and most prestigous levels of the judicial system. What a riot that would be. A right-wing website foaming wildly about its intellectual property rights on a small audio snippet of a Fox pundit holding forth about something long-since forgotten and wholly meaningless besides. High comedy.
January 25, 2007, 3:35:31 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
You got a lot of facts wrong for someone who speaks so authoritatively. This is not a right-wing website. Far from foaming wildly, I'm enjoying myself immensely. And intellectual property rights are hardly the primary issue, though the concept does add interesting spice to the situation. The key point here is how TP, instead of acting responsibly and AT LEAST crediting the source of their clip, so that people can hear the full context...instead steals it without asking, edits it, and posts it without crediting the site they swiped it from. That's a total abrogation of simple netiquette and honesty. I guess those qualities aren't held in high regard in some quarters.
January 25, 2007, 3:39:49 PM EST – Like – Reply

Guest
Are you kidding? You think you have rights to copyrighted material that you yourself hijacked from a broadcast source and then put out on the net?

I don't know the law, but I would be really suprised if there was anything to back you up on this.

You sound like a petty whiner.
January 25, 2007, 3:45:10 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
One thing you said is correct: "I don't know the law."

Quite apart from your claim that I "hijacked" the audio (you have no idea who gave it to me or what permissions I obtained), the copyright laws for sound recordings are very clear. Editing, adjusting things like EQ, levels, and other restoration techniques qualify the restorer for a new copyright on his work. It happens every day in the professional audio world.

But the copyright issue, as I keep saying, remains secondary to the basic tactic of one website stealing from another, without permission or even a simple acknowledgement. Consider it thievery, plagiarism, or whatever you like. It is dishonest.
January 25, 2007, 3:57:25 PM EST – Like – Reply

Purple Avenger
You think you have rights to copyrighted material that you yourself hijacked from a broadcast source and then put out on the net?

You're not copy writing the text, rather the composition and presentation.

This is why publishers can copyright old classics. They can't copyright the raw text of Beowulf, but they can copyright a unique composition of it they produced.

You're right - you don't know anything about the law.
January 25, 2007, 4:06:30 PM EST – Like – Reply

ryan lewis
Hate to tell you Johnny but you are just plain wrong on your audio copyright claim.

Let's look at this logically - if you are correct then the following hypothetical scenario would be legal - let's say you "obtain" (either by recording or being given by the original copyright holder) an audio clip of the latest single by a recording artist. Then let's say you take that recording and remaster it (this is the "technical" term for the fact that you tweaked some EQs and levels) and then post the tweaked recording on your website.

Unless you have express written permission from the copyright holder to do this you are illegally exploiting the owners copyright. No manner of tweaking the low end or cutting out pauses (which in and of itself can sometimes be a copyright violation. SEE: Danger Mouse's "Grey Album" mash-up og the Beatles and Jay Z) makes it ok for you to redistribute the file. Likewise this tweaking does not magically transfer the copyright or create a new copyrightable work for you.

I am sorry but regardless of how much you want to bitch and moan about someone supposedly using "your" audio (and BTW how do you know that a third party didn't copy the audio from your site, repost it and then TP found the audio there?) it is just sour grapes and you don't have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore Gibson is a cretin and an affront to real journalists everywhere.
January 25, 2007, 4:15:40 PM EST – Like – Reply

Narboink
To have any copyright claim on presentation or composition of non-original material, such presentation or composition must itself be original, unique, specific, and must have its use demonstrated either in commerce or with an intent to engage in commerce; first-use alone is insufficient in the current context to establish anything resembling a legal right. Without such a right, it cannot be construed as the property of Johnny Dollar. Theft? Hardly.
January 25, 2007, 4:17:48 PM EST – Like – Reply

ryan lewis
Uh oh Johnny looks like you are getting pwned by some crazy tax and spend liberals. I guess that is what happens when you link your blog to the comments sections of a progressive website hahaha.
January 25, 2007, 4:25:33 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> They can't copyright the raw text of Beowulf

As I said, the laws regarding copyright of sound recordings are NOT the same as for text.

> Likewise this tweaking does not magically transfer the copyright or create a new copyrightable work for you.

Nobody says it transfers the old copyright. But the work of an engineer who alters/improves/edits/changes a sound recording produces a new sound recording for copyright purposes. Your claim that the new work is not copyrightable is contradicted by the thousands of such restorations that continue to be copyrighted.

> I guess that is what happens when you link your blog to the comments sections of a progressive website hahaha.

I didn't link my blog to any comment section that I'm aware of. But I love the action. Keep it coming. And those people who know nothing about copyright of sound recordings racing to tell me how wrong I am? Let them continue. Let them increase! Let them defend dishonesty, plagiarism, and thievery!
January 25, 2007, 4:31:56 PM EST – Like – Reply

Ryan lewis
Look Johnny, you are wrong on the copyright issue. I used to run a record label so I know something about it. You cannot under any circumstances take a sound recording, alter it and then obtain a new copyright on the work. If this were legal than decades of Hip-Hop sampling lawsuits would have to be overturned, The Verve would have won the lawsuit brought against them by The Rolling Stones and Danger Mouse would not have been served with a cease and desist by The Beatles over The Grey Album.

I don't care how right you think you are, on this issue you are just wrong. But that is beside the point because even if you were right you did not apply for and obtain a legal copyright for your edited Fox News clip. Merely putting a copyright notice on your page is a slim claim of ownership but in almost all cases does not hold up in court as the copyright has not been registered with the government.

As for the link issue, I owe you an apology. I thought it was you who had made post #148 on this page: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/24/gibson-obama/ but it turns out it was a user named "Marie" who posted the direct link to your post.

But again, to reiterate, you are wrong on the copyright issue.
January 25, 2007, 4:48:46 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Well I don't claim to be a copyright lawyer, but I AM a lawyer. I'm not sure the cases you cite are analogous. As I understand it, the hiphop lawsuits were not fought over whether the "new" use of the sound was copyrightable. They fought over whether the hiphoppers had the right to use somebody else's clips in the first place.

More analogous would be restoration artists who take old 78 rpm discs and clean up the sound, EQ it, and make it sound as good as possible. Their work product is not public domain, even if the 78s were. Someone cannot just take one of their productions and willynilly put it out on their own record label. Even when there was no copyright at all in the original source (the 78s).

Now you would have a stronger argument if you claimed that such work is far more substantial than what I did with a mere 5-minute audio clip. And you'd be right.

Thank you for pointing out that post at TP. Clearly they are on notice that they've been caught. We'll see if they fess up or hide.
January 25, 2007, 5:04:30 PM EST – Like – Reply

Ryan lewis
I understand where you are coming from about the sound restoration process though I don't completely agree because your whole arguement is pinned on an example where the source recording is in the public domain. Clearly a Fox broadcast from the recent past is not public domain and therefore really doesn't jive with your arguement.

Oh and by the way, I don't think that TP is worried (or even knows) about this crusade of yours. The link I followed was posted by some ranting neocon with Tourette's - the messenger kind of diminished what little impact the message may have had on its own.

I do appreciate the spirited debate, but now as it is after 5pm must be on my way.
January 25, 2007, 5:16:12 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Yeah, I know the argument isn't wholly analogous, but then a clip from Fox might be in the public domain if it's "fair use". And if I have permission to use it that's another wrinkle. But we are getting increasingly arcane here!

I appreciate the debate too, and without name calling yet! It can be done.
January 25, 2007, 5:21:11 PM EST – Like – Reply

PB
Ryan Lewis:

Newsflash, chum: actual attorneys do not - ever - misspell a word like "argument."

I'll bet you spell "judgment" with an extra -e, too.

That you completely misunderstand the law was enough of a tip-off, but repeatedly screwing up the words any actual lawyer uses every single day is kind of embarrassing.

If you're a lawyer, I'm James Bond. But let's not have an "arguement" about it - even if Johnny here could probably win in summEry judgEment.

Sheesh. Why would you want to impersonate a lawyer, anyway? Most of my colleagues claim to be doctors.
January 25, 2007, 5:31:08 PM EST – Like – Reply

PB
And what kind of actual attorney goes home at 5:00 p.m.? Are you kidding me?

Double sheesh.

I would say res ipsa loquitur here, but you'd be confused.
January 25, 2007, 5:32:47 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I could be wrong, but I don't see where RL claimed to be a lawyer.
January 25, 2007, 5:45:55 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
You are 100% wrong on this.

Fact 1.
You do not own the copyright Fox or News Corporation does.

Fact 2.
You did not get permission to use said recording

Fact 3.
You would never ever have a case based on facts #1 and #2

So in summary you may well have broken copyright law yourself, the issue of fair use is debatable.

Apologize and move on.
January 26, 2007, 5:34:22 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
1. I think you may be half right here, tho your wording is unclear.

2. How do you know? One fact is incontrovertible: TP did not get permission to use MY recording, did they?

3. I didn't say I "had a case".

4. Apologize for what? The fact that another website took my work and used it without my permission? OK, I'm sorry Think Progress stole my work without getting permission. I'm sorry they didn't even credit the site the audio came from. I'm sorry they are dishonest, thieving hacks.

There you go, THREE apologies!
January 26, 2007, 5:40:41 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
You did not get permission - that is a fact.

If you have proof then show it otherwise apologize.
January 26, 2007, 6:36:56 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Haha. You come on here under a pseudonymn, and DEMAND that I produce something? Based on what, the fact that your "name" is RealityCheck? I don't have to produce anything to you, especially since I'm talking to a cipher who won't even identify himself.
January 26, 2007, 6:41:54 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
How do you know if he got permission or not? The only glaringly obvious fact here is that TP didn't get permission. It is not obvious whether J$ got permission, so your "fact" has been downgraded to speculation.
January 26, 2007, 6:45:24 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
The answer to that is simple: he doesn't know. Like most Fox haters, he's making it up as he goes along. But he could prove me wrong. He could document his claim, by telling us who told him this. Of course, that would assume he actually talked to someone at the John Gibson Show. What are the odds of that?!?
January 26, 2007, 6:50:47 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
I see, so I am right, You DID NOT have permission.

Of course you are not man enough to apologize, well that is a reflection on you not me.

Nice to see I am proven correct.
January 26, 2007, 7:20:59 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
You're the one who owes an apology, for making up non-facts out of thin air, smearing someone else while courageously hiding behind anonymity. And, yes, you're the one who is So Wrong. You obviously have no idea about my permissions. You have no source, no documentation. You all but admit you invented the charge out of thin air.

I repeat the offer: reveal your "source". Did you talk to Gibson himself? His producer? Which one do you claim told you this? Let's have a name, something that can be verified, and the when. If it checks out, I'll tell you whom I talked to. Of course, if you didn't talk to anyone, that means you made it up, in which case you will continue to dodge the question. The ball's in your court, anonymous.
January 26, 2007, 7:30:31 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
You are the one making a claim that something of yours was stolen. You NEVER owned it, and you NEVER got permission to use it.

The copyright owner is Fox News Network, LLC and in the limited circimstances they give permission to use their footage, audio or video they require a standard legal statement which you do not have in the post where it would be required to be.

Therefore I do not need to speak to anyone to know that you did not have permission. Requests for permission to reproduce their content is required in writing from:

Legal Department
Fox News Network, L.L.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036

BTW you can address requests to Christopher J. Silvestri for future reference. Permissions can only be permitted by the legal department, not a producer or even a host.

You did not have this and therefore permission to post what you did and anything you say to the contrary is a lie.

Now about that apology....
January 26, 2007, 8:02:52 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I certainly own my own work product. But as I thought, you have no documentation. Or to put it another way:

> you NEVER got permission to use it.

Prove it.
January 26, 2007, 8:31:45 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
I clearly just have, case closed.

You LIED and were called on it. You are not man enough to admit it and insist on continuing to defend a lie.
January 26, 2007, 8:41:28 PM EST – Like – Reply

Johnthebaptist
I think we are missing the bigger point in all this in that TP chopped an audio clip of John Gibson, taking it out of context and making it seem he meant something different than he actually did.
January 26, 2007, 8:43:37 PM EST – Like – Reply

Johnthebaptist
I don't see anywhere in this thread where johnny clearly claimed to have any permission to use the clip...he might have implied it, but never directly said he did. You say he lied RealityCheck, well show us where precisely this lie occurred, and then prove that it was in fact a lie. Now THAT would be a true reality check.
January 26, 2007, 8:48:02 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
As you say he clearly implied it and when called on it continued to defend his position. When he did that despite not having the permissions that is when he lied. He requested I prove it which I did by demonstrating that he did not have the required Fox News Network, LLC copyright text in the post.
January 26, 2007, 8:55:21 PM EST – Like – Reply

Johnthebaptist
Ah but what about fair use laws?
January 26, 2007, 9:10:59 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
RealityCheck is trying to play games. He still hasn't proved his claim. He's making up stuff about what the text of my post has to have in it, and claiming that as "proof". He has no clue so don't spend any time worrying about "fair use". I'm not.
January 26, 2007, 9:13:58 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
You know johnny dollar and johnthebabtist the internet is a wonderful thing.

It seemed odd that all of a sudden at 9pm at night johnny dollar disappeared and all of a 'sudden' someone turned up called johnthebaptist to argue in his defense. Well folks turns out it is not a surprise at all and a simple Google search shows they are have been identified as the same person.

See Johnny Dollar is actually johnthebabtist, see the comment at 10.19pm here:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/newshounds/9876/

Also ID'd at 11.04pm.

Most tellingly the person whose website it is IDs them as the same person at 2.57am based on their ISP.

This is further backed up by other examples on this website where Johnny's alter ego will step up to defend him.

That is embarrasing, if you woked for a news organization you would get fired for a low-level stunt like that. I guess when you could not produce the evidence you had to resort to something but come on have some credibility.
January 26, 2007, 9:43:48 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
Hahahaa! Citing the newsliars to prove a lie! What's even funnier is claiming that the newsliars identified us as the same by ISP, when they say no such thing. There's a reason why they didn't say that, you know. Like, maybe, it's not true.

This should demonstrate the "quality" of RC's argumentation:

http://johnnydollar.us/graphix/IPs.jpg

Still waiting for that documentation, RC.
January 26, 2007, 10:00:09 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Your post is null and void RealityCheck.

The NHs commonly call me and anyone else who contradicts their lies "johnny", stupidly thinking that there is only one person in the world who sees through their deception. Wrong on their part!

Back on point, this article is about ThinkProgress taking Fox News material from this site. The same material is played back by opposing news stations and websites daily without legal repercussions, why is it suddenly illegal for J$ to post it? ThinkProgress edited the legally obtained content misconstruing the meaning and intentionally lying to their gullible audience without providing the source, which contradicts their position.
January 26, 2007, 10:03:53 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
It is laughable that you claim you are not the same person, a cursory glance at this website shows otherwise.

We have no one else posting here at this time apart from you and I and all of a sudden he (you) turn up.

We have the post above where the admin writes not to "engage Johnny Dollar/John the Baptist/Truthteller" and goes on to say "His ISP has been banned". This suggests strongly they ID'd you as the same person based on ISP.

We have here:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/johnnydollar/E20061204183320/

You comment at 8.31pm and then sure enough your alter ego pops up to support your point.

Or how about here:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/johnnydollar/E20060817120808/

Where 'johnthebaptist' writes "Incidentally when I said 'thanks for posting the entire name of Johnny Dollar' I was called a liar because 'no one mentioned the entire name', but alas when I quoted the actual posting that did have the name 'Johnny Dollar' in its entirety my post was summarily deleted. So much for the 'truth' on NH."

I could carry on but it seems an amazing coincidence that he turns up and supports your arguments and carries your water.
January 26, 2007, 10:25:10 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
Well, turns out I have categorical proof that you are one and the same, you need to cover up your tracks a little better.

1. In the following post in August 06:

http://johnnydollar.us/2004a/C1049953760/E20060817120808/index.html

You write:

As Johnthebaptist noted:
Not sure why any statement pointing out a MISTAKE brings references that I am in fact someone else, Johnny Dollar in this case (btw thanks for posting the entire name since I had never heard of the guy or site before reading it here and tossing it in google).

And J$P gains another faithful reader. By the way, no plaudits go to newspooch Marie-Therese, who posted:

2. However on your very own site in April 05 we have:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/111318893256327259/

See 6.39pm our very own JohnTheBaptist .

How does a person who never heard of you or your site amazingly start posting more than a year before he never heard of you or your site.

Let us see you lie your way out of this one!
January 26, 2007, 10:31:37 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
I think you had better relax, switch to DeCaf, and think before you post. What in the wide world of sports is this "Shakespeare's Sister" site, why are you citing its comments thread, and whatever makes you think it is my site, let alone "categorical proof" of anything?

RC, you have surpassed yourself.
January 26, 2007, 10:45:45 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
So we have proven that they johnthebaptist is Johnny Dollar. Are you saying Fox Fan you are also the same, you seem to have very similar syntax, what a conicidence you happen to join the thread after 10.00pm and write in exactly the same way, I do not have proof in your case but it does makes you wonder.
January 26, 2007, 10:49:20 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
All you have proven is that you lied to claim a comment thread on another site is actually on this one, lied that we have the same IP address, and who knows what else. Enjoy your sandbox. Nobody will be listening.
January 26, 2007, 10:56:22 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
You can change the links all you want, the simple fact is:

Mark E. Koldys = Johnny Dollar = johnthebaptist = truthteller etc. etc.

Lets see how long this posts stays up or before it gets changed again.

Bottom line is you do not have permission to post the auido that you did and you can claim otherwise. If you want to shut me up just show the evidence, very simple.

I tell you what you can post it under whatever name you want, just show it. (of course you cannot beacuse it does not exist)
January 26, 2007, 11:04:28 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
"Are you saying Fox Fan you are also the same, you seem to have very similar syntax, what a conicidence you happen to join the thread after 10.00pm and write in exactly the same way..."
RealityCheck

It must be impossible that more than one person on this comment thread supports J$ on the website he owns and contributes to.

Your points are, as I posted above with explanation, null and void.
January 26, 2007, 11:09:56 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
yawn, it may be a coincidence that you post after 11.00pm and use the same syntax as Johnny Dollar, but after the other examples of him using an alias to post and defend himself his track record speaks for itself.

I repeat:

Mark E. Koldys = Johnny Dollar = johnthebaptist = truthteller etc. etc.

Fox Fan I am not sure about and to tell you the truth I don't really care whether Mark posts as 3 or 4 or even 10 different people, once you get past one you lose credibility.

So Johnny Dollar (or whatever name you wish to use) where is your evidence to shut me up. We have established you do not have the required copyright disclaimed you would be required to have so where is your proof you were given permission to post? Provide it and I will shut up, clearly you cannot beacuse you lied.
January 26, 2007, 11:17:35 PM EST – Like – Reply

Glen
Hey Reality Check! Who the f*ck cares? Has your life become so vacuous you would spend hours ripping a guy who posts audio and commentary on a website? Do you have kids? Spend some time with them.
January 27, 2007, 10:31:40 AM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
As I thought Johnny Dollar (Mark E. Koldys, johnthebaptist, truthteller etc. etc.) shows no proof..

It is not necessary for me to say anything else, case proven.
January 27, 2007, 11:37:04 AM EST – Like – Reply

Johnthebaptist
Well I'm not sure how I could really prove that I am not Johnny Dollar but I am, in fact, not. I would also like to say that the JohnTheBaptist that posted on this site in april 05 was not me. JohnTheBaptist and me, Johnthebaptist, are 2 different people, and Johnny Dollar is a third person. Notice the slight difference in capitalization. I will also say that the email address I provide on both sites is fake.

Any post on NH under Johnthebaptist is presumably me and the statement I made on the NH boards about not knowing who Johnny Dollar was until I saw his name in that thread was true. Actually they kept calling me J$ and I had no clue what that meant until a poster name 'Biors' had the full name in his post, but when I pointed out where I found the name MY post was deleted. Biors post however still remains.

I have not posted at all on NH for a while now since it seems pointless and they tend to delete my posts instead of countering any point I make, and only occasionally post here. IF I post on EITHER place it is always under the same name, Johnthebaptist (again notice the capitalization), however it may be on different IP's, work laptop or home pc.

Incidentally I have seen many posts by john t on NH claiming that I or other posters are johnny dollar or someone else, are you, RealityCheck, actually john t?
January 27, 2007, 2:55:30 PM EST – Like – Reply

Johnthebaptist
Oh. I just noticed that the JohnTheBaptist post was on a different website, shakespears sister lol. Thats still not me, but apparently I do need to pay attention to details since Johnny did actually point that out in his post. Reading comprehension 4tehwin heh.
January 27, 2007, 3:13:13 PM EST – Like – Reply

OverHere
Good grief Reality Check, the Newshounds have accused *ME* of being johnny dollar, and I'm a girl! Last time I checked, johnny is not.

I have yet to see where anything you have said has been "proven" though. You've made allegations but have shown nothing to back them up. Why that means johnny owes you an apology is beyond me, and yet you continue to state that... and it seems to be desperately important to you. I'm baffled.

And Johnthebaptist, that's how I found out about J$ too, through a post on the newspoodles. When I told them that in another comment, it too was deleted.
January 27, 2007, 7:31:15 PM EST – Like – Reply

OverHere
Ummm, strike that "last time I checked" and make it "to the best of my knowledge."

My fingers got away from me...
January 27, 2007, 7:38:46 PM EST – Like – Reply

Simon.S
Reading the whole post it is has got a little silly. I have to probably side with RC in that J$ does not have permission to post the audio, at this stage it is incumbent on J$ to demonstrate if he does,
otherwise it is pretty clear he did not.

Over There I am do not see where RC accused you of being J$, maybe I am missing something, in at least one of the other examples RC has a
pretty strong case that J$ is posting under other aliases. Normally there is nothing wrong with that but when you post in defense of
yourself it is not so ethical.
January 27, 2007, 9:28:51 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Last time I checked, RealityCheck was a propaganda poodle in disguise.
January 27, 2007, 9:29:39 PM EST – Like – Reply

OverHere
Simon, RC did not accuse me of being johnny, however he cited several instances of the Newshounds accusing other people of being johnny and my point is, the newshounds have also accused me of being J$, so the fact that they accuse someone of that is telling of absolutely nothing.

You're missing the point, however, which is that, regardless of what permission johnny may or may not have, TP has absolutely NO permission to lift something from this Web site without at least crediting where it came from. Period. End of story.
January 27, 2007, 9:35:14 PM EST – Like – Reply

johnny dollar
> RC has a pretty strong case that J$ is posting under other aliases.

It's not surprising "Simon" would say that, despite RC getting caught in a lie, since, by sheerest coincidence, Simon has the exact same IP address as RC.
January 27, 2007, 9:37:52 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Even if J$ didn't get explicit permission to use the video, since when is explicit permission required? Check any news organization, they use video that's fit for the story regardless of the source. J$ at least credits the source, something ThinkProgress failed to do. That is the crux of the matter.
January 27, 2007, 9:38:06 PM EST – Like – Reply

Simon.S
That is a lie, I have no dog in this fight. Now I look at it, what a coincidence that Fox Fan, OverHere and J$ all post late at night within minutes of each other.

I have come across this before and commented on it, see:

http://patterico.com/2006/04/20/4467/three-in-one-michael-hiltzik-mikekoshi-and-nofanofcablecos/

It is exactly the same scenario.

There is one way to solve this, show your permission from Fox. If you do not have it then you are a liar. Period. End. Of. Story.
January 27, 2007, 9:42:26 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
LOL, I'm sure J$ is getting right on that, conspiracy boy.
January 27, 2007, 9:44:19 PM EST – Like – Reply

sock puppet
Fox Fan, do not worry you are not the only person to have done this, read:

http://patterico.com/2006/04/20/4467/three-in-one-michael-hiltzik-mikekoshi-and-nofanofcablecos/

It must get confusing as to who you are supposed to be.

I am surprised that you Mark E. Koldys (Fox Fan) you do not have something better to do. After all if you passed the bar in 71 you must be well over 50. I pray to God when I am your age I don't start creating alter egos to defend myself. Don't you have grandkids or something to play with?

You must lead a very sad existence, I guess the website is proof of that, adulation for a news channel, cmon on. LOL.
January 27, 2007, 9:48:57 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Er, I'm 29.

And not Mark Koldys.

However, your demeanor and syntax place you perfectly in the personality of... john t! Talk about sad aliases, yours is the most inept user on both sites. I'm sure you know of my alias at NH, and it's not J$ or JTB. All different people.
January 27, 2007, 9:54:26 PM EST – Like – Reply

sock puppet
Mark, did you really mean to post as Fox Fan then or was it Truthteller? It must be difficult to get all your sock puppets in the correct order.

Cmon Mark do so more, it is hilarious the way you expect any normal person to expect beleive that at nearly 10.00 at night that your supporters just 'happen' to be on the website and jump to your defense,.

You must be pushing 60, that is truely sad, exactly the same case as:

http://patterico.com/2006/04/20/4467/three-in-one-michael-hiltzik-mikekoshi-and-nofanofcablecos/

Cmon do some responses from your sock puppets, it is tooo funny.
January 27, 2007, 10:02:24 PM EST – Like – Reply

sock puppet
Pleease, let us Truthteller suddenly popup and comment on your post and leap to your defense, LOL.

See:
http://patterico.com/2006/04/20/4467/three-in-one-michael-hiltzik-mikekoshi-and-nofanofcablecos/
January 27, 2007, 10:04:20 PM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
You must really love this site, sock puppet. Who but a narcissist replies to themselves? I figured it out... Johnny IS sock puppet/Simon/RealityCheck! Haha, you put one over on me, J$. You must also be the town retard john t over at NH!

/sarcasm
January 27, 2007, 10:11:46 PM EST – Like – Reply

sock puppet
Mark, tooo funny. It seems you are learning from me. You are sticking to the one name now, you can try to cover up now but it is sad that a 50+ lawyer has to use sock puppets to defend his comments.

You should reallt read the following, the story is your story you can learn some more and maybe cover your tracks better:

http://patterico.com/2006/04/20/4467/three-in-one-michael-hiltzik-mikekoshi-and-nofanofcablecos/
January 27, 2007, 10:15:05 PM EST – Like – Reply

RealityCheck
The whole post is getting a little lost now, to get the basics points about it read:

http://arealitycheck.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/pot-meet-kettle/
January 27, 2007, 10:50:55 PM EST – Like – Reply

boure
Every site I visit, seems, has a commenter like RealityCheck who has to, HAS to, H A S TO get the last word, then another last word, then the next last word, then the really really last word, then the ending word, then the final word, then the terminal word, then the truly difinitive word, then the ultimate word, then the decisive word, then the concluding word, closing, finishing, resting, word.

At length they simply move on, but only after satisfied with sufficient attention.

RealityCheck, you got the point of the post. Quit acting like you refuse to get it until you settle the matter of you being the supreme expert on copyright law. Bleh. You're boring. Think Progress are jerks for this.
January 28, 2007, 5:27:54 AM EST – Like – Reply

OverHere
Wow, so now I'm a male lawyer who passed the Bar Exam before I was even born? The ONLY true statement in the above sentence is that I'm a lawyer. (The Bar Exam is given in February and July every year and I was born in October 1971.) Sorry guys, your theories that we are all the same person are way off base. But don't let the truth stop you.
January 28, 2007, 7:49:55 AM EST – Like – Reply

Fox Fan
Take a look at RealityCheck's "blog". It's one page of poor logic, juvenile colloquialisms, and at least one blindingly obvious lie.

RealityCheck says:
"...he actually says when questioned on what he is going to do:

'Teams of high-priced lawyers are researching that issue even as we speak.'"

This quote was in fact made by johnny in the third comment of this thread. However, RealityCheck forgot to include the other sentence in the very same comment:
"Well OK, I exaggerated a little. I'm going to ask someone about it." RC, you've been caught red handed doing what TP prides itself on- taking a quote out of context in order to reverse the original writer's point.

Now all he has to do is link to his one-page impromptu "blog" at NH, TP, or some other site that's known to republish lies and he's accomplished, well, actually nothing. Good show RC, try again but next time tell the truth.

You could also try to spell Think Progress right.
January 28, 2007, 9:55:39 AM EST – Like – Reply

Sock Puppets
So Mark I see you have your sock puppets out to play. The bottom line is you are unable to address the basis of my problem with your post.

The fact is you used copyright material without any permisssion and then went on to accuse someone else of exactly the same behaviour you had just done.

The bottom line is you have not demonstrated your permission and lied. End. Of. Story. Period.
January 28, 2007, 12:37:35 PM EST – Like – Reply