RANDOLPH DUKE THE AGS LOVE YOU

[Etex Horn]

Just be patient. The ag administration is being asked about representations concerning their 12th Man "tradition" they have made in their trademark filing and in their recent federal court pleadings that seemingly are quite problematic.

Basically, read my original 2013 Horn Sports story. People are interested in the subject and burrowing even deeper than I did.

NT Golfer: There is a link to that original 2013 Horn Sports story on page 1 of this thread, posted by

J.B. TexasEx.

 

[telcoag]

I love how the ags fabricate stories to make them feel self important and on so smart.

The complete lack of self-awareness it takes for you to type this sentence is truly awe inspiring.

 

[North Texas Golfer]

Just be patient. The ag administration is being asked about representations concerning their 12th Man "tradition" they have made in their trademark filing and in their recent federal court pleadings that seemingly are quite problematic.

Basically, read my original 2013 Horn Sports story. People are interested in the subject and burrowing even deeper than I did.

I've read the original story and, unless I'm simply overlooking it in the story, it doesn't say who exactly the "people" are who are interested in the subject or who is asking the ag administration about their representations concerning the 12th man "tradition". 

So I'll ask again, who are the people questioning this and where is all this taking place?

 

[North Texas Golfer]

NT Golfer: There is a link to that original 2013 Horn Sports story on page 1 of this thread, posted by

J.B. TexasEx.

I've read the story, and unless I'm overlooking it, it doesn't answer my question. 

If I'm overlooking it, I stand corrected. 

 

[tejasrulz]

I don't have a dog in this fight so here is what I understand (in a nutshell) from what I've read. aggy didn't start this tradition, they were just the first to copyright it. So while they may be stretching the truth a tad per say,  they were at least smart enough to get the trademark. Good for them I guess. Whoop, squeeze aggy! 

 

[Randolph Duke]

I've read the original story and, unless I'm simply overlooking it in the story, it doesn't say who exactly the "people" are who are interested in the subject or who is asking the ag administration about their representations concerning the 12th man "tradition". 

So I'll ask again, who are the people questioning this and where is all this taking place?

Out of respect for the people working on this story, spending their resources, having their attorneys review this put their professional reputations on the line to stand behind what they have found out, I have to wait until they tell their story publicly.

There are a lot of resources being expended in finally vetting this issue, getting people on the record and making sure the truth is told. The aggys have been lying about all this far too long.

 

[Bear19]

I don't have a dog in this fight so here is what I understand (in a nutshell) from what I've read. aggy didn't start this tradition, they were just the first to copyright it. So while they may be stretching the truth a tad per say, they were at least smart enough to get the trademark. Good for them I guess. Whoop, squeeze aggy!

But the copyright was obtained due to a false premise.

 

[North Texas Golfer]

Out of respect for the people working on this story, spending their resources, having their attorneys review this put their professional reputations on the line to stand behind what they have found out, I have to wait until they tell their story publicly.

There are a lot of resources being expended in finally vetting this issue, getting people on the record and making sure the truth is told. The aggys have been lying about all this far too long.

Does anyone besides you know that these people are working on this story?

 

[Randolph Duke]

The complete lack of self-awareness it takes for you to type this sentence is truly awe inspiring.

Telco, the TAMU administration will have their opportunity to explain their actions and answer what has to be for them some very uncomfortable questions. In time, their response will be made public. And in time, the TAMU administrators who have been outright lying at every possible opportunity about the school's 12th Man tradition, will be held accountable.

No bullshit "Red Thompson letter," no unsubstantiated fairy tale from 1922 that we find out was a radio play fabricated by the head of the alumni association in the late 1930s. No more aggy bullshit. Just the truth and accountability. Oh, and restitution of unlawfully obtained trademark licensing revenues for the past 27 years and restitution to the parties the university defrauded in obtaining those revenues.

Maybe at the end of the day, John Sharp and the rest of the aggys will learn a lesson about honesty and integrity. And then maybe aggy nation will start taking those values seriously.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Does anyone besides you know that these people are working on this story?

Probably by now the TAMU administration does. Possibly a few journalists who are following the story. Maybe a few others.

The whole 12th Man fairy tale turned fraudulent scheme needs to end and it needs to end now. In my mind, this is a story of a fraudulently obtained trademark and of public corruption. I am pretty sure its end has come.

 

[BeardedTexan]

 

[J.B. TexasEx]

The complete lack of self-awareness it takes for you to type this sentence is truly awe inspiring.

What stories have you fabricated about yourself lately, RD?

 

[doc longhorn]

The complete lack of self-awareness it takes for you to type this sentence is truly awe inspiring.

This is great.  I love it when aggy's decide to come onto a Texas blog and want to get into a dialog.

I say bring it on aggys.  I'm sure, unless you get coarse and nasty, that the mods here won't ban you  - like your thin skinned aggy blogs do.

Randy has written an article about one of your so called traditions.  It really doesn't matter if he is right or not, you cats have trash canned your precious love of traditions when you retreated to the SEC.

And it was, literally, your longest standing tradition in the history of your school.

So "12th man" be damned.  No one on this site really cares.

But, beyond this, let's get it on with some down to earth trash talk.  I'm in if you are.

 

[Randolph Duke]

This is great.  I love it when aggy's decide to come onto a Texas blog and want to get into a dialog.

I say bring it on aggys.  I'm sure, unless you get coarse and nasty, that the mods here won't ban you  - like your thin skinned aggy blogs do.

Randy has written an article about one of your so called traditions.  It really doesn't matter if he is right or not, you cats have trash canned your precious love of traditions when you retreated to the SEC.

And it was, literally, your longest standing tradition in the history of your school.

So "12th man" be damned.  No one on this site really cares.

But, beyond this, let's get it on with some down to earth trash talk.  I'm in if you are.

I've offered to discuss this matter point by point with any of the ags, but of course they know better then to try to pass their "fish camp" fairy tale stories off as factual with me. I offered to have a public discussion about this with good old cuppy from the other aggy website and predictably, he wouldn't do it.

The do the occasional fly-by and runaway bravely, but not one of them is willing to have an honest conversation about their "most important terdition."

But hey, I tried. 

I wonder what it is going to cost them to disgorge 27 years of ill gotten trademark licensing revenue. Especially when they are struggling to make the debt payment on their new stadium. lol.

 

[BBA]

So, I'm catching up here. The basis of this is that A&M fraudulently trademarked the "12th Man". Right?

1) Randalphs claim for fraud is because it wasn't (or hasn't been found) specifically to have been tied to Gill for a period of time stretching from 1922-1939, right?

2) No matter that the "12th Man" has been found, through documentation, to have been tied with A&M (school/team/student body) during said period (1922-1939)?

Yes, I'm an Aggie but I think there could be something here, unless I have it wrong. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Randolph Duke]

So, I'm catching up here. The basis of this is that A&M fraudulently trademarked the "12th Man". Right?

1) Randalphs claim for fraud is because it wasn't (or hasn't been found) specifically to have been tied to Gill for a period of time stretching from 1922-1939, right?

2) No matter that the "12th Man" has been found, through documentation, to have been tied with A&M (school/team/student body) during said period (1922-1939)?

Yes, I'm an Aggie but I think there could be something here, unless I have it wrong. Thanks for the explanation.

The university has claimed in its federal court filings that "The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M’s football team in time of need."

In my original 2013 story, Gill's speech is linked where he explains the school's tradition as it is associated with him didn't begin until the 1939 radio play.

How does the school reconcile Gill's claims to the origins of the tradition with the school's claims in their federal trademark filing? The school absolutely has to defend 1922 as the year it started and that it was associated with Gill in 1922, but not a single TAMU alumnus, living or dead, has ever seen a scrap of paper prior to 1939 that associated E. King Gill with the schools 12th Man tradition.

In truth, the school called their fans in the stands the team's 12th Man at least as early as 1921. The 1922 date had no significance to the school's 12th Man tradition whatsoever until McQuillen's radio play when the Gill aspect was added.

All this would have been fine if the school hadn't represented in their trademark filing and in their court filing to defend the trademark that the McQuillen radio play fairy tale was true and accurate. The trademark was fraudulently obtained and the school's administrators have know of this for 27 years. It's a big no-no to file false statements in federal court filings and unless the school can explain how their court filings are true and Gill was a liar in his 1964 speech, John Sharp and his buddies have a BIG problem.

Read the story here:

http://www.hornsports.com/articles/featured1395317068/texas-am-and-the-12th-man-the-story-of-th-r3866

 

[telcoag]

My favorite part is where you argue yourself into how we should have filed the trademark for '21 instead of '22.

 

[BBA]

The university has claimed in its federal court filings that "The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M’s football team in time of need."

In my original 2013 story, Gill's speech is linked where he explains the school's tradition as it is associated with him didn't begin until the 1939 radio play.

How does the school reconcile Gill's claims to the origins of the tradition with the school's claims in their federal trademark filing? The school absolutely has to defend 1922 as the year it started and that it was associated with Gill in 1922, but not a single TAMU alumnus, living or dead, has ever seen a scrap of paper prior to 1939 that associated E. King Gill with the schools 12th Man tradition.

In truth, the school called their fans in the stands the team's 12th Man at least as early as 1921. The 1922 date had no significance to the school's 12th Man tradition whatsoever until McQuillen's radio play when the Gill aspect was added.

All this would have been fine if the school hadn't represented in their trademark filing and in their court filing to defend the trademark that the McQuillen radio play fairy tale was true and accurate. The trademark was fraudulently obtained and the school's administrators have know of this for 27 years. It's a big no-no to file false statements in federal court filings and unless the school can explain how their court filings are true and Gill was a liar in his 1964 speech, John Sharp and his buddies have a BIG problem.

Read the story here:

http://www.hornsports.com/articles/featured1395317068/texas-am-and-the-12th-man-the-story-of-th-r3866

I'll concede that you are more versed in trademark filings. My ineptitude has me asking this question.

If the trademark was based on the events by Gill in 1921, why does it matter that there isn't any sort of paper trail for a certain period of time? There is a paper trail, as you stated, in 1939 and so-on, so is that not significant to establish the claim?

Thank you for your response.

 

[Randolph Duke]

My favorite part is where you argue yourself into how we should have filed the trademark for '21 instead of '22.

In 1921, your use of the phrase was indistinguishable from how hundreds of other schools were using the phrase. At that time, the phrase was in the public domain. As it also was in 1922. And in 1939 when the radio play was written.

What the school needed to do when they filed the trademark application is explain how the phrase wasn't still in the public domain at that time. The school couldn't (because the phrase was still in the public domain in 1990), so the school administrators decided to file a fraudulent trademark application that represented the fictional 1939 McQuillen radio play fairy tale as fact.

I'm not arguing the school should have filed a trademark application with a first use date of 1921. If you had, you would have never been granted the trademark.

What I am arguing is the school now has to prove "The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M’s football team in time of need."

If the school administrators can't prove that, they have a lot of explaining to do. And they should assume the audience for their explanation is the Attorney General.

This is about to get very ugly.

 

[Randolph Duke]

I'll concede that you are more versed in trademark filings. My ineptitude has me asking this question.

If the trademark was based on the events by Gill in 1921, why does it matter that there isn't any sort of paper trail for a certain period of time? There is a paper trail, as you stated, in 1939 and so-on, so is that not significant to establish the claim?

Thank you for your response.

I know who you are and you are more than welcome here.

Follow where the facts lead you and ask the same questions I am asking. Like I said, this isn't a case of "gotcha" or "my schools is better than your school." A false trademark application was intentionally filed by a public official and has been used to extort (my opinion) settlements from private parties. Is this proper behavior by public employees?

Gill had no events in 1921. His events were in 1922, but they caused no great stir. No one thought a thing about Gill and he wasn't recognized in any way, shape or fashion for what he did in 1922 until the 1939 radio play. Between 1921 and 1939, the university's 12th man tradition was indistinguishable from the 12th Man tradition of hundreds of other schools (including The University of Texas) in that it was comprised entirely of calling their fans in the stands the team's 12th Man. Ben Zimmer explained all this in his 2014 Wall Street Journal article.

Look at all the evidence of the school's attachment from between 1922 and 1942 and ask yourself if there is a single instance where E. King Gill is attached with the school's tradition. The school yearbooks are available online in searchable form. Look at the paucity of references to any 12th Man tradition from 1922 until about 1934. Look at Gill's 1924 senior yearbook picture. Look at any yearbook between 1922 and 1962 and find any example of E. King Gill attached to the school's 12th Man tradition. Yet he was supposedly a hero starting with the end of the game in 1922. Bullshit.

In federal court in November the school has its attorneys represent to the court "The 12TH MAN Mark was initially adopted in 1922 as a remembrance of a student at Texas A&M, E. King Gill, and his spirit of readiness to serve Texas A&M’s football team in time of need."

Yet the tradition from 1922 to 1939 had nothing to do with Gill. So why did the university intentionally lie to the federal court?

Even after the 1939 radio play, Gill wasn't truly attached to the school's 12th man usage. That was adopted later and this is explained by Gill in a 1964 interview.

The school administrators wanted the trademark in 1990 and they filed a fraudulent trademark application to obtain it.

And now they are about to be held accountable for their fraud.

The one thing the school can be thankful for is that the fraudulent filings in the federal court landed on the desk of a judge who is an aggy alumnus who can always be expected by university administrators to put his ethics as a federal judge subordinate to his status as an aggy alumnus and to just ignore the school's fraudulent filing. You know, "once an aggy, always an aggy."