RANDOLPH DUKE THE AGS LOVE YOU

[texasdalton]

That day will come like a thief in the night. I have no problem with that because the end result will be the same and aggy won't see it coming because well they are aggy.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Watching the aggy reaction to things as all this comes together has been hilariously entertaining, and it will only get better.

The ags have found a Jan 3, 1922 copy of the FWST that mentions Gill being called from the press box. In their minds, this discredits all my research. When I read stuff like what they post in celebrating their "victory" it saddens me that people have to go through life so dim witted.

Jan 3 1922 Ft Worth articlequote: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."

http://texags.com/forums/6/topics/2716115/replies/45625166

Maroon Dawn

In reply to Zone 416 8:54a

L AG

Kill Shot.

We're done now Randy.

Unless you want to insist it's a photo shop

Obviously , the effort required to read my original 2013 Horn Sports article was too much for them to handle.

In my article, I clearly quote Jinx Tucker, the sportswriter Gill was spotting players for, as having written (and I also provided a link to a copy of the actual article):

The Texas team started the game minus the services of Buckner and Pinson, both splendid fullbacks; both great defensive players. That great fighting machine finished the contest without the services of the speedy Weir, the flashy Sanders and the steady guiding hand of that most able field general, Bugs Morriss (sic). This brilliant trio had to be carried from the field due to injury. McMillan, Beasley and Bull Johnson went in their stead, and performed as would be expected of the most seasoned stars. In such need for capable backs was (Texas A&M coach) D.X. Bible that “Fish†Gill, who was in the press box in citizens clothes, was hurriedly rushed into uniform, so that he might be sent in should injury take another from the Aggie ranks. [http://www.hornsport...Jinx_Tucker.pdf]

In my article, I explain:

So, no sportswriter present at the game ever claimed Gill was the only substitute available to replace one of the 11 men on the field, The “12th Man.†The team wasn’t depleted of players. Rather, the team simply had a number of injured running backs.

So, after untold hours of research, the ags have come up with exactly what I provided in the 2013 article, evidence that Gill was called from the press box to come down to the sideline. This discovery, according to aggy logic, is their "kill shot" ending the discussion.

aggy level stupidity is something you just can't make up on your own. Time and time again, they find new and creative ways to demonstrate just how poorly educated they really are.

Note to aggy lurkers: Read the original article. If you can't read, find a UT grad and ask them to read it to you. UT grads know how to read.

Link to 2013 article:

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

 

[Brasky]

I love Duke and I believe what he says but I'd be shocked if anything comes of this.  Is it not good enough that they trademarked it first, even if under fraudulent circumstances.  If the trademark isn't challenged won't they just reissue it after levying a fine or smoething??

Honestly, I tend to htink RD is a tad full of sh** with respect to the severity and consequnces but I sure enjoy it!

 

[Randolph Duke]

I love Duke and I believe what he says but I'd be shocked if anything comes of this.  Is it not good enough that they trademarked it first, even if under fraudulent circumstances.  If the trademark isn't challenged won't they just reissue it after levying a fine or smoething??

Honestly, I tend to htink RD is a tad full of sh** with respect to the severity and consequnces but I sure enjoy it!

I am also curious just what the ramifications will be moving forward. I believe the university has an absolute obligation to come clean and give an honest explanation of their actions, but asking an aggy to be honest is asking an awful lot. based upon this sordid affair, the aggy administration appear to be some of the most dishonest and corrupt public employees in the state of Texas.

As for the trademark, my opinion is they should again apply for the trademark and this time, do it honestly. But again, asking an aggy to be honest is asking an awful lot.

We will see what happens. My sense is that this time the ags won't be able to keep their fraud going. And besides, if they are allowed to keep their fraudulent scheme going, there will be other instances where they will have to file litigation to protect their trademark and they won't always be able to have a seemingly corrupt aggy jurist allow fraudulent pleadings in his court room to assist them in their scheme.

Some day, the corruption will be exposed, they will lose the trademark and people will be held accountable. It is just a matter of when.

 

[Randy]

Randolph, you still haven't demonstrated specifically how the TM would be lost.  All you say is that the story is false and aggie lied.  Again, granting all of that to be true, you have not shown in any way whatsoever how that has any impact on the TM. 

Constantly saying "fraud" is not enough to establish its elements.  That is why people question your claims about the impact of all of this (even sympathetic friends that agree with all of your research).  You make emphatic, declaratory statements like "they will lose the trademark" without backing up such statement in the slightest.

So here is your opportunity to explain clearly (I won't waste time saying concisely): please explain, specifically, how the TM would be lost.  Who will challenge it and how will they demonstrate the necessary fraud elements that you seem to gloss over?

 

[doc longhorn]

Doc, he can't right now. He can't because he's not an editor or writer of a certain publication that is being referred to here. And I think he's referring also to the AGs office, which would be the same situation.

So for him to provide predictions and such would be foolish because there are others who are calling the shots.

It seems the best I can read this now is that Duke is confident that there's a story to run, he's confident of most of what the story will be . . . but he can't go much further than that without being directly involved, which he's not.

IMO, thanks to the heated anticipation of our visiting aggy, this has grown larger legs than it can have at this point. Suffice to say, a few weeks or month will go by and then boom, one day you'll click on Hornsports and Duke will have posted a thread in ALL CAPS telling us all about it and posting the article.

I don't know the publication (quite likely Texas Monthly), but I don't care.  When you comment, using cryptic innuendo, it becomes nothing more than an empty tease.

That makes it tedious and boring and, as you can see, gets the ags all in a froth.

Now, even though I enjoy aggys getting their panties wadded up, I prefer better nuanced comments as a Longhorn fan.

 

[Randolph Duke]

Randolph, you still haven't demonstrated specifically how the TM would be lost.  All you say is that the story is false and aggie lied.  Again, granting all of that to be true, you have not shown in any way whatsoever how that has any impact on the TM. 

Constantly saying "fraud" is not enough to establish its elements.  That is why people question your claims about the impact of all of this (even sympathetic friends that agree with all of your research).  You make emphatic, declaratory statements like "they will lose the trademark" without backing up such statement in the slightest.

So here is your opportunity to explain clearly (I won't waste time saying concisely): please explain, specifically, how the TM would be lost.  Who will challenge it and how will they demonstrate the necessary fraud elements that you seem to gloss over?

A determination of "fraud" is a matter of law to be determined by a jurist, not to be argued over the internet between someone who is accumulating factual information and a cult member who will defend the cult no matter how much damning evidence is presented that indicated wrongdoing n the part of the cult leadership. Plain and simple, there isn't an aggy on the planet that will genuinely ever admit senior aggy administrators ever made a mistake of any magnitude.

The aggy fairy tale 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" is untrue. The statement has been offered repeatedly and with full awareness that was is untrue. This is the only version of the school's "tradition" that matters because it is the version offered by the university as being true and accurate in their federal court pleadings (the infamous 'paragraph 7').

The only remaining necessary element to prove fraud would be whether the untrue statement was offered as a material fact. I believe the representation of first use and continuous use since in the trademark filing were material facts, just as I believe the representation offered in paragraph 7 of the complaint in the Colts litigation was a material fact.

Now, I am sure you believe the dates in the trademark filing were immaterial, just as i am sure you believe the representation offered in the complain was immaterial. I am sure you believe every time the false statement that the school's 12th man tradition started in 1922 has been made has been immaterial. And that is why it is senseless for me to try to argue the materiality of the representation with you. You will defend the cult at every turn, because that is what cult members to - the ignore facts and rely on previously formed beliefs. You have "drank the maroon kool-aid."

Just do me one thing, take a minute and try to reconcile the university's claim 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" with E. King Gill's 1964 speech that claims the tradition originated with E.E. McQuillen's 1939 radio play and his April 15, 1964 statement that before McQuillen's radio play he really hadn't heard of any 12th Man tradition on the TAMU campus. To a non-cult member, the two statements seem to be directly contradictory. I am sure than to cult members, it all makes perfect sense, though.

 

[Randolph Duke]

deleted because I meant to modify my earlier post and I accidentally replied to my own post.

 

[Randy]

A determination of "fraud" is a matter of law to be determined by a jurist, not to be argued over the internet between someone who is accumulating factual information and a cult member who will defend the cult no matter how much damning evidence is presented that indicated wrongdoing n the part of the cult leadership. Plain and simple, there isn't an aggy on the planet that will genuinely ever admit senior aggy administrators ever made a mistake of any magnitude.

The aggy fairy tale 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" is untrue. The statement has been offered repeatedly and with full awareness that was is untrue.

The only remaining necessary element to prove fraud would be whether the untrue statement was offered as a material fact. I believe the representation of first use and continuous use since in the trademark filing were material facts, just as I believe the representation offered in paragraph 7 of the complaint in the Colts litigation was a material fact.

Now, I am sure you believe the dates in the trademark filing were immaterial, just as i am sure you believe the representation offered in the complain was immaterial. I am sure you believe every time the false statement that the school's 12th man tradition started in 1922 has been made has been immaterial. And that is why it is senseless for me to try to argue the materiality of the representation with you. You will defend the cult at every turn, because that is what cult members to - the ignore facts and rely on previously formed beliefs. You have "drank the maroon kool-aid."

Just do me one thing, take a minute and try to reconcile the university's claim 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" with E. King Gill's 1964 speech that claims the tradition originated with E.E. McQuillen's 1939 radio play and his April 15, 1964 statement that before McQuillen's radio play he really hadn't heard of any 12th Man tradition on the TAMU campus. To a non-cult member, the two statements seem to be directly contradictory. I am sure than to cult members, it all makes perfect sense, though.

You could have stopped after the first fifteen words (it's close enough anyways).  That has been my main point this entire time - you essentially guaranty that the TM will be invalidated due to fraud without having any knowledge or understanding of how that would actually take place.  A challenger even surviving a 12( B) (6) motion based on 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements for fraud claims would be a minor miracle, much less actually establishing the necessary elements for such claim.

Instead of just acknowledging that the legal aspect is outside of your understanding and sticking to the facts found in your research, you insist on making these bold claims of legal "fraud" and attempt to shout down anyone that questions them.  Everytime you are asked an honest or legitimate question, you resort to the same old rote insults (even when the other person has been respectful the entire time).  Reading your latest diatribes seem to conjure Hamlet in that "me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

Ok, my point has been made and you seem to tacitly accept it in the first of your quoted post, excessive protests notwithstanding.  On that note, I'll dip out and leave the group to focus on what Randolph should have limited his focus to the entire time - whether or not the facts of the legend are true or not.  Your quest would have been better served than getting sidetracked on public corruption, fraud, judicial misconduct, etc.

Have a good day

 

[Randolph Duke]

You could have stopped after the first fifteen words (it's close enough anyways).  That has been my main point this entire time - you essentially guaranty that the TM will be invalidated due to fraud without having any knowledge or understanding of how that would actually take place.  A challenger even surviving a 12( B) (6) motion based on 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements for fraud claims would be a minor miracle, much less actually establishing the necessary elements for such claim.

Instead of just acknowledging that the legal aspect is outside of your understanding and sticking to the facts found in your research, you insist on making these bold claims of legal "fraud" and attempt to shout down anyone that questions them.  Everytime you are asked an honest or legitimate question, you resort to the same old rote insults (even when the other person has been respectful the entire time).  Reading your latest diatribes seem to conjure Hamlet in that "me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

Ok, my point has been made and you seem to tacitly accept it in the first of your quoted post, excessive protests notwithstanding.  On that note, I'll dip out and leave the group to focus on what Randolph should have limited his focus to the entire time - whether or not the facts of the legend are true or not.  Your quest would have been better served than getting sidetracked on public corruption, fraud, judicial misconduct, etc.

Have a good day

Strong response to the problem of reconciling the two conflicting origins of the tradition. I expect an equally strong avoidance of the issue when the university is asked to answer the same question.

Whether the legal aspect is or isn't outside my understanding isn't the issue. No one's opinion matters other than the jurist who will be asked to answer the question (God, let's hope it is a competent, ethical jurist and not Sim Lake).

How the university will act once the fraudulent scheme is made public remains to be seen. They have known the truth the entire time, but have not felt ethically compelled to be honest to date, so there is nothing to lead us to believe we can expect the senior university administrators to act with honesty and integrity now.

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.

One of these days, you will come to realize embracing unethical activities isn't a smart practice for your cult to engage in.

Have a good day.

 

[Hornstar]

Aggies have more pressing concerns right now like no TEs on the roster thanks to the recent defection of Jordan Davis.  I'm guessing the DJ got boring.  #needmoregadgets

 

[Sirhornsalot]

I don't know the publication (quite likely Texas Monthly), but I don't care.  When you comment, using cryptic innuendo, it becomes nothing more than an empty tease.

That makes it tedious and boring and, as you can see, gets the ags all in a froth.

Now, even though I enjoy aggys getting their panties wadded up, I prefer better nuanced comments as a Longhorn fan.

To each his own I suppose. Some prefer to hear their news between 5:30 and 6 and nothing will make them stray from that, . internet be damned.

I can't make sense out of breaking something being tedious and boring, . . or even just saying "this will go down." That's hardly boring, . . in fact, it's downright exciting for someone who was in the news business for 17 years.

The last sentence is begging for explanation. I don't know how much differently Duke could have handled this with aggy here losing their collective mind for all to endure. People in hell prefer ice water so sometimes that stuff just doesn't happen no matter how badly we might prefer it.

 

[Bear19]

"with aggy here losing their collective mind"

No big loss. 😎

 

[Randolph Duke]

At the very least, the fact aggy intentionally avoids all mention of Gill's explanation of how the tradition originated is a lie of omission.

I don't think anyone believes that if the ags made public Gill's repeated statements (that the tradition originated in 1939 with the radio play and that prior to the radio play he really hadn't heard of any 12th Man tradition) people would think the same of the tradition as they do knowing only the radio play fairy tale version that says it all started as soon as the game ended in 1922.

There is simply no way to avoid the fact that the ags have been lying about their most cherished tradition for decades. It amazes me how averse they are as a culture to principles of honesty and integrity.

At least it will soon be very publicly known that aggy has lied all this time about their cherished tradition. As they continue to claim their fairy tale is documented Texas history, educated people will know their lies are just that - lies.

That a major public research university knowingly teaches fraudulent versions of Texas history and their alumni, almost without exception, are naive and gullible enough to fall for the fake stories is something that could only happen at Texas A&M University.

Aggie Nation. Real football. Real tradition. lol.

 

[Sirhornsalot]

At the very least, the fact aggy intentionally avoids all mention of Gill's explanation of how the tradition originated is a lie of omission.

I don't think anyone believes that if the ags made public Gill's repeated statements (that the tradition originated in 1939 with the radio play and that prior to the radio play he really hadn't heard of any 12th Man tradition) people would think the same of the tradition as they do knowing only the radio play fairy tale version that says it all started as soon as the game ended in 1922.

There is simply no way to avoid the fact that the ags have been lying about their most cherished tradition for decades. It amazes me how averse they are as a culture to principles of honesty and integrity.

At least it will soon be very publicly known that aggy has lied all this time about their cherished tradition. As they continue to claim their fairy tale is documented Texas history, educated people will know their lies are just that - lies.

That a major public research university knowingly teaches fraudulent versions of Texas history and their alumni, almost without exception, are naive and gullible enough to fall for the fake stories is something that could only happen at Texas A&M University.

Aggie Nation. Real football. Real tradition. lol.

Between this, the awarding of mythical national titles, what happened to Revellie at that corps turd party, and of course the struggles to pay off an ugly stadium – isn't there enough here to warrant a 3-hour documentary?

 

[doc longhorn]

You could have stopped after the first fifteen words (it's close enough anyways).  That has been my main point this entire time - you essentially guaranty that the TM will be invalidated due to fraud without having any knowledge or understanding of how that would actually take place.  A challenger even surviving a 12( B) (6) motion based on 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements for fraud claims would be a minor miracle, much less actually establishing the necessary elements for such claim.

Instead of just acknowledging that the legal aspect is outside of your understanding and sticking to the facts found in your research, you insist on making these bold claims of legal "fraud" and attempt to shout down anyone that questions them.  Everytime you are asked an honest or legitimate question, you resort to the same old rote insults (even when the other person has been respectful the entire time).  Reading your latest diatribes seem to conjure Hamlet in that "me thinks the lady doth protest too much."

Ok, my point has been made and you seem to tacitly accept it in the first of your quoted post, excessive protests notwithstanding.  On that note, I'll dip out and leave the group to focus on what Randolph should have limited his focus to the entire time - whether or not the facts of the legend are true or not.  Your quest would have been better served than getting sidetracked on public corruption, fraud, judicial misconduct, etc.

Have a good day

Frankly, Randy, I suggest you and the rest of aggyland are way too invested in the legitimacy of RD's claim.

Why do you care?  If you truly believe what you are saying, why are you even on this board talking about it?  Much less wanting to make, LOL, bets on it?

Do you and those of you arguing with RD realize you are doing nothing more than giving him and his claim legitimacy?

At the very least you give the appearance of a bunch of uptight assholes with a neurotic sense of inferiority and a persecution complex.  Thus justifying your countrywide reputation as just exactly this.

Honestly, all of you aggys would have been better served to treat his claim with a sense of humor.

Something, those of us at UT have always known and what the SEC is learning, you are devoid of.

 

[TeamMayhall]

Something those of us at UT have always known, and what the SEC is learning, you are devoid of.

Drops the Mic. 🎤

🚶 Exits the stage.

 

[drivebyag]

Not a brave bet at all. This will be the easiest money I have made since the Lion Oil and Monsanto merger! I have given you my financial adviser's name and number and apprised her that we both will be transferring $100,000 for her to escrow for two weeks. I will even pay the interest. If that is too much for you I will bet you $25,000. Time for you to actually back your volumes of dribble with hard earned cash. If you are truly honorable and trustworthy to the fine people of Texas who are reading this website, you would take this bet.

When I call Kelly on Friday morning and your funds are not accounted for, I will assume that you are a fraud and your life's research is for naught.

Still waiting on this bet and transfer of funds. Mine are there. Waiting on you Charles.

 

[drivebyag]

Frankly, Randy, I suggest you and the rest of aggyland are way too invested in the legitimacy of RD's claim.

Why do you care?  If you truly believe what you are saying, why are you even on this board talking about it?  Much less wanting to make, LOL, bets on it?

Do you and those of you arguing with RD realize you are doing nothing more than giving him and his claim legitimacy?

At the very least you give the appearance of a bunch of uptight assholes with a neurotic sense of inferiority and a persecution complex.  Thus justifying your countrywide reputation as just exactly this.

Honestly, all of you aggys would have been better served to treat his claim with a sense of humor.

Something, those of us at UT have always known and what the SEC is learning, you are devoid of.

I don't categorize all Aggies just as I don't all UT grads. The interesting part about this is there isn't anything invested in "RandolphDuke" A majority of Ags I have spoken too have no idea whom I am referring to and laugh when I explain to them of Rd's crusade of revoking the 12th Man TM while also having the bar cards of several attorneys including the AG and Judge Lake. I spoke yesterday to a colleague who is a well known trademark attorney that I know Charles has experience with and she thought the whole threatening nature....humorous! The real sense of humor is that a maximum of 7 internet experts will be reading this! 

 

[drivebyag]

Between this, the awarding of mythical national titles, what happened to Revellie at that corps turd party, and of course the struggles to pay off an ugly stadium – isn't there enough here to warrant a 3-hour documentary?

I would be pleased to offer you tickets in the fall to see first hand the "ugly" stadium you have never seen, the wall of titles, and even Reveille up close. I will throw in a tailgate with beer and BBQ and great fun conversation. You can wear as much orange as you prefer and I guarantee you will have a great time and have first hand knowledge of how sincere and honest at least this group of Aggies are. PM me for details.