 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / February 2006UP and lawsuits
It appears that in the UP lawsuit against that poor calendar seller that; "depositions were taken in Vancouver BC; UP offered to settle; Huxtable declined." I'm guessing UP finally figured out they were in trouble with this one and the law firm is afraid the s*** is going to hit the fan. > I'm guessing UP finally figured out they were in trouble with this one > and the law firm is afraid the s*** is going to hit the fan. Correction: that should be "chickens***"  SignatureSteve >It appears that in the UP lawsuit against that poor calendar seller that; >"depositions were taken in Vancouver BC; UP offered to settle; Huxtable >declined." > I'm guessing UP finally figured out they were in trouble with this one >and the law firm is afraid the s*** is going to hit the fan. I read in Railroad Modeller that UP are also taking a model manufacturer to court. Surely the fact that someone wants to model their locos is a *good* thing as this is giving UP some free advertising. For those of us outside the US a model (or a video) is often the first time that we come across different railroads. Where will it end? Does it mean that if I stand beside a railroad and take photos I am liable to the RR for their 'intelectual rights' ? Anyone who knows about this case (or even thinks they know) care to enlighten those of living outside the US. SignatureMike Hughes A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England If you sell the pictures maybe? > Where will it end? Does it mean that if I stand beside a railroad and > take photos I am liable to the RR for their 'intelectual rights' ? SignatureThe lotto must be rigged, I should have won by now. Modular furniture is cruel and unusual. > If you sell the pictures maybe? Especially if you call it "UNION PACIFIC CALENDAR 2006." > Especially if you call it "UNION PACIFIC CALENDAR 2006." Yeah, "UNCLE PERVERT CALENDAR 2006" would be better. SignatureSteve [...] > I read in Railroad Modeller that UP are also taking a model manufacturer > to court. Surely the fact that someone wants to model their locos is a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Anyone who knows about this case (or even thinks they know) care to > enlighten those of living outside the US. A trademark has real monetary value ***, and its owner does not want its value diluted by similar trademarks in similar or competing businesses. The courts have upheld the principle that a trademark infringes on another trademark owner's rights if used in such a way as to "cause confusion in the mind of the buyer" (or words to that effect.) Thus, using a trademark similar to UP's in the transportation business would be clear case of infringement. For example. suppose you founded a trucking company, and called it Utica Pacific Transport. Sofar, not much of problem. But suppose you mark your trucks using UP's red lettering on a yellow background to spell out "Utica Pacific": you would be in trouble. If you used "UP" in red on a yellow background, you'd be in real trouble. Whether a model or toy train actually infringes on UP's trademarks is not clear. Rulings on how far trademark protection can extend beyond a company's core-business have been ambiguous. IMO, UP is going too far, since no one would confuse a toy or model train with the real thing. OTOH, with the advent of sponsored models for collectors (eg, Coca Cola, John Deere), UP's rights may well be infringed. Also, railroad companies have sponsored or produced calendars and other publications in the past. UP's explanation seems to be that they don't want cheesy or sleazy models decorated for UP, nor do they want a substandard publication showing their trains. A judge could well agree with them, if it gets that far. Of course, maintaining trademark rights and charging licensing fees is not the same thing. UP could license its trademarks for free, and charge the costs of the paperwork to advertising. But I suspect some careerist s.o.b. somewhere deep in the bowels of the organisation saw an opportunity to rise above the s**t in which he wallowed, and proposed licensing as a moneymaker. Now UP is stuck with paying his salary and the costs of his office staff.... ***Footnote: Here in Canada, Nestle has dropped the original makers' names on its chocolate bars, but still marks them Mars, Coffee Crisp, KitKat, etc. On some specialty items intended for niche markets, it's even kept the original maker's name, eg, Cadbury's Dairy Box, sold AFAIK only at Christmastime. Good illustration of the value of a trademark, I think. HTH > Good illustration of the value of a trademark Not at question; and unquestioned, in the case of other transportation businesses. The collectors of crap phenomenon you refer to does muddy the issue with models, but there is no reason that a trademark holder could not distinguish between total schlock http://www.nancyshmk.com/Default.asp?Page=CAT&CatID=2647&SelID=4708 http://www.danburymint.com/heirloom/category.asp?id=5 and [relatively] serious models using no-fee licenses in the latter case. Let's face it: an NFL box car (ought to be a beer reefer) is not a "model". If there were any real railroad competition in this country, Uncle Pervert could be damaging their trademark with their chickens***, but they only really have to worry about trucks. And, of course, as I see it [although possibly not in the view of some incredibly anal legal a88hole] the fallen flag crap has no justification, no matter HOW many diesels they paint up with references to old Katy heralds and call it "heritage". Bastards by definition have no heritage. SignatureSteve > Also, railroad companies have sponsored or produced calendars and other > publications in the past. UP's explanation seems to be that they don't want > cheesy or sleazy models decorated for UP, nor do they want a substandard > publication showing their trains. A judge could well agree with them, if it > gets that far. Union Pacific Railroad has U.S. trademark #2666974 for "UNION PACIFIC." They also sell calendars, and they also license their trademark. Nils Huxtable is selling a calendar called "UNION PACIFIC CALENDAR 2006," a calendar which the Union Pacific has no quality control on. You darn right a judge could well agree with Union Pacific. >> Also, railroad companies have sponsored or produced calendars and other >> publications in the past. UP's explanation seems to be that they don't want [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Union Pacific has no quality control on. You darn right a judge could well >agree with Union Pacific. I can see that in such a case the use of the UP name would tend to imply that the calendar had been authorised or approved by them, but how can this be the same for a model loco produced by a manufacturer who is also producing nearly identical models with a different livery. What if someone scratch builds a loco, paints in UP colours and later sells it on? Sounds like a case of some busy body trying to make a name for themselves. I could of course be completely wrong as I don't know the exact case being put forward. Is there anywhere on the web where I can find out more - or can someone post more info here. SignatureMike Hughes A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England > I could of course be completely wrong as I don't know the exact case being > put forward. Is there anywhere on the web where I can find out more - or > can someone post more info here. For the particular case we are discussing, here are the UP's lawsuit and Nils Huxtable's reply: http://www.helpsteamscenes.com/viewlawsuit.html >> I could of course be completely wrong as I don't know the exact case being >> put forward. Is there anywhere on the web where I can find out more - or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Huxtable's reply: > http://www.helpsteamscenes.com/viewlawsuit.html OK, I read it all, and IMO Huxtable has a case. IMO, a jury would acquit him and find for him in the counterclaim. No telling what an appeal court would find, though. No matter what, UP looks bad, because they are beating up on a photographer whose products UP, and staff of UP, have purchased many times in the past, without ever a murmur of trademark infringement, etc. And my hunch was right: UP is stuck with paying the costs of a "director of corporate relations" by name of Brenda. Heh heh. > OK, I read it all, and IMO Huxtable has a case. The fifteen instances of "defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations" sure doesn't help his case, though. Huuuh ? You don' know what you are talking about. In an Answer, a defendant uses that phrasing to mean "Well, plaintiff you claim 'X' is fact; now prove it." -- Jim McLaughlin Reply address is deliberately munged. If you really need to reply directly, try: jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom address. > > OK, I read it all, and IMO Huxtable has a case. > > The fifteen instances of "defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient > to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations" sure doesn't help his > case, though. > Huuuh ? > > You don' know what you are talking about. > > In an Answer, a defendant uses that phrasing to mean "Well, plaintiff you > claim 'X' is fact; now prove it." Why wouldn't Huxtable use that reply to all of the claims? Because Huxtable has a duty to admit what he personally knows is true, to deny what he personally believes is false, and to require the plaintiff to prove what plaintiff claims to be true and which he, Huxtable, has no personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of. If you had 3 years and the tuition, I'd try to teach you federal civil proceedure. SignatureJim McLaughlin Reply address is deliberately munged. If you really need to reply directly, try: jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom address. > > > Huuuh ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why wouldn't Huxtable use that reply to all of the claims? > Because Huxtable has a duty to admit what he personally knows is true, to > deny what he personally believes is false, and to require the plaintiff to > prove what plaintiff claims to be true and which he, Huxtable, has no > personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of. [///] Thanks for that clarification, Jim. In my mind I can see why UP would be worried. If taken to court _with a jury_ it would look like a big American Corp. picking on some poor Canadian photographer putting his pictures together in a calendar. While a judge (just another lawyer) would probably be on the side of UP (if the case was decided by a judge) I'm guessing a jury would be a crap shoot for UP. Usually these types of cases are heard by a judge and the choice of a jury definitely is not good for UP. Even if the jury thought that UP had a case Jury Nullification is very popular these days! If UP lost then I sure others would go after them, using a jury of course. Please take the time to actually read the documents, even if you can't comprehend them. Uncle Pervert, in his initial complaint, asked for a jury trial. It wasn't Huxtable who initiated the jury request. Jury nulification is popular right wing cant. It doesn't happen in federal civil cases. Try to acually get in touch with reality Nobody is going to "go after" Uncle Prevert if Huxtable wins. There is nothing to "go after" Uncle Pervert for. What, do you want Uncle Prevert to pay you for using Uncle Pervert's logos and name on models, coffee cups and calendars? Try to acually get in touch with reality It would be interesting to see the pleadings in the Uncle Pervert vs. MTH litigation. IMHO, that is a case which I wish they could both lose, after each incurring seven figure attorneys fees. -- Jim McLaughlin Reply address is deliberately munged. If you really need to reply directly, try: jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom address. > In my mind I can see why UP would be worried. If taken to court _with a > jury_ it would look like a big American Corp. picking on some poor Canadian [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > popular these days! If UP lost then I sure others would go after them, > using a jury of course. >What, do you want Uncle Prevert to pay you for using Uncle Pervert's logos and name on models< Well they used to in the good old days <VBG>. Didn't ATSF pay for the Lionel molds of the F3? Didn't many RRs pay to have their name on the sides of model trains? >Uncle Pervert, in his initial complaint, asked for a jury trial. It wasn't Huxtable who initiated the jury request.< You are right, I didn't see that. Well just goes to show the brilliant legal minds to the hired guns. >Nobody is going to "go after" Uncle Prevert if Huxtable wins< Bad wording, by 'go after' I meant take them to court not just cave and give them money. >> OK, I read it all, and IMO Huxtable has a case. > > The fifteen instances of "defendant lacks knowledge or information sufficient > to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations" sure doesn't help his > case, though. As I understand it, what it means in non-lawyer-speak is that Plaintiff didn't provide grounds in support of their allegations, hence Defendant can't respond either way. It's a way of saying "There is no case here." If the judge accepts these defences, the allegations in question will be removed from the action. That's presumably what Huxtable wants, so he can focus the case on the two main points, which as I read it are a) that UP has lost control of the trademark; and b) UP has interfered with and damaged his business, and so is liable for damages. a) is the point that amuses Jim McLaughlin. Me too. :-) But b) amuses me even more. Making unsubstantiated allegations is a common ploy if you have a weak case. It sometimes scares Defendant into settling. Didn't work this time. Defendant obviously has good counsel. > And my hunch was right: UP is stuck with paying the costs of a "director of > corporate relations" by name of Brenda. Heh heh. What hunch was that? Brenda Mainwaring's name is all over the UPRR web site and has been mentioned in rec.models.railroad several times in the past. >> And my hunch was right: UP is stuck with paying the costs of a "director of >> corporate relations" by name of Brenda. Heh heh. > > What hunch was that? Brenda Mainwaring's name is all over the UPRR web site > and has been mentioned in rec.models.railroad several times in the past. Well, I missed her name, I guess. Anyhow, ISTM that she is trying to justify her existence and salary. She is beginning to cost UP major bucks, and she is doing UP's public image some serious harm, albeit in a rather small segment of the public. However, if the publicity spreads, it could be major damage: the public doesn't like to see large corporations bullying small business folk. IMO, her seniors will have to decide pretty soon whether it's worth supporting her campaign or cut their losses. >However, if the publicity spreads, it could be major damage: the public doesn't like to see large corporations bullying small business folk. IMO, her seniors will have to decide pretty soon whether it's worth supporting her campaign or cut their losses.< Another SWAG, if this case were to go to court, and UP were to loose I'm guessing it would make national news. How big a spot I don't know but I'm sure CNN would mention it (they always look for interesting stories) and probably the internet news (same reasons). Papers I'm not sure about. Readingthe complaint and the answer on the web site, I can readily understand why Uncle Pervert has offered Huxtable a generous monetary settlement after the initial depositions. I also understand why Huxtable told Uncle Pervert to go pound rails. I wonder if Ms. Mainwaring is still employed by Uncle Pervert? Poor Uncle Pervert, he stuck his nose in a hornet's nest and go stung. Badly. Uncle Pervert has serious Rule 12 issiues with his complaint; Uncle Perverts lawyetrs have very serious Rule 11 isses , and ncle Pervert has a real good shot at losing any claim to the UP name and logo. This is going to be fun to watch. SignatureJim McLaughlin Reply address is deliberately munged. If you really need to reply directly, try: jimdotmclaughlinatcomcastdotcom And you know it is a dotnet not a dotcom address. > > > I could of course be completely wrong as I don't know the exact case being [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Huxtable's reply: > http://www.helpsteamscenes.com/viewlawsuit.html The following from the defense which I read to mean Lionel for example has been using this for 75 years, just one example. ------------------------------------------ Fifth Affirmative Defense 103. Plaintiff has abandoned the “Union Pacific ”word mark,and all or part of one or more of the marks pleaded in the Complaint ,by permitting the uncontrolled use thereof by numerous third parties over many years, and, through naked licensing. ----------------- The follow mean in my non lawyer thoughts that Union Pacific is simply two words without any particular reason to make it distinctive. ---------------------- Sixth Affirmative Defense 104. Plaintiff ’s “Union Pacific ” word mark, and all or part of one or more of the marks pleaded in the Complaint , are not inherently distinctive, and are not entitled to protection against dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). --------------------------------------------------- and it goes on and on -------------------------- Seventh Affirmative Defense 106. Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive or monetary relief under any circumstances for Defendant ’s activities within Canada, or in other countries abroad, where Plaintiff does not hold trademark rights, and/or which are not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. ------------------------ >... and, through naked licensing. What is naked licensing? >What is naked licensing?< Got me, someone who's a lawyer will have to reply to this one! This from the net; http://www.ivanhoffman.com/naked.html >> What is naked licensing? > > Got me, someone who's a lawyer will have to reply to this one! This > from the net; > http://www.ivanhoffman.com/naked.html Ahhh... it sound like they were licensing UNION PACIFIC but not actually following through to insure that it was being used by outside parties in a way that wasn't harmful; in effect they weren't protecting the trademark against misuse -- and therefore could be considered as having quit using the trademark. Mark Mathu spake thus: >>... and, through naked licensing. > > What is naked licensing? Found this at http://ias.okstate.edu/checklisthandouts/licensing.htm: A trademark or service mark license is a grant of permission by the owner of a trademark to allow another to use the mark. A trademark license differs from other types of licenses because the trademark owner must exercise some degree of control over the nature and quality of the goods or services on which the licensed trademark is used. This is because a trademark is used to indicate the quality of the goods and the source of the goods. Therefore, the licensor of the trademark must exert control to be sure that the public is not deceived into buying goods or services, thinking they have a certain quality or are from a certain source when they do not. If adequate quality control is not present, the trademark license may be deemed a "naked license" and invalid. Even worse, the mark may cease to indicate the quality or source of the goods or services, and therefore may be considered abandoned or lost. Quality control usually means that the licensor has supervised the goods or services sufficiently to guarantee their quality. SignatureEvery American is full of Cheney's buckshot. - Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006 Here is an example of Uncle Pervert's "naked licensing" in this video:\ http://www.youtube.com/w/Trainwreck?v=8MrqYJgHPz8&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b I ask you ... where is the "quality control" exercised in the depiction of this toy locomotive, let alone the laughable nature of the depiction? Surely, a calendar depicting vintage steam and diesel engines is preferable? >Here is an example of Uncle Pervert's "naked licensing" in this video:\ > >http://www.youtube.com/w/Trainwreck?v=8MrqYJgHPz8&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b Perhaps UP should be worried about this being seen as a more 'prototypical' example of their services and standards than those they are taking action against. :-)) Having had an opportunity to look at the court case documents shown on the web, and the defence and counter claim it would seem to me that the person who appears to be the prime mover behind this is someone who has little knowledge of PR and customer relations -but then if you've worked for the CIA that is not usually a consideration. I've seen some reports on the web but how much interest is there in the US news media. Maybe it's time to get the media interested in the David v Goliath struggle? >I ask you ... where is the "quality control" exercised in the depiction >of this toy locomotive, >let alone the laughable nature of the depiction? Surely, a calendar >depicting vintage steam and diesel engines is preferable? SignatureMike Hughes A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England > I've seen some reports on the web but how much interest is there in the US > news media. Maybe it's time to get the media interested in the David v > Goliath struggle? The media is already covering a "David vs Goliath" story in the BlackBerry lawsuit between NTP and RIM. > The media is already covering a "David vs Goliath" story in the BlackBerry > lawsuit between NTP and RIM. But they seemed confused as to who is David and who is Goliath. It's an insult to Davids all over the world, even greater than Michaelangelo's statue of David on a really cold day, to cast those weasels at NTP as underdogs. But then, the same media never really call that cowardly shirking W easel in the W hite house on his hype either. SignatureSteve [...] > I read in Railroad Modeller that UP are also taking a model manufacturer > to court. Surely the fact that someone wants to model their locos is a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Anyone who knows about this case (or even thinks they know) care to > enlighten those of living outside the US. A trademark has real monetary value ***, and its owner does not want its value diluted by similar trademarks in similar or competing businesses. The courts have upheld the principle that a trademark infringes on another trademark owner's rights if used in such a way as to "cause confusion in the mind of the buyer" (or words to that effect.) Thus, using a trademark similar to UP's in the transportation business would be clear case of infringement. For example. suppose you founded a trucking company, and called it Utica Pacific Transport. Sofar, not much of problem. But suppose you mark your trucks using UP's red lettering on a yellow background to spell out "Utica Pacific": you would be in trouble. If you used "UP" in red on a yellow background, you'd be in real trouble. Whether a model or toy train actually infringes on UP's trademarks is not clear. Rulings on how far trademark protection can extend beyond a company's core-business have been ambiguous. IMO, UP is going too far, since no one would confuse a toy or model train with the real thing. OTOH, with the advent of sponsored models for collectors (eg, Coca Cola, John Deere), UP's rights may well be infringed. Also, railroad companies have sponsored or produced calendars and other publications in the past. UP's explanation seems to be that they don't want cheesy or sleazy models decorated for UP, nor do they want a substandard publication showing their trains. A judge could well agree with them, if it gets that far. Of course, maintaining trademark rights and charging licensing fees is not the same thing. UP could license its trademarks for free, and charge the costs of the paperwork to advertising. But I suspect some careerist s.o.b. somewhere deep in the bowels of the organisation saw an opportunity to rise above the s**t in which he wallowed, and proposed licensing as a moneymaker. Now UP is stuck with paying his salary and the costs of his office staff.... ***Footnote: Here in Canada, Nestle has dropped the original makers' names on its chocolate bars, but still marks them Mars, Coffee Crisp, KitKat, etc. On some specialty items intended for niche markets, it's even kept the original maker's name, eg, Cadbury's Dairy Box, sold AFAIK only at Christmastime. Good illustration of the value of a trademark, I think. Good chocolate bars, too :.) HTH > Where will it end? Does it mean that if I stand beside a railroad and take > photos I am liable to the RR for their 'intelectual rights' ? No... you'd own the copyright to the photos you took. ??? If it is that simple, then why can't I take a picture of a picture that was taken by a professional photographer? Even if it is for my personal use. dlm >> Where will it end? Does it mean that if I stand beside a railroad and >> take photos I am liable to the RR for their 'intelectual rights' ? > > No... you'd own the copyright to the photos you took. Dan Merkel spake thus: > ??? If it is that simple, then why can't I take a picture of a picture that > was taken by a professional photographer? Even if it is for my personal > use. Who said anything about prohibitions on reproduction for personal use? Anybody can walk into a self-service copy shop and copy whatever pictures they want for their personal use. (You just can't copy stuff like money, passports, driver licenses, etc.; you know, the kind of stuff you suspect in the back of your mind you shouldn't copy anyway.) Sheesh, the level of ignorance about copyright law and licensing is waaay high. >>>Where will it end? Does it mean that if I stand beside a railroad and >>>take photos I am liable to the RR for their 'intelectual rights' ? >> >>No... you'd own the copyright to the photos you took. SignatureEvery American is full of Cheney's buckshot. - Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006 >Who said anything about prohibitions on reproduction for personal use?< Have you tried to copy (for personal use and backup) a DVD lately? >??? If it is that simple, then why can't I take a picture of a picture that >was taken by a professional photographer? Even if it is for my personal >use. Because such a photographer (like Nils) will have copyrighted the photo. Signature"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - US President James Madison "To be a social conservative is to believe that the poor have too much money, and the rich don't have enough." - J.K. Galbraith "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." - Charles Austin Beard Mountain Goat spake thus: >> ??? If it is that simple, then why can't I take a picture of a >> picture that was taken by a professional photographer? Even if it >> is for my personal use. > > Because such a photographer (like Nils) will have copyrighted the > photo. You can still take a picture of the picture; you just can't sell, distribute or publish it. You can frame it and put it on your wall if you like. SignatureEvery American is full of Cheney's buckshot. - Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006 > Every American is full of Cheney's buckshot. > > - Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006 I think that would be "birdshot". Of course you maybe right.Cheney may prefer to hunt birds with buckshot, you know .........shock and awe and all that. Bruce >I think that would be "birdshot". Of course you maybe right.Cheney may prefer to hunt birds with buckshot, you know < A couple of questions. First is that in many states lead shot is not allowed so was the load in Dick's gun steel? Second the news reported his gun as a 28 gauge. While I have a 410 I'm not aware of a 28 gauge shotgun. I do know that bird shot is probably available in any bore size including a 22! > While I have a 410 I'm not aware of a 28 gauge shotgun. It's slightly smaller than a 20 gauge - bore a little over 1/2 inch, compared to a 20 ga being over 5/8 inch - but substantially larger than a .410 (which for a change is known by its actual bore measurement, rather than how many round balls of that bore could be made from a pound of lead) which would be somewhere around a 68 gauge. So a 28 ga is not as common as a 12 or 20 ga; when I was a kid there were a fair number of 16 ga shotguns around, but they're relatively uncommon these days, too. A 28 ga might be considered a little wimpy, but then what do you expect from a gang that avoided combat, if not military service altogether in Cheney's case, while becoming expert in accusing others of being "soft on defense"? SignatureSteve > A 28 ga might be considered a little wimpy, but then what do you expect > from a gang that avoided combat, if not military service altogether in > Cheney's case, while becoming expert in accusing others of being "soft on > defense"? Steve, I understand 28 gauge is excellent for a load of chickenshot. Bruce >> A 28 ga might be considered a little wimpy, but then what do you expect >> from a gang that avoided combat, if not military service altogether in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Steve, > I understand 28 gauge is excellent for a load of chickenshot. Bruce Well, there's certainly a lot of that in Tejas. SignatureSteve Steve Caple spake thus: >>> A 28 ga might be considered a little wimpy, but then what do you >>> expect from a gang that avoided combat, if not military service [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Well, there's certainly a lot of that in Tejas. Hey, remember Johnny Winter? "There's so much sh.t in Texas, you're bound to step in some." SignatureTo the arrogant putzes at NBC: Do we call the country Italia? Is its capital Roma? Were previous Olympics held in Moskva, Muenchen or Athine? Do we call it the "Shroud of Torino"? No! So learn to speak English already and call it Turin. - from someone's blog > So learn to speak English already and call it Turin. Naaah, sorry, by that logic we'll be calling Livorno "Leghorn" - something only a bunch of pig ignorant arrogant Royal Navy types could have come up with. Never too late to broaden your horizons. SignatureSteve >> Steve, >> I understand 28 gauge is excellent for a load of chickenshot. Bruce > > Well, there's certainly a lot of that in Tejas. Unfortunately its spread out all over the county. > > A 28 ga might be considered a little wimpy, but then what do you expect > > from a gang that avoided combat, if not military service altogether in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Steve, > I understand 28 gauge is excellent for a load of chickenshot. Bruce A 28 gauge is a finesse gun... it's no wonder Steve isn't familiar with it. SignatureEvaluating all GUIs by the example of Windows is like evaluating all cars by the example of Yugos. > A 28 gauge is a finesse gun... it's no wonder Steve isn't familiar with > it. Never claimed I was a shotgunner; I spent many magnitudes more time behind an M-60, let alone my bolt action .22, than ever behind a shotgun. My use of the W word (well, ONE of the W words: wimp, weasel, w.nker, whore, war pig, wacko [Waco?], wastrel, or just plain W hisseff) was an homage to chickenhawk Dick's tendency to talk tough then send somebody else or their kid to walk tough. Finesse seems hardly a salient trait of the guy who hid his energy scam - er, uh, policy - conspirs, er, uh, meetings - behind a Berlin wall, or who told a member of the Senate to do to himself what Cheney and his energy welfare buddes are doing to the country. SignatureSteve >> While I have a 410 I'm not aware of a 28 gauge shotgun. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Cheney's case, while becoming expert in accusing others of being "soft on >defense"? Q: What's the difference between Dan Quayle & Dick Cheney? A: When Quayle was vice president he only shot his own mouth off. Dick Cheney by his own admission "had better things to do" than go into the US military during the Vietnam War. So he received no firearms training from the US military. He seems to be a quick study however, he's already learned how to shoot friends and allies. Signature"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - US President James Madison "To be a social conservative is to believe that the poor have too much money, and the rich don't have enough." - J.K. Galbraith "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence." - Charles Austin Beard > It appears that in the UP lawsuit against that poor calendar seller that; > "depositions were taken in Vancouver BC; UP offered to settle; Huxtable > declined." I've never bought a railroad-specific calendar, so these questions goes out to others -- in the hope of trying to better understand the UPRR / Huxtable situation: 1) Have you ever bought a railroad-specific calendar? 2) Do you have one now? 3) What led to buy one (or pass on buying them)? 4) Does it matter to you if the calendar is produced by / licensed by the specific railroad? ____ Mark >> It appears that in the UP lawsuit against that poor calendar seller that; >> "depositions were taken in Vancouver BC; UP offered to settle; Huxtable [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 1) Have you ever bought a railroad-specific calendar? Yes > 2) Do you have one now? Yes > 3) What led to buy one (or pass on buying them)? Interest in the specific railroad - what else? > 4) Does it matter to you if the calendar is produced by / licensed by the > specific railroad? No. What matters are: 1. the quality of the photos (technique, aesthetics, content); 2. the quality of the information in the captions; 3. the quality of the printing (too many volunteer groups skimp on this, unfortunately.) PS: I'm not interested in the UP, but I do like the Challengers - a better looking loco than the Big Boy IMO. > No. What matters are: 1. the quality of the photos (technique, > aesthetics, content); 2. the quality of the information in the captions; > 3. the quality of the printing (too many volunteer groups skimp on this, > unfortunately.) Or collectability. I have a 1969 Union Pacific "Centennial" calendar in my collection, mostly because I know for certain that it might be worth some money some day. All the pictures are paintings by Howard Fogg. Signature-Glennl e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after brasil. >> 3) What led to buy one (or pass on buying them)? > > Interest in the specific railroad - what else? ... the particular photographer is one that comes to mind. 1) No but then I've never hunted for one. 2) Yes and no, Orchard supply always had RR calendars but this year it's flowers. I emailed Sears about that and paste old calendar RR pictures over the flowers on this years calendar. 3) NA usually I don't buy calendars however if I did it would need to be era and RR specific. 4) No Jon Miller spake thus: > 2) Yes and no, Orchard supply always had RR calendars but this year it's > flowers. OSH printed train calendars this year just like they always do. You just got there too late to get one. I have one here. This sounds about as reliable as your knowledge of anything having to do with the legal system. SignatureEvery American is full of Cheney's buckshot. - Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006 >OSH printed train calendars this year just like they always do. You just got there too late to get one. I have one here.< Interesting, I got there the day after New Years and the local store didn't have any as I asked. In fact they seems to be oblivious to the fact there were RR calendars! >This sounds about as reliable as your knowledge of anything having to do with the legal system.< I don't claim to know anything about the legal system except that it's screwed up. I'm just a common person and when everything is controlled by lawyers it's a good time to have a general clean-up*. And speaking of the legal system I just saw on TV that the judge just denied an injection against stopping Blackberry service. As my old common self commented earlier wonder if they might take a look at the patent system. * check our per-capital lawyer population with every other country in the world. Jon Miller spake thus: >> This sounds about as reliable as your knowledge of anything having >> to do with the legal system. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > * check our per-capital lawyer population with every other country in the > world. Uh-huh. Sounds like good old all-American know-nothingism to me. Mark Twain and Shakespeare aside ("kill all the lawyers"), tell me this, Mr. Miller: next time you get sued, or involved in an automobile accident, or divorced, or decide to start a business or sell one, who're you gonna call: some guy with a bunch of NRA stickers on his pickup and one well-thumbed law book from 1986? Didn't think so. There's a reason there are lawyers out there, you know, aside from the usual cartoon shark stereotypes: we are a society of laws. Maybe you'd prefer it if there weren't so many danged laws, huh? Yeah, that oughta solve the problem. Regardless of how litigious Uncle Puke-Head may be, I can guarantee that if you were the holder of a copyright, trademark or patent that you were depending on for income, you'd damn sure protect it with lawyers every which way. By the way, one doesn't always have to resort to hiring a lawyer. If it's something fairly straightforward, one can use one of Nolo Press's fine publications (http://nolo.com/). Perfect for that DIY no-contest divorce, tenant-landlord dispute, or living will. SignatureEvery American is full of Cheney's buckshot. - Sign on the Grand-Lake Theater, Oakland, CA, Feb. 14, 2006 >This sounds about as reliable as your knowledge of anything having to do with the legal system.< I am a firm believer in that (Mark Twain, I think) saying. One lawyer in town and he lives in an apartment; two lawyer in town and they both have mansions. > 1) No but then I've never hunted for one. > 2) Yes and no, Orchard supply always had RR calendars but this year it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and RR specific. > 4) No Actually, OSH had both railroad and flower calendars this year. I have one of the RR versions. When I went in, they had both available. They always seem to not have them until about the 2nd week in Jan., and then run out very quickly after that. That is in the West Los Angeles store. Since they now carry Craftsmen tools, there's always something I can buy... Best Regards, DAve > 1) Have you ever bought a railroad-specific calendar? No. > 2) Do you have one now? Yes. > 3) What led to buy one (or pass on buying them)? Get them as promos from vendors in the industry (no, I don't know why they tend to pick one railroad for their illustrations). > 4) Does it matter to you if the calendar is produced by / licensed by > the specific railroad? No. John 1 Yes 2 No 3 Intrest in content,quality 4 No. 5 If the big bad rr giant is going to charge everyone to enrich their corporate ''bottom line'',god help us all. Go Nils,Take it to 'em,bud. Good Luck! Hank H. Stockton,Ca. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.