This Board has become a joke

Today I receive a message from the RD General Manager asking if I am Joe and that I banned because I used the same IP as Joe. When I try to reply to the manager by private message, it tells me I no longer have privileges to access the page to reply to messages

I think this is some crap/ I am retired. What I get from social security doesn't amount to beans. I can't afford a computer or internet. New Beginnings Fellowship Church has two public computers for anyone to use, and I use one to pay bills and surf the net. I'm in the church right now. This is God's House and Joe is the pastor of the church and he is a GOOD MAN! He says that all the computers including his office In the church/ are connected to the same comcast router.

Through radio discussions I met Joe two years ago. I am "Fort Bend" because I used to work for 104.9 KFRD and others for Fort Bend Broadcasting. That is until the owner falsely accused me of stealing funds and mismanagement. An owner who has lied and cheated so many people his name is like dirt in the radio industry. An owner whose name nobody dares mention anymore for fear of banishment. An owner that that Pastor Joe has been banned from this site for telling the truth about.

If radio discussions want to shut down my messages, that be fine. Purpledevil, please email me directly [email protected]

I thought Texas Radio Talk forum was started because of RadioDiscussions banning Joe. I however see that nobody-not even Joe posts there anymore and that it's already starting to get overrun with spam. Sad times.

FortBend, could you possibly email RD privately from the website and explain the situation? I'm sure they'd be willing to help you. Click the Help Desk link at the bottom.

How'd I get mixed up in this??

I came by the boards earlier and saw your screen name in red and a suspended tag under it. I read your last posts and wondered what rule you had violated. It is what it is, FortBend. Someone has scared the administration of this site by threatening litigation against them. That's how they wish to run their message board. Do I always agree with their decisions? Certainly not, but that one's on me because I choose to log on and piddle around the various topic threads. It used to be a hobby; it's become more of a habit.

I suppose it has some to do with the fact I'm now staring 50 down, and my interests aren't what they used to be. I used to look forward to dropping by and seeing what everyone was talking about, what new speculation someone was going to cause me to lol, and just converse with others that had the "weird" passion for a radio dial. Today, well...it's certainly not the ol' radio-info boards anymore. Still on me, because I keep typing in the address. The other boards like Insight and radio-talk are basically ghost towns. Listeners know to go to Insight for the latest information because that's what Lance does. He's a reporter. Pretty good one, too. Go to the community boards? Dusty. Houston board goes weeks without having a single new post. Guess I'm not alone in the changing interests.

I really hope that Joe continues to use his God given talents to make a real difference in the community. As a Christian, I want to believe he's turned his life around and now uses his life to witness and be a vessel for God. We certainly need more, in the here and now. I can assure you though, there will be people that are suspicious of the man because of his past transgressions for the rest of his life. You know it, I know it, and Joe knows it. He's got a long road ahead of him, regardless of the path he follows. I wish him and you the best of luck.

And maybe start a new station like RADIO VIDA VISION and ask for donations. 100 people to give $1000 lol

I didn't ask to be brought into this drama, but since I have been I'm speaking up on this situation. It's the Texan in me, as you pointed out in a prior conversation between the two of us. Now, I'm going to regret I said this to you, Cowboy, because I have no qualms with you. However, this topic is posted in the Houston-Galveston forum. No matter how you accessed the topic, whether by following new posts or by actually clicking the Houston-Galveston subforums, you should have known that was the case before you peered in the window. The title of the thread is apt. THIS board (the Houston-Galveston one) has become a joke, and not a particularly funny one. When a member who has been here for as long as djrage has, feels like he's to blame for even mentioning 93Q and FortBend's name, there is something extremely wrong.

As for your suggestion, why on earth would I want to discuss radio in other areas of the website? I'm interested in Houston and Texas radio. Couldn't care less about what's happening with some 6kW class A in Timbuktu, South Carolina so I don't bother even opening those topics. THIS is my home market, and this is the radio broadcasting that I care about. I care that a fraction of operators are getting away with whatever they want down here, and when one guy stands up to the corruption, regardless of whatever his motivation may be, he is run off and anyone even remotely associated with the guy becomes the subject of an old fashioned witch hunt. THAT is my qualm. Joe's plight, right or wrong, is getting results. Not everything Joe says is crap. That was proven when the Commission started rescinding permits and denying pending applications to the very operations Joe was calling out in the first place. I'm not a Joe Donalson fan, and I've stated that previously. I do commend him for taking action against some of these illegal outfits, and assure you through private communication with other oldtimers on this site that I'm not alone. My God, Chuck Tiller has even brought Joe into the fold with KNTH, and there isn't a more genuine and honest guy on this entire site than Mr. Tiller. If there's any doubt on that, do some searching. If he trusts the guy enough to allow his station to be rebroadcast on Joe TV, then that tells me that Joe is either a master manipulator, or that he's truly getting his life turned around. I tend to believe it is more the latter, and how could I ever be opposed to that? I, too, heard that voice telling me to straighten up my life many years ago now.

What happens when Darrell Martin contacts the administration of this site and threatens litigation against it, because of what Continuous Wave is doing to him and his crackpot FM translator over in Beaumont? What would have happened to me several years back when I petitioned the Commission not to renew the license for 1090 AM in Bellville, due to it no longer serving Austin County as the Ditterts intended when they signed the little Class D on back in 1974? You certainly can't serve the public with your facility if it's off of the air for 364 days a year. The precedent set now by the site's administration causes me alarm and it should worry everyone that participates anywhere on this site. If something is said that casts an unfavorable light on an individual, all that individual has to do is threaten a lawsuit and the voice is silenced. Never mind, that there is undeniable proof on several of the accusations being levied. That's not what radio-info was about, and that's definitely not what this country is supposed to be about.

So in conclusion, and this is the part that I'm afraid I will later regret, since you've stated that your dog isn't in this fight do me a favor. Call it back home so it can enjoy that parade with you. Better yet, I'll just grab mine and go find something more productive to do with our time than wasting it talking about a medium that is running itself straight into the ground anyway.

Chris, Kevan, Jason: you guys have my personal contacts. Shoot a line, anytime. There's better ways to occupy down time, think I'll go spend some additional time volunteering. Peace to all, sorry to you Cowboy. It's certainly not you, this has been festering in me for a few weeks now.

I get what you are saying. I read clearly that when an owner threatens legal action everything stops. I can see Radio Discussion's 'duck and cover' attitude. If we were on the lawsuit that would be one thing. We would have our reasons to expose and defend what we say. But when such is said here, we as simple posters with free membership are not being threatened and in need of some legal advice, Radio Discussions is. They have an investment and therefore something to lose. We on the other hand can only lose the right to post here.

This is not a cop out. Wrong is still wrong. I'm simply trying to put my feet in their shoes. If you had this site and a broadcaster threatened you with legal issues, what would you choose to risk? Remember, court and legal agreements have much less to do with who is right but more about who the better negotiator is and how the situation can be resolved easiest for the most financially disadvantaged of the two. The greater the ire, the greater the problems, even if that party is right on ever front.

No joke.

Let me put things bluntly:

If Joe had stopped at "whistle blowing" (letting the members of the community know about something wrong that was done), there would be no issues. But he has a personal vendetta against Roy. This is not conjecture, it is fact: He has bought a domain name with Roy's name and has posted a video that I think is in Roy's likeness, with this "likeness" saying distasteful things. That is WAY beyond trying to right a wrong that was done. He clearly is attacking Roy and trying to destroy him. A devout, practicing Christian would not do such a thing. I'm sorry, I do not like Joe's so-called "Christian" tactics. They make all Christians, such as myself, look foolish, out of touch, self-centered, aggressive, vengeful and manipulative.

If someone has an issue with a broadcaster, there are professional means by which to find resolve. Posting all kinds of things on this site AND others that are not easily provable and are hearsay at best, does not gain favor with me. Using "trust me" does not work on a message board, especially when someone has a tainted background, and whose constant ACTIONS are proving untrustworthy. I certainly can forgive the past (especially when time has already been served), but the ACTIONS I see in the present have voided any possible favor with me! Again, if Joe would have stopped at just letting the community know he felt a wrong was done, it would have been enough. The continued bashing, mudslinging, and yes, even libel has worn on me and many others here.

I have reviewed just about everything that Joe has posted here and elsewhere.. and his ACTIONS are not about righting a wrong... his actions are about destroying someone's reputation and livelihood. Those are UNCHRISTIANLIKE characteristics. So please stop saying Joe is a "good Christian"; what I see is contrary. And, as they say, perception is reality.. just like how most of you have views about RD that are very likely incorrect, but you perceive it to be true, so it is for you.

We have a legal system in this Country. Use it. Sometimes it takes decades and millions of dollars to resolve the issue. Is that "right"? Not necessarily, but it is the best we have right now. Using another's Private Company's property to air your grievances and try to destroy someone is NOT the way to right a wrong that may have been done. But when I look at Joe's issue, in my view, he is acting like a baby, stomping his feet and throwing his baby food on the floor for mommy to clean up because he is not getting his way. With the Internet, there are SO MANY more opportunities for independent broadcasters that his beef with Roy looks more and more like a personal vendetta, and of THIS I am convinced. I don't care if you think he has done good in your market.. If he has done good, the FCC would be calling me or emailing telling me so. They aren't. (Joe don't pretend to be the FCC and email me like you tried to do with Roy... because I will do my due diligence)

As for FortBend, if I truly am wrong about your identity, you should have emailed me (when PM didn't work).. there is a contact link at the bottom of every page. Since you have responded publicly, it's a Joe tactic so I am less apt to believe you. Sorry, but that is how these things go.

If Joe had stopped at "whistle blowing" (letting the members of the community know about something wrong that was done), there would be no issues. But he has a personal vendetta against Roy. This is not conjecture, it is fact: He has bought a domain name with Roy's name and has posted a video that I think is in Roy's likeness, with this "likeness" saying distasteful things. That is WAY beyond trying to right a wrong that was done. He clearly is attacking Roy and trying to destroy him. A devout, practicing Christian would not do such a thing. I'm sorry, I do not like Joe's so-called "Christian" tactics. They make all Christians, such as myself, look foolish, out of touch, self-centered, aggressive, vengeful and manipulative...

Click to expand...

You know, Boz. You are right. Absolutely right. I could give you all kinds of excuses for my behavior-- such as that I'm terminally ill, the constant pain affects my mental stability, I'm trying to right a wrong, that he brought it on himself by threatening me and having his private investigator follow me, etc -- but the bottom line here is two wrongs don't make a right. When I step back and look at my actions from an outsiders point of view, I can see that my responsive "tactics" are not Christian-like. I'm sorry. To the best of my ability, I will remove the video and other negative references to "him."

My days left in this world are short. Even when others are going astray, I need to stay on the straight and narrow by doing the right thing...

JoeFM1 said:

You know, Boz. You are right. Absolutely right. I could give you all kinds of excuses for my behavior-- such as that I'm terminally ill, the constant pain affects my mental stability, I'm trying to right a wrong, that he brought it on himself by threatening me and having his private investigator follow me, etc -- but the bottom line here is two wrongs don't make a right. When I step back and look at my actions from an outsiders point of view, I can see that my responsive "tactics" are not Christian-like. I'm sorry. To the best of my ability, I will remove the video and other negative references to "him."

My days left in this world are short. Even when others are going astray, I need to stay on the straight and narrow by doing the right thing...

Click to expand...

Why are you still here? Didn't you get banned? The management here should make that stick, because you're trouble.

A little enlightenment for the other members of the board and Boz...

A few years ago, you registered several domains and launched music video channels on the internet which used the intellectual property of those stations.

One day, you wandered into my stations and informed us that the trademark on one of our station logos had expired, told us you were now using it for your music video channel, and asked us how we were going to "work with you."

It felt like a shakedown. It was a shakedown. Somehow, in that sick little convicted arsonist mind of yours you thought you were going to get paid.

That armchair law degree you got in prison led you to believe adverse possession laws could be twisted to your favor and used to extort money from radio stations. As it turns out, the real attorneys at several of the large radio companies you attempted to shakedown didn't buy your bulls**t. I don't know how many stations you tried to pull this with, but I know of at least three - one of mine and two others.

Did any of them "work with you" Joe? I kinda doubt it.

Oh, and should anyone doubt your true intentions Joe, you pretty much revealed yourself in this post:

http://www.radiodiscussions.com/sho...Three-Rivers&p=6042142&viewfull=1#post6042142

I knew you were trying to shake down my company, thinking you were somehow holding a trump card with regard to our intellectual property, but the light bulb really came on for me when I read this post. You spell out exactly what your game is.

radiogooroo said:

A few years ago, you registered several domains and launched music video channels on the internet which used the intellectual property of those stations.

One day, you wandered into my stations and informed us that the trademark on one of our station logos had expired, told us you were now using it for your music video channel, and asked us how we were going to "work with you."

It felt like a shakedown. It was a shakedown. Somehow, in that sick little convicted arsonist mind of yours you thought you were going to get paid.

That armchair law degree you got in prison led you to believe adverse possession laws could be twisted to your favor and used to extort money from radio stations. As it turns out, the real attorneys at several of the large radio companies you attempted to shakedown didn't buy your bulls**t. I don't know how many stations you tried to pull this with, but I know of at least three - one of mine and two others.

Did any of them "work with you" Joe? I kinda doubt it.

Click to expand...

Sir, obviously you know very little about me. "Get paid." "Extort money." I detest money, as it is the root of evil. I have almost nothing in the way of material assets. All my income, other than what feeds and clothes me, goes to help feed, clothe, and shelter the needy.

Several years ago, I had a website called radio2tv.com which basically promoted a concept of taking popular radio station to a new level -- video! The ads and DJ banter would be the same, but when a song plays on the radio those who were on the internet would instead see the music video for the song. I created video versions of about ten radio radio stations, and then visited some of the stations.

Where you are mistaken here, Mr. Radiogooroo, is your assertion that I tried to shake you down into "working with [me]." My sole interest was to see if the concept was workable. Did I ask you for money? No! I never once asked anybody for anything, other than to give a new concept a try. Indeed, I offered the domains, passwords, and channel hosting to folks at various radio stations free of charge. I don't know which company you work for. The folks at Radio One were nice, but weren't interested. The folks at Cumulus were actually kinda rude. Only the folks at Cox were interested, with their on-air talent actually promoting the 93Q TV channel -- that is, until some corporate attorney in Atlanta said no-can-do.

See 93Q's Kevin Kline. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR-W5KZelVw
See 93Q's Tim Tuttle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7HiMWqiO24

Most of the music video channels remain active. My own creation www.tvjoe.net gets approximately 250 hits a day, but the channel for 93Q Country does well at around 110 a day, even without any promotion or recent updates. See http://worldtv.com/93q.tv

Is it illegal for me to use the intellectual property -- radio station logos, videos, commercials, etc -- on my channels? So far, none of the broadcast companies have been able to convince a judge that it is. When a radio station shares a video on YouTube, and agrees to the terms of service allowing said video to be embedded elsewhere, any YouTube user is free to embed that video on any website. Likewise, radio stations loves using Facebook to reach their audiences -- especially since its "free." However, to use Facebook you have to agree to their terms or service. Any intellectual property -- any logo, picture, image, video, etc -- you share on Facebook using the public setting can be used by any other Facebook user, and associated with you, either on or off Facebook. These terms of use have been upheld in the courts.

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others). When you use an application, the application may ask for your permission to access your content and information as well as content and information that others have shared with you. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, including how you can control what information other people may share with applications, read our Data Policy and Platform Page.)
When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use your feedback or suggestions without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

I never tried to shakedown any station. I created a concept and prototype, and offered it to stations free of charge. If Cox, Cumulus, or iheart said they'd give it a try and asked me for the channels/domains right now, I'd gladly give them away.

That's interesting spin, Joe!

So, if all you were looking for was a partnership with these stations, then why did you start the conversation you had with me by letting me know that our trademarks had expired and that you were now using them as if you had some legal claim to them? You tried to lead me to believe I had an intellectual property problem, and the only way I was going to resolve it was through you, since you thought you had some sort of legal claim to the station's intellectual property at that point because you were squatting on it with your website.

To any sane person, that probably doesn't sound like a very good way to start a partnership off on the right foot, or get a multi-million dollar company to buy into your concept.

And it probably explains the cease and desist letters you received from all three companies you named.

There was actually a discussion on this board about the C&D you received from Radio One.

And you're quite wrong about none of these companies not being able to convince a judge of anything. If the matter ever actually made it to court, you would lose - period. The fact of the matter is none of these companies apparently thought you were worth their time or effort. You did after all comply with the requests made in the C&Ds, taking down the infringing websites.

The reality of it is if any of these companies were interested in providing this type of service, they could do it themselves.

radiogooroo said:

That's interesting spin, Joe!

So, if all you were looking for was a partnership with these stations, then why did you start the conversation you had with me by letting me know that our trademarks had expired and that you were now using them as if you had some legal claim to them? You tried to lead me to believe I had an intellectual property problem, and the only way I was going to resolve it was through you, since you thought you had some sort of legal claim to the station's intellectual property at that point because you were squatting on it with your website.

To any sane person, that probably doesn't sound like a very good way to start a partnership off on the right foot, or get a multi-million dollar company to buy into your concept.

And it probably explains the cease and desist letters you received from all three companies you named.

There was actually a discussion on this board about the C&D you received from Radio One.

And you're quite wrong about none of these companies not being able to convince a judge of anything. If the matter ever actually made it to court, you would lose - period. The fact of the matter is none of these companies apparently thought you were worth their time or effort. You did after all comply with the requests made in the C&Ds, taking down the infringing websites.

The reality of it is if any of these companies were interested in providing this type of service, they could do it themselves.

Click to expand...

It's not a spin, man. I didn't want money, and I didn't want a partnership, either. I had an original idea, created some websites around it, and offered it to stations free of charge. Ask the IT guy over of KKBQ. I gave him my user name and password to access the website and online channel control panel, and haven't done anything else with it. Neither has Cox. They have the ability to control it and/or turned it off, but its still up running rodeo material from 2014 along with last years top country videos. See http://worldtv.com/93q.tv

You claim that I took down the so-called infringing websites. I don't recall doing it. Let me check... Okay, KRBE-TV is still up. http://krbetv.webs.com/ The Eagle TV is still up. http://theeagletv.webs.com/ Hit Video USA is still up. http://hitvideousa.webs.com/ Its just that nobody watches them, and I don't have the time nor interest to promote the concept anymore.

What's ironic is that another company stole my idea and is now doing the exact same thing for any radio station they can talk into buying a video channel package. Indeed, they have already set up webpages with video players for 103.7 See http://www.vadio.com/khjk and KRBE See http://www.vadio.com/krbe I never tried to "sell" my idea like this...

Radiogooroo, I now have a pretty good idea who you are, and since you haven't mentioned your name out of respect I won't either. I apologize if you felt I was trying to shake you down. I didn't want anything other than for a station to listen to my idea and give it a try. When I visited your stations, I recall a heavyset woman who was rather rude (and that's before she even knew why I was there). I'm very respectful to people who meet the minimum standards of common decency. When people are rude or disrespectful for no reason, it is hard for me to remain polite. I simply advised her that the station's trademark had not been renewed, and thus expired in 2009. (A search of the trademark database moments ago indicates the trademark remains unrenewed; thus, it is now public domain). To the woman, I explained why I wanted to meet with the program director, and she said she'd relay the message.

And you know, honestly, aside from why I went there, I remember being very disappointed with the way the lady acted. Her attitude kinda spoiled some good memories of that station. You see, years ago I spent many evening hours in the studio there with a dear lady. We had a strange relationship, mostly friendly but kinda romantic. She had a lot to do with why I remain so interested in radio today.
A couple of years ago, Rage shared with me a recording of one of her final shows. I have uploaded it here. See http://yourlisten.com/Power104.net/casi-love

A few weeks ago I went to visit her...



Casi, you are remembered and missed. One day we'll meet again...

Well, people can draw their own conclusions.

You claim to have no interest in money, yet you covet things money could buy - like broadcast licenses you try to take control of via adverse possession.

Anyway...

Assuming you are being honest about your intentions for a moment, all I can say is it's probably best not to bring up what you perceive to be a company's legal failings when you're trying to get them on board with an idea of yours. Probably best to just not bring that stuff up at all.

And don't let that "heavyset woman" ruin your memories of the station. She has a gruff demeanor with everyone. It takes a while to find her warm and fuzzy side, but it's definitely there and she has a heart of gold. She is also very good at her job.