223842 Bullies, 3521 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 1,801 to 1,810 of 6778
Page 181 of 678 FirstFirst ... 81131171177178179180181 182183184185191231281 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. johnpatricio is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    907

    Posted On:
    4/25/2009 2:50pm


     Style: BDFS

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    OK wheres its say first use, Your trying to quote copyright law, not trademark law.
    I didn't quote any laws. What are you talking about? I got that Trademark info from the TRADEMARK site. Bill signed that trademark application under penalty of perjury.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    OK I do a book, and then I copyright it, ya follow. Its copyrighted. But none of the symbols and characters are trademarked different. Hence you loose.
    Huh? Why don't you let this court case play out before you start telling people who won and who lost. Coca Cola is trademarked, but that doesn't mean I cannot write a book about Coca Cola.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    You dint need to be a lawyer to figure that out, read up 5 years freshman. Also Floyd's lawyers would have fought it if it wasn't legit, they DIDN'T. SO YOU MAKE YOURSELF TO LOOK STUPID JOHN.:gay:
    Dummy, I told you over and over it was 3 yrs, not 5. And you call yourself smart, yet you can't remember the difference between 3 and 5? Maybe you need another jolt of electricity to get your brain working again.

    As far as Floyd's lawyers... Bill sued over copyrights, not trademarks, so it never came up to the judge... but, that case isn't over yet... so it still might.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    STILL DOESN'T MEAN HE DOESN'T OWN IT. THIS IS GETTING TO EASY.
    You lied and said he got the mark with the help of his lawyer. I proved you were a liar by showing you that he applied for the mark BEFORE he got his current lawyer. This has always been too easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Agreed first use for the copyright, not the Trademark.
    Dummy, that notice I posted is Bill's Trademark, NOT his copyright. The original trademark says First Use 1968 right on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Do you know how much trouble your getting yourself into using his trademark. Call Floyd hell tell you that its Billy's, end of story.
    Does Bill know how much trouble he's getting himself into for committing perjury? Does Bill know that that trademark is basically null and void because he lied on the application?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Hey man personal jurisdiction, but remember that it was let go without prejudice. But that video from Marty Cale and and Ashida Kim is all Billy needed to bring them back.

    And tie it to Webb from his Nashville post hes done.
    Asshida had BDFS vids on youtube even before that Marty Cale vid came out. How come those videos couldn't "bring him back in"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Its funny he did expose you all, You too John. Its funny you talked to Webb without telling Billy. LOSER.
    Why would I have to talk to Bill before I talked to Webb or anyone else. Bill isn't the boss of me. I don't need his permission to talk to people. And after I talked to Webb, I did forward the emails to Bill even though I didn't have to. Does Bill tell me everyone he talks to? You're getting ridiculous now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    I'm from Florida
    And I'm from Mars liar

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    John was was once a great friend to Billy, who moves cross country to make sure when he betrays he wont get slapped,hahahahah
    I moved in 2003. Floyd didn't start making his film till 2005. If you're going to make up **** at least make it believable.

    And what is this slapped ****? Are you saying that if I was closer to Bill he would assault me? Is that a threat? I can't visit relatives without wondering if I'm going to get slapped? Are you giving me cause to get a restraining order?
    Last edited by johnpatricio; 4/25/2009 2:53pm at .
      #1801
  2. Lob Sing is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    602

    Posted On:
    4/26/2009 7:13am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Bill signed that trademark application under penalty of perjury.
    Were does it say that, proof!!!!!!!

    Why don't you let this court case play out before you start telling people who won and who lost
    Calling you a loser.

    Maybe you need another jolt of electricity to get your brain working again.
    I see your brother was right, you cry about being in a wheel chair, which I doubt. I think the Fall River family Reunion thread, tells all about you.

    You hide behind a disability, but you attack another persons. Thats shows alot of somone character.

    I proved you were a liar by showing you that he applied for the mark BEFORE he got his current lawye
    So he applied for it before he got a lawyer., your point.

    The original trademark says First Use 1968 right on it.
    Show me that were it says first use. Proof of first use. On what you put up. It means when the image was used not trademarked:beatdead:

    Does Bill know how much trouble he's getting himself into for committing perjury? Does Bill know that that trademark is basically null and void because he lied on the application?
    Why dont you personally tell him that, call him what are you chicken. You harrasse people on line telling half truths.

    How come those videos couldn't "bring him back in"?
    Good question it isnt my court case. You should ask him that.

    Why would I have to talk to Bill before I talked to Webb or anyone else
    From what I read. You had **** Billy gave you and you gave it to Webb. Was the **** your to begin with no it wasnt. Your fighting this out like you got paid and you have a vested intrest in the movie.:angry4:

    And what is this slapped ****? Are you saying that if I was closer to Bill he would assault me? Is that a threat? I can't visit relatives without wondering if I'm going to get slapped? Are you giving me cause to get a restraining order?
    Do you have relatives in Fall River? I think if you came to Fall River you would be slapped, just my opinion. And why did you leave in the first place?:cry:

    You can only get a restraing order if you were lovers, are you fruity John. Is that why you moved to San Francisco. Creeden was right you are the King Of Gay porn. And the only person you can get a restraining order is if you had a sexual relationship. Maybe you and Floyd and the Hobbit are lovers.:la:

    Thats what it seems to me.lmfao


    http://blackdragonfightingsociety.blogspot.com/ Ive read alot of the stuff here. My friend has said the prooof is all here. Looks like Creeden slapped you guys around for quite sometime. This is why you guys are paranoid freaks.

    Ill be asking several questions about this blog.
    Last edited by Lob Sing; 4/26/2009 7:39am at .
      #1802
  3. floydwebb is offline
    floydwebb's Avatar

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    827

    Posted On:
    4/26/2009 3:54pm


     Style: none

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!

    Straight to the Points - From the Transcripts

    The true progress of the case is all in the Transcripts at Justia.com

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    2 DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    3 No. 1:07-cv-11673-MLW
    4
    5
    WILLIAM V. AGUIAR, III,
    6 Plaintiff
    7
    vs.
    8
    9
    FLOYD WEBB, et al,
    10 Defendants
    11
    12 *********
    13
    14 For Hearing Before:
    Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf
    15
    16 Motion Session
    17
    United States District Court
    18 District of Massachusetts (Boston)
    One Courthouse Way
    19 Boston, Massachusetts 02210
    February 15, 2008
    20
    21 ********
    22
    REPORTER: RICHARD H. ROMANOW, RPR
    23 Official Court Reporter
    United States District Court
    24 One Courthouse Way, Room 5200, Boston, MA 02210
    bulldog@richromanow.com
    25
    -----------------
    THE COURT: First, I find that the required likelihood of
    10 success on the merits, which the First Circuit has
    11 characterized as the sine qua non for obtaining a
    12 preliminary injunction, is not met. There seems to be a
    13 meaningful issue as to whether the plaintiff owns the
    14 copyright and the photographs at issue.
    For present
    15 purposes, I assume he does. It appears that Mr. Creeden
    16 owns the copyright to the video, however.
    17 More importantly, on this necessarily incomplete
    18 record, it appears that Mr. Webb is likely to prevail in
    19 showing fair use. As has been noted, there are four
    20 primary, but not exclusive elements of fair use under 17
    21 United States Code, Section 107. The fair use inquiry
    22 is primarily framed by four nonexclusive statutory
    23 factors: (1) The purpose and character of the use,
    24 including whether such use is of a commercial nature or
    25 is for nonprofit educational purposes. (2) The nature
    1 of the copyrighted work. (3) The amount and
    2 substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
    3 copyrighted work as a whole. And (4) The effect of the
    4 use upon the potential market for a value of the
    5 copyrighted work.
    6 The courts give significant weight in the fair use
    7 analysis to whether the use of the copyrighted
    8 materials, here the video -- as to which Mr. Aguiar may
    9 not own the copyright, but I've analyzed it as if he
    10 does, and the photographs is transformative. This
    11 concept was described by the Supreme Court in Campbell,
    12 510 U.S. 569 at 579, and elaborated upon by the First
    13 Circuit in Nunez, 235 F. 3rd 18 at 21 to 22. I find
    14 that within those definitions, these trailers, prepared
    15 by Mr. Webb, that incorporate the video and some
    16 photographs from the copyrighted book is
    17 transformative.

    18 The plaintiff's book and the related video are
    19 used to teach martial arts skills. The defendant's
    20 video is intended to educate people regarding Count
    21 Dante's life -- Count Dante being the person depicted in
    22 the book and on the video doing and teaching these
    23 martial arts skills. But the difference between
    24 essentially teaching materials and biographical
    25 materials makes Mr. Webb's trailer, his proposed film,
    1 transformative. As something transformative -- and
    2 because it's something transformative, that weighs
    3 rather heavily on the side of a finding of fair use.


    -----------------

    24 THE COURT: And, Mr. Aguiar, would you like to
    25 speak to the evidence that's in the record with regard
    1 to personal jurisdiction over Mr. Davis?
    2 MR. AGUIAR: Yes, your Honor. Your Honor,
    3 regarding the copyrighted works, Radford Davis, Ashida
    4 Kim, he basically cuts off my "World's Deadliest
    5 Fighting Secrets," the original text and the '91 copy,
    6 and uses it -- and also books called "Ninja Hands of
    7 Death," and uses pieces of this throughout other books.
    8 He also has videos where he does what's copyrighted by a
    9 book, "The World of Dance of Death," which is comprised
    10 of 27 moves all executed within 5 seconds or so.
    11 THE COURT: Is this in the papers you've
    12 submitted to me?
    13 MR. AGUIAR: Yes, I believe it is. I also
    14 have the original copyright.
    15 Your Honor, regarding the copyright, what
    16 essentially happened is my father had everything turned
    17 over to him through the original copyright owner, John
    18 Creeden, and later on, with a few letters of transfer of
    19 copyright, to his wife. From there he recopyrighted it
    20 in 1986, okay, "The World's Deadliest Fighting Secrets,
    21 II."
    22 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.
    23 MR. AGUIAR: From there he recopyrighted in
    24 1986.
    25 THE COURT: What did he copyright?

    1 MR. AGUIAR: "The World's Deadliest Fighting
    2 Secrets," your Honor.
    3 THE COURT: "The World's Deadliest Fighting
    4 Secrets."
    5 MR. AGUIAR: Yes, sir. In fact, there was an
    6 attachment to an amendment -- I believe it was an
    7 attachment. Do you mind if I --
    8 THE COURT: Okay.
    9 (Pause.)
    10 MR. AGUIAR: I have my DVDs and things, also,
    11 in that case. I have the original copyright --
    12 THE COURT: Well, is that something you
    13 submitted to me previously?
    14 MR. AGUIAR: Yes, your Honor. I also have the
    15 attachment in here. And basically it states that we
    16 have full use of the books and in the back it's actually
    17 -- we attached original copyrighted works.
    18 THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you this,
    19 because it's probably a link that would have to be
    20 filled in later. I don't think it's in what you
    21 submitted to me. And my understanding is that your
    22 father had the copyright until he passed away a couple
    23 of years ago?
    24 MR. AGUIAR: But I received it through
    25 probate, your Honor.


    1 THE COURT: You did?
    2 MR. AGUIAR: Yes, sir.
    3 THE COURT: Because at some point there'll
    4 have to be some evidence.

    5 MR. AGUIAR: That was also submitted in the
    6 paperwork.
    7 THE COURT: I don't think so.
    8 MR. AGUIAR: Sorry?
    9 THE COURT: I don't think so.
    10 MR. AGUIAR: With that being said, I inherited
    11 it through will in probate. Since the '80s -- although
    12 this, I believe, this goes back to '05, he's been
    13 selling these books.
    14 In 2005, your Honor, and shortly after my father
    15 passed away, Ashida Kim put on his website and a few
    16 other affiliate websites that somebody put him in charge
    17 essentially of selling the book that I own.
    18 THE COURT: Where is that in the materials
    19 that have been submitted to me?
    20 MR. AGUIAR: Well, offhand, I'm not sure
    21 exactly where --
    22 THE COURT: I don't think it's in there. I
    23 mean, these are -- and I can't decide this case based on
    24 what, you know, you just start telling me now, which
    25 your adversaries haven't had notice of, although, as I
    1 said, if I dismiss this case, I may dismiss it without
    2 prejudice. So if there's a proper basis for the case to
    3 go forward here in Massachusetts, um, and some lawyer
    4 can lay it out in a way that meets the legal standards,
    5 then maybe you can get them back in the case. But go
    6 ahead.
    Last edited by floydwebb; 4/26/2009 3:59pm at .
      #1803
  4. johnpatricio is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    907

    Posted On:
    4/26/2009 6:53pm


     Style: BDFS

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Were does it say that, proof!!!!!!!
    First of all, just about any government document a person signs (drivers license, tax return etc.) says that is is signed under penalty of perjury. But since you asked for proof, here it is http://www.in.gov/icpr/webfile/formsdiv/04430.pdf. Look at the top of page 2 under the heading Verification Statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    I see your brother was right, you cry about being in a wheel chair, which I doubt.
    Doubt no more:

    Looks like a wheelchair to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    I think the Fall River family Reunion thread, tells all about you.
    Yeah, it tells all about me not calling the police on my Bi-Polar mother while she was beating me with an extension cord. If you think that thread makes me look bad, I strongly disagree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    You hide behind a disability, but you attack another persons. Thats shows alot of somone character.
    You think because I'm in a wheelchair I can't verbally defend myself? Yeah it does show a lot of character. I'm not "hiding behind a disability", I'm standing up for myself despite it. You really aren't that intelligent are you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    So he applied for it before he got a lawyer., your point.
    My point is that you lied (in post 1779) when you said: "Hes the owner thats it, it isn't fraudulent. You just don't get it. He has a lawyer now and and she put it up."

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Show me that were it says first use. Proof of first use.
    The "image" was not trademarked. The words Black Dragon Fighting Society were. According to the original trademark the first use of those words was in 1968.

    Word Mark BLACK DRAGON FIGHTING SOCIETY
    Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Martial Arts Education. FIRST USE: 19680828. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19680828

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    On what you put up. It means when the image was used not trademarked:beatdead:
    This has nothing to do with images, it's about words. The words BDFS were first used in 1968, but on Bill's 2nd trademark application he said (under penalty of perjury) that the words BDFS were first used in 2000.

    Word Mark BLACK DRAGON FIGHTING SOCIETY
    Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Martial arts instruction; Operating of martial arts' schools. FIRST USE:20000314. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20000314

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Why dont you personally tell him that, call him what are you chicken.
    Bill reads these posts so I'll tell him right here: Bill, you committed perjury on your trademark application. Because of that the trademark is void.

    Happy now?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    You harrasse people on line telling half truths.
    Here again with the pot calling the kettle black. I don't tell half-truths, I tell whole truths. If you consider that harassment then you need to go see a shrink. You on the other hand tell complete lies all the time. You keep asking me for proof, yet show none yourself. You're a liar and a hypocrite and you're too dense to see it. It's laughable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    From what I read. You had **** Billy gave you and you gave it to Webb. Was the **** your to begin with no it wasnt. Your fighting this out like you got paid and you have a vested intrest in the movie.:angry4:
    1. The few things I sent to Floyd were not given to me by Bill III, they were given to me by his father.
    2. Anybody can get what I sent to Floyd (and more) right here: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/1bdfs/
    3. Everything was photocopied out of magazines or where otherwise already in the public domain anyhow. These are not top secret documents! They're very public and have been for decades.
    4. My only vested interest is seeing the movie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Do you have relatives in Fall River? I think if you came to Fall River you would be slapped, just my opinion. And why did you leave in the first place?:cry:
    I get slapped, I will call the police and press charges. It won't help Bill's reputation as a martial artist when people read in the paper that he beat up a guy in a wheelchair. It takes a real man to beat up on disabled people huh?

    And not that I have to tell you (but I will), I left Fall River because my brother started his own business in Alabama and wanted me to be his office manager.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    You can only get a restraing order if you were lovers, are you fruity John. Is that why you moved to San Francisco. Creeden was right you are the King Of Gay porn. And the only person you can get a restraining order is if you had a sexual relationship. Maybe you and Floyd and the Hobbit are lovers.:la:
    Actually there are other circumstances that a person can get a restraining order, but it's true none of the would apply in this situation. However, If I feel I am in danger I can still get a judge to order Bill to stay away from me. Because he is a martial artist it wouldn't be hard to convince a judge that he was a serious threat. Either way assault is illegal and I would indeed press charges.
    Last edited by johnpatricio; 4/26/2009 7:09pm at .
      #1804
  5. ma_guy is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    761

    Posted On:
    4/26/2009 8:05pm


     Style: Ji Do Kwan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Court or no court, Bad blood or good blood, Integrity or lack of it, Betrayal or Loyalty & Riches or poverty

    None off this has little bearing on the point of what is most important; which is "the truth". No matter how you obfuscate it; it remains just that "the truth". It isn't going anywhere nor can it be changed.

    This was a real human being not a get rich quick of me comic figure.
      #1805
  6. Lob Sing is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    602

    Posted On:
    4/26/2009 8:41pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I assume he does. It appears that Mr. Creeden
    owns the copyright to the video
    Huh, so if you can show Aguiar doesn't own it. You have to contend with Creeden.:violent1:

    15 Your Honor, regarding the copyright, what
    16 essentially happened is my father had everything turned
    17 over to him through the original copyright owner, John
    18 Creeden, and later on, with a few letters of transfer of
    19 copyright, to his wife. From there he re copyrighted it
    20 in 1986, okay, "The World's Deadliest Fighting Secrets,
    21 II."
    ? this puzzles me for some reason?

    24 MR. AGUIAR: But I received it through
    25 probate, your Honor.
    He received it in Probate Court so it would be legal.

    22 THE COURT: I don't think it's in there. I
    23 mean, these are -- and I can't decide this case based on
    24 what, you know, you just start telling me now, which
    25 your adversaries haven't had notice of, although, as I
    1 said, if I dismiss this case, I may dismiss it without
    2 prejudice. So if there's a proper basis for the case to
    3 go forward here in Massachusetts, um, and some lawyer
    4 can lay it out in a way that meets the legal standards,
    5 then maybe you can get them back in the case. But go
    6 ahead.
    I think their doing it right now. And thats why the court case continues.

    ALSO YOU HAVE TO COMPLETE A FILM FIRST TO WAY THE 4 FACTORS OF FAIR USE. DO YOU HAVE A COMPLETED FILM ASHIDA LOVER, NO YOU DINT. AND UNTIL YOU FINNISH IT, YOU CANT WAY THE 4 FACTORS,

    PATRICIO YOUR SO LAME LIKE A SCARED PUPPY. SORRY BUDDY Why am I typing in caps. Then why side with Floyd then just because you dont like Bill Aguiar. What the film what do you get a handshake or something.

    Just my opinion, who am I.:5bouncy:
      #1806
  7. Dsimon3387 is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    san francisco
    Posts
    3,079

    Posted On:
    4/26/2009 9:23pm

    Join us... or die
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    H

    Just my opinion, who am I.:5bouncy:

    You are a man with an IQ that borders retarded... You might be stupid enough not to know how badly owned you have been by all who have engaged you... its possible for sure. E slappin you is a form of entertainment.

    But one request: could you have somoene who knows how to read tell you what the posts actually say? Thanks.
      #1807
  8. johnpatricio is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    907

    Posted On:
    4/26/2009 10:08pm


     Style: BDFS

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Lob Sing View Post
    Then why side with Floyd then just because you dont like Bill Aguiar. What the film what do you get a handshake or something.
    I never sided against Bill until he started telling lies about me. Accusing me of being paid $7,500, accusing me of causing him to be arrested (when it was really his fault that I got arrested), accusing me of doing (with my mother) and selling heroin, accusing me of being a child molester etc.

    It's these things that turned me into an enemy. If he would have just kept his mouth shut with the lies we would've just been ex-friends, instead he made me into an enemy. It has nothing to do with Floyd, it has everything to do with Bill being an asshole.

    And no, no handshake. Never even met him. It's just about me wanting to see a documentary about Count Dante. Did I mention I already pre-paid for my DVD?
    Last edited by johnpatricio; 4/26/2009 10:16pm at .
      #1808
  9. ma_guy is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    761

    Posted On:
    4/27/2009 6:49pm


     Style: Ji Do Kwan

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by johnpatricio View Post
    I never sided against Bill until he started telling lies about me. Accusing me of being paid $7,500, accusing me of causing him to be arrested (when it was really his fault that I got arrested), accusing me of doing (with my mother) and selling heroin, accusing me of being a child molester etc.

    It's these things that turned me into an enemy. If he would have just kept his mouth shut with the lies we would've just been ex-friends, instead he made me into an enemy. It has nothing to do with Floyd, it has everything to do with Bill being an asshole.

    And no, no handshake. Never even met him. It's just about me wanting to see a documentary about Count Dante. Did I mention I already pre-paid for my DVD?
    John,
    Do you want to see a documentary on John Keehan and what the character "Count Dante" was all about? Or would you like to see a version of the truth presented by people needing press?

    Before you answer, remember the timeline and the year 2005. Didn't Billy's father die then? When this film thing start?

    I am honestly asking you. What do you want to see? Regardless, I'm sure you want your money's worth which you no doubt paid in good faith.

    Why am I being pushed so hard to "take a side" or "shut up" ? I fail to see my own relevance in this other than I know what is going on.

    I'm curious to hear what you think.

    Sincerely,
    Master C. C. Pieschala

    P.S. You know who you are; my advice is "never hack a hacker", "never BS a BS`er" & "students never try to one-up the master". You did not have to make it personal yet you did.
      #1809
  10. johnpatricio is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    907

    Posted On:
    4/27/2009 9:06pm


     Style: BDFS

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by ma_guy View Post
    John,
    Do you want to see a documentary on John Keehan and what the character "Count Dante" was all about? Or would you like to see a version of the truth presented by people needing press?

    Before you answer, remember the timeline and the year 2005. Didn't Billy's father die then? When this film thing start?

    I am honestly asking you. What do you want to see? Regardless, I'm sure you want your money's worth which you no doubt paid in good faith.

    Why am I being pushed so hard to "take a side" or "shut up" ? I fail to see my own relevance in this other than I know what is going on.

    I'm curious to hear what you think.

    Sincerely,
    Master C. C. Pieschala

    P.S. You know who you are; my advice is "never hack a hacker", "never BS a BS`er" & "students never try to one-up the master". You did not have to make it personal yet you did.
    Which version do you think Floyd is making? I think he is making the "John Keehan and what the character "Count Dante" was all about" version, and that's the one I want to see. Don't you?

    As far as 2005, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. I doubt Floyd was just sitting around waiting for Aguiar to die so that he could make his film. Is that what you think? In fact, I'm sure Floyd would have rather had him alive so that he could be interviewed. One thing for sure is Aguiar Jr. would have been a lot more cooperative than Aguiar III.

    As far as making anything personal, did you read my last post? Those were personal attacks against me... not from me. Aguiar/Creeden are the guys who made it personal. I wasn't the one who accused people of selling drugs and made a fake child molester ID. Aguiar/Creeden are the people who did those things to me. How in the hell do you figure that to be me making personal attacks??? I can't figure out that accusation at all.

    As far as choosing sides, I don't care if you choose sides or sit in the middle, but if you're going to be listening to Creeden you just have to realize half of what he says are lies and the other half is exaggerated. Saying that is not a personal attack either... it's simply the truth.
      #1810

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.