In the below post, so far, there are three comments. The first two comments came from a computer registered to the Louisiana Baptist Convention. This is confirmed by StatCounter.
Figure 1 below shows that the computer registered to the Louisiana Baptist Convention the time of visit as well as the out click on the comments link match to the comments time stamp.
Figure 2 below is from the StatCounter log and is of the computer that Baptist Message Editor, Kelly Boggs uses. The time and comments out click correspond to the third comments time stamp.
Additionally, according to StatCounter, there were no other visitors to or on this blog within the time(s) these comments were posted.
This little exercise should serve to show people how these modern "Baptists" operate.
The Louisiana Baptist Convention, The Louisiana Baptist Message and its Editor, Kelly Boggs as well as the Law Office of Gregory S. Erwin, L.L.C. and possibly Google just might find themselves on the receiving end of a federal Complaint for filing false, malicious and abusive DMCA Take Down Notices as well as for harassment
If you're an attorney who would like to handle such a complaint then please contact us at therapidesnote@gmail.com
You may view the Take Down Notices here here and here.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
"Anonymous" Commenters on Computers Registered to the Louisiana Baptist Convention and Kelly Boggs
Thursday, March 17, 2011
baptist message: louisiana college responds to gannett/the town talk's 20 february 2011 aramark facilities study report
UPDATED 7:58 am cdt friday 18 march 2011
UPDATE: 8:50 am cdt friday 18 march 2011
UPDATE: 9:06 am cdt friday 18 march 2011
UPDATE: 9:31 am cdt friday 18 march 2011
UPDATE 11:11 am cdt friday 18 march 2011
UPDATE 8:47 am cdt wednesday 23 march 2011ars technica: "copyright troll righthaven achieves spectacular 'fair use' loss"
KELLY BOGGS AND LOUISIANA BAPTIST MESSAGE DEMANDS WST... TAKE DOWN ARTICLE SCANS
now here is an interesting and apparently ongoing email exchange we have been having with kelly boggs, editor of the [louisiana] baptist message:
from Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
to wesawthat@gmail.com
date Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:47 PM
subject Baptist Message article
I was alerted to the fact that you had posted a scan of a recent Baptist Message article on your website. I visited your site and found the information was accurate. Since you have posted the article without permission from the Baptist Message you are in violation of copyright law. Please remove the scan immediately.
Thank you for you cooperation.
Respectfully,
Kelly Boggs, Editor
Baptist Message
====
From: wesawthat@gmail.com
To: "Kelly Boggs" Kelly@baptistmessage.com
Subject: Re: Baptist Message article
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 21:21:57 -0500
thank you for your email. the scans in question are posted under including but not limited to 17 usc section 107 of the copyright law limitations on exclusive rights: fair use. the scans in question are offered "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
thanks again for your email.
====
from Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
to wesawthat@gmail.com
date Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:41 PM
subject Re: Baptist Message article
Sorry, your interpretation is incorrect. I've dealt with this very issue before.
I really don't want to get our lawyer involved in this issue, but if the scan is not removed, you will leave me no recourse.
Please remove the unauthorized, copyrighted scans of the Baptist Message article from your website.
Respectfully,
Kelly Boggs, Editor
Baptist Message
Sent from Kelly's iPhone
====
from Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
to wesawthat@gmail.com
date Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:44 PM
subject Re: Baptist Message article
By the way, using "portions" or "excerpts" falls under fair use, not entire works - for any reason or in any setting.
kb
Sent from Kelly's iPhone
====
from wesawthat@gmail.com
reply-to wesawthat@gmail.com
to Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
date Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:58 PM
subject Re: Baptist Message article
hi there. that might be true under los angeles times vs free republic however in that case free republic was reproducing thousands of the times news articles.
even if you file suit you will have to use those scans in the suit and/or i can use the scans as an exhibit as well and guess what - court filings are protected under fair use:see shell vs devries and also religious technology center vs wollersheim and jaartech vs clancy for a few examples.
====
from Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
to wesawthat@gmail.com
date Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 5:33 AM
subject Re: Baptist Message article
I never said anything about filing suit against you. I'm quite sure Google has a much better understanding of copyright law than you do.
I have been more than patient. I'll ask one more time. Please remove the copyrighted images of the Baptist Message from your blog.
Kelly Boggs, Editor
Baptist Message
Sent from Kelly's iPhone
====
from wesawthat@gmail.com
to Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
date Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 7:30 AM
subject Re: Baptist Message article
hi agaiin. please explain with specificity where in the copyright law those scans are in violation of;
also ive looked all through the baptist message publication -- page 2 down at the bottom for example and nowhere do i see a statement saying that anything in the baptist message is copyrighted. i dont see a copyright notice on any other page either nor do i see a copyright symbol anywhere within the baptist message whatsoever. i have bad eyesight so its entirely possible that ive missed it please direct me to that copyright statement etc;
if you contact google and have those scans or my blog or account harmed in any way without cause then you are opening yourself up to being sued by me.
thanks again for your email
====
from Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
to wesawthat@gmail.com
date Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:36 AM
subject RE: Baptist Message article
Your response reveals that you have no understanding of the finer points of copyright law.
If Google takes any action, you will need to take that up with Google. Google owns the site and will determine whether or not terms of their contract have been violated. All anyone can do is alert Google to possible violations. Google’s legal team will be the final arbiter.
Kelly Boggs, Editor
Baptist Message
Alexandria, Louisiana
(318) 442-7728
====
from wesawthat@gmail.com
to Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
date Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:06 AM
subject Re: Baptist Message article
hi again. so it seems that you're saying that you really dont believe that there is a copyright violation -- you just dont like that the scans were posted online so you're going to complain to google about it and let them figure it all out?
====
from Kelly Boggs Kelly@baptistmessage.com
to wesawthat@gmail.com
date Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:30 AM
subject RE: Baptist Message article
I have deadlines looming, so this is my last response.
I believe there is a clear-cut violation of copyright law. If I owned the site on which you operate, I would ask you to remove the scans. If you did not, I would terminate the blog. However, I do not own the site, Google does. As such, anyone can alert Google any time concerning an alleged copyright violation. It is then up to Google to act. Google’s action or inaction, then becomes a new set of circumstances.
Kelly Boggs, Editor
Baptist Message
Alexandria, Louisiana
(318) 442-7728
====
this response from louisiana college appeared in the 17 march 2011, volume 126, issue no. 6 of the baptist message which arrived by postal mail today.
unfortunately, the page was too large to take in one scan. so, unless and until we find someone with software that can combine the two images and at a high enough resolution to read you will have to click back-n-forth to read the whole thing. this is annoying we know and apologize. see above.
alternatively, you can click here to read it from the baptist message online!
the aramark study in question as well as gannett/the town talk's 20 february 2011 article are included below.
====
click here to view from scribd or click here to download sixty-seven page .pdf [8.57 mb]
the gannett/the town talk 20 february 2011 louisiana college story click here to view from the town talk website or click here to download four page .pdf [560 kb]Thursday, August 2, 2007
Utility Bill Comparison
In the July 31st 2007 Alexandria City Council Utility Committee Meeting, Acting Utility Department Director Marcus Connella, presented a utility bill comparison between Alexandria and Lake Charles, Monroe and Pineville.
Download 15 page .pdfTown Talk excerpt:
Fields, who worked as a shift supervisor for Cleco prior to being elected mayor, said there is no credible way that Pineville and Alexandria utility rates could be compared over a three-month period.
Pineville residents, who buy electricity directly from Cleco and natural gas from Atmos Energy, are in a completely different situation than Alexandria ratepayers, who must purchase utilities from pre-negotiated terms between Alexandria officials and suppliers, Fields said.
"You just can't have those kind of comparisons because there are just too many variables involved," he said.
Alexandria buys utilities for residents from a variety of sources, including Cleco, and returns a portion of proceeds for city operations.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Pineville City Councilman Joe Bishop Charged With Felony Cruelty To A Juvenile
Joe Bishop is currently a Pineville City Councilman and a candidate for Rapides Parish Police Jury Dist "B" seat which is held by Steve Bordelon.
More information is available at the above link to KALB.com and on the Alexandria Daily Town Talk website here or on the Louisiana Way Forum here.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Everett Hobbs Letter To The Editor
Download a copy of Everett Hobbs letter in .pdf by clicking here
Good morning. Today is Sunday, July 8, 2007. You'll have to find something else to read this morning. This is to Everett C. Hobbs, president of the Alexandria City Council.
Dear President Hobbs:
Thank you for your kind letter of July 2, 2007. It is always a pleasure to receive correspondence from enlightened thinkers, particularly the carefully worded missives from public servants, like yourself, that show the man behind the title and reveal exactly what motivates him to cherish a position in the public sector.
In the case of your letter, which we shared Thursday with our readers at your request, you have given the citizens of Alexandria a revealing look at how you perceive the city and your colleagues on the City Council. You stated your belief that you, your actions and the actions of this august council are consistently and maliciously viewed by The Town Talk's editorials through a lens that is colored by racism and fogged by blind support for Mayor Jacques M. Roy.
Your over arching premise is wrong. We do not espouse, condone or promote racism -- period. Just the opposite is true.
Likewise, we do not criticize or applaud any public official on the basis of race, creed, color or what-have-you. Performance in the pursuit of the public's interest is what draws our criticism and our praise.
Performance also reveals integrity. You say we "continually question the integrity of the black city councilmen." That statement is wrong for one reason -- the use of the word "black." Drop that word and you will discover the truth: We continually question the integrity of the city councilmen. We do that when we see moral and ethical lapses, when we see actions taken that are unsound and incomplete, and when we see behavior that divides people instead of uniting them.
Never have we questioned performance on the basis of skin color.
All of that is said to set the record straight on your over arching point. It is not meant to criticize you, personally.
It also is said to endorse your correct perception about a cultural, social and economic issue that, if not addressed, will stunt the growth of this community permanently. The ugliness of racism has hobbled the city of Alexandria as much as it has hobbled any community, which is to say for too long and perhaps intractably. Our community desperately needs leadership on this matter.
Your letter refers to a "total contempt for the African-American community and its elected representatives." That says something important about how you see the city. You see a black community with its own officials. The implication is that there is a white community with its own officials.
This may be a political reality, but only for those misguided office-holders and candidates whose strategy is to polarize people to get their votes. This is not a strategy that puts the community -- the entire community -- first.
The last time we looked, all public servants are supposed to be colorblind in the pursuit of stewardship and doing what's right.
That gets us back to our support for Mayor Roy and his commitment to lead the city in a new and better direction. Our support is not blind. It is extended thoughtfully and conditionally. It is earned day by day, decision by decision, and it is fully warranted.
As president of the City Council, you sit at the pinnacle of power on a seven-member board that is supposed to set policy for one of the most important cities in Louisiana. You say that "we do the best we can and we hope with integrity."
No one here disputes that you are, in fact, doing the best you can and, we hope, with integrity.
Paul V. Carty, executive editor of The Town Talk and www.thetowntalk.com, may be reached at (318) 487-6370 and pcarty-at-thetowntalk.com.
Originally published July 8, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Commentary On Central Louisiana - Week of June 18, 2007 Open Thread
Video banned by the Alexandria City Council.
The Alexandria City Council refuses to show this video on Public Access Television.
