JOSH (continued): So, that's exactly what I did. I sent an email to our head honcho, and told him another place ( sandiego.com ) wants to carry the Crasher, but I wondered if they had any legal rights to that name. I also told him I saw ads in the Reader for future stories, and it looked like they were going to call it "Party Animal" instead. I was informed that they were going to call it Crasher still, and that they had no legal right to the name, and that I should feel free to use that in any capacity I want, at any publication. I then responded with a short thank you. I had figured the Reader wouldn't own a name like "crasher" because it's a common phrase. But I still felt the bosses that had been good to me, at least deserved that courtesy. Or, had they felt strongly that I don't use it, we would've gladly come up with a different name (heck, I like "party animal" better besides...not sure why the Reader didn't change the name)
JAS: >>>How do you like Josh's new Crasher column? I like it fine - always did - tho I wonder why a competing paper wants to ape a Reader-created feature? How do you like the new Reader Crasher, Chad Deal?
JOSH: Thanks for the kind words. I've always enjoyed your stuff (but for the love of god, make your music blogs shorter...sometimes I'd see a headline that looked interesting, only to find a 3,000 word story!) The few things I happened to catch by Deal looked well written. I wish him well.
JAS: >>>Does a writer hired to take over a column then own that column name and format enough to take it elsewhere?
JOSH: Siskel & Ebert started at one network (PBS, I believe) and took that show elsewhere. It happens all the time.
JAS: >>>Do you think Josh even knew the Reader planned to revive its own Crasher column last week?
JOSH: AS I STATED BEFORE...yes, I did know it would continue. And was told it would continue on a monthly basis. Over at SanDiego.com I will be doing one a week. I also write movie reviews. Feel free to come over and check them out!
JAS: >>>Did the Reader know that Josh would call himself and his column the Party Crasher at a competing publication?
JOSH: YES AND YES.
JAS: >>>Did sandiego.com know that Josh didn't create the column, and/or did they know the Reader was relaunching its own Crasher column at the same time as Josh was debuting his version over there?
JOSH: WRONG. I had done about three Crashers that appeared in SanDiego.com before the Reader released the first one.
JAS: >>>Are there even enough parties in San Diego for TWO Party Crasher columns??? What happens if they both crash the same bash??
JOSH: YES, Jay, there are. If you lived here, you'd know that ;-)
BOTH (?): Things that make ME go "hmmmmmmm" -- — March 10, 2010 2:23 a.m.
Josh Board sent me the following email and asked me to post it - everything below is from that email, which I'm pasting unedited in its entirety, other than adding clarification as to who said what (I also posted below to the blog addressing this topic at http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/autobiograp… ):
JOSH SAYS:
Hey Jay,
Can you post this entire email in your link about the Crasher? I just logged on to post a comment, and I see that the Reader has closed my account to even comment on stories. I figure, since you didn't tell me about this blog of yours, it's the least you can do. Thanks:
JAS SAYS: >>Tho the Reader's Crasher column existed before Josh Board wrote it (Daniel Ridge had the gig until late 2003), Josh seems to have taken the column name and format with him to sandiego.com -- meanwhile, the Reader revived its own Party Crasher column on March 3rd, with new columnist Chad Deal. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20...
JOSH: You say the Crasher column existed before I wrote it, that's true. But ya know what? I think Daniel Ridge only wrote 6 stories. That's hardly "existing" before I arrived. And, to use the band analogies you use later in your post, I'll use a few. This would be like saying the Beatles had a drummer before Ringo, or Rush saying they had a drummer (and even an album released) before Neil Peart. Sure, they did, but who remembers them? Off the top of my head, I remember two columns Ridge did. One was about going to wrestling in TJ. Nothing about a party in that story. Another one was stepping in dog poop at a crazy party. He called me months after I started doing the column, to tell me that entire column was completely made up (not that that matters or means anything), but my point is...he did maybe six columns before I showed up.
JAS: >>>I'm retiring this blog after this edition, to focus on the Rock Around Town blog. But I figured I'd post on the Crasher's return, and invite comment - does the Reader hold a trademark on the Crasher name and concept?
JOSH: TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION: no and no and no. But, to be both on the safe side and because I'm still on good terms with our boss at the Reader, one of the few lawyer friends I have said to me before I launched the column over there: "Josh, 75% of the legal questions I have, I don't need to go research on. I just call the business up and ask them, and my question gets answered. Contact the Reader, and ask them." — March 10, 2010 2:22 a.m.
JOSH (continued): So, that's exactly what I did. I sent an email to our head honcho, and told him another place ( sandiego.com ) wants to carry the Crasher, but I wondered if they had any legal rights to that name. I also told him I saw ads in the Reader for future stories, and it looked like they were going to call it "Party Animal" instead. I was informed that they were going to call it Crasher still, and that they had no legal right to the name, and that I should feel free to use that in any capacity I want, at any publication. I then responded with a short thank you. I had figured the Reader wouldn't own a name like "crasher" because it's a common phrase. But I still felt the bosses that had been good to me, at least deserved that courtesy. Or, had they felt strongly that I don't use it, we would've gladly come up with a different name (heck, I like "party animal" better besides...not sure why the Reader didn't change the name)
JAS: >>>How do you like Josh's new Crasher column? I like it fine - always did - tho I wonder why a competing paper wants to ape a Reader-created feature? How do you like the new Reader Crasher, Chad Deal?
JOSH: Thanks for the kind words. I've always enjoyed your stuff (but for the love of god, make your music blogs shorter...sometimes I'd see a headline that looked interesting, only to find a 3,000 word story!) The few things I happened to catch by Deal looked well written. I wish him well.
JAS: >>>Does a writer hired to take over a column then own that column name and format enough to take it elsewhere?
JOSH: Siskel & Ebert started at one network (PBS, I believe) and took that show elsewhere. It happens all the time.
JAS: >>>Do you think Josh even knew the Reader planned to revive its own Crasher column last week?
JOSH: AS I STATED BEFORE...yes, I did know it would continue. And was told it would continue on a monthly basis. Over at SanDiego.com I will be doing one a week. I also write movie reviews. Feel free to come over and check them out!
JAS: >>>Did the Reader know that Josh would call himself and his column the Party Crasher at a competing publication?
JOSH: YES AND YES.
JAS: >>>Did sandiego.com know that Josh didn't create the column, and/or did they know the Reader was relaunching its own Crasher column at the same time as Josh was debuting his version over there?
JOSH: WRONG. I had done about three Crashers that appeared in SanDiego.com before the Reader released the first one.
JAS: >>>Are there even enough parties in San Diego for TWO Party Crasher columns??? What happens if they both crash the same bash??
JOSH: YES, Jay, there are. If you lived here, you'd know that ;-)
BOTH (?): Things that make ME go "hmmmmmmm" ------------ — March 10, 2010 2:17 a.m.
i guess i just wish...../Pistol Pete
Haha, but has anybody ever seen refriedgringo and me in the same room, at the same time?? I only use the one screen name on this website. I've posted more comments lately because I genuinely enjoy the discourse and the commentators. Doesn't (nearly) everyone? I use question marks to pose queries - doesn't (nearly) everyone? And of course I post comments in hopes of seeing other commentators chime in - again, with another question mark, doesn't (nearly) everyone? If the happy and incidental result result of much commentary is this thriving and growing website community (which by definition would inevitably "generate more hits"), I'm baffled as to why that would displease one of this community's most valued contributors. The apparent banning of PistolPete certainly has me wondering too - sorry I have no inside insight to offer, I'm not plugged into that side of site administration. I agree with Nan about it being a pity, and I'll miss his input, however incendiary he often tried to be ---— March 10, 2010 11:48 p.m.
Rock n' Proverbs
One could argue that ANY album by a Christian-focused band is a "concept" album - these guys sound interesting and seem sincere, so I'll checkemout.— March 10, 2010 11:24 p.m.
i guess i just wish...../Pistol Pete
Interesting - has the Reader made any kind of announcement about him supposedly being "banned"? I may have missed a related post or comment, but has he contacted anyone offsite with an account of what happened? The way Pete was always bragging about his omnipotent control over computers, and his ability to hack message boards, how do we know the vanishing act wasn't his own doing? Perhaps something potentially litigious or damaging was said or revealed, and Pete decided to erase all trace? I don't know how it works on the administration side of this website RE comment removal, banning, etc, but I'd always caution against jumping to conclusions. May be much more going on than hitherto has met our eyes -- BTW, Nan, your lament above was heartfelt and beautiful indeed - "bad actor" and all! I always look forward to your blog posts -— March 10, 2010 10:33 p.m.
Pre-gaming
Yikes - I didn't intentionally liken both of the referenced interviewees, but I concede that "subliminal" means anything's possible in the subconscious ---- your keen mind and concise commentary always impresses, SD! Even if you're dead wrong about me wanting to "promote" a rival Crasher column --- it wasn't possible to open the subject without linking the topic. The debate was intended for anyone who chose to read and participate - it's not often we break a story wholly online, between print editions, especially mostly within a comment thread, so this was a story worth posting about and seeking followup. Tho I could quibble with the content of Josh Board's replies, and/or certainly complain about him taking 300 meandering words to make every 10-word talking point, he seems to have answered most all the queries I posed. At his own initiative, no less, since I didn't contact him. Doesn't seem worth wasting more words on a topic all but closed. Much thanks to the many commentators who helped flesh out the tale. Like, I had no idea about the Reader's "Party Animal" solicit, until posted by someone else....stuff like THAT is why I love this website's comment board and its commentators. I'd posit that some commentators seem to be letting their dislike of the subject (Josh) color their views and close their ears. That's fine - I stand by the results. 45 comments, most all of them thought provoking and informative, and a story untold anywhere else on the internet -- a success by most any measure.— March 10, 2010 10:23 p.m.
None
Best SNL spinoff ever? Yeppers! They were on a "mission from God," and their mission succeeded. If you ignore the ill-conceived sequel BB 2000, this one can stand as a testament to how effin brilliant and funny Dan Ackroyd once was. Perhaps he was replaced after this film by the same faulty clone factory that screwed up after the real Paul McCartney died in a car crash?— March 10, 2010 7:52 p.m.
Pre-gaming
Jeez, I ask a bunch of pointed questions about a hitherto unnoticed and unreported topic (clash of the Crashers), several others chime in with clarification and alternate POVs, and it's all good and interesting, a lively debate --- until the one guy with the answers PROVIDES those answers, which I post. Seems worth a bravo rather than raspberries. Or, if you no longer care about the topic, silence. Instead, I get tarred with the same brush once applied to the guy with the answers ---- kill the messenger, much? Remind me never to ask questions of the Klan, lest I end up lynched by the public for daring to quote a reply --— March 10, 2010 7:39 p.m.
Burning of Bridges
Tho this incident was already covered on many local blogs, within hours after it happened, this Blurt report goes the extra mile by quoting no less than four people, each with an insightful account. Good job, Mr. Deal!— March 10, 2010 7:29 p.m.
Pre-gaming
JOSH (continued): So, that's exactly what I did. I sent an email to our head honcho, and told him another place ( sandiego.com ) wants to carry the Crasher, but I wondered if they had any legal rights to that name. I also told him I saw ads in the Reader for future stories, and it looked like they were going to call it "Party Animal" instead. I was informed that they were going to call it Crasher still, and that they had no legal right to the name, and that I should feel free to use that in any capacity I want, at any publication. I then responded with a short thank you. I had figured the Reader wouldn't own a name like "crasher" because it's a common phrase. But I still felt the bosses that had been good to me, at least deserved that courtesy. Or, had they felt strongly that I don't use it, we would've gladly come up with a different name (heck, I like "party animal" better besides...not sure why the Reader didn't change the name) JAS: >>>How do you like Josh's new Crasher column? I like it fine - always did - tho I wonder why a competing paper wants to ape a Reader-created feature? How do you like the new Reader Crasher, Chad Deal? JOSH: Thanks for the kind words. I've always enjoyed your stuff (but for the love of god, make your music blogs shorter...sometimes I'd see a headline that looked interesting, only to find a 3,000 word story!) The few things I happened to catch by Deal looked well written. I wish him well. JAS: >>>Does a writer hired to take over a column then own that column name and format enough to take it elsewhere? JOSH: Siskel & Ebert started at one network (PBS, I believe) and took that show elsewhere. It happens all the time. JAS: >>>Do you think Josh even knew the Reader planned to revive its own Crasher column last week? JOSH: AS I STATED BEFORE...yes, I did know it would continue. And was told it would continue on a monthly basis. Over at SanDiego.com I will be doing one a week. I also write movie reviews. Feel free to come over and check them out! JAS: >>>Did the Reader know that Josh would call himself and his column the Party Crasher at a competing publication? JOSH: YES AND YES. JAS: >>>Did sandiego.com know that Josh didn't create the column, and/or did they know the Reader was relaunching its own Crasher column at the same time as Josh was debuting his version over there? JOSH: WRONG. I had done about three Crashers that appeared in SanDiego.com before the Reader released the first one. JAS: >>>Are there even enough parties in San Diego for TWO Party Crasher columns??? What happens if they both crash the same bash?? JOSH: YES, Jay, there are. If you lived here, you'd know that ;-) BOTH (?): Things that make ME go "hmmmmmmm" --— March 10, 2010 2:23 a.m.
Pre-gaming
Josh Board sent me the following email and asked me to post it - everything below is from that email, which I'm pasting unedited in its entirety, other than adding clarification as to who said what (I also posted below to the blog addressing this topic at http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/autobiograp… ): JOSH SAYS: Hey Jay, Can you post this entire email in your link about the Crasher? I just logged on to post a comment, and I see that the Reader has closed my account to even comment on stories. I figure, since you didn't tell me about this blog of yours, it's the least you can do. Thanks: JAS SAYS: >>Tho the Reader's Crasher column existed before Josh Board wrote it (Daniel Ridge had the gig until late 2003), Josh seems to have taken the column name and format with him to sandiego.com -- meanwhile, the Reader revived its own Party Crasher column on March 3rd, with new columnist Chad Deal. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/20... JOSH: You say the Crasher column existed before I wrote it, that's true. But ya know what? I think Daniel Ridge only wrote 6 stories. That's hardly "existing" before I arrived. And, to use the band analogies you use later in your post, I'll use a few. This would be like saying the Beatles had a drummer before Ringo, or Rush saying they had a drummer (and even an album released) before Neil Peart. Sure, they did, but who remembers them? Off the top of my head, I remember two columns Ridge did. One was about going to wrestling in TJ. Nothing about a party in that story. Another one was stepping in dog poop at a crazy party. He called me months after I started doing the column, to tell me that entire column was completely made up (not that that matters or means anything), but my point is...he did maybe six columns before I showed up. JAS: >>>I'm retiring this blog after this edition, to focus on the Rock Around Town blog. But I figured I'd post on the Crasher's return, and invite comment - does the Reader hold a trademark on the Crasher name and concept? JOSH: TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION: no and no and no. But, to be both on the safe side and because I'm still on good terms with our boss at the Reader, one of the few lawyer friends I have said to me before I launched the column over there: "Josh, 75% of the legal questions I have, I don't need to go research on. I just call the business up and ask them, and my question gets answered. Contact the Reader, and ask them."— March 10, 2010 2:22 a.m.
Party Crasher Returns - elsewhere
JOSH (continued): So, that's exactly what I did. I sent an email to our head honcho, and told him another place ( sandiego.com ) wants to carry the Crasher, but I wondered if they had any legal rights to that name. I also told him I saw ads in the Reader for future stories, and it looked like they were going to call it "Party Animal" instead. I was informed that they were going to call it Crasher still, and that they had no legal right to the name, and that I should feel free to use that in any capacity I want, at any publication. I then responded with a short thank you. I had figured the Reader wouldn't own a name like "crasher" because it's a common phrase. But I still felt the bosses that had been good to me, at least deserved that courtesy. Or, had they felt strongly that I don't use it, we would've gladly come up with a different name (heck, I like "party animal" better besides...not sure why the Reader didn't change the name) JAS: >>>How do you like Josh's new Crasher column? I like it fine - always did - tho I wonder why a competing paper wants to ape a Reader-created feature? How do you like the new Reader Crasher, Chad Deal? JOSH: Thanks for the kind words. I've always enjoyed your stuff (but for the love of god, make your music blogs shorter...sometimes I'd see a headline that looked interesting, only to find a 3,000 word story!) The few things I happened to catch by Deal looked well written. I wish him well. JAS: >>>Does a writer hired to take over a column then own that column name and format enough to take it elsewhere? JOSH: Siskel & Ebert started at one network (PBS, I believe) and took that show elsewhere. It happens all the time. JAS: >>>Do you think Josh even knew the Reader planned to revive its own Crasher column last week? JOSH: AS I STATED BEFORE...yes, I did know it would continue. And was told it would continue on a monthly basis. Over at SanDiego.com I will be doing one a week. I also write movie reviews. Feel free to come over and check them out! JAS: >>>Did the Reader know that Josh would call himself and his column the Party Crasher at a competing publication? JOSH: YES AND YES. JAS: >>>Did sandiego.com know that Josh didn't create the column, and/or did they know the Reader was relaunching its own Crasher column at the same time as Josh was debuting his version over there? JOSH: WRONG. I had done about three Crashers that appeared in SanDiego.com before the Reader released the first one. JAS: >>>Are there even enough parties in San Diego for TWO Party Crasher columns??? What happens if they both crash the same bash?? JOSH: YES, Jay, there are. If you lived here, you'd know that ;-) BOTH (?): Things that make ME go "hmmmmmmm" ------------— March 10, 2010 2:17 a.m.