June 11, 2003
BREAKING NEWS
Jim Treacher’s parasitic twin Puce is back, and he’s breaking news like osteoporosis sufferers break legs. CLICK:
Hay Bush wepon masterucshin? Their it is weight no just Irak babie no leg
I think he’s working off Robert Fisk’s notes. Visited Achewood lately? No? You sicken me! Go check out Ray’s new Rolex. And tell your tiny children the story about the saddest thing.
Maybe, to avoid all the oppression and the murders and the deporting, the Dixie Chicks should change their name. Christopher Hitchens suggests a fine new title, which Ken Layne finds amusing, although I think he once wrote a song that included those very same words. Or at least all the letters contained in those words.
This is horrible. War has erupted between the two major Moxies. I read ‘em both, because they’re smart, funny, and absolute babes. The conflict arose out of some misunderstanding over which Moxie was the first Moxie (just like WWI!) and now threatens to engulf the region (by the way, how come nothing good ever engulfs a region? Why must engulfment always be a threat?). I demand a peaceful end to this conflict, and am prepared to protest naked -- if that is what it takes.
UPDATE. Further reading indicates that Original Mox is concerned that the worth of the Moxie brand - she uses it for professional writing as well as blogstuff - may be devalued by people using the same name. She's spent some years building on this, so some complaining is perhaps understandable, although "Moxie" is used by others besides her (very skilled) online foe. Originality is difficult; decades ago, having scoured the world to be certain that his new name would be unique, the Australian boat designer Bob Miller became Ben Lexcen - and immediately received mail from Lexcens in Ireland or some place asking if he was related.
Posted by Tim Blair at June 11, 2003 06:42 PMIf THREE years as Moxie online (the only one aside from the journal crowd and such), and several PAID online and offline print publications as "Moxie" isn't enough to justify being upset over then please...
I know I'd love to see you protest naked!! Can't wait to see you and Nadia back in LA. Good times will be had by all, AGAIN!
xoxo,
~the one and ONLY Mox
And if you scroll down further in the FT article about Hitchens:
"The reason I like P.G. Wodehouse and Oscar Wilde is that they teach you to take frivolous things seriously and serious things frivolously," Hitchens replies. "It's all a complete farce, you understand, we're born into a losing struggle. In the meantime, I think, I must show some contempt and defiance and the best means of doing that that I know are irony and obscenity."Posted by: Cracker Barrel Philosopher at June 12, 2003 at 12:23 AM
Laughter, applause. "Which is why it was a mistake for that man to ask me about those slut Dixie Chicks," he adds.
I never said moxie.nu didn't have a right to be upset or whatever because she found out someone else was using the name "moxie". I *did* say she doesn't have a right to accuse me of theft. I didn't know she existed until a few days ago, after she already accused me. She didn't send me an e-mail to ask me about anything, she just posted an accusation. It's obvious we both use the same name. Did I steal it from her? No. Did I even know she existed? No. *All* I'm asking her to do is stop saying I stole her name.
She knows I didn't intentionally use "her" name. I would've been a lot more amicable if she'd just sent me an e-mail outright, but if someone accuses me of something that's a total lie, you better goddamn well believe I'm going to come out kicking.
Think this whole thing is stupid and want it to go away? All moxie.nu has to do is stop calling me a thief.
That is all, boys and girls :)
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 01:09 AMAnd MoxiePop will you ask your henchmen to back off with the vulgarities, grotesque exaggerations and character assassinations of anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh, and ask your buddy Lee, to not post things like this:
TROLLS, GO FUCK YOURSELF. I AM SO ANNOYED RIGHT NOW. AND I'M SUPPOSED TO BE HOSTING THE INCEST SURVIVORS MEETING TONIGHT.
Posted by Lee@Right-Thinking.com at June 10, 2003 08:16 PM
on my site, using my name (I took the liberty to change it since I never said it.)
It can be very damaging using someone else's reputation and good name to leave insulting and slanderous comments.
Posted by: Dawn at June 12, 2003 at 01:14 AMAnd for the record, I never claimed to be the "first Moxie" -- moxie.nu was around *long* before me. But I didn't know she existed and she has accused me of intentionally trying to steal her "online identity." Kinda hard to steal someone's identity if I don't know they exist, isn't it?
Anyway, blah dee blah, this is lame. She knows I didn't "steal" anything from her. One of her original accusations was that I'd posted within a few comments of her on Right Wing News and I therefore must've known who she is -- it wasn't even me, it was a *third* moxie.
So for crying out loud, she just needs to stop calling me a thief already. It was a coincidence and she knows it.
(And I'm sorry, but anyone who actually thinks our sites look alike is blind.)
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 01:15 AMDawn: The *only* reason this is still going on is because moxie.nu refuses to drop the accusation that I'm a thief. She knows I'm not, I think even you know the name choice thing was a coincidence, most people have realized by now that the name was a coincidence and we're absolutely nothing alike.
Once she admits that she was mistaken, this whole thing will go away. I'm not going to step down while someone's still accusing me of being a thief when she knows it's a lie.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 01:17 AMSweetie,
I have found IP's in my logs....I haven't had time to go month by month but I checked out a few pre May 21st as a break from my other work.
Maybe it was subliminal. Who knows.
I want to ask you this...were you reading Tim Blair during April?
Posted by: Moxie at June 12, 2003 at 01:25 AMI read 'em both.
I like 'em both.
I stand by MoxiePop becasue the accusation of identity theft is just plain silly.
Silly, silly, silly... It's akin to a teenage girl accusing her neighbor for imitating her because they both showed up at Prom in a red dress -- different design, different construction, totally different look, but a red dress nonetheless.
Posted by: J. Fielek at June 12, 2003 at 01:26 AMMoxie: I swear to you that I never saw your site before a few days ago. I give you my word on that. I think you can see that there's absolutely no similarity between our sites, your assertion that I must've known who you are because I posted on a comment board within a few comments of yours turned out to be someone else entirely, I have *no* interest in having people think I'm you.
Look, I know you want to hear is that you're wonderful and everyone on the internet has heard of you, but I haven't a whole lot of people who visit my site haven't. Were you around first? Yes. Are you relatively famous? Yes. But there are a whole lot of bloggers that I don't know about. I checked out the list of the Top 50 bloggers on Right Wing News that someone linked to and I'd heard of about five of them.
I spend my time on right-thinking.com. I read other blogs from time to time, but I've honestly only read Tim Blair a handful of times, when someone on right-thinking has linked to him (sorry Tim! I'll read more often now, I promise.) I'm not nearly as prolific a blogger as you -- this isn't what I do. I poke around on blogs when I'm at work. That's all it is to me, and that's why I hang around right-thinking.com and some other sites to a much lesser extent.
You know the three blogs you posted about on your site and suggested that people register the domain names with "pop" at the end? The only one I'd heard of is Instapundit, and that I barely even read.
You're a blogger, I'm not. Do you see the difference? I have a personal site and I hang out on a couple blogs and that's it. If I had wanted to be a blogger, I'd have called myself something like "veronicapundit" or I don't know what. My old site used to have everything mashed together and I pulled everything out into "blog" and "journal" sections because I got comments from people that they just wanted to hear me rant and rave and not have to dredge through stuff about my boyfriend, or they wanted to read about the crap going on in my life without having to read all the news b.s.
Look, the name thing was a mix-up. I think you know that. How can you possibly accuse me of being a thief when it was a coincidence? All I'm asking is that you admit that you were mistaken, that the other person who commented on Right Wing News (I didn't know about that one till someone posted the link to it yesterday or the day before) was someone else entirely, and just stop dragging my name through the mud.
Are you popular? Yes. But that doesn't mean everyone who's ever wasted their time on a blog siet has heard of you.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 01:39 AM*site
I'm good at Engrish. Can you believe I actually write for a living? Ugh.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 01:41 AMsorry I should clarify my comment above:
I see IP's that differ VERY little from the various IP's I gathered from MP's emails since she didn't email them to me as promised two days ago......
I was a techie. No lectures, this is my thing. So yes, I traced them to AZ. Your town even. Maybe it was someone else. More research needs to be done but I have a deadline for a writing gig, which is way more important.
This is why I still wonder, MP. Again, did you read Tims'site during April?
If I weren't publishing BOOKS and articles under this name dearie, it wouldn't be a problem.
xo,
~moxie
How about a nekkid catfight to decide the winner. With pictures of course.
Posted by: D2D at June 12, 2003 at 01:43 AMMoxie: The only time I've read Tim's site is when Lee linked to it, and once when Lee sent me an e-mail saying that he'd linked to me. (The reason I registered moxiepop.com is because he flooded the hell out of my site and I had to upgrade.)
The e-mails I sent you should have my IP address, right? That's what I meant by you could get them from my e-mail. (That's why I sent you an e-mail frmo home as well.)
I know you're upset because someone else is using the name "moxie" -- but that doesn't mean I chose it for any reason other than I liked it. When I initially e-mailed you and was trying to be polite about the whole mix-up, I said I'd go strictly by MoxiePop if you'd just post on your site that you'd made a mistake in accusing me of theft.
Theft is deliberate. Theft is intentional. I just happened to have chosen a name that you'd already been using. You said yourself that this has happened before, that other people came to you and said "hey, some other chick is using the name 'moxie'!" and it turned out to be nothing. Why this time is it suddenly *something*?
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 01:49 AMP.S. The reason I didn't change from moxiepop to something else is:
a) You accused me before asking me. I don't take kindly to that.
b) It costs money.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 01:54 AMHey, this is really interesting. I'm going to go now and read about the bus full of dead Jews in Israel. Even though the Moxie war is clearly more important.
Posted by: NC at June 12, 2003 at 02:18 AMI've got bad news for "the original Moxie":
"Your" trademark has been the trademark of a soft drink for about 80 or 90 years. From which it became a word for gumption or personality (Moxie has a fair amount of caffeine), and eventually a standard English word which you are now trying to own. You can claim that you should have exclusive rights in the blogosphere, but no US court would likely agree with you; you would probably win the ability to use it in this market as being far enough from the soft drink market as to not represent infringement, much as both hamburgers and computers can affix a Mc or Mac to things without causing confusion. But scaring off others from using it would be a whole other thing and the reality is there are probably five Moxies out in blogspot-land writing about their cats and their boyfriends, some of whom predate you and none of whom know you exist.
Sorry, them's the hard facts, from someone who among other things names products for a living.
Posted by: Mike G at June 12, 2003 at 02:30 AMAt first glance, NC, I thought you said Moxie car.
Posted by: Jim Treacher at June 12, 2003 at 02:33 AM
I know I swore I was done with this. But the fact that this is still going on is maddening.
At any point during this whole mess, MoxieNu could have made this go away. She doesn't want it to. She's getting exactly what she wanted out of this.
Having witnessed this from the beginning, here's how I figure things went down.
At some point in the last few days, MoxieNu found out about Moxiepop. She pokes around a little, sees that Moxiepop is nothing like her, but is still a little upset about it.
She finds that MoxiePop spends a lot of time at right-thinking, where it doesn't take much to get folks fired up. Hell even on normal days the comment threads get out of control - that's part of what makes it fun. She's bound to know that she's got a few over zealous folks in her group too so....
She goes out and tells the world about her "mindlesstroll/identitythief/imposter," instead of dealing with it privately (as someone truly worried about their identity would have done.) A few of her readers harass MoxiePop over email and IM, and we're underway.
It all started relatively reasonably. I and others tried to rationally assure MoxieNu that this was all a misunderstanding and would be better handled privately. At first she even seemed open to reason about it. A couple more of her loyal readers picked up on it, questioning moxiepop's integrity and pride, and the flames grew from their.
All the while it was more and more apparent Moxiepop posed no threat to MoxieNu. MoxiePop's not promoting herself, not making money, not doing anything but sharing her thoughts with the world.
I recap the whole thing only to say this - the fact that MoxieNu has let this whole thing fester the way she has leads to only one conclusion - she intended it to 'engulf the region.' If all she wanted to do was make the identity confusion go away, a simple email would have cleared it up. If she was truly concerned about protecting her identity, that's how she would have handled it, instead of pointing out the imposter to the world. She played her readership and MoxiePop's for a little 'blog publicity.'
MoxieNU has done more damage to her own identity by dragging MoxiePop through the mud than anybody could have ever intentionally done on their own. More people know who moxiepop is now than three days ago, thanks only to MoxieNU. This whole thing would die even now if she would simply remove the accusations from her page.
The funny thing is, I think Madison Slade is quite possibly the coolest name ever. Why anyone would want to use a word as common as moxie instead I'll never know.
A full retraction and apology for causing this mess would be appropriate, but apparently MoxieNu feels more comfortable portraying herself as a helpless victim.
Posted by: Brad at June 12, 2003 at 02:37 AMIsraeli gunships attack Gaza and kill six, says FoxNews. Sounds like war.
Posted by: NC at June 12, 2003 at 02:37 AMBrad--The last eight or nine "I know I said I was done with this but I just can't resist" posts you've written have been really, really good.
DEBKAfile says 84 injured, 15 seriously.
Posted by: NC at June 12, 2003 at 02:39 AMNC: Are you watching the news or reading online ... ? What's going on?
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 02:40 AMMoxiepop--Checking MSNBC.com, CNN.com, Foxnews.com, ABCNews.com, (and DEBKAfile, of course). Bus bombing today in Jerusalem, killing at least 15. Shortly thereafter, Israeli gunships attacked Gaza. Things are spinning out of control.
Posted by: NC at June 12, 2003 at 02:41 AMOne of the commenters at LGF says he hears there are 18 dead, 95 wounded, 10 critically. No source given.
Posted by: NC at June 12, 2003 at 03:01 AMA trademark search (not including possible common law uses) of "Moxie" reveals at least one registration in class 41 (publication of books) filed on July 20, 2000. The service mark in use is "Moxie Books" (SN 78017573).
In light of that, a trademark of the word "Moxie" would probably not have a reasonable chance of passing an examiner's scrutiney in that class of goods and services. I don't know enough about MoxieNu's use to say conclusively, but if she's using the term in commerce with books, she may be diluting the registrant's mark.
Posted by: Lawrence at June 12, 2003 at 04:02 AMI enjoy both moxie and MoxiePop, though I'm much more of a moxie-phile. I honestly believe that MoxiePop is innocent of "stealing" moxie's identity.
I have also noticed in the course of this thread that moxie's identity from the perspective of others has changed...some are referring to moxie as "MoxieNU"...this is wrong. moxie is moxie and MoxiePop is MoxiePop.
There is room (at least on my blogroll and in my favorites) for moxie AND MoxiePop.
UPDATE. Further reading indicates that Original Mox is concerned that the worth of the Moxie brand - she uses it for professional writing as well as blogstuff - may be devalued by people using the same name. She's spent some years building on this, so some complaining is perhaps understandable, although "Moxie" is used by others besides her (very skilled) online foe.
I've offered to change my name as a peace offering, but I'm not going to do it at my expense. If this is truly moxie.nu's beef, then she shouldn't have a problem apologizing for being wrong and shelling out a few bucks to change it. Changing web names is a major pain in the ass and I'm willing to do it to get this over with -- but I'm not going to do it on my own dime.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 04:24 AMYes, NC, the chances that we'll get Sharon and Abbas/Araft to strip down, oil up, and "wrassle" for our entertainment is decidedly less than the chance of getting the Moxies to do the same.* That is why the inter-blog battle is much more important!
* which is not to say anyone would want Sharon and company to do that, but somebody probably would, and they should be shot for it
Posted by: andy at June 12, 2003 at 04:35 AMFor right now I'd like to thank people for keeping this thread civil. And as NC pointed out, there are more important things going on in the world.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 12, 2003 at 04:43 AMUntil I see a retraction posted on Moxie.nu’s site, then I personally will continue to have no respect for her…or any of her misguided "fans" for that matter.
If the fucking New York Times can print retractions, then I’m sure Moxie.nu can swallow what little pride she has left and do the same.
In my humble opinion that is.
Posted by: The Ugly American at June 12, 2003 at 04:52 AMHaving taken the time to read the posts, I've got to side with moxiepop. The danger of slinging accusations, as moxie.nu is doing, is that unless there's real evidence of a purposeful affront it makes one look a bit ridiculous. So there are "very similar" IP addresses in some server logs. BFD. They could be dynamically assigned among any number of customers -- maybe thousands -- of the same ISP. The fact that they're all associated with the same town is hardly an earthshaking revelation.
All this could have been avoided pretty easily by application of a little common sense.
Posted by: Harry at June 12, 2003 at 04:59 AMMy ISP is Cox 'cos they're the only game in town as far as cable modems go. If you live in the valley and you have a cable modem, you have Cox.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 05:03 AMI still think a nekkid catfight is the way to settle this, with hair pulling and spitting. But that's just one perverted heterosexual's humble opinion
Posted by: D2D at June 12, 2003 at 05:05 AMYes, NC, the chances that we'll get Sharon and Abbas/Araft to strip down, oil up, and "wrassle" for our entertainment is decidedly less . . . .
Andy--Oh, I don't know 'bout that. Check out the right sidebar of this blog. Arafat can really shake that ass.
Posted by: NC at June 12, 2003 at 05:19 AMYou know, given the immense size of the internet and the sheer volume of users, I am amazed that anyone would have the sheer audacity of accusing someone *else* who they don't know of stealing their logo. I know on more than one occasion I've been forced to tack a number or something at the end of "Pietro" because - gasp - it was already taken! Imagine the gall!
Thank heavens, where reactions are concerned, there are more options out there. Take, for instance, the case of Instapundit's clone-in-chief, "Isntapundit". Or, for that matter, any of the hundreds of X-Pundits out there following in Glenn Reynolds' footsteps. My goodness, if HE were to have a cow, watch out - he's a lawyer, for God's sake!
Moxiepop, keep the name, screw the whiner. Even if her name had two little letters attached to them, your site name is sufficiently different to make her case moot.
Hey, I admitted I was wrong about Lee, not the part about him being a worthless asslicker, that part is true, but about him posting even more tasteless things than I have seen on his stupid blog on my stupid blog.
Moxie2-Pop, part Deux, whatever the case may be, I read your proposal, although I know Moxie doesn't have a dime to rub together to pay for all of that, so really, that is no real proposal. Maybe a neutral arbitrator can act as a liason and take donated funds to make the change.
The apology has to be mutual, because honestly, Moxie made the accusation based on what she deemed as real evidence, that seems to be circumstantial at a glance - but very real to her. You, on the other hand dug up the most unsavory elements of subhumans to defend you since Dawn of the Dead (no pun intended). I mean seriously, where did you find these dregs of genepool barrel?
Anyway, I will apologize AGAIN HERE AND NOW for ever insulting you in comments or on my blog.
I am sorry for being an ass.
Posted by: Dawn at June 12, 2003 at 05:25 AMJeebus. Stick to MoxiePop. Everyone knows who you are, now. And - Moxie - everyone knows she's not you.
Posted by: Poxie Craw at June 12, 2003 at 05:52 AMDawn: I'm not going to have someone accuse me of something that's completely untrue and then make *me* pay to "fix" it.
You know that "innocent until proven guilty" thing? In this country, it's generally frowned upon to accuse something of something that's untrue, not provide *any* evidence whatsoever, and then tell the accused she has to pick up the tab for all the problems she caused.
If moxie.nu thought she was going to bully me into changing my name, she picked the wrong person to piss off.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 05:56 AMDawn: Apology accepted. I've stayed off your blog since you apologized (although I didn't know the e-mail was from you 'cos I'm a tard). Since you've talked crap about Lee though, don't be surprised if you get even more crap 'cos he has *way* more people backing him :)
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 06:02 AMMoxie Nu: You've gone over the edge. Personally, I'll probably never read your site again.
Moxie Pop: Screw her. Keep the domain name. There's no reason for you to change.
Posted by: StumpJumper Jerry at June 12, 2003 at 06:32 AMNow that my partner has spoken up on the subject, I suppose I should, too. I don't agree with StumpJumper, but he's definitely entitled to his opinion.
I do think that our beloved Moxie probably took the similarity a little too much to heart--but Moxiepop and the trolls that came out escalated the whole situation in a pretty nasty way. I don't like to pop because I don't read her site, I do link to Moxie because I read her stuff regularly--she's a talented writer and the photographs on the site are outstanding.
From now on, if I refer to Moxie it is Moxie.nu. The alternate, Moxiepop, is, well, just some other person.
I've never spoken with Moxie personally, although I've shared a few emails with her. She is about as nice as you can imagine. I'm not going to say a bad word about her.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a personal issue between two people, and I know who I'm friends with at the end of it no matter what.
SJ has a different opinion on the subject as is his right. Yes, there is a connection to my site, no, that doesn't bother me, and, yes, I stand by SJ, too. I disagree with him, but that doesn't make him any less my friend, either. Moxie, I hope you understand that.
Sorry for the long post, but I didn't want to have to post again on the subject and I think this covers all my thoughts.
Posted by: zombyboy at June 12, 2003 at 07:06 AMbut Moxiepop and the trolls that came out escalated the whole situation in a pretty nasty way
Why do people seem to be surprised that people don't respond too kindly when someone lies and accuses another person of theft? Gosh, I mean, I'm sure *you'd* be all sunshine and rainbows if one of your friends had been accused of theft with zero evidence, no attempt to make contact, and absolutely zero correction or apology once the truth was posted in numerous places.
If someone had done to one of your friends what moxie.nu had done to me, and when you and your friends tried to set the record straight the other person deleted all the comments and pretended like they never existed, do you think you'd be kittens on clouds about it?
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 07:13 AMOops!! Can't we all just get along?
My mistake and wishful thinking.
Posted by: fred at June 12, 2003 at 07:20 AMGee, seeing just how intelligent and maturely Moxie.Nu has acted during this whole thing, it just makes me want to run out and check out her blog and anything else she's written. Of course, I'm assuming it's on a 3rd grade level and I can give it to my 5 year old cousin to check out....
Posted by: Shark at June 12, 2003 at 07:35 AMMoxiepop, no I wouldn't have ignored it, but you went directly on the attack. I would have handled it very differently and asked my friends to do the same.
I'm not saying, nor did I say, that you should've ignored it.
The comments weren't deleted because they simply set the record straight, but because they devolved into some really nasty personal attacks.
Posted by: zombyboy at June 12, 2003 at 07:38 AMZombyboy: Actually, I didn't go "directly on the attack". I started getting accusations from moxie.nu's buddies, and I e-mailed a couple of times back and forth with her before I posted a goddamn thing on my site or anywhere else. I tried to straighten it out before jumping up and proclaiming it to the entire world. I explained the situation to her, said I'd go strictly by "MoxiePop" to avoid any confusion, and asked her to just post on her site that she'd made a mistake so I'd quit getting hate mail.
I didn't go anything even remotely resembling "on the attack". See, I think the whole thing could've been resolved via e-mail, without all this stupid drama. I was grown up about it, she wasn't. She had more than enough chances, but I'm not going to stand by while someone accuses me of something, refuses to retract the statement, and drags my name through the mud.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 07:49 AMUnderstood. I disagree. I think it could've been handled differently on both sides and wish that it hadn't become so public. I don't think that you or your supporters are as innocent as you seem to believe. Sorry, but from my point of view, that's how it looks. Obviously Jerry feels differently on the subject.
Frankly, my initial comment (my first serious comment on the subject anywhere--doesn't Tim feel oh-so-lucky (heh, that was self-depricating humor for those who missed it)--was really intended to let Moxie know that what was being said by my partner was his opinion and not mine. My greatest desire is truly to be not involved in this conversation.
I'm over the discussion, it's back to politics for me.
My apologies to Tim and all others for having taken up so much space on his blog. I'll leave it alone now and just try to ignore the whole damned thing. If NC lived anywhere near here, I'd say that this is an excellent time for a drink.
Posted by: zombyboy at June 12, 2003 at 08:03 AMAh yes, the poor little victim, Moxie.nu. Whaa. Perhaps if she hadn't refered to our Moxie as a fat drag queen, we wouldn't have gotten upset. Perhaps if she hadn't refered to the readers over at right-thinking as knuckle-draggers, we wouldn't have gotten upset. Perhaps if she had started in a civil manner and shown just one shred of decency, we wouldn't have gotten upset. But as it is, when you come out swinging, and basicly acting like a bloviating self-absorbed snot, you get a rather poor reaction.
The lesson here? No one likes to be confronted by an arrogant, ignorant, hysterical blowhard. Sorry Moxie.nu, but you lose.
Posted by: Dave at June 12, 2003 at 08:33 AMI agree Dave.
Word to the wise...
When you decide to post some cute little smart-ass comments directed at someone’s character on your blog, then don't be surprised when that person steps up to defend themselves.
Her and her cronies have basically fucked with the wrong crowd.
Posted by: The Ugly American at June 12, 2003 at 09:42 AMIf nothing else, this little shindig has gained moxiepop a new reader. I LIKE her site. I've read moxieNU's, and thought it was... well... not something that I wanted to continue reading on a regular basis. (shrug)
Do I think the whole thing a little silly? Yes, but then again, I collect rubber ducks, so what do I know?
I am not Moxie... but I've enough moxie to demand all of you that are not moxie have infringed on my not Moxieness to a degree I simply cannot ignore as I have literally minutes invested in this brand... so you can all redress this wrong by donating to my account
NotAnEgoCentricNarcissistSlanderingWhiner@Victimhood.com
Posted by: NotMoxie at June 12, 2003 at 10:17 AMIt's obvious that names are important to some people and that some people are just not too logical when they get upset over nonsense. As far as I'm concerned, moxiepop is the original because I found her before MoxieNU (zing). Moxiepop is also, cooler, sexier, smarter, and betterer.
And for the record, I intend to refer to myself from this point forward by the name "I." I will take offense to any others who refer to themselves as such and will take legal action if necessary.
Posted by: I at June 12, 2003 at 10:51 AMI think this should be sorted out with a jelly wrestle.
Posted by: pezza at June 12, 2003 at 11:11 AMI think this should be sorted out with a jelly wrestle.
Posted by: pezza at June 12, 2003 at 11:11 AMIMHO Moxienu needs to get over it and get a life. I don't believe for a milisecond that Moxiepop deliberately "stole" the name. Apparently some people can't admit to being wrong and apologize.
Posted by: suzi at June 12, 2003 at 11:57 AMFuck - it's like a car crash - I had to keep reading to the end to see if it could get any more trivial, narcissistic and boring.
Posted by: Mork at June 12, 2003 at 12:15 PMMork: Should the car crash have had more T&A? I think it should have.
Posted by: moxiepop at June 12, 2003 at 12:29 PMMoxiepop - your question is an invitation to contribute to the banality, which I decline.
Sometimes less is more, my dear, especially when you have the chance to quit while you are ahead . . . and unlikely to remain there.
Posted by: Mork at June 12, 2003 at 12:39 PMEr, um, burrrrrrp. That about sums up the value of the whole MoxieSquared kerfuffle.
Moxie, denizen of Right-Thinking, is the winner. She posts tantalizingly suggestive and pithy comments which enthrall the other kids. Now that's real value (sex and intellect).
The other self-appointed Leading Brand Moxie and her Charlie's Angels have exceedingly foul mouths and aren't even funny. Pity to waste so many curse words without, at a minimum, generating a clever rejoinder or witty barb. What is invective coming to? Shabby, just shabby.
So there. Moxie of the red hair - go forth, blog, tease the boys, enjoy. You are victorious.
Posted by: Michael at June 12, 2003 at 01:54 PMI suggest we settle this in a manly way -- put the two moxies in bikinis, throw them in a mud pit, sell beer and pretzels.
The ironic thing is -- Moxie used to be a Brand, a 1930 trademark for a soft drink, but from common use, it became a common word.
Posted by: Howard Owens at June 12, 2003 at 02:04 PMWith due respect to our host, a naked protest by Tim Blair is not something to which I'd look forward.
Tim should be working on getting the two Moxies to do a naked protest.
Posted by: Alex Bensky at June 12, 2003 at 10:31 PMHOLY FUCKING SHIT! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS DECENT WOULD YOU DAMN KIDS JUST SHUT THE HELL AND GO TO BED ALREADY?!
DON'T MAKE ME COME UP THERE!
Sincerely,
Dad
Posted by: FormerLiberal at June 14, 2003 at 10:02 AM[grumbling to long-suffering wife]:
"Honestly, honey. Those damn kids make me so upset I forgot to say "UP" when I said "SHUT THE HELL UP!"
"I'm gettin' some aspirin."
[gets aspirin]
"They quiet yet? Jeez! Friggin' kids. I wonder if I should make 'em get jobs or somethin'."
[pauses]
"Okay - they're down. And just in time for M*A*S*H*, too. Never should have bought 'em those computers."
(This domestic scene brought to you by Dads everywhere])
Posted by: FormerLiberal at June 14, 2003 at 10:12 AMHey, MikeG:
Ever wonder why there are more than one 'Cisco?' (One is industrial I-don't-know-what-but-their-company-had-a-giant-building-right-in-my-city and the other is Cisco Systems. Computing and tech and all that.
Well: when it's two different industries, calmoring for different demographics of customers, it's legal. When it's the same industry looking for the same audience/buyers, then it's infringement. Moxie nu has the tm, the second one agrees to it but insists she doesn't know.
Which is nice, it may be an honest mistake. The point is that Moxie nu (the first one to use is as a tm for writing) can now send her a lovely cease-and-desist-within-X-days-or-I-sue-you letter. Because ignorance of the law doesn't mean it's ok to break it. And the law indicates that it's every person's obligation to do a search to see if someone else is doing business as whatever it is they're looking into.
And self-publishing IS doing business, kids. The fact that the firs Moxie hasn't already done this is what gets me, because _I_ would have, if it was a name I have used and built a reputation on, not that I'd be mean and nasty about it and going 'thief thief' because of the very likely possibility that the second Moxie did not know. That's what the cease and desist is for BEFORE the actual suing.
And THEM'S the facts.
Posted by: eve at June 14, 2003 at 11:23 AMUh -- eve? Ignorance of the law doesn't mean it's okay to just make shit up either. "Moxie.nu" is a domain name, not a "tm for writing." Your entire premise is bullshit. And in any case, no other domain can be called "moxie.nu" -- but there is nothing stopping anyone from registering the name as a .com, .org, .tv, or anything else. (If there was, I could have had several other domain names that were alas already taken.) As for her "name" being protected by copyright law, here is what it says in that law's very own website: NAMES, TITLES, AND SHORT PHRASES NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. If it was I'd be in trouble with several people named "Andrea Harris" who also have a web presence despite the fact that that is the name on my birth certificate and driver's license.
Here's the summary of the law from the site if you still don't believe me:
Names, titles, and short phrases or expressions are not subject to copyright protection. Even if a name, title, or short phrase is novel or distinctive or if it lends itself to a play on words, it cannot be protected by copyright. The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words such as:Bolds mine, by the way. There is no such thing as a "tm" for writing, that came out of you and perhaps Moxie.nu's heads. Now, it looks as if you and she are claiming that her nom-de-plume is protected under this proviso:Names of products or services
Names of businesses, organizations, or groups (including the name of a group of performers)
Names of pseudonyms of individuals (including pen name or stage name)
Titles of works
Catchwords, catchphrases, mottoes, slogans, or short advertising expressions
Mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas. When a recipe or formula is accompanied by explanation or directions, the text directions may be copyrightable, but the recipe or formula itself remains uncopyrightable.
Some brand names, trade names, slogans, and phrases may be entitled to protection under the general rules of law relating to unfair competition, or they may be entitled to protection and registration under the provisions of state or federal trademark laws. The federal trademark statute covers trademarks and service marks—those words, phrases, symbols, or designs that identify the source of the goods or services of one party and distinguish them from those of others. The Copyright Office has no role in these matters.
However, first you'd have to prove "unfair competition." And quite frankly only a retard couldn't tell the difference between the two women's websites, and only one person (Moxie.nu) has been pushing herself as some sort of web-writer-for-hire. It's still the onus of the accuser to prove wrongdoing, Moxiepop doesn't have to do shit. And I'm going to guess that attacking some little personal-diary-blogsite is going to do nothing for Moxie.nu's career except give her a reputation as a short-tempered ass who flies off the handle without checking her facts first. She doesn't need friends like you further fucking with the waters she so foolishly stirred up, why don't you back off? You've only pushed me more to the side of Moxiepop, whose existence I had no idea of before this whole mishegas started. I had known about the moxie.nu site, wasn't really interested in it but she seemed like an okay sort -- until now.
And one final parting shot, kid: personal websites are not "internet publishing" businesses unless every single goddamn diary site, including the average teenage girl's unicorn-filled bad poetry website, is also to be considered a business.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 14, 2003 at 06:38 PMI think Moxiepop is the wicked cutest of the Moxies and the one I'd most like to snuggle with. That should settle all this. If you two keep fighting I'll turn the internet around right now and no ones going to the beach!
Posted by: Two in the Hat at June 15, 2003 at 02:15 AMThe first moxie says she published books under Moxie.
She could claim it to be a DBA, since she came first (Moxie Mag and Soda and whatever else being obviously different markets). While there is no tm for writing -- this is true, sorry if I was unclear -- there IS one for a website, and esp. if she's using 'Moxie' as the DBA. While she should register it to protect herself, she is exempted from that if she's already done biz with it, so she can show precedent.
I didn't say she started with that intention nor that she was in the right in her childish antics of finger pointing. I think she was being dead petty right out of the gate. But I was saying that if she felt so strongly, there IS a case that could be made with her accusations. And that if I were her and I felt so strongly about the whole damn thing (which I wouldn't) I would have gone and done that instead of making an ugly public spectacle.
At the end of which, it would come out just like it has here that the second girl was not also using Moxie as a biz thing and it's only a moniker and nothing else would have happened. Whether or not the second Moxie was thieving is irrelevant, and whether or not it would be shown that she was not infringing upon Moxie 1's rights is irrelevant.
"She doesn't need friends like you further fucking with the waters she so foolishly stirred up, why don't you back off?"
And jeez. Take a valium. I don't know either of them. I don't read either of them. I don't particularly care if either one of them 'wins' this fight since I know neither will, for the reasons I've already said, above. I don't appreciate the assumption that because I have certain things to say that it must mean I'm aligned with a side. Lines and delineations are not always drawn so simply in the real world.
The falsehoods and clear misunderstanding of the web and the rights involved with online publishing show by self-righteous crap like, 'oh, there's Moxie Soda, she must be infringing upon THAT tm!' that I've been reading so far irritates the crap out of me and I was going with the unlikely supposition that Moxie 1 may have had some meat to her argument that she has a right to the name (only as a DBA/tm) as she has done business under it and perhaps thought the other was using the same name to compete (although that has now been thoroughly debunked that she is not and as such, Moxie 2 can pull the libel card and make a huge fuss herself).
But most of all, most of you really truly don't seem to get, kid that websites, all of them, fall under the classification of publishing, Andrea. And THAT is a business.
If you really want to continue insisting it is not, and that a case in the early stages could not be made for the first Moxie, please feel free to email me and you can talk to one (or both) of the CEOs of my husband's company, Directnic.com (a domain name registrar and hosting company). They were both internet attorneys before starting up the company and I assure you, websites are publishing. You insist it's just a 'domain name' and I would say that you were "a short-tempered ass who flies off the handle without checking her facts first."
"The term "fictitious business name" (or, sometimes, "assumed business name," "trade name" or "DBA") is used when a business uses a name that's different from its legal name. For instance, if John O'Toole names his sole proprietorship Turtle's Classic Cars, the name "Turtle's Classic Cars" is a fictitious business name because it does not contain his last name, "O'Toole."" - nolo.com
Posted by: eve at June 15, 2003 at 03:49 AM"that websites, all of them, fall under the classification of publishing, Andrea. And THAT is a business."
That's absurd. Publishing can be a hobby, part of a charitable activity, or a political act. Those wouldn't be businesses.
Posted by: craig henry at June 15, 2003 at 05:59 AMI was sent this link tagged with the word "absurd".
In reading about this 'moxie' debacle, I wonder if some of you have websites that you have published work on. As an Open Source developer I am used to seeing my work on other webpages, *but* my work is tagged with a GPL license that strictly states the work can be freely distributed and published anywhere. Having looked over the websites in question I can say they don't have a license for use posted, nor do they have much in the way of usage guidelines. This falls in a gray area of domain/web law where the site as a "publisher" has certain rights to their content.
In general in cases like this, a cease and desist is issued and the problem is stopped (you can find forms+legalese online). I am curious if a cease and desist has been issued and what the response has been.
If one party has been "published" under the moniker "moxie" (i.e. I write programming columns for zend.com and those articles cannot be reproduced by anyone, not even me, they own them because I sold the articles to them) then usage and legal name goes to the person who has prior art, unless the two parties are in totally separate markets. (Cisco systems and Cisco industrial to name a famous example).
I think this entire issue is kind of strange as standard procedure dictates that you would issue a cease and desist and take action if your specifed date (and by law I believe you have one week to make changes) in the form of a legal wrongdoing or dillution of trademark. (thus the isses with sites having anything to do with "ford" etc.) Financial harm can be easily ajusted by search engine rankings and computed based on the number of hits you get compared to search engine ranking (google being the stick) of the offending site. Damages are decided by the party harmed.
Anyway, someone stated that publishing is not a business. Well, as an owner of multiple websites and being a publisher as well as content seller (in the form of articles and technical tutorials) I can assure you that publishing is indeed a business and is taken very seriously in courts.
You choose a name and "sell" under that name, you become in effect that business and can sue by way of prior usage.
note to the above post:
strike the word moniker, I was mid-thought and interupted. "Moxie" being the name published "under".
as a further note:
Web publishing is big business these days, and is treated as such. Publishing be defined by people being able to read it and it being in a public forum presented to the public at large. Thus issues with trademarks and copyrights abound and why you have to log in to read certain websites, they are attempting to protect 'their' content.
I didn't mean to imply that publishing couldn't be a business, simply that there are forms of "publishing" that are not businesses. (That in response to the broad statement made by another poster that i quoted in the start of my post)
Posted by: craig henry at June 15, 2003 at 08:45 AMMoxiepop, you've gained a new fan in me. You rock.
Posted by: Kevin Buchanan at June 15, 2003 at 04:31 PMThis is fabulous. I wish someone would start a site calling herself "Little Miss Attila," or maybe "Attila Girl" (which is how I sign my blog-related e-mail).
Then we could have a big public catfight and both get gobs more traffic. Send our supporters out to do battle on our respective behalves . . .
Vie to be the Queen of Attila-land, where one of us (me) would eventually rule our grateful subjects forever!
Sorry, man. It's late.
Posted by: Little Miss Attila at June 19, 2003 at 10:11 PM