Score: Joel, 1, Neil Godfrey & Stephan Huller, Negative A Billion

World Intellectual Property Organization HQ in...

World Intellectual Property Organization HQ in Geneva (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mythicist Neil Godfrey was caught stealing intellectual property, and now he’s crying fowl. Joel Watts is in the right and Neil knows it. This is exactly why I have a Fair Use Policy for Political Jesus.

Also, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Stephan Huller is making personal attacks against bonafide writers/scholars.

Enhanced by Zemanta

0 thoughts on “Score: Joel, 1, Neil Godfrey & Stephan Huller, Negative A Billion

  1. Chris Schelin

    This is a messy situation. While Godfrey can get temperamental sometimes, I’ve actually enjoyed Vridar as an informative and engaging blog. From what I can tell, it seems WordPress reacted too strongly and communicated too poorly, so perhaps both parties can end up walking away with few ruffled feathers.

      1. Steven Carr

        I don’t.

        I was going to ask Joel, but for some totally inexplicable reason, he has removed all the Creative Commons stuff and replaced it by a copyright notice.

        I have no idea why he did that. It is baffling.

        One thought did flash into my head. Perhaps it hadn’t been copyrighted at all, and Watts was trying to rewrite history to make it look as though it had been. I quickly rejected *that* theory!

        1. ejoelwatts

          Poor guy… Steve, because CC was sorely misunderstood (like other processes by pseudo-scholars) I went with the (c) that has always been present on my site (look at the bottom of the page where it says… ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

          Now, I know this is difficult for people to understand, and because of the lies already told, but when I asked for WP to examine the situation, all Neil had to do was to issue a challenge/response. Guess what? He didn’t. Instead, claiming he had received no notice, enabled the post in question. As WP said, Neil shut down his own site.

          Go ahead, pretend there is some giant conspiracy… please.

  2. ejoelwatts

    Really, Steve? Umm… Did you not check the bottom of the page where it says ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

    What do you think ALL means, Steve? all except for what a mythicist blowhard who can’t read emails.

    He can give credit, Rod, and he did — what he did was to take the entire post , word for word. When I asked them to not, he refused. When WP asked to not, he refused.

    Either he is a failure at the ‘net, or he intentionally thought himself above the law/process.

    I realize it is difficult for uberbuffoons to understand how the process works — although it wouldn’t matter, because what Neil says is what the truth is. (Almost like a cult). Yet, the simple fact of the matter is this.

    When you submit a (re)quest(ion) to WP, they review it. They reviewed my site and Neils and found him to be at least questionable in his use of the material. He could have responded, but instead, he ignored them and went about his business.

    Seems the problems one has (because being completely ignorant to how the process works) is with WP and their DMCA review team.

  3. Pingback: Ugh – Once again #DMCA | Unsettled Christianity

  4. vinnyjh57

    I’ll tell you “All Rights Reserved” means in a context like this. It means “All rights other than those expressly granted.” The Creative Commons seems to have expressly authorized the use that Neil made of the post.

      1. vinnyjh57

        I checked it out and Craig was wrong. The CC license was there on Neil’s blog and not that hard to find..

        1. ejoelwatts

          Yes, because you are the super-attorney… which is odd… but I will not comment on my mystery as to an attorney who doesn’t understand evidences, but anyway…

          I had another attorney comment, and seems you are not god. Umm…

          1. vinnyjh57

            I make no claim to be a super attorney, although I’m quite certain that I know a lot more than you. I would be very interested to see Doug’s analysis of the issue. That comment didn’t tell me much.

        2. Craig

          Joining this a little late as it seems to have slipped by me.

          Actually Vinny, if you read the updates (there are two of them), I did say that Neil’s CC license was there. However, the restrictions in the Share alike state that it must be shared using a the same or similar CC license. Neil has a non derivative license, not a Share Alike. So, Neil’s CC license would have to be the same as Joel’s was or have a Share Alike.

          In other words, #Fail!

          1. vinnyjh57

            Actually Craig, I think it has to be the “same” or “similar” and there are certainly many similarities between the ShareAlike and NoDeriv CC licenses. I actually think that there may be a plausible argument that they aren’t similar in the right way, but I don’t see that you ever tried to such an argument. Your comment was simply an assertion of your opinion on the matter, which I don’t think merited very much weight, considering you had already declared “Game. Set. Match.” after overlooking Neil’s CC license.

          2. RodtRDH Post author

            Vinny, Neil, Beau are the only 3 people talking about this issue, and it’s all Joel’s fault! Because Neil is innocent, and WordPress didn’t intervene!

          3. vinnyjh57


            I’m not sure what you are getting at.

            You overlooked Neil’s CC license when you first asserted “Game. Set. Match.” You updated your comment after you found it. I did not mean mean to suggest anything different.

            When you updated your comment, you simply asserted that they weren’t similar, but you gave no reasoning for that conclusion. In fact, there are many obvious similarities between the different CC licenses. So when Rod told me to go check out your comment, I didn’t see anything there that even attempted to settle the question, even with the update.

            Rod didn’t exactly tell me what it was about your comment that he found so persuasive. He just told me to go check it out. Based on what he had written, I thought he was citing your original claim that Neil lacked a CC license.


            I haven’t the foggiest notion what you are talking about. As near as I can tell, you figure that declaring yourself to be right is every bit as good as actually being right. Whatever works for you.

        3. Craig

          If I had overlooked Neil’s CC license then why did I update my comment on Joel’s blog to state that I FOUND NEIL’S CC LICENSE? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

          And I didn’t realize the onus was on me to further clarify my point, when NO ONE ASKED ME TO. Since no one asked me, I didn’t feel inclined to elaborate. Instead, you take to another blog to say I’m wrong, even when Rod linked back to my comment in his post. Talk about some logic there…me getting called out on something because a comment left on Blog A was discussed on Blog B, in a discussion I wasn’t aware of until today. So how could I have had a chance to elaborate?

      1. Steven Carr

        But how many of them swore they were not committing perjury and then fabricated an email?

        If there is anybody in such a category, then he or she should care very deeply about what may happen in the next week or so.

        1. ejoelwatts

          Oh good… A legal threat. Of course this is coming from someone who cannot muster the meaning of historical evidences… And yet we are expected to believe he can plausiblely relate legal evidences.

          1. Steven Carr

            Joel has been listening too much to his supporters.

            Oh, they’ve all gone quiet. Not a peep out of them.

            It must be nice to have such good friends, musn’t it , Joel?

          2. ejoelwatts

            Oh, steve… that’s because we are all in this conspiracy together… Or maybe it’s because we all realize it’s a non-issue… or maybe we realize responding to mythicists are a waste of time…

            poor steve… about to embarrass himself.

          3. vinnyjh57

            The fact that something is a non-issue never stops people from talking about it nor does the fact that responding is a waste of time ever prove to be much discouragement so I think we can eliminate those two possibilities. .

          4. vinnyjh57

            Actually Joel, I think you might have had a colorable argument on the copyright violation. Your CC ShareAlike license gave permission to users with the same or similar licenses on their work, but Neil had the more restrictive CC NoDerivs license on his blog. You might have argued that your ShareAlike didn’t give Neil permission to alter, transform, or build upon your post because his NoDerivs didn’t give others permission to alter, transform, or build upon his posts. That certainly would have been better than arguing that “All rights reserved” negated the CC license. “I had my fingers crossed” may be a good defense on a middle school playground, but it generally doesn’t carry much weight in the law.

  5. Pingback: Run DMC(A) – UPDATED | Unsettled Christianity

  6. pithom

    Test to check for timezone. See “A Timeline of Events Regarding the Demise and Resurrection of Vridar” for why I wish to check for timezone.

  7. Pingback: A Timeline of Events Regarding the Demise and Resurrection of Vridar | Against Jebel al-Lawz

    1. Beau


      Why did you fake an email to Neil Godfrey by changing the system date on your computer and taking a screen shot? You can continue to cry “conspiracy”, but what you did is clear to everyone who looks closely at your screen shot.

          1. Beau

            You haven’t really looked at the email screenshot that Joel presented, have you RodtRDH?


            The system date and time (upper right) are exactly the same as the date and time of the email allegedly sent to Godfrey, even though emails from dates later than the system date are also seen. The Mac application used to change system date and time is open, as seen in the upper left highlighted menu “System Preferences” and the date and time preference panel icon that can be seen at the bottom of the screen next to the trash bin.

            Look for yourself. Bloggers that usually side with Joel against Godfrey are sadly pointing out his clear tampering:


            As I said before, this is not the stuff of “conspiracy”; it is a hand caught in the cookie jar.

            Evidence of lying this obvious does not require an explanation. It requires a sincere apology.

          2. RodtRDH Post author

            Uh hummmm so joel manipulated time & space to shut down Neil’s blog? Uh hummmm

            And that site, supporting Joel usually? Not in the least bit! I read it last week!! pfft!

          3. ejoelwatts

            “Bloggers that usually side with Joel against Godfrey”

            That’s rather funny, considering that I’ve never (except on the post regarding my HuffPo op-ed where irrco and you didn’t like what I wrote) had much of an interaction with irrco.

            So… again, wrong.

            And again wrong with the use of conspiracy.

            Can you get anything right?

          4. Beau

            I am really at a loss to understand your attitude.

            I’m no mythicist and no fan of Godfrey’s (which is all I meant to point out about Ian’s site as well).

            But there is simply no reasonable explanation for Joel’s screenshot having a system time and date exactly the same as the time and date of the email Joel alleges he sent to Godfrey.

            You are both making attempts at being snidely humorous in your answers, but offer nothing in the way of explanation.

            I will not try to return the snideness, because I do not find this situation humorous in the least – only sad and disappointing.

          5. Beau


            This is what matters to you?

            You call me out for “Lies upon lies” for saying that ‘Irrco has a “History” (your quotation marks) of taking Joel’s side’.

            But that is not what I said. I described Irrco as one among “bloggers that usually side with Joel against Godfrey”; and all I meant was that Irrco (like Joel’s blog) is not mythicist and is usually as critical of Godfrey’s blog (Vridar) as Joel is.

            You are choosing to harangue such small points.

            But how could the system time and date on Joel’s computer match precisely the time and date of his email to Godfrey unless he had reset the time and date to make the email appear older than it was?

            There are emails from the 27th in his sent folder, but the system date is clearly the 26th.

            Why are you not addressing this simple fact?

          6. RodtRDH Post author


            This conspiracy is hilarious. Joel made the email older than it was? For what purpose? Neil isnt addressing & wont address it was WORDPRESS itself that tooj down his post & then blog. Deal with those facts beforw accusing joel of doing something that silly.

            Neil Godfrey got caught, and now hes crying fowl. Oh boy!

          7. Beau


            Listen, I’m not implying that Joel took down Godfrey’s blog with one fake email. I think that Joel probably notified WordPress as he says he did, which started a chain of events leading to the closing of the blog. Godfrey should have noticed warnings from WordPress, whether or not he received an email from Joel.

            BUT …

            Joel always insisted throughout this mess that he first emailed Godfrey. He posted a screenshot of this email on his site to “help my defenders along”. Along with an email, this screenshot shows:

            A listing of emails from the 25th, 26th, and 27th.

            A system date and time of June 26, 12:56 PM, the exact time of the sent email – even though there are emails from the “future” date of the 27th.

            The System Preferences menu is open, as well as the date and time preference icon at the bottom of the screen.

            The program is “not connected to Gmail”.

            The only explanation for this screenshot is that Joel changed his system date and time to forge an email sent to Godfrey.

            I am not implying anything else. My guess is that everything else Joel has said, about WordPress notification and copyright notices, is all true. Perhaps he thought that he had emailed Godfrey first, but couldn’t find the email when he searched for it.

            Whatever the reason, the fact remains that Joel displayed a screenshot of a computer that had been tampered with to date an email on the 26th. Maybe this is a “little” lie. Maybe it changes nothing about Godfrey’s behavior.

            But it is a lie nonetheless. One that Joel addresses (as you do) with nothing more substantial than dismissive derision for those who point it out.

          8. RodtRDH Post author

            Your implications are irrelevant to the facts. Yes I deride non-issues. the changing of the time has nothing to do with Neil Godfrey stealing intellectual property and everything to do with a few mythicists trying to change topics.

          9. Beau


            I agree with you that mythicists are wrong on numerous counts; that their work is not scholarly and should be dismissed by thinking people.

            This is why it only hurts the cause against mythicist when someone like Joel Watts attempts to support his point of view with a lie.

            How can a lie be “irrelevant”. It is entirely relevant to Joel’s honesty and integrity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *