Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Mike from Dallas on October 8, 2010:

I'm interested in the station employee who actually paid for the tattoos, thus providing [stupid] legitimacy to the lawsuit. I'm wondering what level employee it was.

If it were the station janitor, then it just increases Windleman's idiocy. For that, I have a surefire tool for removal, a .44 Mag hollowpoint. Not only removes the tattoo, but the stupid gene, too.

---

I'm guessing it was a fairly high-ranking employee; if not an "on-air personality" then a program manager. That's the only thing that really irks me about this one. If an idiot comes up to you and says "I wanna do something really stupid -- would you loan me your gun?", then I don't think you should hand him your .44 mag, even if it was loaded with dum-dums. -rc

Posted by Bill, Connecticut on October 8, 2010:

I'm a bit surprised that you published the "Mike from Dallas" comment. It's a great remark to make at a bar, or directly to friends, but advocating in a public forum (even in jest) murder or suicide as a solution to a problem seems irresponsible. I'm not anti-gun, and more than once I've said (in jest!) "somebody - please shoot me", but I wouldn't publish that invitation on my website. As you can see from Mr. Windleman's face-value acceptance of an offer, someone might just take me up on it. I agree with Mike up through his last sentence, but I don't think that should have been published.

(Feel free to edit this - or to ignore it.)

---

The idea of TRUE in general -- which sets it apart from other "weird news" features and sites -- is that it's a platform for saying out loud what most people think already -- the "LOL, I can't believe you said that!" concept. Part of the function of this forum is to debate the topics I bring up. I do ignore (delete) comments that are not on-topic, but that one was. Is Mike's suggestion extreme? Of course. Is it a common sentiment? Yep. It's up to other commenters to debate it -- as you just did (unedited!) -rc

Posted by Jack, Texas on October 8, 2010:

It is not against the law to be stupid. However, taking advantage of stupidity is pretty low.

Posted by Robin Clay, Dorset, UK on October 9, 2010:

You wrote: "Isn't there a plastic surgeon in Iowa that can help this obliviot get his life back? Or, at least, (some of) his dignity?"

...presumably by removing the old logo and replacing it with the new one?

---

Yeah, I can just see it: "I'm with stupid" -- and an arrow pointing down.... -rc

Posted by David, Sweden on October 9, 2010:

I'm not going to disagree with the notion that these two guys are stupid.

But it's not clear to me that the radio station doesn't actually owe them some money.

If they claim on the air to be willing to pay for such stupidity, and then if that someone at the station is actually someone of reasonable level, then it seems to me the station can't weasel out with a 'it was just a joke' defense. Maybe it's a stupid thing to do, but people get paid for much stupider things.

I suppose a heck of a lot more context would be needed to determine if it was obviously a joke and that perhaps these guys were just trying to make a cheap buck, but right now it sounds like the station made an offer that they couldn't keep.

---

I do agree that the station is culpable to some extent -- notice I didn't say the lawsuit was unfounded. I'm not sure why neither of them followed through on the lawsuit: it would have been very interesting to read the judge's opinion of the matter. -rc

Posted by eileen in san jose, ca on October 9, 2010:

My first thought when seeing facial tatts is "gainful employment available?"

It looks to me like this one's had some jaw surgery and requires a trache to breathe, so maybe employment isn't in the cards for him...or, maybe, the radio station could have paid him to walk around displaying the logo for them @ the mall. But, then the station changed their format and that would leave poor David in line @ the unemployment office again. Sometimes, ya just can't win!

---

Looking at him, it doesn't strike me that he's had any surgery. It's certainly not mentioned in any of the stories I've read. But anything's possible -- and your last line seems to apply in any case! -rc

Posted by Rick, Florida on October 9, 2010:

eileeen in san jose, ca said it looked as though he had some sort of surgery that requires a trache to breathe and you said it didn't strike you that he's had any surgery.

The jaw surgery part I agree with. I've had to get new false teeth as a result of "lost altitude" on my old teeth wherein the gums shrink up and the mandible must move closer to the maxilla in order to make contact for chewing. His jawline looks as if this may be a result of that problem rather than a surgical procedure.

As to the trache part, the white "blob" on the front of his throat appears to be a mask for a trache with the little green things on the sides being the ties to hold it in place. My father-in-law had throat cancer and had to wear a similar device until they finally finished the job with a pseudo voicebox with a button for him to push in order to "talk". The flesh-colored button is his "mask" now.

I also think that if the radio station followed through on the first part of the "joke" and paid for the tattoo, they gave credence to the reality of that "joke" and should be held fully responsible, not just "to some extent". A janitor would not have access to station funds or checks and to pay for it out of his own pocket as a joke of his own would seem to leave him legally responsible at that point and the lawsuit could be amended to include the individual (janitor, commentator or manager) as defendant.

---

"To some extent" means more than zero, up to 100 percent of any costs, plus assessed punitive damages. -rc

Posted by Terry (just outside the Quad Cities) on October 9, 2010:

Trust me. Living in this area THIS is the norm.

But it kind of reminds me about when that guy saved and brought Pepsi points to get the Harrier jet.

Just proves Randy right.

There are morons everywhere.

---

John Leonard, who claimed -- and in 1999 sued Pepsi in federal court over the claims rejection of -- a supposed Harrier jet prize, was from the classic "weird" state, Florida. The case was heard by Kimba Wood, best known for sentencing "Junk Bond King" Michael Milken to prison. She tossed the suit out. I wrote about Leonard's attempt in 1996. -rc

Posted by Ian, Malaysia on October 9, 2010:

Yeah! I'm surprised they didn't finish pursuing the lawsuit. It seems like they have a strong case because of the station employee paying for the tattoos.

What was that employee thinking? (I guess the answer is, "he/she WASN'T (thinking)". :-)

Posted by Stephen in Austin TX on October 11, 2010:

I suspect they didn't follow through with the lawsuit for the same reason they got the tattoos in the first place....