Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Ron Price: He'll make you an offer you oughta refuse


If this is The Ronfather, does that mean its central character is "Ron" Corleone?

Someone called here yesterday to ask me about the Ron Price situation and I told this person that at no time have I "hated" the guy. Been disgusted with him? Certainly. But that's a far cry from outright loathing his guts. At the same time, he's doing wrong: both by staying on the Rockingham County Board of Education (in spite of being an admitted thief) and by this lawsuit against the Moores... which many here believe will be only the first in a series of retaliatory strikes against those on Price's "enemies list".

Bear in mind that at one point I was one of Price's strongest supporters. I even offered to make a TV commercial for his campaign back during the election season... for free. You don't do that for someone unless they've won your trust. That, Price did. I told this person yesterday that I'm going to be a lot more careful about being eager to support someone so readily from now on.

Anyway, one of the things Price has said in his lawsuit against Richard Moore is that he's been caused "embarrassment". I don't see anything wrong with that. Embarrassment and shame can be a good thing... especially when the person in question is an elected official in charge of a multi-million dollar budget and moral decisions affecting thousands of people. Why shouldn't Ron Price feel embarrassed and ridiculed, in light of what we now know of him?

So I've got no problem in making these parody images, because Ron Price only has himself to blame for all of this. If he would do the right thing and step aside, I wouldn't have to be making these. But this is how I fight the bad guys, with whatever creativity and talent that God has given me.

It's what we all should have been doing, every one of us, no matter where in this country or this world that we've been put or what we've been given to work with. This is where America is going to either live or die: at the local level, fighting the crooks off in your own backyard.

I wonder if MAD Magazine would hire me...

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

This one's your best by far.

Anonymous said...

Chris:

Just wondering if you have permission to alter these movie posters, of if you are violating some type of minor law like what Ron Price did that upsets you so much?

Also, if there was no victim to prosecute Mr. Price and he was in fact not convicted in court of stealing, wouldn't you agree that calling him a thief, a crook and a con is actually untrue and therefore likely libelous/slanderous depending on the medium of transmission?

Chris Knight said...

"Just wondering if you have permission to alter these movie posters, of if you are violating some type of minor law like what Ron Price did that upsets you so much?"

Nope.

See the Falwell v. Flynt decision handed down by the United States Supreme Court. I am quite protected by the First Amendment. And Ron Price has made himself out to be a very skewerable target for parody.

"Also, if there was no victim to prosecute Mr. Price and he was in fact not convicted in court of stealing, wouldn't you agree that calling him a thief, a crook and a con is actually untrue and therefore likely libelous/slanderous depending on the medium of transmission?"

Oh, but there *are* victims...

Ron Price admitted on live television that he had stolen the signs, in front of thousands of people. By his own admission, he is a thief. I didn't have to do anything that he hadn't already done to himself.

Here is where Mr. Price has done the worst harm: he has demonstrated to the children of this county that it is okay to break the law, so long as you do it in the name of your political party. What are we supposed to assume that our children are going to take from his example? Ron Price certainly isn't an avatar of honesty and integrity for them.

Ron Price is only interested in himself. We do not need his kind in Rockingham County.

Now what I have to wonder is: are YOU Ron Price? Because it certainly seems like a possibility, judging by the visit you have registered in my logs.

Anonymous said...

I have to agree with the other anonymous guy. Just because Ron admitted to taking the signs, and three people saw him take the signs, and the police found the signs in his car doesn't mean he is a thief. I'm sure Ron was only cleaning the highway like any good citizen would do. Ron should get some sort of citizenship award for what he did to beautify the roadside.

Anonymous said...

Chris:

I'm not Ron Price. And I've publicly expressed my belief that he should not have taken his seat on the board. However, I think it will be an interesting legal question to be decided.

We all know there is a difference between what is true and what is proven in court. So since, in a technical sense, Ron Price is not a con, or a crook or a thief, the question remains if a publisher or broadcaster can be held responsible for allowing someone to say something about another person that is not true.

Joan Ziglar may have been all the things the gentleman claimed she was, but there was no proven connectivity when the case was heard in court. So Charles Roark owes her $75,000. Looks like the same may apply here.

Also, I find it humorous that Richard Moore goes on and on about Ron Price taking a campaign sign as if he stole the crown jewels, when Richard Moore himself takes things that do not belong to him and converts them to his own use. Similar to the way he makes a huge issue out of the criminal records of his enemies yet remains silent on the fact that Charles Roark, the man that allows Richard Moore access putrify the airwaves with his madness and rabid musings, is in fact a convicted felon and thief who has a long history of stealing audio visual equipment, newspapers and other retail items as recently as this decade.

The hypocrisy is stunning. But that does not absolve Ron Price of his mistakes and mishandling of the aftermath.

Anonymous said...

Also, and I'm just asking, wasn't the Falwell case about using Falwell's likeness?

I'm asking about your permission to infringe the intellectual property of the person who created the movie poster. Aren't images copywrited? If you transform a movie poster without being the owner or a member of the Movie Poster Maker's Guild aren't you technically not allowed to alter them?

Is there a difference between ripping something from the web and transforming it without permission and taking a sign from the side of the road?

What are your thought on that relative juxtaposition?

Anonymous said...

I agree with the other two anonymous guys.

Charles Roark is the real villan in all this. He probably forced Ron Price to take those Brad Miller signs. I bet Roark held a gun to Price's head.

Anonymous said...

Here is the legal precedent and example of wanton disregard for truth exhibited by WGSR's management.

Birds of a feather...

Anonymous said...

You nailed it, Anonymous#1! It's the smoking gun.

The Review article is the proof of Roark's involvement in the sign scandal.

Anonymous#3

Anonymous said...

Here is some information about a real thief that Richard Moore never talks about.

More about Roark for good measure from a 2002 conviction for stealing videos from Wal-Mart:

This is not Charles Roark's first brush with the law. According to previous Martinsville Bulletin articles:

In July 1985, Roark was arrested in the theft of $35 worth of property from Williams Lumber Co. in Brookneal.
On Dec. 13, 1985, Roark pleaded not guilty in Campbell County General District Court. He was convicted, given a 10-day suspended jail term, fined $100, ordered to pay $35 restitution and placed on 12 months' good behavior.
Six days after the Campbell County trial, Roark was arrested at Kroger in Madison Heights and charged with taking $83.88 worth of Polaroid videotapes, according to court records.
Roark pleaded guilty in Amherst County General District Court on Jan. 9, 1986, to shoplifting and was fined $50.
In 1988, Roark pleaded guilty to stealing $100,000 worth of video equipment from an Asheville, N.C., television station. Roark was arrested on the charge in Henry County after his vehicle was stopped on suspicion of speeding and a Henry County sheriff's deputy saw his compact car was loaded with video equipment.
In exchange for the guilty plea, Roark, the former producer of a Roanoke television news program, agreed to pay $1,000 in restitution to WLOS-TV and to serve three years' probation.
Four years later in 1992, Roark was fined $300 and given a three-month jail term, which was suspended, after he was convicted of stealing two Martinsville Bulletin newspapers from a coin-operated rack in October 1992. A misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest was dismissed.

Chris Knight said...

"I'm asking about your permission to infringe the intellectual property of the person who created the movie poster. Aren't images copywrited? If you transform a movie poster without being the owner or a member of the Movie Poster Maker's Guild aren't you technically not allowed to alter them?"

Parody, including the parodying of images, has long been understood to be protected speech per fair use. "Weird Al" Yankovic doesn't have to ask permission to use the music and lyrics for the songs that he parodies (he could make parodies of any song that he wanted) but he always asks permission from the original artists as a courtesy, because it's good relations and of course he would be making some money from it. But he doesn't have to do that.

Neither is it required that I get permission from whoever made the original movie poster images. If permission was needed EVERY time parody was attempted, MAD Magazine would have had to close up shop a long time ago.

As for comparing images on the web to physical objects that cost someone real money to produce and distribute and can be physically stolen... well, that's just silly.

"We all know there is a difference between what is true and what is proven in court. So since, in a technical sense, Ron Price is not a con, or a crook or a thief, the question remains if a publisher or broadcaster can be held responsible for allowing someone to say something about another person that is not true."

This is called "Double-think", and George Orwell warned us about it all too well almost 60 years ago.

This is not like Schrodinger's Cat where the thing can be BOTH alive and dead at the same time. Ron Price either (a) broke the law when he stole the signs or (b) did not break the law when he stole the signs, but he cannot be both. Since he DID admit to taking the signs and since the very act of taking the signs illegally constitutes breaking the law, then per logic there is no other conclusion other than Ron Price is a thief, regardless of the outcome of legal proceedings.

This is splitting hairs, instead of addressing the reality of the situation: did Ron Price break the law? Absolutely. Does this disqualify him from being morally fit to be in a position on the school board? Without question.

Chris Knight said...

How in the world does this conversation jump from Ron Price to Charles Roark? What do they possibly have to do with each other?

Anonymous said...

In a lot of people's minds, the fact that Richard and others associated with Charles' tv station are the primary people going ape shit over Ron Price taking a campaign sign to the police department is a riot considering you all hang out with and work for, or allow your wive's to work for, a person who has been convicted of larceny in two states on multiple occassions.

That's how the conversation jumps from Ron Price to Charles Roark. It's called being consistent in your opposition to people who steal.

Chris Knight said...

I've just checked the logs. There seems to be *one* person posting as several anonymous authors on this thread in the past little while.

I find this to not only be a very clumsy attempt by someone - maybe it's Ron Price himself and maybe it is someone else after all - to paint Mr. Price in a favorable light, but a rather infantile one also.

Be warned: I am paying attention to who comments on this thread and where they are writing from. I am also saving the logs from every suspicious activity. In other words, be mindful what you post here: I've made life hell for more than one person simply because they were sloppy with their IPs.

jhs said...

And your consistency in opposition to people who steal?

Chris Knight said...

Jeff,
So are you the person who has been making all of these "anonymous" posts, presumably from different people?

The IP record certainly indicates that.

In answer to your question: I've always been opposed to theft, no matter who does it.

I know what you are attempting to do, but it's not going to work. A modicum of research will indicate the inherent flaw in this line of thinking.

jhs said...

Chris: I posted all the comments that have a thought process in them, not the ones that said "I agree with Anonymous"

I posted the first from my place of work and the rest from my home.

jhs said...

Chris:

You said we don't need Ron Price's kind in Rockingham County. I'm wondering if you can make the same judgment about Charles?

Who is more of a thief? Who gets to make those decisions.

I don't defend Ron Price, and I happen to be cordial with Charles. But when Richard foams at the mouth about Ron Price and you follow suit, it begs the question about thiefs in position of power. Is Charles forgiven for his thefts?Am I forgiven for my crime? Are we to wear scarlet letters forever? If not, what does it matter? If so, where is the judgment on Charles?

One could obviously argue that Charles Roark is more of a thief by rate of conviction than Ron Price. Where is the outrage?

I personally think Ron Price made a dumb decision and should have not taken his seat on the school board to save us all this, but he did not make that decision.

The question comes down to will he win a libel/slander suit for being called a thief, a crook and a con when there is no admissable evidence in a court of law to support such claims.

Surely as a reporter you remember the elements of libel. Fair use does not apply.

Chris Knight said...

Jeff,
I haven't been employed with WGSR-Star 39 for quite some time now. If you're trying to insinuate that because I had been (which I'm not anymore) that I am somehow endorsing any wrongdoing that the management of that station has done in the past, then you are wrong.

Stealing is wrong, no matter what the amount is or who is doing it. But certainly you can understand that there is a severe problem when one who admits to stealing - and apparently has no moral compunctions against doing it for sake of a political cause - is put in a position where he is in charge of MILLIONS of dollars of the public funds, not to mention the welfare of our children.

Whatever Charles Roark has done in the past, he has never (to the best of my knowledge) been entrusted with so much of OUR money and OUR children.

Ron Price, however, has.

If Charles Roark has been a thief in the past, then he was wrong to have done that and should have been punished accordingly. I sincerely hope that he has been punished, as is due anyone who steals. Whatever crimes Charles Roark may have done, it has to at least be noted that he's never been allowed to disperse funds from the public treasury.

Ron Price is a thief, has admitted to it on television, has not only evaded his responsibility to accept any punishment but has brazenly said that it's okay if he broke the law because and I quote "but I was elected", and somehow winds up in charge of an enormous budget funded by the taxpayers.

Charles Roark has never been in that position. If and when he is, then I will come out and say that he's not fit to be in charge of money and our children.

Ron Price IS in charge though, and I and a lot of other people have too big a problem with his shallow sense of morality than to simply turn him loose with what is in every way a sacred trust.

Anonymous said...

Chris, move away from Rockingham. Youre too smart to waste your life here especially with crooks like Ron Price and nutcases like Jeff Sykes. Theres nothing here for someone as good as you.

Anonymous said...

WAit...wasn't Jeffrey convicted of friggin' arson?

Anonymous said...

I remember Ron Price when he lived here in Virginia. I'm sorry to see this creep came to your town. He's an asshat.

jhs said...

Jeffrey wasn't convicted of arson. That's another of Richard Moore's lies. See, Richard Moore doesn't care about the truth any more than Ron Price, which makes his actions all the more hypocritical.

Chris, I appreciate your responses. Thanks for taking the time to explain further the reasons for your feelings. It's challenging to engage in online conversations with folks from this area without being called a "nutcase", or some other label based in fantasy, so to have you actually put thought into supporting your positions is refreshing.

I think it will be interesting to see the outcome of the libel suit.

Anonymous said...

Nobody is respecting Ronald Price. Nobody ever will respect him for what he's done. He's a coward little tramp.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it ironic that Jeffrey Sykes stands for truth, justice, and the American way? Ask Brook Corwin and Michael Pucci if Jeffrey is for total truth. Jeffrey was willing to smack their dirty little hands for lifting pictures and fabricating quotes in the Reidsville Review, all because they were lazy. Jeffrey was going to let that slide by but other forces saw the extreme dishonesty and decided that all three had to go. Jeffrey is more than willing to spout off on Charles Roarks past while he tries to hide his. So Jeffrey, is the North Carolina Department of Corrections lying about you on their web site? Are they facing a slander suit too? Have you contacted a lawyer about it? If not, you should. I think its laughable that you say you're cordial to Charles,then you run him down all over when you get hot under the collar. Do you think he's a stupid man Jeffrey? Do you think we're all stupid? Hardly Jeffrey. Want to know what its all over people? Jealousy. Pure and simple. Jealousy. Hey Jeffrey, since your arch nemesis is gone from the RR now, maybe you can become the publisher. A publisher of a real newspaper. Think about it.

jhs said...

So, anonymous, who is jealous of whom? I don't follow.

The DOC website is wrong, for anyone who cares to look into the matter. Of all people, I thought Richard Moore would be least trusting of the government. I guess not as long as it benefits him.

I don't have any nemesis at the Reidsville Review. In fact, I have friends that still work there and remain on good terms with everyone I used to work with, save one person.

Lastly, I know Charles is not stupid, otherwise he would not still be in business.

Anonymous said...

why hasnt the ron price lawsuit been covered on the RFC&P (reidsville free cut & paste) by jsykes? jsykes being the ballsy crusader he is hasnt posted one iota about it on his reidsville free cut & paste, but he will post on 1,000 other blogs about everything. the man has an opinion about everything. i bet living at his house is like living with ward and june cleaver. just wondering.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Jeff is giving up his journalism career and maybe even his blogging rampage. He has announced the Reidsville Free Cut and Paste has gone belly-up.

RIP RFC&P

Anonymous said...

Who the fuck do you think you are, except a sick little bitch that thinks he has the right to pass judgement.