Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Didn’t

Gathered together in one place, for easy access, an agglomeration of writings and images relevant to the Rapeutation phenomenon.

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:38 am

Ray Tomlinson, Inventor Of Modern Email, Dies
by The Associated Press
March 6, 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


V.A. SHIVA ✔ @va_shiva
I'm the low-caste, dark-skinned, Indian, who DID invent #email. Not Raytheon, who profits for war & death.Their mascot Tomlinson dies a liar
7:39 PM - 6 Mar 2016


Raymond Tomlinson, the inventor of modern email and selector of the "@" symbol, has died.

Raytheon Co., his employer, on Sunday confirmed his death; the details were not immediately available.

Email existed in a limited capacity before Tomlinson in that electronic messages could be shared amid multiple people within a limited framework. But until his invention in 1971 of the first network person-to-person email, there was no way to send something to a specific person at a specific address.

The first email was sent on the ARPANET system, a computer network that was created for the U.S. government that is considered a precursor to the Internet.
Tomlinson also contributed to its development.

At the time, few people had personal computers. The popularity of personal email wouldn't take off until years later but has become an integral part of modern life.

"It wasn't an assignment at all, he was just fooling around; he was looking for something to do with ARPANET," Raytheon spokeswoman Joyce Kuzman said of his creation of network email.

Tomlinson once said in a company interview that he created email "mostly because it seemed like a neat idea." The first email was sent between two machines that were side-by-side, according to that interview.

He said the test messages were "entirely forgettable and I have, therefore, forgotten them." But when he was satisfied that the program seemed to work, he announced it via his own invention by sending a message to co-workers explaining how to use it.

Tomlinson chose the "@" symbol to connect the username with the destination address and it has now become a cultural icon.

Why that symbol? Kuzman said Tomlinson was looking at the keyboard and needed something that would not otherwise be part of the address and that seemed to be a logical solution.

"It is a symbol that probably would have gone away if not for email," she said.

MoMA's Department of Architecture and Design added the symbol into its collection in 2010, with credits to Tomlinson.

Tomlinson held electrical engineering degrees from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tomlinson was an inductee to the Internet Hall of Fame and recipient of numerous awards and accolades but was described as humble and modest.

"People just loved to work with him," Kuzman said. "He was so patient and generous with his time ... He was just a really nice, down-to-earth, good guy."

Tomlinson was hired by Bolt Beranek and Newman, known as BBN, in 1967. It was later acquired by Raytheon Co., where he still worked at the time of his death, as a principal scientist.

He lived in Lincoln, Massachusetts where he raised miniature sheep. Attempts to contact his family were unsuccessful.

While more general email protocols were later developed and adopted, Tomlinson's contributions were never forgotten.

"He was pretty philosophical about it all," Kuzman said. "And was surprisingly not addicted to email."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:54 am

History of Attacks on Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, the Inventor of Email, from February 16, 2012 to November 12, 2014
by Sonu Abraham
International Center for Integrative Systems, Cambridge, MA 02138
Note: Originally published in June 2012. Additions made and retrieved in November 12, 2014

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


ABSTRACT

A group of industry insiders, “historians” and their media counterparts have carried out a brutal attack against the inventor of email to protect vested interests. This paper gives a description of incidents which give rise to these attacks and provides a timeline of these attacks. Attacks on Dr. V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai include not only defamation but also the spread of disinformation. The vested interests at Raytheon/BBN seek to own and control the narrative of where, when and by whom innovation can occur. The ownership of the Invention of Email as one of the key early applications of the digital age, gives them a competitive advantage in the Cyber-security market, which Raytheon/BBN spends substantially to control in the public sphere.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Abstract
II. Timeline of Attacks
III. Conclusion

TIMELINE OF ATTACKS

November 11, 2011: Time Magazine news story entitled, The Man Who Invented Email is released after Doug Aamoth, online Technology Editor, reviews primary sources and artifacts.

November 15, 2011: Dr. Ayyadurai begins discussion with David Thorburn, director of MIT Communications Forum, to host and moderate a panel on the “Future of the US Post Office”

December 15, 2011: Dr. Ayyadurai is invited to present a keynote/platform talk at EMBL in Germany on CytoSolve, a scalable system for dynamic integration of molecular pathway models.

January 11, 2012: International Center for Integrative Systems, a non-profit Center founded by Dr. Ayyadurai executes an Agreement with a major sponsor who has agreed to provide a substantial grant for Dr. Ayyadurai's research on Biomimetics of Media and Communications.

January 12, 2012: Boston Innovation writes a story on Dr. Ayyadurai's efforts to assist the US Postal Service (USPS). In response to this positive article, a blogger posts saying Dr. Ayyadurai is “a flagrant fraud” and not the inventor of email. This blogger then makes the false claim that he, the blogger is the inventor of email attachments in 1992. The first email system of 1978 already had attachments.

February 16, 2012: The Smithsonian Institution in Washington DC, holds a special donation ceremony to accept the code, tapes, papers and artifacts on the invention of EMAIL.

February 17, 2012: In response to the donation ceremony, Washington Post writes an article “VA Shiva Ayyadurai honored as inventor of e-mail by Smithsonian”. The Post also posts several video interviews with Dr. Ayyadurai.

February 17-24, 2012: Tom Van Vleck updates his History of Electronic Mail site multicians.org site to include Ayyadurai's copyright for EMAIL in fine print on top of site. (Then later removes it). Van Vleck then conducts historical revisionism on his own site to credit Tomlinson, who Van Vleck had earlier repudiated with sarcastic comments exposing Tomlinson’s exaggeration as the “inventor of email”.

February 22, 2012: A blog TechDirt writes an article called “How The Guy Who Didn't Invent Email Got Memorialized In The Press & The Smithsonian As The Inventor Of Email”. TechDirt never reviewed the artifacts at the Smithsonian nor contacted Dr. Ayyadurai for any questions.

February 23, 2012: Gizmodo, owned by Gawker media, writes an article defaming Dr. Ayyadurai's picture with “Imposter”, and says that The Inventor of Email Did Not Invent Email? They have neither contacted Dr. Ayyadurai nor reviewed any of the artifacts at the Smithsonian. A SIGCIS “historian” rabidly attacks Dr. Ayyadurai. This historian also never reviewed any of the artifacts at the Smithsonian. They label Dr. Ayyadurai a “Fraud”. Gizmodo dismisses Dr. Ayyadurai's invention using false claims and misuse of the term email.

February 24, 2012: The Internet Society registers InternetHallOfFame.Org.

February 27, 2012: A SIGCIS “historian” states “VA Shiva Ayyadurai is one of the billions of people who didn't invent email. No hedges or qualifiers needed.” This “historian”, a part of industry insiders such as BBN, RAND, and DARPA rabidly attacks Dr. Ayyadurai while promoting false claims. The quality of his scholarship is questionable, given his primary references are Gizmodo and TechDirt. (See Gizmodo's approach to journalism.)

February 28, 2012: MIT Biological Engineering reappoints Dr. Ayyadurai as Lecture in Biological Engineering. Appointment is extended for an additional year until February 2013.

March 1, 2012: Washington Post ombudsman is pressured by David Crocker and Tom Van Vleck to “correct” article written on Dr. Ayyadurai by Emi Kolawole. Dr. Ayyadurai is never contacted by the Ombudsman. The ombudsman writes a “mea culpa”, which says ombudsman eats crow. The story references only Dr. Ayyadurai's detractors, and discrediting Dr. Ayyadurai's invention. Neither the ombudsman, Crocker, Van Vleck nor any of the other quoted sources have reviewed Dr. Ayyadurai's artifacts.

March 2, 2012: Washington Post agrees to carry two bylined articles by Dr. Ayyadurai and Prof. Noam Chomsky in a rebuttal format with two of Dr. Ayyadurai's detractors. The Post explicitly lays ground rules that neither article can have personal attacks, nor references, direct or indirect, to the other two parties. All parties agree to these ground rules.

March 5, 2012: Gizmodo publishes another article calling Dr. Ayyadurai “crazy”, “asshole”, “dick”, etc. saying he is exaggerating and not the inventor of email. This is a brutal defamatory and libelous attack. There are no references or primary sources, except “anonymous sources” at MIT. Gizmodo does not bother to review artifacts available at Smithsonian.

March 5 – March 30, 2012: A concerted effort is deployed by detractors of Ayyadurai on Wikipedia to defame and discredit him. His attribution to other work that he did beyond email is also defaced. For example, his name is removed from his early work with Prof. Robert Langer on Flow Visualization as well as his work with Prof. C. Forbes Dewey, Jr. in Systems Biology.

Fuck him. He's vermin. He's not forgivable. Let any good he has ever done be wiped out. Let the name 'Charles Carreon' be synonymous with petulant, amoral censorious douchebaggery."
-- Kenneth Paul White, Popehat.com


March 5, 2012: The Verge publishes an article called “Exposing the self-proclaimed inventor of email”. This article, again, has no primary sources, no interview with Dr. Ayyadurai and no review of artifacts and is merely a replication of the Gizmodo article.

March 6, 2012: Boston Innovation writes an article stating/implying that Dr. Ayyadurai is a fraud. The article is entitled “Did MIT Professor VA Shiva Ayyadurai Really Invent Email, Or Is He Just a Fraud?”. The article has no primary sources, no references, no interview with Dr. Ayyadurai and no review of artifacts and is just a Duplication of the Gizmodo article.

March 6, 2012: Boing Boing writes another defamatory and libelous article. This article states “He's generally described by his colleagues as a nut and fraud”—the terms “asshole,” and “loon” were tossed around freely by professors who were happy to talk about their coworker but prefer to remain anonymous”. This article has no primary sources, no references, no interview with Dr. Ayyadurai and no review of artifacts and is just a duplication of the Gizmodo article.

March 8, 2012: Internet Society issues a formal press release announcing the creation of the “Internet Hall of Fame”.

March 10, 2012: MIT CMS Director William Uricchio sends an email to Dr. Ayyadurai renouncing CMS’ affiliation with MIT Email Lab and asks Dr. Ayyadurai to remove “MIT” and pictures of two faculty, who had agreed to be part of the MIT Email LAB. Uricchio informed Ayyadurai that he receives news from the Provost' office concerning the Gizmodo news.

March 14, 2012: David Thorburn, the director of the MIT Communications Forum, informs Dr. Ayyadurai that he has been receiving numerous comments that he (Thorburn) should cancel the MIT Communications Forum, “The Future of the Post Office”. Thorburn states that he is under incredible pressure “all the recent news”.

March 14, 2012: David Crocker, one of Dr. Ayyadurai's detractors registers emailhistory.org to promote his “collaborative” history of “email”.

March 15, 2012: Emi Kolawole contacts Dr. Ayyadurai and informs him that one of the two detractors wishes to make personal attacks and refers Dr. Ayyadurai by name. She admits she has relaxed the originally agreed upon ground rules and tells Dr. Ayyadurai he “...can also attack...” his detractors. Dr. Ayyadurai and Prof. Chomsky do not want to participate in sensationalism and urges the Post to abide by the original ground rules.

March 15, 2012: Dr. Ayyadurai conducts and moderates MIT Communications Forum on the “Future of the US Post Office”. During the first part of the Forum, Thorburn discusses the email controversy with the audience. This discussion is edited out from the final video that is posted on the MIT Website. After the event, Thorburn tells Dr. Ayyadurai that Dr. Ayyadurai was wronged, thanks Dr. Ayyadurai for his great job and promises to initiate corrective action on behalf of Dr. Ayyadurai, so the facts of his invention of email can come out publicly. (To date Thorburn is yet to contact Dr. Ayyadurai.)

March 19, 2012: The Washington Post sends a terse note that they have decided not to run Dr. Ayyadurai's and Prof. Chomsky's bylined articles. They also state that they will not run the article written by SIGCIS "historian" who wanted to wage personal attacks. Only one of the detractors piece runs. Earlier the Post's editorial board had enthusiastically approved both Dr. Ayyadurai's and Prof. Chomsky's articles. Below is an email from one of the Post editors in reference to the bylined article of Dr. Ayyadurai which was approved.

Hi Shiva -

I think this is it. My senior editor read through the entire thing again and really liked it. He found your narrative compelling and graceful, and he's a tough (skeptical) audience. Please read through the entire piece again. I made a few minor edits in the top for copy editing and accuracy.

I know you are angry -- and rightfully so. The reflex to lash out is almost impossible to resist. But I believe you resisted it successfully here. This piece showcases your attention to detail, determination and grace under fire with no trace of hyperbole or vitriol -- and it will win over your audience, showcasing a stark contrast to the personal attacks and name-calling that have dominated in the comments on the Post Web site and elsewhere online. Those who have resorted to snark and invective will not expect this. Regardless of whether they agree with your claims, I believe you come out the bigger man, as the saying goes and many
will be forced to respect that.

I look forward to reading what everyone else writes, of course, but I have learned a great deal in working with you on this. I hope the process was rewarding for you as well.

Cheers and have a great weekend!

Emi Kolawole
Editor | Innovations & On Giving
The Washington Post


March 20, 2012: Tom Van Vleck, whose web site on the History of Email was earlier highly sarcastic of Tomlinson and exposed the fact that he did not invent email, began to conduct historical revisionism to drop sarcasm against Tomlinson and now present Tomlinson as "the inventor of email".

April 1, 2012: Dr. Ayyadurai receives an email, saying that his talk at EMBL in Germany on CytoSolve has been cancelled and he has been removed from the speaker line up. He asks for explanation and receives no response.

April 2, 2012: The President of the Sponsor company, which had agreed on January 11, 2012 to provide a substantial grant, sends a sudden email to Dr. Ayyadurai stating that they have received an anonymous email referencing the Gizmodo, Boston Innovation articles. The email states that Dr. Ayyadurai is a fraud, and imposter and brings to question his integrity.

April 9, 2012: Dr. Ayyadurai receives a notice from Sponsor indicating his credentials must be authenticated to show that he in fact has four degrees from MIT. The notice gives Dr. Ayyadurai less than 72 hours to respond or the grant will be cancelled. Dr. Ayyadurai's attorney contacts Sponsor and informs him that this is insulting.

April 9, 2012: MIT Biological Engineering Department Chairman sends Dr. Ayyadurai a note that his MIT Lectureship, which had been renewed for a period of 1-year Feb 2012 to Feb 2013, must now been rescinded. No clear reasons are given. A colleague informs Dr. Ayyadurai that the Gizmodo news became too "politically expensive" for the Chairman to keep Dr. Ayyadurai on an as a Lecturer.

April 11, 2012: William Uricchio interrupts Dr. Ayyadurai's tutorial class, concerned about call from Boston Magazine reporter. Dr. Ayyadurai has not seen Uricchio for nearly a month. Dr. Ayyadurai expresses his deep dismay at how Uricchio has behaved in acquiescing to the yellow journalism of Gizmodo. Uricchio's Civic Media group, ironically, gets funded by Knight Journalism Foundation to do research on bettering journalism.

April 16, 2012: A SIGCIS "historian" blogs with contents of the article that the Washington Post rejected. This article has little to do with email but more bent on simply discrediting Dr. Ayyadurai with false claims. This article appears to be a pre-emptive response to Boston Magazine's article due in late May 2012.

April 17, 2012: Dave Walden, former BBN employee, posts comment that he and his friends met with the reporter from Boston Magazine and set her “straight”.

April 23, 2012: The Internet Hall of Fame announces Ray Tomlinson as “inventor of e-mail”. This press release is sent from Raytheon/BBN.

April 23, 2012: The InternetHallofFame.Org website appears [to] have been built in short order by Raisedeye Brow.

April 24, 2012: Dr. Ayyadurai is removed from Van Vleck's "History of Electronic Mail" website. Earlier Dr. Ayyadurai had been recognized as the holder of the Copyright for EMAIL. Van Vleck has made other revisions to cast Tomlinson in a far better light than his earlier version displayed.

April 24, 2012: Press releases from Raytheon/BBN are picked up by the Boston Globe which reports Ray Tomlinson is the “inventor of e-mail”.

April 25-26, 2012: Press releases from Raytheon/BBN to Washington Post Style Section declare Tomlinson is the “godfather of email”. Similarly Mass High Tech states he is the “king of email”.

April 27, 2012: BBN web site reveals Raytheon/BBN's intentional branding to position themselves as innovators by juxtaposing the "@" symbol with Tomlinson’s picture as the “Inventor of Email”.

CONCLUSION

BBN has much to gain by continuing to misuse the term "email". Using false claims, industry insiders such as BBN and others believe that they can revise and alter history to ensure the facts of Dr. Ayyadurai's invention of email is discredited, so the public is confused into thinking that email existed prior to 1978.

About Sonu Abraham

Sonu Abraham has served as the Chief Operating Officer of EchoMail as well as the Executive Director of the International Center for Integrative Systems. Currently, he is the Chief Operating Officer of Sunshine Homecare Services. During the years 2012-2014 he has studied and documented in great detail the media coverage and reactions surrounding the Invention of Email.

© 2014. Sonu Abraham.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:00 pm

Fran Drescher's New Husband Likes to Claim He Invented Email
by Jonathan Ellis
Mashable
September 8, 2014

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

There is no dispute that Fran Drescher is now happily married.

There is, however, a great deal of dispute over her new husband's biggest claim to fame. He says he invented email. The rest of the Internet isn't so sure.

Drescher, 56, married V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai, 50, on Sunday in Malibu. And if a number of headlines are to be believed, the groom was the "creator of email."

Image
Fran Drescher ✔ @frandrescher
Surprise!!!!! We got married!
5:57 PM - 7 Sep 2014


Ayyadurai certainly seems like a smart guy; he holds four degrees from MIT, and has apparently started two multimillion-dollar companies. He met Drescher after giving a talk about innovation at an event hosted by Deepak Chopra.

But he also claims that he invented email in 1978, when he was 14 years old.

Or at least, he created a messaging system he called "EMAIL" while working at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. It may have been a perfectly good way for people at the school to communicate electronically, but as Gizmodo noted in an extensive debunking in 2012, it was a far cry from being part of the system that became email as we know it today:

It's doubtful he realized it as a little teen, but laying claim to the name of a product that's the generic term for a universal technology gives you acres of weasel room. But creating a type of airplane named AIRPLANE doesn't make you Wilbur Wright.

The actual pioneers of email were breaking new ground more than a decade before Ayyadurai concocted his dental memo system. Electronic mail predates Ayyadurai's ability to spell, let alone code. Ray Tomlinson is best known for having sent the first text letter between two computers on ARPANET in '71—y'know, an email. He also picked out the @ sign.


Earlier in 2012, The Washington Post had run a glowing profile of Ayyadurai as the Smithsonian added the documentation for his "EMAIL" invention to its permanent collection. But as Ayyadurai's claims caught flak, the Post was forced to run this lengthy correction:

A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to V.A. Shiva Ayyadurai as the inventor of electronic messaging. This version has been corrected. The previous, online version of this story also incorrectly cited Ayyadurai’s invention as containing, “The lines of code that produced the first ‘bcc,’ ‘cc,’ ‘to’ and ‘from’ fields.” These features were outlined in earlier documentation separate from Ayyadurai’s work. The original headline also erroneously implied that Ayyadurai had been “honored by [the] Smithsonian” as the “inventor of e-mail.” Dr. Ayyadurai was not honored for inventing electronic messaging. The Smithsonian National Museum of American History incorporated the paperwork documenting the creation of his program into their collection. A previous version also incorrectly stated that had Ayyadurai “pursued a patent, it could have significantly stunted the technology’s growth even as it had the potential to make him incredibly wealthy.” At the time, patents were not awarded for the creation of software.


Ayyadurai seems to spend a lot of time trying to back up his assertions. He runs InventorOfEmail.com, which attempts to document "the facts" surrounding his invention. It includes testimonials from Noam Chomsky, among others.

Image

But perhaps by marrying Drescher, Ayyadurai is finally getting the attention he deserves.

We wish the happy couple all the best.

Image
True Friends Don't Stab You in the Back
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:12 pm

Actress Fran Drescher splits from husband
by World Entertainment News Network
September 4th 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Shiva Ayyadurai and Fran Drescher attend the DuJour Magazine soiree celebrating Fran Drescher’s Cancer Shmancer movement held at SEN restaurant in New York on Nov. 6, 2013. (Derrick Salters/WENN)

(WENN) — Actress Fran Drescher has parted ways with her husband Shiva Ayyadurai after two years of marriage.

The former "The Nanny" star, who exchanged vows with the academic during an intimate ceremony at their U.S. home in 2014, has revealed the couple is splitting.

"Shiva & I R going 2 part ways," she writes on Instagram. "I'm grateful 4 my time w (with) him. No regrets. Life is a journey of many chapters. Thx 4 ur support. Love is love."

Image
officialfrandrescher
FollowShiva & I R going 2 part ways. I'm grateful 4 my time w him. No regrets. Life is a journey of many chapters. Thx 4 ur support. Love is love


No reason for the breakup has been given.

Cancer survivor Drescher first met Ayyadurai in 2013 when he gave a talk at an event hosted by spiritual guru Deepak Chopra, and in an interview with America's Closer magazine in December 2013, the actress hinted she was thinking about heading down the aisle.

She said, "We've been together for only three months and 7,000 years... Everyone loves him, including my ex-husband.

"We've both been married, and we don't need to get married," she continued. "But life will unfold and we shall see. I've done the big wedding, and I have nothing against marriage at all. I think it's particularly nice if you're having children.

"We've talked about that a little bit, but it's too soon," she added. "We have to evaluate whether we feel we're too old or if we could still do it."

Drescher was previously married to her producing partner Peter Marc Jacobson for 21 years until their divorce in 1999. He later revealed he is gay. The former couple has remained close.

"(We are) the best of friends," she told In Touch magazine in 2010. "We love each other dearly. We have even fixed each other up! I more successfully than him, by the way. Peter and I feel so blessed to have met each other and to still have a caring, loving relationship."
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:17 pm

Fran Drescher's Friends Weigh in on Her Sudden Split From Husband Shiva Ayyadurai
by Samantha Faragalli
November 30, 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Fran Drescher's love life has changed immensely since the last time Closer Weekly talked to her.

The 59-year-old actress revealed via Instagram in September that she and her husband of two years, Shiva Ayyadurai, have split, writing, "Shiva & I are going to part ways. I'm grateful for my time with him. No regrets. Life is a journey of many chapters. Thanks for you support. Love is love," on the social media platform.

And today, The Nanny star's friends are weighing in on the sudden breakup. “They realized pretty quickly that things weren’t working as a married couple. Shiva wasn’t willing to compromise much, and he never loved her lifestyle as an actress,” an insider close to Fran confided to Closer.

Image

“They were complete opposites,” another pal added. “He was shy and would accompany her to events but he wanted no part of the cameras or the spotlight [whereas] she loves Hollywood. She’s looking forward to the next chapter of her life!”

The two tied the knot in 2014. Fran was previously married to Peter Marc Jacobson from 1978 until 1999, when he came out as gay.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:19 pm

Gawker Sued for Defamation by Fran Drescher’s Husband
by Robert Hackett
Fortune Magazine
May 12, 2016

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Nick Denton of Gawker as a guest on ABC's "Good Morning America." Photograph by Fred Lee—ABC via Getty Images

Shiva Ayyadurai, husband of Fran Drescher, the actress best known for her leading role on the television sitcom The Nanny, has filed a lawsuit for $35 million in damages against Gawker, a news and gossip site.

Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email as we know it, alleges in paperwork filed in a Boston court on Tuesday that three "false and highly defamatory" stories published on Gawker and its tech site Gizmodo "have caused substantial damage to Dr. Ayyadurai’s personal and professional reputation and career."

The Gawker articles, all of which are still available online and date back to 2012, strongly dispute the man's claim to be the originator of that technology, calling him a "fraud," "renowned liar," and "big fake," as the lawsuit notes.

Ayyadurai's lawsuit names Nick Denton, Gawker's founder, as well as writer Sam Biddle, and exec editor John Cook as defendants in the case. "As a result of Defendants’ defamation," the suit states, "Dr. Ayyadurai has been publicly humiliated, lost business contracts and received a slew of criticism relating to Defendants’ false accusations and statements."

Gawker Media released a statement saying that "these claims to have invented email have been repeatedly debunked by the Smithsonian Institute, Gizmodo, the Washington Post and others," as first reported by Boston Business Journal.


Ayyadurai, copyright holder for an electronic messaging system called "EMAIL," began developing a computer program with that name as a 14-year-old boy in 1978, as Time Techland, site of Fortune sister publication Time, reported in a 2011 story. Controversy over the origins of email erupted a year later after a report in the Washington Post said that Ayyadurai had invented electronic messaging.

"[E]lectronic messaging predates V. A. Shiva Ayyadurai’s work in 1978," the Post later clarified alongside a lengthy correction note.
(This TechDirt post contains a good description of the drama, too.)

After receiving a donation of materials from Ayyadurai in 2012, the Smithsonian Institute released a statement that said (in part) "Exchanging messages through computer systems, what most people call 'email,' predates the work of Ayyadurai." Notably, many tech historians consider Ray Tomlinson, a communications pioneer who died of a heart attack earlier this year, as a founder of the tech in 1971.

Ayyadurai's lawsuit follows Gawker's recent $115 million loss in a high profile lawsuit over a sex tape filed by the former pro wrestler Terry Bollea, also known as Hulk Hogan. As of Thursday, Gawker had 21 days to respond to the new lawsuit.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:01 am

Man Acquitted Of Sexual Assault. Sues Blog For Calling Him Serial Rapist
by Irin Carmon
5/11/11

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image

A Chicago man who was acquitted on a sexual assault charge is suing the legal blog Above The Law for implying that he's a serial rapist. If Meanith Huon gets his way, blogger sloppiness may cost ATL $50 million.

Huon, a lawyer, was initially charged with two counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual abuse, and one count of unlawful restraint. A woman had jumped out of his car, ran through a cornfield barefoot, and knocked on a random person's door saying he had forced her into sexual activity. She later said she believed she was spending time with him for a job opportunity related to alcohol promotions, until he allegedly yelled at her to perform oral sex. Huon's version was that it was a consensual encounter, and partly on the strength of a bartender's testimony that the woman had been drinking and asked where to go to have fun, the jury believed him.

Huon is also suing local law enforcement authorities in Madison County, Illinois for prosecutorial misconduct. His beef with Above The Law stems from a roundup post entitled "Rape Potpurri," in which blogger Elie Mystal mistakenly believes that news accounts of the same incident are different incidents that should have tipped the woman off that Huon was a serial offender. "The content of the article were [sic] defamatory in that it incorrectly and recklessly portrayed Mr. Huon as a serial rapist by treating the same complaining witness as three different women," says the complaint, according to Forbes.

"And this, people, is why God invented Google," wrote Mystal in the original post, linking to articles that in fact described the same case. The lesson learned: Google only takes you so far.

Lawyer Sues Legal Blog For $50 M Over Rape Story [Forbes]
Related: Rape Potpurri [ATL]
mohamedzv2001 Irin Carmon
5/11/11 7:22pm
So now to Jezebel, even if someone was acquitted, they're still a rapist, because ya know, an accusation is 100% true 100% of the time.


HeartRateRapid mohamedzv2001
5/11/11 7:32pm
Yea, all those crazy bitches going to the cops and lying about being raped. Except that false reports for stolen cars are more common. False rape reports make up less than 3% of all reported rapes, and as I'm sure you know, it horrendously underreported.

I'm also uncomfortable with the way the article was titled, but please don't bring in the rape apology bingo by relying on the old idea that most women lie about it.


zegota HeartRateRapid
5/11/11 7:36pm
Regardless of the statistics, calling someone an "acquitted [thing they were acquitted for]" is kind of stupid. Unless it's OJ, cause fuck him.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:14 am

Wait, Did Clowntroll Blogger Chuck Johnson Shit On The Floor One Time?
by Greg Howard
The Concourse
12/09/14

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


If you've been online this week, you may have heard of Charles "Chuck" C. Johnson, an odious conservative blogger who has gained some fame by rolling around in the shit left in the wake of last month's Rolling Stone piece, which told the story of a University of Virginia student who claimed she was raped by seven men at a frat party her freshman year in school. Since then, Rolling Stone has revealed that they really, really fucked up, and elements of the story are inaccurate.

We don't really know how the report is inaccurate, or by how much; there are peripheral discrepancies in Jackie's story, while the fraternity Phi Kappa Psi denies a rape ever happened. This caused an uproar, largely from those who saw this story, and rape, really, as an attempt by the propagandist left to push an agenda of marginalizing straight, white men, or whatever. This is where the fuzzy ginger manbaby comes in.

Johnson is a self-stylized journalist whose lack of skill in reporting is only augmented by the curtain-hanger abortion of his soul. (Here's the full docket on him. He gets things wrong a lot.) Johnson attempted to punish Jackie by revealing her identity, along with a photo and contact information. The monstrous travail turned out even worse than expected; he appears to have doxxed the wrong girl.

Johnson went to Claremont McKenna College, a small, liberal arts school in California. In this school, he had classmates, some of whom are his friends, and many of whom most definitely do not fuck with him one bit. Both factions have tried to reach out to him. Late last night, he posted this on his Facebook wall, addressing everyone. Today, it was emailed to me:

Dear past classmates,

I have received a number of emails, tweets, and phone calls, etc. from you and want to make some things clear about me and you now.

Please relay this message widely as it needs to be internalized by you about me.

I wasn't friends with most of you. Most of you weren't particularly kind to me throughout my academic career. That's fine. I didn't ask for it. I did well despite you. I wrote books, formed companies, got married, traveled widely, and had interesting, formative experiences.

Perhaps you were angry at me because I was poor. Perhaps it was because I was neuroatypical. Perhaps it was because my mother was ill. Perhaps it was because we didn't get along because I was busy making a living and doing interesting things while you were not. Perhaps you were mad because your parents saw more of themselves in me than you and so liked me more and you were resentful. There are many reasons why weaker people dislike strong people: jealousy, misunderstandings, hatred of what's different.

That's not important now.

Now that I have some measure of notoriety and success, I do not owe you phone calls or responses to your condescending "concern" for me. Please know that most of these emails will be deleted or archived. Some will be openly mocked. Others may be retweeted or written about in future things.

Some of you have talked to the press about me and pretended that we were close. We were not but you've decided to trade on relationships we never had in the hopes of seeing your name in the press. This is pathetic.

Here's what you may not do:

You may not accuse me of racism, sexism, blah blah-ish without asking me for my point of view first. I may or may not choose to give it to you.

I'm also not interested in your pop psychological explanations about what's wrong with me.

The truth of the matter is that I'm the happiest I have ever been doing the work I love doing. I'm very busy on that project.

I have lived a colorful, difficult, exciting, crazy life thus far and it's only just beginning. I make no apologies for it. I have made and will make mistakes and some of them may be huge. But I have lived life on my own terms.

Those of you I count as true friends, you know who you are. I owe you the world.


There's some good shit in here! I emailed Johnson about it, and he confirmed that he jammed the above jam. We then went on to trade snarky pleasantries. He told this site not to do him like Cory Gardner; I asked him if he ever played football. "Oh and do please tell Nick Denton I said hi," he directed; "I'm working from home," I replied, regretfully. And then he sent this:

Word?

Sure enough, on the Facebook post, there are cryptic comments from friends and former classmates about some mysterious floor-shitting incident.

I'd be inclined to believe the guy, or at least give him the benefit of the doubt. But he's been caught lying many times before, and in the wake of Rolling Stone deputy editor Sean Woods tendering his resignation, it's more important than ever to fact check. And so I ask you, dearest readers: Did Chuck Johnson really shit on the floor in college? Please send context, stories, and photos to tips@deadspin.com. If you have physical evidence, you'd be better served just throwing that shit, as it were, on Amazon. As Johnson can attest, he's somebody.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:17 am

Uber Driver in California Will Be Considered Employee, Not Contractor (Updated)
by Kate Knibbs
Reuters
6/17/15

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


An Uber driver is an employee, not a contractor, according to a ruling from the California labor commission. This is horrible news for Uber but good news for anyone concerned that the ruthless ride-hailing service is building a corporate empire by dicking over its drivers.

Uber insists that it’s a merely a tech company peddling a mobile platform that happens to connect drivers with riders, not a driving service. That’s a convenient way to think about the service, since it means Uber can shrug off the responsibility of treating is growing supply of drivers like they work for the company.

Semantics aside, this ruling makes it clear that Uber is a service that employs drivers.

“The defendants hold themselves out as nothing more than a neutral technological platform, designed simply to enable drivers and passengers to transact the business of transportation,” the commissioner wrote. “The reality, however, is that defendants are involved in every aspect of the operation.”

The ruling came after a San Francisco-based former Uber driver Barbara Berwick filed a claim against the company. Uber will have to pay her $4000 in business expenses for her stint driving for them.

Even though Uber tries to paint itself as a matchmaking platform for riders and drivers, it sets strict controls on how drivers conduct their business. Uber sets fare rates and prohibits drivers from collecting tips, and it has rules about what kind of cars they can drive. It’ll also boot drivers who receive low ratings on the app. As the ruling pointed out, that heavy level of control fits the profile of an employer.

While this ruling is just about Berwick, it will give drivers ammo in other cases, especially in California. This isn’t the first time Uber drivers have tried to get employee status; some Uber drivers have filed a class action lawsuit in order to be considered employees instead of contractors. And in May, a Florida agency ruled that a former Uber driver injured on the job was an employee.

That doesn’t mean that every Uber driver will be happy with this ruling. Many people driving as a side gig could be hemmed in by an “employee” designation, since 1099 workers have more flexibility. The divide between agreeing or disagreeing with the ruling may come down to whether a driver is picking rides up as a side gig or extra cash, or whether they’re attempting to eke out a living.

This is bad news for Uber because it’s in the company’s best interest to stay a “tech” company. The current model maximizes how much money Uber can make without being saddled with employment responsibilities.

This ruling means Uber may have to start doing stuff like paying for social security and medicare taxes for eligible drivers in California, and it could incentivize drivers in other states to make claims for similar employee standing. It’s a blow to the contractor economy.

Uber is appealing the ruling.


Update: Uber pointed out that the ruling only applies to one driver. “Reuters’ original headline was not accurate. The California Labor Commission’s ruling is non-binding and applies to a single driver,” a spokesperson said. “Indeed it is contrary to a previous ruling by the same commission, which concluded in 2012 that the driver ‘performed services as an independent contractor, and not as a bona fide employee.’ Five other states have also come to the same conclusion. It’s important to remember that the number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control. The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources, including other ride sharing companies.”
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Shiva Ayyadurai suing TechDirt over Stories Saying He Di

Postby admin » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:20 am

Mitch Williams Ejected From Child's Baseball Game For Arguing, Cursing
by Timohy Burke
5/11/14

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


MLB Network analyst Mitch Williams was ejected Saturday from a baseball game for 10-year-olds after a profanity-laced tirade in which he called an umpire a "motherfucker" in front of the children, observers tell us.

Williams coaches his son's 10U Jersey Wild team, which was participating in a Ripken Baseball tournament in Aberdeen, Md. We've confirmed through several sources that Mitch Williams—who was once tossed from his daughter's youth basketball game for cussing at the ref—had complained about numerous calls throughout the game, ranging from balls and strikes to a close play at the plate that ended a Jersey Wild rally. This led to repeated arguments with umpires on the field.

One umpire finally confronted Williams after the former MLB pitcher shouted something to a parent in the stands about getting that umpire fired. The confrontation sparked a face-to-face argument that, one parent told us, was "just like the major leagues." Two different observers told us Williams had to be physically separated from the umpire by other coaches. Williams then refused to leave the field, causing a 10-minute delay in play; as a result of his antics, he was initially banned from the tournament.


Williams discussed the incident on Twitter this morning:

We've attempted to access the video of the incident, but the game in question is curiously unavailable from the service providing feeds from the rest of the tournament. An individual familiar with the situation informs us that after hearing Williams's explanation, Ripken Baseball officials lifted the ban—saying the umpire failed to act professionally. But according to our witnesses, the umpire's "unprofessional" behavior came well after Mitch Williams had been ejected and refused to leave. (Ripken Baseball "monitored" Williams closely during his team's two games today. Jersey Wild did not win the tournament.)

Here's how other people in attendance described the incident.

[Mitch Williams] just got kicked out his sons little league game for threatening an umpire at Ripken Stadium
He has been arguing balls and strikes and was upset about a play at the plate where his team was called out. In the top of the 5th while he was coaching first base he yelled to another parent that he would have the umpire fired. The Umpire confronted him and Mitch went off. He threatened the umpire called him a motherfucker in front of 10 year olds. They were faced to face inches from each other arguing. He had to be restrained by other coaches. The umpire rightfully kicked him out.

He refused to leave the field until speaking to he spoke to management. He left the field took off his jersey and watched the rest of the game from behind home plate without incident.

It was such a train wreck. He was arguing with calls and making comments to both of the umpires all game. He was coaching first base as the game was going on, and the second base umpire threw him out. He "said" he was making a comment to one of the parents in the stands, when the second base umpire tossed him. He was making comments the whole game about the bad calls, and the 2nd base ump just had enough.

He went nuts. He got into the umpires face like it was the major leagues. He claimed that the umpire who was about 65 years old threatened him and said to pick a time and a place to fight Mitch.

The game was delayed for about 10 minutes as they needed to call in an official from Ripken until he finally was removed. It was crazy. Never saw a player get ejected from a game and not leave. This is all going on while 10 year olds are playing baseball, or trying to play baseball.

Ironically, the audio at the beginning of the game is from Cal Ripken which talks about how parents should let the players play, the coaches coach, and the umpires umpire. (IE - parents, don't act like idiots). Mitch was the idiot.

I was very upset with the decision [to lift the ban] because Williams was confrontational all game, and it was clear to everyone there that whatever the ump said that was inappropriate came after he was already tossed and refused to leave the field, and the ump was reacting to Williams, not the other way around.


There's nothing worse than the Bad Sports Parent, and Williams has a bit of a history playing this role. In 2008, he was tossed from his then-10-year-old daughter's youth-league basketball game for dropping f-bombs on a referee. "I'm emotional when it comes to my kids," he explained later. "What I saw happening was completely unfair."

To contact the author of this post, write to tim@deadspin.com or find him on Twitter @bubbaprog. Photos used by permission.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17879
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to A Growing Corpus of Analytical Materials

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests