October 2005

I sent the following email to Alex this afternoon:

Ms. McLeod,

I’m flattered you think people actually read my blog from over three years ago, but I am unwilling to edit my post for the following reasons:

1. There was no intent. I did not place terms on my site for the purpose of increasing traffic to my site. I merely listed search terms which already led people to my site through no direct action on my part.

2. There are no images of you on my site, naked or otherwise, nor any claims that such images exist.

3. Nothing on my site could be construed as an advertisement of any kind. You are taking my post out of context. Simply because one of my entries happened to contain the phrase “Alex McLeod nude pics” does not mean I intended to use this phrase to attract traffic.

4. As you noted to my grandfather when you tricked him into giving you my phone number, I used to write for The Triangle, the student newspaper at Drexel University. Therefore, you could probably guess that I’m familiar with my freedom of speech, especially in an instance like this where I’ve done nothing malicious.

5. I do not think anything on my site could be construed as hurting your career or reputation, or upsetting your family. Anyone with a shred of common sense can plainly see that I was blogging about Trading Spaces before the first hit for any naked pictures landed on my site. Furthermore, simply commenting on an increase in site traffic as a byproduct of daily posting is a far cry from soliciting hits based on false pretenses. Users who reach my site are either old enough to understand this or too young to be browsing the Internet unsupervised.

It’s not my intent to antagonize you further with this letter, but your accusations are way off base. Frankly, in my opinion you would be making better use of your time going after genuine perverts who are attempting to peddle smut bearing your name, but that’s your call.

Good day,
Bob Rudderow

It was the last time I communicate with her over email. I suspect her lawyers will be contacting me through legal channels if they don’t laugh her out of their offices first. I on the other hand will be responding from this point forward right here.

I thought my email explain my position quite well, but I was mistaken. I received the following email shortly afterward:

10/12/05

Dear Bob, first of all I never tricked your grandfather into giving me your name.

The number listed in your “who is” website owner information is outdated. I have been told that if you list outdated information they have a right to shut down your site. So next time you do not want people to use the number they get out of 411 you might want to update your owner and server information, that is if your blogs are so precious to you these days.

Secondly, I called the Triangle and they said you were no longer employed by them. So, I simply called information in your area and got your Grandfather by mistake instead of you. I had no idea how old you were and if you were living at home for that matter.I did not disturb him or harass him.For all I knew you were a college kid or a teenager? I merely stated I was looking for the Bob who worked at the Triangle. You could also list your info in 411, that might help matters to you for your family.

When I first contacted you, you admitted on the phone you advertised “nude pics” of me to get people’s attention to come to your website and that it was a joke, those were your exact words. I guess now you want to engage me in some sort of power struggle and I am not interested. I am only interested in clearing my good name.

You want me to go after the perverts Bob, well you were on the list until we spoke. After we spoke, it was my understanding that you would compromise. It may be 3 years old but it still comes up under search results for my name.I t is just as taxing to go after the porn pushers as it is bloggers and reality fans like you who use the internet as a “bathroom wall” so to speak - where you can say anything negative you want and not be held accountable.I am sure most of your blogs are entertaining and not hurtful, but the one in question is hurtful to me.

If you were really a true fan of the Trading Spaces show, you would celebrate the cast members instead of trying to slight us, intentionally or unintentionally it is still a slight.

What did we ever do to you besides try to entertain you?

You are using our good names and the good name of Trading Spaces to drive traffic to your website, traffic that would otherwise not be there and on your website blog, you even brag about the number of hits you get because you are advertising nude pictures, Bob? You admit what you are doing is wrong on the blog?!

If you are unwilling to alter the posting then I have no choice but to pursue legal action. There is free speech and there is false advertising. This could be avoided but I guess you think it is a game and you want to antagonize me.

If you have no current address, we will have to send the legal documents to the only address we can find for you. Feel free to email me a current mailing address for you that can be verified. I cannot believe you are going to put us all through this.If you change your mind, we will be here.

Good luck and sorry we could not compromise.

Alex McLeod

I was going to respond to the email line by line, then thought better of it and considered doing it here instead. Quite honestly I’ve grown tired over the whole thing and want only to make a few points before I put it to rest.

1. I’m not overly concerned with crack-pots being able to reach me by phone. However, after examining my agreement with Dotster the lady has a point, so I updated my contact information. Her concern for my family is touching considering she doesn’t list her phone number in the phone book.


2. Alex does make one good point, this is a page I tent to use “as a ‘bathroom wall’ so to speak - where you can say anything negative you want and not be held accountable.” Again, that’s my freedom of speech in action. I’m within my right to discuss how many erroneous hits I get as a result of my posts on another topic, and even brag about that fact (though I dispute that I was “bragging”).


3. I also take issue with the statement, “There is free speech and there is false advertising.” Since I only ever claimed not to have nude photos on my page, they would only be false advertising if I actually had the goods.


4. Alex’s issue is likely with Google and string searching in general. I can post a name and any number of nouns, verbs or adjectives in a sentence and not be held responsibe when Google finds it to be a valid match. Examples might include: “I do not wish to assassinate President Bush” or “There are no nude pictures of Paige Davis or Alex McLeod taking golden showers or bukake baths on this web page.”

Should this disagreement find its way into court, I’ve already brainstormed a few ideas, such as starting a “There are no nude photos of Alex McLeod on this website” web ring. A simple collection of galleries hosted by a few friends that don’t have anything to do with Alex McLeod, and have nothing to do whatsoever with her, her utterly clothed body, or the fact that she doesn’t mate with farm animals. It’s certainly better than Michael’s idea that I agree to remove all references to her but bill her my hourly rate for web design (at my minimum of three hours) since that could be construed as extortion. It’s also better than my idea to make a similar agreement but demand an autographed naked photo which I would agree never to publish — that would just be tasteless.

Seriously, I’ll probably just contact the ACLU if need be, but I think they have bigger fish to fry than a hypersensitive almost-celebrity. For now I have to play the waiting game and worry about it when the time comes. Until then, I can’t help but wonder what mentioning Alex McLeod’s name over and over again in this post will do to the number of hits to my site. Furthermore, if I muse about such things on my site will I be accused of maliciously attempting to boost my stats?

Try as I might, I can’t find any unclothed pictures of a former Trading Spaces host on the Internet. I’m not talking about Paige Davis — that little strumpet appeared to be stripping for charity in some photos that Tom dredged up Sunday — but the host before her. The only sites I could find boasted nude photos but had only head shots thrown together with a bunch of naked strangers. Not that I spend my day scouring the web for such things. I don’t even have a passing interest in photos of real celebrities, let alone washed-up, slightly attractive has-beens.

I like to think I’m too busy for such things, not just playing Halo 2, fantasy football or quizzo either. Whether it’s tricking out the Element for tailgating, seriously considering getting started on the Lightload Towel site, or asking myself why I have heartburn over Kon’s myQuizzo site, I’m too busy to be bothered by a lawsuit from this particular former Trading Spaces host. Apparently, she thinks she’s first and foremost in my thoughts, and doesn’t understand the concept of blogging, Google caching, and the fact that my site doesn’t contain any “misleading meta tags”.

The short background is this: I received a phone call a little over a week ago from the diva herself, complaining that I was committing some injustice on my site. Without recalling exactly what I wrote I graciously offered to alter my text to indicate that there were not any nude photos of her on my site. When she informed me that’s what it currently reads, I stifled a nervous laugh and proceeded to explain that there was little I’d be willing to do. After one final ultimatum she hung up. I later learned that she harassed my grandfather, and pretended to be interested in articles I wrote for The Triangle in order to trick him into giving out my phone number.

Today I received the following email from her:

Bob, I am just following up on our conversation regarding my request for you to remove your advertisement of nude pictures of me on your website.

Can you please email me the new link because I just went to Google and apparently it is still there?

I do not wish to get legal on you for a stupid joke but as I explained on the phone, this is hurting my career and my reputation and upsetting my family.

Many thanks,

I’m not concerned with her feelings regarding posts I made in September, 2002. Sure, some people mistakenly reached my site three years ago, and I gleefully reported them along with other amusing erroneous search hits. Relisting those hits may have even inadvertently boosted my ranking for “[insert host’s name here] nude pics Trading Spaces” slightly more than my normal entries would have.

But you know what? That’s my right. I’m allowed to say whatever I want so long as it’s not libelous, like it or not.

So on principle alone I refuse to change what I’ve posted in the past. I didn’t post maliciously, though I’d be perfectly within my right to do so. I didn’t mislead anyone except perverts looking for celebrity filth, and unintentionally at that. I revel in having people reach my site in error, but I’m not capitalizing on it in any way.

I’m sorry that this person’s feelings are hurt, but she should go pick on someone who’s actually making false claims with the intention of making a profit. I’m just a former fan who can’t afford a lawyer but I’ll defend my freedom of speech myself if I have to.

I’m not going to dignify her email with a response. Let her find a lawyer tho thinks her case has merit, and I’ll call the ACLU if I have to.