Process Servers and Guns

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

BobCav wrote:

LowerHudson Online, huh? Not something I would read unless I lived in NY or NJ. I was born and raised and have a LOT of amily and friends in NJ and NY and have still never heard of it. Interesting....

Click to expand...

Yea. Well since you have been there, is open carry LEGAL there? I have only driven through the area a few time and don't really stop very often, but if memory serves ...

Click to expand...

Um, not unless you want to have one Vermonter's favorite NJ State Troopers knees in your back and a muzzle at the back of your head. I know quite a few troopers. I used to install Police Radios all over North NJ. You'd be surprised at who I know...hehe...

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

HankT wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Public Service Announcement:

There is no Sharon Kotalkski or even Sharon Kotalski in the entire US according to Intellius.

Click to expand...

nakedshoplifter wrote:

Wow, these Kotalkski folks are HARD to find. Not a single person goes by that last name anywhere in the USA according to zabasearch.

Click to expand...

Just a pseudonym, gents. Like Jane Doe.

My, my, I knew you guys would check the name....but I didn't think you'd actually admit to doing it! :monkey

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they admit it. They don't post falshoods, and they answer questions directly when they are put to them directly.

Click to expand...

Hawk, it was PAINFULLY obvious the name was italicized with the intention of drawing attention to it. Is it still a trap when you KNOW it is?? Actually it was sad to see. I have already said I was trying to track Hank online, so I have only been caught doing that which I have already stated I was doing!! However, in doing so, the reaction revealed so much more anout HankT than the "revelation" that I was searching for him. LOL...

I couldn't PAY for this much entertainment in a downtown club!! LMAO....

imported post

HankT wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Public Service Announcement:

There is no Sharon Kotalkski or even Sharon Kotalski in the entire US according to Intellius.

Click to expand...

Well the cited author of the article TERENCE CORCORAN is in Canada and writes on economic issues. I would like to see a cite to the full text of the story per forum rules.

Regards

EDIT: I found a link to the story STORY

Click to expand...

Hawk, I had a link to the story in my original post! What  forum rule are you talking about? 

Or are you just failing to read stuff in my posts again? I'm shocked, shocked I  tell you!:shock:

Click to expand...

I had no reason to believe your link was any good. After all the name you provided in your post was not the truth. So why would I believe anything else you post. You see Hank, lying is like pregnancy, you can't be just a little pregnant, and you can't be just a little dishonest. Its one of those absolutes you refuse to admit. Either you lie in your posts or you don't. Either you are fully honest, or you lack candor.

You just stated above where you are on the scale.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

HankT wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Public Service Announcement:

There is no Sharon Kotalkski or even Sharon Kotalski in the entire US according to Intellius.

Click to expand...

nakedshoplifter wrote:

Wow, these Kotalkski folks are HARD to find. Not a single person goes by that last name anywhere in the USA according to zabasearch.

Click to expand...

Just a pseudonym, gents. Like Jane Doe.

My, my, I knew you guys would check the name....but I didn't think you'd actually admit to doing it! :monkey

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they admit it. They don't post falshoods, and they answer questions directly when they are put to them directly.

Click to expand...

Didn't I answer Reverend73's question, Hawk?

(I can always tell, btw, when you are agitated, Hawk. Your punctuation and spelling goes to shizzit...) :lol:

Hawk, maybe you can cook up a new forum rule that says "No pseudonyms allowed!--by those with over 1000 posts!"

Give it a try.

imported post

HankT wrote:

...SNIP
(I can always tell, btw, when you are agitated, Hawk. Your punctuation and spelling goes to shizzit...) :lol:
SNIP...

Click to expand...

Don't mistake agitation for typing speed and a full work week. Oh yea, you may not be familiar with working full time, some of us are.

No you did not answer his question. But later you will lie to the forum and say you did.

imported post

About this whole thread: Wow.

imported post

HankT wrote:

BobCav wrote:

Public Service Announcement:

There is no Sharon Kotalkski or even Sharon Kotalski in the entire US according to Intellius.

Click to expand...

nakedshoplifter wrote:

Wow, these Kotalkski folks are HARD to find. Not a single person goes by that last name anywhere in the USA according to zabasearch.

Click to expand...

Just a pseudonym, gents. Like Jane Doe.

My, my, I knew you guys would check the name....but I didn't think you'd actually admit to doing it! :monkey

Click to expand...

The truth has already set me free....

Kirk: What does God need with a starship?
McCoy: Jim, what are you doing?
Kirk: I'm asking a question.
"God": Who is this creature?
Kirk: Who am I? Don't you know? Aren't you God?
Sybok: He has his doubts.
"God": You doubt me?
Kirk: I seek proof.
McCoy: Jim! You don't ask the Almighty for his ID!
"God": Then here is the proof you seek.
[Hits Kirk with lightning[/i]]
Kirk: Why is God angry?
Sybok: Why? Why have you done this to my friend?
"God": He doubts me.
Sybok: You have not answered his question. What does God need with a starship?
"God": [Hits Spock with lightning. Then addresses McCoy[/i]] Do you doubt me?
McCoy: I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

About this whole thread: Wow.

Click to expand...

Yep. Here we go again...

imported post

crickets........

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Kirk: What does God need with a starship?
McCoy: Jim, what are you doing?
Kirk: I'm asking a question.
"God": Who is this creature?
Kirk: Who am I? Don't you know? Aren't you God?
Sybok: He has his doubts.
"God": You doubt me?
Kirk: I seek proof.
McCoy: Jim! You don't ask the Almighty for his ID!
"God": Then here is the proof you seek.
[Hits Kirk with lightning[/i]]
Kirk: Why is God angry?
Sybok: Why? Why have you done this to my friend?
"God": He doubts me.
Sybok: You have not answered his question. What does God need with a starship?
"God": [Hits Spock with lightning. Then addresses McCoy[/i]] Do you doubt me?
McCoy: I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure.

Click to expand...

Best part of an otherwise lousy film...this was the only part that felt like real Star Trek...

Now back to your regularly scheduled [well-spoken] flamewar.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

...SNIP
The truth has already set me free....
SNIP...

Click to expand...

Well here is some more truth.

Hank is the Neville Chamberlain of support for TRTKABA. We are all better off without him and his take on the views of others.

It is increasingly clear that he is legally restricted from firearms ownership and/or carry. Either by adjudication or residence.

He consistently distorts what others have posted, and refuses to answer simple questions necessary for polite discourse.

AFAICT this is the first thread where he has posted an experience of his own, and it contains at least one lie that he admits to. Why should this forum continue to tolerate this kind of person?

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

BobCav wrote:

...SNIP
The truth has already set me free....
SNIP...

Click to expand...

Well here is some more truth.

Hank is the Neville Chamberlain of support for TRTKABA. We are all better off without him and his take on the views of others.

It is increasingly clear that he is legally restricted from firearms ownership and/or carry. Either by adjudication or residence.

He consistently distorts what others have posted, and refuses to answer simple questions necessary for polite discourse.

AFAICT this is the first thread where he has posted an experience of his own, and it contains at least one lie that he admits to. Why should this forum continue to tolerate this kind of person?

Regards

Click to expand...

LOL!!

imported post

Well, he went home again. Same crap, new sack.

At some point there needs to be a vote among the moderators. I have no problem with vigorous discussion, but this guy lies, distorts the truth, and is counterproductive to polite discussion. If you have some way to get rid of him I think you should do so

JMHO

Regards

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Well, he went home again. Same crap, new sack.

At some point there needs to be a vote among the moderators. I have no problem with vigorous discussion, but this guy lies, distorts the truth, and is counterproductive to polite discussion. If you have some way to get rid of him I think you should do so

JMHO

Regards

Click to expand...

What would be thebasis, Hawk? Disagreeing with you? Discussing opinions? What?

BTW, here is something you posted publicly herea while back.About three weeks ago:

It is no secret that HankT and I mix it up from time to time. What you don't see is that (i think) he takes these encounters in the spirit of rich debate as do I. On occasion we clear the air by PM, and that is as it should be.

Frankly, I do not care what he wears when he goes out and that includes a firearm. The only people I worry about in that regard are LEO229 and Citizen, but that is a WHOLE different issue.

I can disagree or agree with people, including HankT, based on the issue and the discussion. It is my opinion that some of the positions he has taken here are not really his actual views on a subject, but actually exercises in debate where he takes a controversial point of view simply because he enjoys the debate.

Like me he tends to be more than a bit wordy, so we are actually kindred spirits in that regard. But the short of this is, I do not remember seeing anything in the charter of the forum that requires a pro-open carry point of view, or that one must open carry before they can post. The forum is for discussions of the issues surrounding open carry, and AFAICT it is open to anyone who wants to discuss the issues. HankT does not wander from the main topic any more than the rest of us.

Let the debates begin.

Regards

I know that you will say that I took it out of context, Hawk. Even though I quote your post in it's entirety without any edits whatsoever.

But I think you are being somewhat inconsistent, Hawk.

Don't you agree?:monkey

imported post

"Just because" is basis enough on a private forum.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Well, he went home again. Same crap, new sack.

At some point there needs to be a vote among the moderators. I have no problem with vigorous discussion, but this guy lies, distorts the truth, and is counterproductive to polite discussion. If you have some way to get rid of him I think you should do so

JMHO

Regards

Click to expand...

What would be the basis, Hawk? Disagreeing with you? Discussing opinions? What?

BTW, here is something you posted publicly here a while back. About three weeks ago:

It is no secret that HankT and I mix it up from time to time. What you don't see is that (i think) he takes these encounters in the spirit of rich debate as do I. On occasion we clear the air by PM, and that is as it should be.

Frankly, I do not care what he wears when he goes out and that includes a firearm. The only people I worry about in that regard are LEO229 and Citizen, but that is a WHOLE different issue.

I can disagree or agree with people, including HankT, based on the issue and the discussion. It is my opinion that some of the positions he has taken here are not really his actual views on a subject, but actually exercises in debate where he takes a controversial point of view simply because he enjoys the debate.

Like me he tends to be more than a bit wordy, so we are actually kindred spirits in that regard. But the short of this is, I do not remember seeing anything in the charter of the forum that requires a pro-open carry point of view, or that one must open carry before they can post. The forum is for discussions of the issues surrounding open carry, and AFAICT it is open to anyone who wants to discuss the issues. HankT does not wander from the main topic any more than the rest of us.

Let the debates begin.

Regards

I know that you will say that I took it out of context, Hawk. Even though I quote your post in it's entirety without any edits whatsoever.

But I think you are being somewhat inconsistent, Hawk.

Don't you agree?:monkey

Click to expand...

This is not about opinions Hank, it is about integrity. Since you seem not to have any it may be difficult for you to understand its importance.

The post above is not out of literal context but it is very dated at this point. I stand by every word based on the knowledge I had at the time I wrote it. It is not inconsistent either. It represents how far you have convinced me of your worthlessness to this forum between then and now.

In the intervening time, I have determined that you are a liar.

I have determined that you cannot answer the simplest of questions required for conversation.

I have determined that you twist the words of others to tortuous meaning not intended by the original poster.

I have determined that you are hostile and demeaning to others.

I have determined that you are not the kind of personality that can consistently provide meaningful discourse with others.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with your ideas, and everything to do with your integrity and contributions to open discussion in this forum.

If you want to discuss logic, go to a logic theory forum. If you want to argue for its own sake, go to a debate forum. If you want to converse, then answer questions when they are put to you in the course of discussion.

But if all you want to do is continue the same crap, take it someplace else. I and others have tried to be straight with you. You have rejected all of those attempts. The post above is evidence of my personal effort in that regard.

As far as I am concerned, YOU have now made it NECESSARY to get the answers to a few questions before anything you say could be viewed as having any worth at all. You MADE that happen yourself. I am not the one who lied Hank. You dug that hole all by yourself, you are going to have to climb out by answering a few reasonable questions, so people can determine the value of anything you have to say.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

you are going to have to climb out by answering a few reasonable questions, so people can determine the value of anything you have to say.

Click to expand...

Just which questions are you suggesting that me or any of the members of this forumbe required to answer,Hawk?

What will thebe?

Maybe you could start with these...

1. Do you own a gun?

2. Do you really own a gun?

3. Do you carry a gun?

4. Do you really carry a gun? (alternate: Quick, tell me what a bullet does!)

5.What is your name, location and ISP? (N/A to anyone who agrees with Hawk)

6. Are you or have you ever been a member of the MMM?

7. Do you eat M&Ms? (alternate: Quick.When I say M&M, whatdo you think of?)

8. Do you believe in homepathic application of 230 grain pellets just behind the ear can cure a cycle of violence?

8. .... well, you get the idea....



Some kind of litmus test, Hawk? Will we need a special location for the inquisi...I mean questing?





What about the secret handshake? :celebrate

imported post

HankT wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

you are going to have to climb out by answering a few reasonable questions, so people can determine the value of anything you have to say.

Click to expand...

Just which questions are you suggesting that me or any of the members of this forumbe required to answer,Hawk?

What will thebe?

Maybe you could start with these...

1. Do you own a gun?

2. Do you really own a gun?

3. Do you carry a gun?

4. Do you really carry a gun? (alternate: Quick, tell me what a bullet does!)

5.What is your name, location and ISP? (N/A to anyone who agrees with Hawk)

6. Are you or have you ever been a member of the MMM?

7. Do you eat M&Ms? (alternate: Quick.When I say M&M, whatdo you think of?)

8. Do you believe in homepathic application of 230 grain pellets just behind the ear can cure a cycle of violence?

8. .... well, you get the idea....



Some kind of litmus test, Hawk? Will we need a special location for the inquisi...I mean questing?

What about the secret handshake? :celebrate

Click to expand...

Hank, you should really answer these questions, here, I'll show you how (ie these apply to me)



1. Yes, several, including handguns and long guns

2. Yes

3. Yes, usually in the open

4. Yes (a bullet is propeled by expanding gasses through a rifled bore at high velocity)

5. Brian S, Virginia Beach, I have no idea but im sure a moderator can tell you.

6. No

7. No (alternate: nasty)

8. Yes

Now its your turn Hank

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Well here is some more truth.

Hank is the Neville Chamberlain of support for TRTKABA. We are all better off without him and his take on the views of others.

Click to expand...

That's kinda scary.... if "we" don't like someone's views on others, we're better off without that person? What do "we" do? Shoot the person?

Even if Hank's entire story was a fabrication, it seems that the intent was to start debate. It certainly did that, although some people seem very eager to jump off the tracks and get onto a different subject.

My take (on the subject at hand, not on Hank): The process server has the same constitutional right as the rest of us have to keep and bear arms. If he comes on my property armed, though, he'd better be prepared for an armed response.

imported post

Let's see... We are on a forum that is pro 2-A and pro open carry. Well the arguement can be made that joe blow civilian does not need to carry openly or concealed. We probably don't need to be armedunless we live in a remote area, or in a ghetto. Process servers NEED to be armed. I am not a process server, but someone who has a job that exposes themselves to danger has a real need. Don't express your opinion about who you think should be armed or not unless you want people making that arguement about you!