• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Because everyone who owns a gun needs to be turned in....

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:
Did he explain how the complaintee got the serial number to check it's
registration, or how they ran the number to see it wasn't registered.

b&e or roofies...... are the only way I can see to get mine without my knowledge.

Seems to me any complaint about an unregistered gun is an open admission
to having committed a crime, or a false report (also a crime).
Involving armed police in the scam, and you have met the criteria once
you get the 'anonymous' caller convicted and your gun back.

Must be a lot of fishing and camping around there for everyone to see the guns.:shock:
1) there isn't any gun registration here. Anyone mentioning it is either an idiot or on a witch hunt and testing you. It is always best to play into their hands.

2) Anyone not goose-stepping down the middle of University Avenue with Obama Stickers all over their body is assumed to be a Blue Ribboin swilling, toothless Redneck with machine guns and Grenades in his trailer. Non-participation in their gaudy stupidities is considered all the evidence they need to pass judgment on you as unworthy of life or freedom. That is how these people think and live here. Nobody needs to see 'my guns' or even have any real knowledge that I have any or not. They presume that I do. The crux and identifier are one and the same. The Liberal 'whistle blowers' have no idea if the person they are 'reporting' has a gun or not. Nor do they care. They're just trying to cause problems for someone who dares not worship their Messiah. They are simply dumb enough to think that owning one at all is a crime (as this sign implies) and they just make it up like they do so many other things. With an offer of $1,000 for it, they tend to use "He has a gun" quite frequently, apparently. I'm glad to know that the SO's response is now "So what?" Even though it has not always been... The combination of factors was my concern. Liberal Cops, a sign telling the populace that guns are a crime come get your money for squeeling on your political enemies, and an overwhelming majority of people who very much like that idea. Seems the SO set this thing up to do almost nothing but get a bunch of false tips and it doesn't really serve any other purpose in this environment. I get the feeling that the SO wanted to have a flowing river of excuses to go kicking down doors and harassing those who obviously didn't vote as they were told to. But it backfired and is now just a standing reminder of ulterior motives that didn't pan out. If this 'bounty program' has done anything at all to stem any kind of crime or violence, I'll eat my shorts. Twice.

When an officer uses phrases like "Are they registered?" or "Do you have a permit for those?" I know I'm dealing with a turd who didn't get the memo, or thinks she can get away with making it up as she goes. I play right into it. I pretend not to know that there are no such things here. I like to see where the Officer tries to take the 'leverage' she thinks she has after I tell her that, no, none of my guns are registered and I don't have any permits... I make no implication to knowing that neither concept exists here.

When a "tipster" does the same, it should be clear to the operator that this person is talking out their ass and just trying to send the SO on a witch hunt for daring not to have "Obama" tattooed across their face... Standing policy, as the unidentified man stated, is to disregard these 'tips.' But if the caller is a leftist, the call taker is a leftist, the dispatcher is a leftist, and the responding officer is a leftist.... Who says the policy is followed? Apparently, they've had exactly that kind of problem already and it came back to bite them on the ass.

My intent was to discover if the SO makes contact with the subject of the 'tip' in any way, and if so, does it conform to the restrictions of the 4th. I found out that it does, but not by choice.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
When an officer uses phrases like "Are they registered?" or "Do you have a permit for those?" I know I'm dealing with a turd who didn't get the memo, or thinks she can get away with making it up as she goes. I play right into it. I pretend not to know that there are no such things here. I like to see where the Officer tries to take the 'leverage' she thinks she has after I tell her that, no, none of my guns are registered and I don't have any permits... I make no implication to knowing that neither concept exists here.

Simpler to respond:

"Any firearms that I may own are in compliance with applicable statute."

If you "play right into it," do you mean you lie and agree that they are registered and you have permits?
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

Mine are properly registered at home, need serial numbers in safe.
Never know when the gun grabbers will need the numbers off of the guns
that sank in the tragic summer boat trip.:cool:

Has anyone figured how you declare the loss on your taxes?
Might need to keep up with the facts to protect oneself from illegal
accessing of the secure irs data. Fortunately there is no law forcing
you to deduct losses yet. But I put nothing passed a brady bunch government.

With the HUGE gun price jump, and the MASSIVE earnings drop it is going to
be hard to prove you didn't have a large enough loss to declare on tax forms.:uhoh:
It is ironic that they use legislation like Patriot Act to enforce China style justice.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
When an officer uses phrases like "Are they registered?" or "Do you have a permit for those?" I know I'm dealing with a turd who didn't get the memo, or thinks she can get away with making it up as she goes. I play right into it. I pretend not to know that there are no such things here. I like to see where the Officer tries to take the 'leverage' she thinks she has after I tell her that, no, none of my guns are registered and I don't have any permits... I make no implication to knowing that neither concept exists here.

Simpler to respond:

"Any firearms that I may own are in compliance with applicable statute."

If you "play right into it," do you mean you lie and agree that they are registered and you have permits?
No. I thought I made it clear.

When an officer exposes his/her desire to confound or lie his or herself, I let him or her think that I am falling for it.

When I am asked if my guns are registered, I say; "No." But I do not inform them that I know that there is no such thing as registration. I do not let on that I know they are vying for false leverage. "Sir, you've admitted to me that your guns are not registered, now, do you still refuse to allow a search?" is usually what comes next. And, of course, I still refuse consent to search. the smart ones catch on real fast and back off. The @#$%s are just blown away that I don't "respect their authoratah." Usually, they get more beligerant, but there comes a point where they decide their job is more important than trying to push me around.

They believe I am ignorant for not calling their bluff. They believe it gave them some kind of coercive powers by 'admitting' to something that isn't even real. I still don't budge. But I have learned exactly how far this officer is willing to go to cross the line. He/she is a JBT.

I create an environment in which said JBT thinks he is dealing with someone who doesn't know that registration does not exist. He thinks he's pulled a fast one on me, and then tries to build upon that deception. I am the sheepdog in sheep's clothing. I play the role of the target, and then it all falls apart on them.

Decent cops don't even go down that road, so, no problem.

Get it?

I do stuff like that in discussions on this very forum. If someone wants to step in it, I make sure the pile is nice and deep.....
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
When an officer uses phrases like "Are they registered?" or "Do you have a permit for those?" I know I'm dealing with a turd who didn't get the memo, or thinks she can get away with making it up as she goes. I play right into it. I pretend not to know that there are no such things here. I like to see where the Officer tries to take the 'leverage' she thinks she has after I tell her that, no, none of my guns are registered and I don't have any permits... I make no implication to knowing that neither concept exists here.

Simpler to respond:

"Any firearms that I may own are in compliance with applicable statute."

If you "play right into it," do you mean you lie and agree that they are registered and you have permits?
No. I thought I made it clear.

When an officer exposes his/her desire to confound or lie his or herself, I let him or her think that I am falling for it.

When I am asked if my guns are registered, I say; "No." But I do not inform them that I know that there is no such thing as registration. I do not let on that I know they are vying for false leverage. "Sir, you've admitted to me that your guns are not registered, now, do you still refuse to allow a search?" is usually what comes next. And, of course, I still refuse consent to search. the smart ones catch on real fast and back off. The @#$%s are just blown away that I don't "respect their authoratah." Usually, they get more beligerant, but there comes a point where they decide their job is more important than trying to push me around.

They believe I am ignorant for not calling their bluff. They believe it gave them some kind of coercive powers by 'admitting' to something that isn't even real. I still don't budge. But I have learned exactly how far this officer is willing to go to cross the line. He/she is a JBT.

I create an environment in which said JBT thinks he is dealing with someone who doesn't know that registration does not exist. He thinks he's pulled a fast one on me, and then tries to build upon that deception. I am the sheepdog in sheep's clothing. I play the role of the target, and then it all falls apart on them.

Decent cops don't even go down that road, so, no problem.

Get it?

I do stuff like that in discussions on this very forum. If someone wants to step in it, I make sure the pile is nice and deep.....
So you lie and/or misdirect in order to feel superior... :quirky Simpler to simply do like I mentioned.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
When an officer uses phrases like "Are they registered?" or "Do you have a permit for those?" I know I'm dealing with a turd who didn't get the memo, or thinks she can get away with making it up as she goes. I play right into it. I pretend not to know that there are no such things here. I like to see where the Officer tries to take the 'leverage' she thinks she has after I tell her that, no, none of my guns are registered and I don't have any permits... I make no implication to knowing that neither concept exists here.

Simpler to respond:

"Any firearms that I may own are in compliance with applicable statute."

If you "play right into it," do you mean you lie and agree that they are registered and you have permits?
No. I thought I made it clear.

When an officer exposes his/her desire to confound or lie his or herself, I let him or her think that I am falling for it.

When I am asked if my guns are registered, I say; "No." But I do not inform them that I know that there is no such thing as registration. I do not let on that I know they are vying for false leverage. "Sir, you've admitted to me that your guns are not registered, now, do you still refuse to allow a search?" is usually what comes next. And, of course, I still refuse consent to search. the smart ones catch on real fast and back off. The @#$%s are just blown away that I don't "respect their authoratah." Usually, they get more beligerant, but there comes a point where they decide their job is more important than trying to push me around.

They believe I am ignorant for not calling their bluff. They believe it gave them some kind of coercive powers by 'admitting' to something that isn't even real. I still don't budge. But I have learned exactly how far this officer is willing to go to cross the line. He/she is a JBT.

I create an environment in which said JBT thinks he is dealing with someone who doesn't know that registration does not exist. He thinks he's pulled a fast one on me, and then tries to build upon that deception. I am the sheepdog in sheep's clothing. I play the role of the target, and then it all falls apart on them.

Decent cops don't even go down that road, so, no problem.

Get it?

I do stuff like that in discussions on this very forum. If someone wants to step in it, I make sure the pile is nice and deep.....
So you lie and/or misdirect in order to feel superior... :quirky Simpler to simply do like I mentioned.
I do no such thing. I let them do it when they choose to. Why should I stop someone from proving they are a douche bag? I simply let them go far enough that they can't deny it.

I get no 'superior feelings' from it...

Nice try, pal. Guess what you just stepped in...

Your way is simpler, yes. But it does not encourage the dirty cops to expose themselves. I like knowing what I'm talking to. I like it when they know it too.
 

architect

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
392
Location
Falls Church, Virginia, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote
So you lie and/or misdirect in order to feel superior...
I do no such thing. I let them do it when they choose to. Why should I stop someone from proving they are a douche bag? I simply let them go far enough that they can't deny it.
Not telling all you know is not a lie, but it is certainly possible to deceive through omission. Living your life by that mantra leads to an uncertain perspective. I am sure that many on this board choose not to follow that road.

As a dispassionate observer of this thread it seems to me that encouraging someone to lay a pile and then step in it is discourteous at best and unworthy of those who try to enlighten our cause through a more direct approach. Your privilege, of course, but it is unrealistic to expect others to honor it.

Why should you stop someone from stepping in their own doodoo? Wouldn't you want the same from them? Either we are equal or we are not. :) (been looking for a way to use that line for a while!)

OTOH, it sure can be fun to stick it to an overbearing cop when they themselves have made it plain they deserve it! Good luck, hope it doesn't backfire on you.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

architect wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote
So you lie and/or misdirect in order to feel superior...
I do no such thing. I let them do it when they choose to. Why should I stop someone from proving they are a douche bag? I simply let them go far enough that they can't deny it.
OTOH, it sure can be fun to stick it to an overbearing cop when they themselves have made it plain they deserve it! Good luck, hope it doesn't backfire on you.
It is a disturbing undertone to this forum that so many choose to use the same tactics in discussion as the anti media types.

If an officer presents a lie to me, I let him have his lie and the fruits of it. I let him build one lie upon another. I simply let him move into a position he cannot deny or back out of. If here were honorable or smart, he wouldn't be going there anyway. Not my fault or responsibility that an officer might choose to be a degenerate... How can the actions of another, badge or not, be my responsibility? So much for personal accountability. this argument suggests that government and it's agents should never be accountable and can do anything they want to... And, sadly, that's exactly what we've got for allowing it.

It isn't about 'fun.' Though, I suppose it is entertaining to some degree. These people aren't unaware that they are lying and attempting to subjugate or coerce a person out of their rights. What I do is create a nagging doubt for the next person they try to do it to. "Hmm, am I going to step in it again if I play that game? Is ego-tripping under color of law really worth it? Is lying and being deceptive with a citizen who is doing nothing wrong, really a good use of my time?"

Just as with any other predatory criminal, a dirty police officer should be made to think twice about that kind of business. If I don't do it, who will? You may as well suggest that nobody needs a gun, they can just call for help... Same shirking of personal responsibility.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
When an officer uses phrases like "Are they registered?" or "Do you have a permit for those?" I know I'm dealing with a turd who didn't get the memo, or thinks she can get away with making it up as she goes. I play right into it. I pretend not to know that there are no such things here. I like to see where the Officer tries to take the 'leverage' she thinks she has after I tell her that, no, none of my guns are registered and I don't have any permits... I make no implication to knowing that neither concept exists here.

Simpler to respond:

"Any firearms that I may own are in compliance with applicable statute."

If you "play right into it," do you mean you lie and agree that they are registered and you have permits?
No. I thought I made it clear.

When an officer exposes his/her desire to confound or lie his or herself, I let him or her think that I am falling for it.

When I am asked if my guns are registered, I say; "No." But I do not inform them that I know that there is no such thing as registration. I do not let on that I know they are vying for false leverage. "Sir, you've admitted to me that your guns are not registered, now, do you still refuse to allow a search?" is usually what comes next. And, of course, I still refuse consent to search. the smart ones catch on real fast and back off. The @#$%s are just blown away that I don't "respect their authoratah." Usually, they get more beligerant, but there comes a point where they decide their job is more important than trying to push me around.

They believe I am ignorant for not calling their bluff. They believe it gave them some kind of coercive powers by 'admitting' to something that isn't even real. I still don't budge. But I have learned exactly how far this officer is willing to go to cross the line. He/she is a JBT.

I create an environment in which said JBT thinks he is dealing with someone who doesn't know that registration does not exist. He thinks he's pulled a fast one on me, and then tries to build upon that deception. I am the sheepdog in sheep's clothing. I play the role of the target, and then it all falls apart on them.

Decent cops don't even go down that road, so, no problem.

Get it?

I do stuff like that in discussions on this very forum. If someone wants to step in it, I make sure the pile is nice and deep.....
So you lie and/or misdirect in order to feel superior... :quirky Simpler to simply do like I mentioned.
I do no such thing. I let them do it when they choose to. Why should I stop someone from proving they are a douche bag? I simply let them go far enough that they can't deny it.

I get no 'superior feelings' from it...

Nice try, pal. Guess what you just stepped in...

Your way is simpler, yes. But it does not encourage the dirty cops to expose themselves. I like knowing what I'm talking to. I like it when they know it too.
Silly. :quirky I didn't "step" in anything of your (or my) making. What you discuss is exactly what many despise in some LE. Entrapment. You would make a good one....
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

architect wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote
So you lie and/or misdirect in order to feel superior...
I do no such thing. I let them do it when they choose to. Why should I stop someone from proving they are a douche bag? I simply let them go far enough that they can't deny it.
"...it seems to me that encouraging someone to lay a pile and then step in it is...
This is just what I was referring to with the media tactics. You've erected a fallacy to accuse me of by having a response that implies something that never was.

I have never encouraged or discouraged an officer to behave in an indecent manner. Yet, some do, and some do not. they've people. Some are good, some are bad. I'm not going to ever 'fix' the bad ones. Just let them give me the chance to doubt themselves. The good ones are never in that position anyway, so no harm done. It only affects the dirt bags, and they do it to themselves...

Have you ever told a cop "Hey, you're kinda being a dick for no reason and I know that what you just said is a lie." Has that ever worked out for you? Am I really such a big jerk for NOT saying that? Since when is provoking an officer who is already emboldened to lie and coerce a good idea? Just let them do it, and when their shoes smell bad enough, they'll stop.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
When an officer uses phrases like "Are they registered?" or "Do you have a permit for those?" I know I'm dealing with a turd who didn't get the memo, or thinks she can get away with making it up as she goes. I play right into it. I pretend not to know that there are no such things here. I like to see where the Officer tries to take the 'leverage' she thinks she has after I tell her that, no, none of my guns are registered and I don't have any permits... I make no implication to knowing that neither concept exists here.

Simpler to respond:

"Any firearms that I may own are in compliance with applicable statute."

If you "play right into it," do you mean you lie and agree that they are registered and you have permits?
No. I thought I made it clear.

When an officer exposes his/her desire to confound or lie his or herself, I let him or her think that I am falling for it.

When I am asked if my guns are registered, I say; "No." But I do not inform them that I know that there is no such thing as registration. I do not let on that I know they are vying for false leverage. "Sir, you've admitted to me that your guns are not registered, now, do you still refuse to allow a search?" is usually what comes next. And, of course, I still refuse consent to search. the smart ones catch on real fast and back off. The @#$%s are just blown away that I don't "respect their authoratah." Usually, they get more beligerant, but there comes a point where they decide their job is more important than trying to push me around.

They believe I am ignorant for not calling their bluff. They believe it gave them some kind of coercive powers by 'admitting' to something that isn't even real. I still don't budge. But I have learned exactly how far this officer is willing to go to cross the line. He/she is a JBT.

I create an environment in which said JBT thinks he is dealing with someone who doesn't know that registration does not exist. He thinks he's pulled a fast one on me, and then tries to build upon that deception. I am the sheepdog in sheep's clothing. I play the role of the target, and then it all falls apart on them.

Decent cops don't even go down that road, so, no problem.

Get it?

I do stuff like that in discussions on this very forum. If someone wants to step in it, I make sure the pile is nice and deep.....
So you lie and/or misdirect in order to feel superior... :quirky Simpler to simply do like I mentioned.
I do no such thing. I let them do it when they choose to. Why should I stop someone from proving they are a douche bag? I simply let them go far enough that they can't deny it.

I get no 'superior feelings' from it...

Nice try, pal. Guess what you just stepped in...

Your way is simpler, yes. But it does not encourage the dirty cops to expose themselves. I like knowing what I'm talking to. I like it when they know it too.
Silly. :quirky I didn't "step" in anything of your (or my) making. What you discuss is exactly what many despise in some LE. Entrapment. You would make a good one....
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
The more often you repeat your choice of tactics, the more I believe you would make an exemplary JBT.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
Or maybe you can't read... Got a little 'thecopsareinfamableandifyouproveotherwiseyouareunpatriotic' in your eye?

You are a dead horse and, your argument, a fraud.

kthksbai.

P.S. thanks again, IK! Right-click the monkey, manage user scripts....
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
The more often you repeat your choice of tactics, the more I believe you would make an exemplary JBT.
Please explain how that makes sense, WITHOUT using your straw man again....
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
The more often you repeat your choice of tactics, the more I believe you would make an exemplary JBT.
Please explain how that makes sense, WITHOUT using your straw man again....
I responded to the relevant portions. That is no strawman. Had you desired to present a different position other than the bolded portions, you are free to do so.
Your choice of tactic is nothing to do with education, and everything to do with one-upsmanship. Simple. Choose a different tactic, you will be presented with a different response. Simple. :)
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
Or maybe you can't read... Got a little 'thecopsareinfamableandifyouproveotherwiseyouareunpatriotic' in your eye?

You are a dead horse and, your argument, a fraud.

kthksbai.

P.S. thanks again, IK! Right-click the monkey, manage user scripts....
"infamable?" LOL, what exactly is that? :? "capable of infamy? :lol:

If you meant to state "infallible," no I do not believe that. In this case, you have presented a strawman, as I never stated my belief about whether LE are (or aren't) "infamable." (whatever that is).
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
The more often you repeat your choice of tactics, the more I believe you would make an exemplary JBT.
Please explain how that makes sense, WITHOUT using your straw man again....
I responded to the relevant portions. That is no strawman. Had you desired to present a different position other than the bolded portions, you are free to do so.
Your choice of tactic is nothing to do with education, and everything to do with one-upsmanship. Simple. Choose a different tactic, you will be presented with a different response. Simple. :)
You have immediately defeated your own position. I also have no tactic.

The relevant portions? So you decide what parts of my message are relevant, and then ignore the rest. Then, you tell me that I must re-state the very same things I have already stated in order for you to stop ignoring them for the sake of your straw man....

So shall I restate what I have already stated such that you may then again decide it isn't relevant, ignore it, and continue to propagate your straw man?

What a lovely circular bit of immaturity.

One-upmanship? Where?

You are grasping at straws to wipe the egg from your face. Just man up already... You tried to put words in my mouth and I didn't let you. If that s one-upmanship, well, you're reading out of a different dictionary than I am....

I officially call into question your ability to read and comprehend the English language. You have attempted to identify "entrapment" as the opposite of it's definition, and you have declared that anything you don't put in bold in a quote never happened.... Really....

Speaking with you has become nothing more than a morbidly curious exercise in seeing exactly how impossible it is to fix stupid... You step in one pile after another presuming that one smell will hide the other... Accompanied by the presumption that no one, including myself, will notice....

Sure....
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
Or maybe you can't read... Got a little 'thecopsareinfamableandifyouproveotherwiseyouareunpatriotic' in your eye?

You are a dead horse and, your argument, a fraud.

kthksbai.

P.S. thanks again, IK! Right-click the monkey, manage user scripts....
"infamable?" LOL, what exactly is that? :? "capable of infamy? :lol:

If you meant to state "infallible," no I do not believe that. In this case, you have presented a strawman, as I never stated my belief about whether LE are (or aren't) "infamable." (whatever that is).
I'm entitled to a typo here and there. Try again.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
wrightme wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Every comment you've made in this thread so far has been in blatant ignorance of the very words in it...

Entrapment is encouraging someone to commit a criminal act they were not already intent to commit. One cannot 'play into' entrapment, as entrapment is the action of the opposite party.

You've presented this same straw man argument repeatedly. Even in the very first message, you quoted and bolded the words you wanted to argue with, but ignored many sentences in the very same quote which already proved your position false before you ever typed one word.

At this point, your commentary borders on flat out fraud.
Quite the contrary. I have read the very words in this thread. Maybe you chose poorly.
The more often you repeat your choice of tactics, the more I believe you would make an exemplary JBT.
Please explain how that makes sense, WITHOUT using your straw man again....
I responded to the relevant portions. That is no strawman. Had you desired to present a different position other than the bolded portions, you are free to do so.
Your choice of tactic is nothing to do with education, and everything to do with one-upsmanship. Simple. Choose a different tactic, you will be presented with a different response. Simple. :)
You have immediately defeated your own position. I also have no tactic.

The relevant portions? So you decide what parts of my message are relevant, and then ignore the rest. Then, you tell me that I must re-state the very same things I have already stated in order for you to stop ignoring them for the sake of your straw man....

So shall I restate what I have already stated such that you may then again decide it isn't relevant, ignore it, and continue to propagate your straw man?

What a lovely circular bit of immaturity.

One-upmanship? Where?

You are grasping at straws to wipe the egg from your face. Just man up already... You tried to put words in my mouth and I didn't let you. If that s one-upmanship, well, you're reading out of a different dictionary than I am....

I officially call into question your ability to read and comprehend the English language. You have attempted to identify "entrapment" as the opposite of it's definition, and you have declared that anything you don't put in bold in a quote never happened.... Really....

Speaking with you has become nothing more than a morbidly curious exercise in seeing exactly how impossible it is to fix stupid... You step in one pile after another presuming that one smell will hide the other... Accompanied by the presumption that no one, including myself, will notice....

Sure....
I do not need to address each point you present. I addressed the point I chose to respond to. If you do not believe that a course of action is a "tactic," that is fine. Please continue to delude yourself.

I have not declared anything I did not bold didn't happen. But, that attempt by you is a fantastic example of a strawman. You attempt to argue against a position I did not take. Otherwise, please point out where I have "declared that anything I don't put in bold in a quote never happened..." Really. :p
 
Top