It is an accusation.

A poster writes that BFA filed a brief in court that was anti-OC. That IS an accusation. The poster is asked to provide a cite to the brief and refuses. That makes it unsubstantiated.

OCDO allowed that to stand.

These are facts.

Shame on anyone trying to say that they are not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Isn't this a dead horse?

davidmcbeth said:

Isn't this a dead horse?

Click to expand...

Nothing is dead, no matter what it may be, UNLESS/UNTIL I95 says it is dead!:dude:

ETA: Moving on!

Let's see~~insulting a mod, insulting the site, now re opening a closed thread. I think I hear the ban hammer whistling in the wind.

JoeSparky said:

Nothing is dead, no matter what it may be, UNLESS/UNTIL I95 says it is dead!:dude:

ETA: Moving on!

Click to expand...

You moved on pretty quick, ya must have an 8 cylinder !

:monkey

Two simple words. Easy to say.

Harder to do. For some.


MOVE ON

eye95 said:

A poster writes that BFA filed a brief in court that was anti-OC. That IS an accusation. The poster is asked to provide a cite to the brief and refuses. That makes it unsubstantiated.

OCDO allowed that to stand.

These are facts.

Shame on anyone trying to say that they are not.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

IBTL:

It seems as though you're just looking for a fight here. Let OCDO do it's job. Your problem is with BFA and CalGuns, so take the fight to them. It's obvious your credibility here is non-existent, so move on before you're banned from here too.

Just a couple pennies worth...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vader33 said:

IBTL:

It seems as though you're just looking for a fight here. Let OCDO do it's job. Your problem is with BFA and CalGuns, so take the fight to them. It's obvious your credibility here is non-existent, so move on before you're banned from here too.

Just a couple pennies worth...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I have NO fight with BFA nor withvCalGuns. I don't know why you would say that I do.

In fact, my actions are calling out a poster for accusing BFA of filing an anti-OC brief and not supporting his accusation.

Do you not understand this?

All I am looking for from OCDO is some evenhandedness.

I apologize. I misunderstood your post. After further review, it appears as though the poster from California is correct in his assertion of BFA as he did come back with several cites to BFA's website along with several court dockets.

That said, he loses any and all credibility, along with half a dozen other members when the finger pointing and name calling began.

While he made no initial effort to back up his claim, he later did, but by then it was too little, too late.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand what Cal's saying. IMHO, you both should drop the subject so we all can move on.

PS, I would strongly advise against creating a new thread to bring up a topic that's been locked. Citation: Many years experience as an admin and mod of about a half dozen forums. I got out of the mod/admin game long ago because of nonsense like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

California Right To Carry is a non-lawyer pro se litigant who regularly and persistently condemns highly successful Second Amendment lawyers for declining to fall in behind his personal legal theories.

eye95, on the other hand, disagrees with California Right To Carry and is well known for beating a dead horse into hamburger.

These threads are destined to be locked from their inception.

Werz said:

California Right To Carry is a non-lawyer pro se litigant who regularly and persistently condemns highly successful Second Amendment lawyers for declining to fall in behind his personal legal theories.

eye95, on the other hand, disagrees with California Right To Carry and is well known for beating a dead horse into hamburger.

These threads are destined to be locked from their inception.

Click to expand...

A little gourmet alchemy going on there?