Locked Threads and Freedom

[Michigan_Man]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote

Your post proves only that you and your pseudonym are too narrow minded to be reasoned with in a logical manner. You have manipulated your statements to rationalize your unfounded accusations of insult.

I doubt that the site owners are attempting to suppress speech. Only improper speech that is in violation of the coc.

This is not an argument. Please re-submit another response which either asserts or contests a given proposition.

As for "unfounded accusations of insult" I refer to you as evidence the video you posted regarding proper methods of posting involving a fictional character named Billy. While I certainly understand the impulse to double down on your incorrect assertions and just insult more, deny facts, and conjure conspiracy theories about pseudonyms, no hard feelings will exist should you choose to end this belligerence.

 

[Franktroplis]

imported post

autosurgeon wrote:

" (SNIP) The point WaltherP99 made was that permission was requested for open carry under the impression that handguns would be brought in. The management was therefore misled. This type of tactic is dishonest. Dishonesty is wrong. This was the point being made."

Unfortunately since this had never happened before at a private property event (OC of a long gun) and the event was organized by a first timer to organizing events I am sure mistakes were made. BUT no one ever deliberately mislead anyone as the young fellow that organized the event could not have foreseen that anyone would OC a rifle at his event.

Finally no one was Dishonest inexperienced yes but not Dishonest.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong, only that the member who brought the rifle had ill intentions. After my conversation kimberguy, I feel as if my suspicion of his intentions is accurate.

 

[T Vance]

imported post

WaltherP99C wrote:

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong, only that the member who brought the rifle had ill intentions. After my conversation kimberguy, I feel as if my suspicion of his intentions is accurate.

Have you talked to Kimberguy personally about his "intentions"?

 

[Guest]

imported post

Michigan_Man wrote:

CV67PAT wrote

Your post proves only that you and your pseudonym are too narrow minded to be reasoned with in a logical manner. You have manipulated your statements to rationalize your unfounded accusations of insult.

I doubt that the site owners are attempting to suppress speech. Only improper speech that is in violation of the coc.

This is not an argument. Please re-submit another response which either asserts or contests a given proposition.

As for "unfounded accusations of insult" I refer to you as evidence the video you posted regarding proper methods of posting involving a fictional character named Billy. While I certainly understand the impulse to double down on your incorrect assertions and just insult more, deny facts, and conjure conspiracy theories about pseudonyms, no hard feelings will exist should you choose to end this belligerence.

Ahhh. Did the little cartoon hurt your tender feelings?

I'm sorry for hurting your feelings.

Your speculations with respect to assertations of insult, denied facts, and conjured theories are bsed soley on conjecture and speculation with no factual basis whatsoever.

I suggest you set down the thesaurus and draft your responses based upon your knowledge of the language, albeit limited, and refrain from trying to engage in a battle of wits unarmed.

For your edification, and to avoid any confusion, that is an insult.

 

[Guest]

imported post

WaltherP99C wrote:

autosurgeon wrote:

" (SNIP) The point WaltherP99 made was that permission was requested for open carry under the impression that handguns would be brought in. The management was therefore misled. This type of tactic is dishonest. Dishonesty is wrong. This was the point being made."

Unfortunately since this had never happened before at a private property event (OC of a long gun) and the event was organized by a first timer to organizing events I am sure mistakes were made. BUT no one ever deliberately mislead anyone as the young fellow that organized the event could not have foreseen that anyone would OC a rifle at his event.

Finally no one was Dishonest inexperienced yes but not Dishonest.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong, only that the member who brought the rifle had ill intentions. After my conversation kimberguy, I feel as if my suspicion of his intentions is accurate.

Keep twisting in the wind. Eventually someone will believe you.

If you didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong...

Then what does this post by you mean???


[line]
WaltherP99C
Regular Member

Joined:Wed Dec 30th, 2009 Location:Taylor, Michigan USA Posts:60 Status: Online Posted: Wed Feb 10th, 2010 11:18 am The business owner agreed to be on our side and allow us to open carry in his business. By bringing in the assault rifle we lost that ally. We lost him because we lied to him. He was clearly expecting pistols in holsters, that is why he agreed.
In my opinion, this was a cheep dishonest move that was meant only to get media coverage.
This is a very respectable organization, and I am disappointed to see this type of dishonesty, epically from someone who is such an influential member.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with OC of a rifle, but lying by omission to a helpful business owner is the type of tactic I would expect from the "other side."

 

[T Vance]

imported post

T Vance wrote:

WaltherP99C wrote:

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong, only that the member who brought the rifle had ill intentions. After my conversation kimberguy, I feel as if my suspicion of his intentions is accurate.

Have you talked to Kimberguy personally about his "intentions"?

I'm still curious to know if he has talked to Kimberguy to find out what his "ill intentions" were, or if he just assuming he thinks he knows what Kimberguy's intentions were.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

T Vance wrote:

T Vance wrote:

WaltherP99C wrote:

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong, only that the member who brought the rifle had ill intentions. After my conversation kimberguy, I feel as if my suspicion of his intentions is accurate.

Have you talked to Kimberguy personally about his "intentions"?

I'm still curious to know if he has talked to Kimberguy to find out what his "ill intentions" were, or if he just assuming he thinks he knows what Kimberguy's intentions were.

Kimberguy doesn't seem interested in sharing his intentions, because, after all, "it was his right".

 

[T Vance]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Kimberguy doesn't seem interested in sharing his intentions, because, after all, "it was his right".

Naw, he's shared them. Just not on here.

 

[Franktroplis]

imported post

T Vance wrote:

I'm still curious to know if he has talked to Kimberguy to find out what his "ill intentions" were, or if he just assuming he thinks he knows what Kimberguy's intentions were.

I thought that I was clear when I said that I talked to him directly.

 

[T Vance]

imported post

Face to face? Do you care to share what his "ill intentions" were exactly?

 

[Franktroplis]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Keep twisting in the wind. Eventually someone will believe you.

If you didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong...

Then what does this post by you mean???


[line]
WaltherP99C
Regular Member

Joined:Wed Dec 30th, 2009 Location:Taylor, Michigan USA Posts:60 Status: Online Posted: Wed Feb 10th, 2010 11:18 am The business owner agreed to be on our side and allow us to open carry in his business. By bringing in the assault rifle we lost that ally. We lost him because we lied to him. He was clearly expecting pistols in holsters, that is why he agreed.
In my opinion, this was a cheep dishonest move that was meant only to get media coverage.
This is a very respectable organization, and I am disappointed to see this type of dishonesty, epically from someone who is such an influential member.

To be clear, there's nothing wrong with OC of a rifle, but lying by omission to a helpful business owner is the type of tactic I would expect from the "other side."

That post shows me calling kimberguy's actions dishonest, and stating that the business owner did not approve. I proved that the business owner did not approve with video evidence.

What exactly are you driving at that was wrong?

I would also appreciate if you could exclude insults from your response.

 

[Franktroplis]

imported post

T Vance wrote:

Face to face? Do you care to share what his "ill intentions" were exactly?

Out of courtesy (and likely forum rules), I will not post the PM conversation with him.

I will say that my opinion of his intentions is stronger after the conversation than it was before.

 

[Prophet]

imported post

More than the locking of the threads is the goosestepping nazi wing of this site that fully and blindly endorses rule #11 that just came into being.

I guess Im just for a more libertarian approach to the way things should be run. Barring a out of control disaster or invasion I think the natural free exchange of ideas should be encouraged and fostered.

And shame on Mike and John for being so closed minded and high handed to think that they have the moral authority to criticize Long Gun OC'ers and be hypocritical to the point that they attack LG OCers as "hurting" the cause when a plethora of CC'ers say the same thing about them.

Instead of that asinine and inane Rule #11, a much more free and liberty inspired solution would be to give LG OC its own sub forum so people would be able to discuss there experiences and such. But instead, OCDO chooses to go the way of the Brady Campaign and MSM by trying to ignore and marginalize things that they disagree with.

As some others have said, I too believe in all the Inalienable rights...not just the ones that I agree with when its convienient for me.

 

[T Vance]

imported post

WaltherP99C wrote:

T Vance wrote:

Face to face? Do you care to share what his "ill intentions" were exactly?

Out of courtesy (and likely forum rules), I will not post the PM conversation with him.

I will say that my opinion of his intentions is stronger after the conversation than it was before.

Yes, those are the forum rules.

Just curious if you contacted him in a polite mannor to get his take on it. I know he told me his PM message box has bombarded with "hatemail" since this whole thing started.

Also, I can state for a fact I have met with him "face to face", and he did NOT have "ill intentions".

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

WaltherP99C wrote:

Management is the representation of the owner. From the video, the owner clearly supported the decision. Why would you insult me for pages and pages when my point that they were thrown out by Ponderosa (not the police) because of the rifle was accurate?

And that folks, is the sound of a back pedal.

 

[Guest]

imported post

WaltherP99C wrote:

T Vance wrote:

Face to face? Do you care to share what his "ill intentions" were exactly?

Out of courtesy (and likely forum rules), I will not post the PM conversation with him.

I will say that my opinion of his intentions is stronger after the conversation than it was before.

At least you and your pseudonym have gotten your font sizes straightened out.

Instead of posting what your opinion of his intentions were, why don't you post what he told you they actually were?

 

[Franktroplis]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

At least you and your pseudonym have gotten your font sizes straightened out.

Are you saying that Michigan_Man and WaltherP99c are the same person?

Your words are very clear, but I'd like you to just come right out and say it. (it will be more embarrassing that way)

 

[Franktroplis]

imported post

T Vance wrote:

But it's gaining membership because some people create a new account and post under a different user name.

The same question goes for you too.

 

[T Vance]

imported post

WaltherP99C wrote:

T Vance wrote:

But it's gaining membership because some people create a new account and post under a different user name.

The same question goes for you too.

I don't see a question posed.

 

[kyleplusitunes]

imported post

kimberguy is an absolute gentleman and also serves our country. he is a true amercan patriot.

he also shows up to events with us, and doesn't hide anonymously behind keyboards and try to stir things up. I do not question kimberguys intentions, however I do question walther/Michiganman

show up to an event and discuss it with kimberguy, otherwise, get back to playing nintendo.