Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
BobCav wrote:
+1
Now that is a "Discussion/debate" I can support.
Regards
BobCav wrote:
+1
Now that is a "Discussion/debate" I can support.
Regards
-
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.
-
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.
OCDO meetup? 06/04/07
- Thread starter Mr. Y
- Start date
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Good video Naked.
Good video Naked.
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
Since you seem unable to discern these from your own writing.
1) The right to freely attend an open public meeting WITHOUT APOLOGY.
2) The right to film AN OPEN PUBLIC meeting
3) The right to film an open public meeting WITHOUT FIRST SIGING A WAIVER
4) The right to attend ANY public meeting held in a PUBLIC FACILITY
Keep going Hank, we are finally getting to the bottom of what you are willing to COMPROMISE to talk to these people.
I also notice in LEO229's thread you pushed Tomahawk very hard to find out if he went to the meeting. You even asked him why he did not attend. Funny since you would not answer the second part of that same questions when it was put to you.
I think Tess has the right idea.
HankT wrote:
Since you seem unable to discern these from your own writing.
1) The right to freely attend an open public meeting WITHOUT APOLOGY.
2) The right to film AN OPEN PUBLIC meeting
3) The right to film an open public meeting WITHOUT FIRST SIGING A WAIVER
4) The right to attend ANY public meeting held in a PUBLIC FACILITY
Keep going Hank, we are finally getting to the bottom of what you are willing to COMPROMISE to talk to these people.
I also notice in LEO229's thread you pushed Tomahawk very hard to find out if he went to the meeting. You even asked him why he did not attend. Funny since you would not answer the second part of that same questions when it was put to you.
I think Tess has the right idea.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Wow, that lady just doesn' t have a clue. I would have said, Ma'am, at the last meeting, they put out info that was blatantly and purposefully wrong and misquoted the law to the extent that if anyone followed the advice presented, they would now be a felon. You should be thanking me. Any ACCURATE information you want regarding the laws ofwhere you can and cannot legally carry a gun is available online for the whole public.
She proceeded from the false assumption that the officer was there as some sort of legal expert. But that's the mentality of socialists who give all power and glory to the government. Turn the argument around on her and give it right back. The officer was most likely called out of fear and is NOT an authority on either the law or weapons. You use your car every single day, yet you aren't a professional driver. I would submit that I practice at the range more than that officer does and am more qualified on my weapon than he is on his and regarding gun laws, I would bet that I know more of them than he does.
What a lemming.
Wow, that lady just doesn' t have a clue. I would have said, Ma'am, at the last meeting, they put out info that was blatantly and purposefully wrong and misquoted the law to the extent that if anyone followed the advice presented, they would now be a felon. You should be thanking me. Any ACCURATE information you want regarding the laws ofwhere you can and cannot legally carry a gun is available online for the whole public.
She proceeded from the false assumption that the officer was there as some sort of legal expert. But that's the mentality of socialists who give all power and glory to the government. Turn the argument around on her and give it right back. The officer was most likely called out of fear and is NOT an authority on either the law or weapons. You use your car every single day, yet you aren't a professional driver. I would submit that I practice at the range more than that officer does and am more qualified on my weapon than he is on his and regarding gun laws, I would bet that I know more of them than he does.
What a lemming.
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
41 minutes of audio (the whole event, from the time I entered the room until I left) below.
http://media.putfile.com/MMMAUDIO
41 minutes of audio (the whole event, from the time I entered the room until I left) below.
http://media.putfile.com/MMMAUDIO
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
nakedshoplifter wrote:
Good quality video, NS. And the audio was good too.
The MMMers are obviously out of line for placing their restrictions on the taping. It would have been a simple matter of signing the release to get the viceo. Then you've got the video and you can determine whether their release restrictions would pass legal muster. My guess is that it would not. Then you could use the video in any way you wished.
That would have been the smart thing to do. You would have lost nothing and everyone would have been able to attend the meeting. If the waiver were found to be no good and unenforceable, then you would have had the video everyone here wants. The truth serum, as it were.
The video is painful to view. The MMMers set it up so you and OCDC/VCDL are the bad guys. The MMMers were in the wrong for doing what they did but your (and the group's) reaction and stubborness played right into their hands. C'est la vie.
The woman who spoke to you after the meeting was highly intelligent, focused, calm, surgicaland she made mincemeat of you. You were OWNED by her.
Better luck next time.
Train wreck. A train wreck. Again.
nakedshoplifter wrote:
Good quality video, NS. And the audio was good too.
The MMMers are obviously out of line for placing their restrictions on the taping. It would have been a simple matter of signing the release to get the viceo. Then you've got the video and you can determine whether their release restrictions would pass legal muster. My guess is that it would not. Then you could use the video in any way you wished.
That would have been the smart thing to do. You would have lost nothing and everyone would have been able to attend the meeting. If the waiver were found to be no good and unenforceable, then you would have had the video everyone here wants. The truth serum, as it were.
The video is painful to view. The MMMers set it up so you and OCDC/VCDL are the bad guys. The MMMers were in the wrong for doing what they did but your (and the group's) reaction and stubborness played right into their hands. C'est la vie.
The woman who spoke to you after the meeting was highly intelligent, focused, calm, surgicaland she made mincemeat of you. You were OWNED by her.
Better luck next time.
Train wreck. A train wreck. Again.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
1) I suggested a group apology to try to get everything back to square one and to shoe a group good faith effort. I did not say that the group had not right to attend any meeting they desired to attend. You are fabricating your point and it is quite evident that you are doing so.
2) I said nothing about the public's right to a public meeting. You're making that up. I certainly agree that the 3M meeting should be public. The 3Mers are wrong for having tried to make the meeting not public and that includes any future meetings. Sorry, you lose again, Hawk.
3)I agree that NS had the right to film the 3M meeting tonite without a waiver. Again, you lose, Hawk. I stated that NS would have been smart to sign the waiver, get his video, then determine, without a time constraint, whether the waiver had any true legal force. If it did not, it would be a simple matter to ignore its provisions. Again, let me repeat it for you, Hawk: I do not believe the 3Mers had a right to impose their waiver signing requirement tonite.
4) I don't know what you're saying here. But I believe that anyone who is the public should be able to go to any public meeting. No compromise there. Just bad reading skillz on your part again.
Just like your account of my having "pushed Tomahawk very hard to find out if he went to the meeting."I simply asked him about it and he replied. I did not "push hard." That's a fabrication on your part, about the only rhetorical tool you're using lately. And it wasn't Tomahawk. Might want to get some new specs, Hawk.You're making lots ofreading comprehension errors lately.
Hawkflyer wrote:
1) I suggested a group apology to try to get everything back to square one and to shoe a group good faith effort. I did not say that the group had not right to attend any meeting they desired to attend. You are fabricating your point and it is quite evident that you are doing so.
2) I said nothing about the public's right to a public meeting. You're making that up. I certainly agree that the 3M meeting should be public. The 3Mers are wrong for having tried to make the meeting not public and that includes any future meetings. Sorry, you lose again, Hawk.
3)I agree that NS had the right to film the 3M meeting tonite without a waiver. Again, you lose, Hawk. I stated that NS would have been smart to sign the waiver, get his video, then determine, without a time constraint, whether the waiver had any true legal force. If it did not, it would be a simple matter to ignore its provisions. Again, let me repeat it for you, Hawk: I do not believe the 3Mers had a right to impose their waiver signing requirement tonite.
4) I don't know what you're saying here. But I believe that anyone who is the public should be able to go to any public meeting. No compromise there. Just bad reading skillz on your part again.
Just like your account of my having "pushed Tomahawk very hard to find out if he went to the meeting."I simply asked him about it and he replied. I did not "push hard." That's a fabrication on your part, about the only rhetorical tool you're using lately. And it wasn't Tomahawk. Might want to get some new specs, Hawk.You're making lots ofreading comprehension errors lately.
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
nakedshoplifter wrote:
I'm listening to the audio now. Pretty good audio, NS.
I'm hearing the part about the contendedbasis for waiver being explained. Due to Ricker's rights/concerns....
Strikes me that a way to combat/counter the MMMers' gambit is to say " Well, I think we have a right film EVERYTHING but if you're going to refuse to let us film ANYTHING, how about if I film everything EXCEPT BOB Ricker's part?
They would have had no plausible response to that.
The way it was handled, you didn't get ANY video of ANY part of theformalmeeting. So, that's a negative outcome, I'd say. Depends on what the objectives for the group attending were.
I think the MMMers are gonna paint this one so that the group looks bad. And I'm pretty sure they will spell OCDC and VCDL correctly when they do it, including any news media coverage. Oh lord. Were there any news media there? I can see the headline now...
Train wreck.
P.S. I notice that the MMMer said that "we have been threatened by them so many times..."
That might be defamatory and actionable, no?
P.S.2. I've heard theaudio tape. The woman NS was speaking to on the video and which continued on the audio clip is pretty sharp. I hope she is not a reporter. And if she is not a reporter, I hope she doesn't talk to one.
The "maybehe [Ricker] will speak about child pornography if I paid him" line wastruly, um, ill-considered. My gosh, NS. That was really bad.
Train wreck. Interesting, but a train wreck nontheless.
Who is this guy Solo who was filming the woman/nakedshoplifter exchange? That could be some very damaging video if it gets out. The woman pretty much OWN3d naked.
nakedshoplifter wrote:
I'm listening to the audio now. Pretty good audio, NS.
I'm hearing the part about the contendedbasis for waiver being explained. Due to Ricker's rights/concerns....
Strikes me that a way to combat/counter the MMMers' gambit is to say " Well, I think we have a right film EVERYTHING but if you're going to refuse to let us film ANYTHING, how about if I film everything EXCEPT BOB Ricker's part?
They would have had no plausible response to that.
The way it was handled, you didn't get ANY video of ANY part of theformalmeeting. So, that's a negative outcome, I'd say. Depends on what the objectives for the group attending were.
I think the MMMers are gonna paint this one so that the group looks bad. And I'm pretty sure they will spell OCDC and VCDL correctly when they do it, including any news media coverage. Oh lord. Were there any news media there? I can see the headline now...
Train wreck.
P.S. I notice that the MMMer said that "we have been threatened by them so many times..."
That might be defamatory and actionable, no?
P.S.2. I've heard theaudio tape. The woman NS was speaking to on the video and which continued on the audio clip is pretty sharp. I hope she is not a reporter. And if she is not a reporter, I hope she doesn't talk to one.
The "maybehe [Ricker] will speak about child pornography if I paid him" line wastruly, um, ill-considered. My gosh, NS. That was really bad.
Train wreck. Interesting, but a train wreck nontheless.
Who is this guy Solo who was filming the woman/nakedshoplifter exchange? That could be some very damaging video if it gets out. The woman pretty much OWN3d naked.
longwatch
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
Naked. After listening to the audio I think the right move was not to sign anything. I believe that they were angling to hit you with lawsuits if you used it for anything.
I like your points in the discussion as well. Especially the one about if Ricker was such a believer in the cause he speak for nothing.
Naked. After listening to the audio I think the right move was not to sign anything. I believe that they were angling to hit you with lawsuits if you used it for anything.
I like your points in the discussion as well. Especially the one about if Ricker was such a believer in the cause he speak for nothing.
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
[align=left]"Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."[/align]
[align=center]Theodore Roosevelt
26th President of the United States
CITIZENSHIP IN A REPUBLIC
"The Man In The Arena"
Speech at the Sorbonne
Paris, France
April 23, 1910 [/align]
[align=left]"Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as a cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twister pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The role is easy; there is none easier, save only the role of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride of slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not exactly what they actually are. The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be a cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a valiant soldier."[/align]
[align=center]Theodore Roosevelt
26th President of the United States
CITIZENSHIP IN A REPUBLIC
"The Man In The Arena"
Speech at the Sorbonne
Paris, France
April 23, 1910 [/align]
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
imported post
BobCav wrote: [align=center]
Recently, I aquired a nearly complete "[size="-1"]Works of Theodore Roosevelt".
Can't wait to get time to start reading them!
[/size]
BobCav wrote: [align=center]
[/align]One of my heros.
Recently, I aquired a nearly complete "[size="-1"]Works of Theodore Roosevelt".
Can't wait to get time to start reading them!
[/size]
Scheetz
Regular Member
imported post
Did the woman claim NS has a small penis in the beginning?? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
I also love the guy that calls him a f****** idiot.
Did the woman claim NS has a small penis in the beginning?? :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
I also love the guy that calls him a f****** idiot.
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
imported post
Wow, that video is so telling in so many ways. It's hard to find a place to start! Even after everyone elses comments so far.
However, you know it's all YOUR fault the meeting didn't take place! How DARE you take video of a PUBLIC meeting without signing some waiver that you won't use it in a way THEY don't agree with.
ROFL
And the pushy one insisting she hasn't heard of this organization (MMM) before - HA! What a moronic lie. My 12 yr old lies better than that!
Now it is obvious, without a shadow of a doubt, how stupid a MMM bimbo need be to subscribe to such an organizations beliefs. I hope they get what's coming re: the private meeting. Another indication they aren't real bright eh?
Wish I was there.
ETA: I love the way she repeats (ad nauseum) that she "doesn't understand". And finally walks away stating she's more confused than ever now.
You think?
Wow, that video is so telling in so many ways. It's hard to find a place to start! Even after everyone elses comments so far.
However, you know it's all YOUR fault the meeting didn't take place! How DARE you take video of a PUBLIC meeting without signing some waiver that you won't use it in a way THEY don't agree with.
ROFL
And the pushy one insisting she hasn't heard of this organization (MMM) before - HA! What a moronic lie. My 12 yr old lies better than that!
Now it is obvious, without a shadow of a doubt, how stupid a MMM bimbo need be to subscribe to such an organizations beliefs. I hope they get what's coming re: the private meeting. Another indication they aren't real bright eh?
Wish I was there.
ETA: I love the way she repeats (ad nauseum) that she "doesn't understand". And finally walks away stating she's more confused than ever now.
You think?
IanB
Regular Member
imported post
All three videos uploaded:
#1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAsyrBTvN2g
#2 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8uXTfpdHM
#3 http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CnDvnPFzL0
All three videos uploaded:
#1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZAsyrBTvN2g
#2 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Lc8uXTfpdHM
#3 http://youtube.com/watch?v=-CnDvnPFzL0
unrequited
Regular Member
imported post
nakedshoplifter wrote:
...if "she" wanted information so badly, why'd she spend a half hour and more talking to YOU instead of asking the actual presenters and organizers questions. *sigh*
I just hope Mr. Y can get us tickets to their private showing... > )
From the audio clip... what were the other people filming/recording going to do with their recordings if they signed the disclaimer? ...unless they had no intention of following it in the first place. (ala hankt's monday morning qb suggestion) Eff that, you were right in refusing to sign regardless of mmm's response. No deceptions, no lies. You made your choice, and they made their choice in cancelling the meeting.
We'll see if they ever have public meetings again, knowing now that *gasp* they may not being preaching to the choir every sermon... Sucks when you actually have to back up your b.s. instead of just spoonfeeding it to the nearest sheep who's hungry.
nakedshoplifter wrote:
good job for keeping your composure and not blowing up in that dumb lady's face who was obviously a plant from the mmm.
...if "she" wanted information so badly, why'd she spend a half hour and more talking to YOU instead of asking the actual presenters and organizers questions. *sigh*
I just hope Mr. Y can get us tickets to their private showing... > )
From the audio clip... what were the other people filming/recording going to do with their recordings if they signed the disclaimer? ...unless they had no intention of following it in the first place. (ala hankt's monday morning qb suggestion) Eff that, you were right in refusing to sign regardless of mmm's response. No deceptions, no lies. You made your choice, and they made their choice in cancelling the meeting.
We'll see if they ever have public meetings again, knowing now that *gasp* they may not being preaching to the choir every sermon... Sucks when you actually have to back up your b.s. instead of just spoonfeeding it to the nearest sheep who's hungry.
casullshooter
Regular Member
imported post
I was the one wearing the USMC shoulder rig under a Blazer . The only people that noticed were fellow gun owners as I am sure thatI would have been pointed out if they noticed . I also kept papers to my chest to cover the strap as much as possible .
After the meeting(short version) one of their members kept creeping closer to me(in the lobby)until my jacket parted slightly and she saw the heel of my pistol . She then frantically told the librarian to get the police back "that man has a gun!" I did not hear the response but she walked away in a serious Huff .
I was the one wearing the USMC shoulder rig under a Blazer . The only people that noticed were fellow gun owners as I am sure thatI would have been pointed out if they noticed . I also kept papers to my chest to cover the strap as much as possible .
After the meeting(short version) one of their members kept creeping closer to me(in the lobby)until my jacket parted slightly and she saw the heel of my pistol . She then frantically told the librarian to get the police back "that man has a gun!" I did not hear the response but she walked away in a serious Huff .
OC-Glock19
Founder's Club Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
HankT wrote:
Your posts have become tiresome. Now is the time on Sprockets when we dance.:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
OC-Glock19 wrote:
Love my monkey....TOUCH my monkey!!
OC-Glock19 wrote:
Love my monkey....TOUCH my monkey!!
Hawkflyer
Founder's Club Member
imported post
BobCav wrote:
On the subject of the MMM and tax standing, They seem to have problems in this area already.
The Million Mom March
MMM also has some arrangement from this page for 5% of Amazon.com purchases, so you might want to be careful what you buy from them.
Regards
BobCav wrote:
On the subject of the MMM and tax standing, They seem to have problems in this area already.
The Million Mom March
MMM also has some arrangement from this page for 5% of Amazon.com purchases, so you might want to be careful what you buy from them.
Regards
BobCav
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Yep, I've seen some of that already, Hawk, thanks. They're in trouble for endorsing politicians.
Hey,I just found this on Google CHAT while searching. It's a thread about "fun things to do while OC'ing. Attending a MMM meeting is apparently it! They quote Nakedshoplifter's thread and writeup afterthe first MMM meeting that some folks attended:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/browse_thread/thread/ca820fd81d7df89f/fb78bce7f6325330
Yep, I've seen some of that already, Hawk, thanks. They're in trouble for endorsing politicians.
Hey,I just found this on Google CHAT while searching. It's a thread about "fun things to do while OC'ing. Attending a MMM meeting is apparently it! They quote Nakedshoplifter's thread and writeup afterthe first MMM meeting that some folks attended:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/browse_thread/thread/ca820fd81d7df89f/fb78bce7f6325330