OCDO meetup? 06/04/07

[Mr. Y]

imported post

Well, here's the next public MMM meetup:

http://www.celebratefairfax.org/index.asp?bid=850

 

[HankT]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

BobCav wrote:

OOPS! At 2:14 she publically states that they're rescheduling it at a private place. That will remove the tax exempt status from the MMM movement en-masse!

We need the legal beagles to get this...

On the subject of the MMM and tax standing, They seem to have problems in this area already.

The Million Mom March

I was going to comment on the MMMer gal saying the meeting being rescheduledto a private residence. This wasvery wrong for the MMM to suggest this. That's pretty obvious. But I rather doubt it is illegal or in contravention to 501(c) regs to say they are going to do it.

Actually holding meetings in private and not in public would be what would get them in a wringer. So, I've got to assume that there's a very good chance the MMMers will assess the situation and rely on legal advice from either an informed member or a lawyer. Then logic would dictate that the MMMers would realize that holding only private meetings would be a stupid strategy.

I'm not sure I follow Hawk's reference that MMM "seem to have problems" with tax stuff. Maybe he'll explain it. Looks like old stuff. If it is a problem for them, then someone should come up with an articulable charge or set of allegations against the MMM for whatever they did wrong. And then publicize the bad things that MMM did in 2001 or whenever. It could be a good strategy to bringthe info to light again.

 

[HankT]

imported post

Mr. Y wrote:

Well, here's the next public MMM meetup:

http://www.celebratefairfax.org/index.asp?bid=850

Interesting. Will they have a booth there?

From the Celebrate Fairfax Festival site:

Celebrate Fairfax!, Northern Virginia’s largest community-wide celebration, arrives June 8-10, 2007 to the Fairfax County Government Center. Presented by Celebrate Fairfax, Inc, the annual festival hosts tens of thousands of visitorsduring the three-day run.

The 25-acre site is magically filled with fascinating sights and sounds as more than 400 exhibitors, vendors, crafters and interactive activities are included in theannual celebration. Celebrate Fairfax! showcases live concerts on six stages,an interactive SciTech Center and ExxonMobil Children's Avenue, great festival foods,and the award winning County Expo program.

Nightly fireworks, presented by SAIC, are a highlight of the festival, and one of many great family programs.



http://www.celebratefairfax.org/index.asp?sid=1

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Perhaps the MMM can get legal advice from the same lawyers that helped them put this page together on Virginia firearms laws. (bring your duct tape)

The misinformation on that page is not the result of innocent ignorance. They had a lawyer help them put it together. It is intentional propaganda. I particularly like the one concerning CHPs and that there is no training requirement.

As for violations of the open meeting requirements, technically they may have already violated the law when they advertised an open meeting, and then announced that the meeting was cancelled, if they subsequently went someplace and met even in a small group to discuss the evenings planned events.

The tape clearly shows that the reason for shutting down the meeting was because of the audience present. You might be able to shut down a public meeting for a lot of reasons, but not liking who is in the audience is not one of them. The whole purpose of an open meeting is so ANYONE can see what is going on, weather you agree with them or not.

Regards

 

[HankT]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Perhaps the MMM can get legal advice from the same lawyers that helped them put this page together on Virginia firearms laws. (bring your duct tape)

The misinformation on that page is not the result of innocent ignorance. They had a lawyer help them put it together. It is intentional propaganda. I particularly like the one concerning CHPs and that there is no training requirement.

As for violations of the open meeting requirements, technically they may have already violated the law when they advertised an open meeting, and then announced that the meeting was cancelled, if they subsequently went someplace and met even in a small group to discuss the evenings planned events.

The tape clearly shows that the reason for shutting down the meeting was because of the audience present. You might be able to shut down a public meeting for a lot of reasons, but not liking who is in the audience is not one of them. The whole purpose of an open meeting is so ANYONE can see what is going on, weather you agree with them or not.

You may very well be right about your assertion above that MMMers "technically" "violated the law"already by cancelling the meeting for thestated reason they did. I don't know. Do you have a citation of the law in this area, Hawk? Is there any recourse or cause of action?

I wonder, too, what is the penalty for cancelling one meeting--let's say for an unacceptable reason, as was clearly the case last night? What if they turn around and say, "Oops, we looked at the regs and we will start all over with public meetings--beginning with our next one. No harm, no foul? Do you have any cites, Hawk?

As a general comment, it seems to me that the MMMersare in full battle mentality with regard to gun/rights advocates and VCDL. Why? What got them so motivated tobe reactive and retaliatory. Was itany justified reason?

Right after the first MMM meeting that OCDC/VCDL group went to, we were kicking around the situation. One guy seem to be defending the MMMers quite a bit. He said:

If you look at all this from their point of view, the VCDL presence at their meeting was excessive and it was frightening. From what I have read, if the armed citizens did not outnumber them, it was close. So how would they see such a presence of armed strangers that virtually took over their meeting, and certainly had an impact on the evenings agenda?

That was you who said it, Hawk. Apparently you changed your mind a bit, eh?

:?

 

[Citizen]

imported post

The part about not wanting our video to be altered doesn't hold water. All they would have to do is make their own tape at the same time. In fact, if they thought we might alter a video, it would be sound strategy on their part to let us do it, then air their own unaltered video to discredit us.

Something deeper going on here.

What's Bob Ricker up to? Was he planning to say something that would get his contract cancelled with the parent organization?

What are the MMM's up to by this?

Hmmmm.

Lets keep making hay guys. Anybody spreading the word to other sites?

 

[bohdi]

imported post

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.

Tis I, BOHDI, Muuuuaaaahhhaaaaa hhaaaa. Yes, bohdi, little, innocent me. Who is not a member of VCDL, ha ha! But I AM a concerned Centreville resident who decided to attend this public meeting, and listen intently to what they hopefully had to say. Of course, I also wanted to share with my family, and anyone else that was interested their message. Additionally, I wanted to meet some of the fine cast of characters I've written/exchanged ideas with here. Sadly, instead of continuing the meeting without their paid public speakers, the closed the entire thing down, which in my opinion was extremely childish and unproductive but their choice. Heck, I even brought cookies which I offered to share with all, but more on that later.......

I also just happen to visit this message board, and happen to believe that as an intelligent being, it is important for me to gather as much information as possible, about a subject or issue that I am interested in, to determine if things being presented or said are truthful and factual. I gather information from multiple sources in order to accomplish this. Just because I visit this board to gather information and exchange ideas should not automatically make me "with" anyone, though I will provide more on the "with" reference in a minute.

I chose to visit this message board because I am in fact the proud owner of a Glock model 22 .40 cal handgun for personal protection. Why am I proud? Because I am actually able to legally exercise my right to own such a piece of precision machinery. Since I own this piece of precision machinery, and I am an intelligent being, it is in my best interest to find out what all the rules, regulations, laws, and public opinion about it are, to include unpopular opinion, and consequences of using this piece of precision machinery, and carrying it around. Gee, I did the same thing when learning about another piece of precision machinery a number of years back, it's called a vehicle, so what I'm talking about now seems like a logical deduction to me.

On to the fun stuff

Sorry I didn't catch the group at Starbucks, family issues prevented me from getting there on time and prevented me from staying for Taco

I got to the library before Naked & others showed up. As I walked into the room I notice the Fairfax County officer and a bunch of other people sitting around, there were at least 18 people there at the time, not everyone was wearing their pink shirts - which I thought identified them as 3M supporters but I could be wrong about that. As I set my tripod bag down and camera case, the woman that NS ended up having a lengthy conversation with approached me and asked, "What’s in that bag, a gun?". Sort of shocked me, but then again, I know what camera gear looks like, she probably didn't. I will also submit at this point that the tripod bag could easily carry five or six shotguns after some thought on the manner, or any number of handguns if that was the intent, which it wasn't. My camera case probably could hold any number of handguns as well, so again, maybe the woman's question wasn't entirely invalid, but it was humorous to me. So I said "No, it's a tripod bag, what makes you think I would have guns in there?" She said, "Oh I don't know." and left it at that. At that point I knew it was going to be an interesting evening.

Not long after that the head lady who appears in NS video saying the meeting is cancelled approached me and asked me who I was and who I was with. That caught me off guard because it was at that moment that I realized as other had pointed out they apparently do read this message board ***one of the reasons I'm going into great detail here is because of that*** and might have mistaken me for someone associated with VCDL, which as I have stated previously, I am not as I have not paid for a membership with them, and I may not in order to maintain some neutrality, but will continue to gather information from them as they are a great resource. I politely told her that I was a concerned citizen of Centreville, who heard about the meeting from the Centreview newspaper (which I did as well as here and VCDL). She then asked me why I needed to video tape the meeting. I told her it was an opportunity for me to get some additional experience video taping, and that my wife was at home and could not attend, so I would like to be able to share with her what was going on. She said "Uh huh, I think we know who you really are and why your here, that's fine." and walked away. At that point I said nothing and continued to set up my camera.

Once I had the tripod up, I moved to a corner so I would be out of the way, after all I was a guest and wanted to take up as little space as possible, and moved to the far rear right corner of the room, which just happened to be next to their cookies and grapes. So I decided to put out cookies that I had brought to share with everyone in the spirit of fellowship, and put them next to their setup. I was then asked shortly after by the head lady to move my cookies away from theirs as she felt it was inappropriate and wrong for me to bring them to the meeting. Someone else made another comment about it being disgusting but I don't know who it was. Then she requested that I relocate my camera away from my present location to the middle more and I complied. Then I grabbed my cookies and decide to put them away. I didn't see a need to make things anymore difficult or inflammatory than they seemed to be getting by me just being there and videotaping things.

I didn't look at the time, so I cannot be certain as to when NS showed up with his camera, and I don't remember exactly when I turned my camera on was, but I am certain it was before 7 PM based on the shots I have when I first turned on the camera. I know it automatically shut off, but I turned it back on again, and didn't note the time then either.I don't think they had started on drafting their waiver at that point, but I know that they were drafting it after NS was in the room, that is on tape.

I don't blame NS at all for not signing the waiver; he walked into what was starting to become a hostile environment. The organizers were clearly annoyed that I was there, and were more so when NS showed up with his camera. I wouldn't have signed it either if I was NS, but I wasn't there representing anyone but myself, so I had no problem. I also read what they had written and was provided a copy of the waiver I signed after the meeting, so I had no issues, I noticed the flaws in their hastily written document , but more on that in a minute. I provided a copy to Jim Synder last night. The other gentlemen that was video taping was Jim Solo - handwriting on the waiver is shaky so it could be Jim Solb - I don't have it with me at the moment so I'll have to verify that later.

I don't know if NS caught any of the following on his tape, it didn't appear that he did from the three video segments posted, and I couldn't load the audio from the other posting. I will say that it is interesting to um, READ the text of the Audio that I captured which WAS NOT covered by the waiver which I did willingly sign. The wavier, incidentally, pertained to photographs, and video of the meeting. Since the meeting never actually started and was cancelled I believe it is within my right to post all the video I captured, but I'll wait to be advised on that as I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. Although, the waiver does say I can use it for my own personal and private use, so I have no problems inviting people to my house, by invitation only while I put this to private use and ask you all to critique, privately of course, my handiwork or lack there of. Alternatively, I could I suppose choose an alternate method and one that is more geographically friendly, and put it up on my own private website, and ask for people to help me troubleshoot problems I am having on my website related to experimenting with websites....just a few wacky ideas.

Actually, I imagine this is quite long so I'll put it in another reply.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Text of the first four minutes of myaudio tape

Unknown woman 1 – Could you sign this please?

NakedShoplifter – I’m not going to sign.

Unknown woman 1 – Why not? Do you intend to use this for something other than your personal use?

NS – What that is saying is that you’re uh not going to make it available to anyone else.

Unknown woman 1 to NS– Why else would you, you don’t want to say that you will not make this available for other people to see, other than your private use? I will ask this gentlemen to sign this. She walks to me at this point and hands me the document. I read it carefully.

Bohdi – Does he have to sign this? (Pointing at the guy in blue shirt and black pants video taping me) – lady asking name is Terry I think

Unknown woman 1 – Yes

I point the waiver at the gentlemen.

Unknown woman 1 – Fine, Hey Jim, excuse me, will you sign this?

Jim Solo or Solb?– Sure

Unknown Woman 1- Please feel free to come in ma’am

Woman in Pink – I was going to sign in but there was no pen – Someone had a discussion with this woman later, she was not affiliated with MMM

Unknown woman 1 – Oh I’m sorry We took the pen from there but there should be a pen over there.

Jim Snyder hands pen to woman in pink – You are ???? couldn’t hear, my camera was too far away

Woman in Pink – Oh, oh ok.Thanks

Jim Snyder – And they have a bunch more over here

Woman in pink – Oh they have a bunch there. Oh I didn’t see those.

Jim Snyder – That means I’ll take mine back

Woman in pink - You bet, I didn’t I I I didn’t see I looked here and I said I don’t have a pen, well thank you

Unknown woman 1 toNS – I’ll ask you again to please sign that

Bohdi – I’ll I’ll be more than happy to sign that

Unknown woman 1 – Ok

Bohdi – Can I get a copy of this?

Unknown woman 1 – A copy of what?

Bohdi – This document.

Unknown woman 1 – This? Sure. I’ll have to ask the library to make a copy.

Bohdi – That would be fantastic.

Unknown gentlemen in Pink shirt in front of CG1 – I’ll donate the $0.15 if they don’t

Unknown woman 1 – Pardon me?

Unknown GinPink – I’ll donate the $0.15 if they give you a hard time about it

Unknown woman 1 – What’s the point of it?

Unknown GinPink – Ok.

Bohdi to unknown woman 1 – Would you like my phone number as well?

Unknown woman 1 – Sure.

Bohdi – Is there any additional information you would like from me?

Unknown woman 1 – No.

She walks away. Goes to talk to guy in blue polo shirt and white/tan pants who wrote the document to discuss things. The gentlemen says something about being paid to speak, believe this is Bob Ricker.

Unknown guy in blue polo (Bob Ricker) – I I speak undistinguisable I’m a paid spokesperson. Undistinguisable they can use that undistinguisable

Unknown Woman 1 – Okaaaay, goes back to NS - she is extremely happy at this point with Bob's response, but I was too far away to pick it up.

Unknown Woman 1 to NS – He’s a public speaker, he’s paid to speak. You cannot use this for something that he will be paid for. So you can either turn the camera off or sign the release.

NS – Well, this is uh, this is a public event in a library.

Unknown woman 1 – And I am perfectly willing to let you use that camera as long as you sign the release saying you will not (undistinguisable sounds like purchase will, maybe breach his will) not to be filmed and used for something for which he was paid.

NS – Well is this um, is this a legal requirement for me to do this?

Unknown woman 1 – Yes.

NS – Is that what your saying?

Unknown woman 1 – Yes I’m saying either turn the camera off or,

NS – I’m not asking what your opinion is, I’m asking you if there is a legal requirement

Unknown woman 1 – No I’m telling you, this man is an attorney, I think he knows the law.

Stopped transcribing at 4 minutes. I may do more depending on what others advise. The asian woman from the Brady Center in pink who was video taping as well was not asked to sign the waiver, and I am pretty sure she stopped taping at various points, where I let my camera run non-stop except for one instance where it shut off automatically and turned it back on.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Mailed to Martina at NOVA MMM Chapter



Hello,



I am the guy with the camera that signed your waiver request. I am disappointed that your organization decided to not continue its meeting; I would have liked to have heard what information you had to present. While I understand your speaker’s reluctance to present his paid for information, I do not understand why the rest of you could not have spoken and presented information in the public form as you advertised. By the way, what did it cost to have the gentlemen and the police officer present for the meeting? Was the police officer there for protection against disruption or was he there to present information based on events in Fairfax County, and Centreville specifically?



I personally was not there to "disrupt", but to listen and learn about the gun violence issue. I personally think this organization missed a great opportunity to spread its message by not going through with the meeting as planned.



Sincerely,



me, bohdi - edited for my own stupidity



I also sent a mail to MMM HQ asking what Bob Ricker was paid to attend last nights meeting.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

Lastly, I apologize for not being able to spend more fellowship time with those of you there, it would have been fun.

I did get to meet vrwmiller & Company, Callushooter, Naked, Tess, Jim Synder, and a few others that I didn't get to catch names etc. Hope you enjoyed the cookies

Additional answers some are seeking:

Q: Who was that asian lady filming?

A: She was from the Brady Center, I asked her while NS was being grilled by the lady who removed her name tag prior to approaching him after the meeting was cancelled. She was the one who asked me if I had guns in my tripod bag.

Q: What was the turn out

A: 18+, most of them not from VCDL or OCDO

 

[vrwmiller]

imported post

bohdi, thanks for the information above. I, too, was disappointed that they cancelled the meeting. It was a pleasure to meet you. I apologize to the rest of the crowd for not staying longer for association afterwards, but I had to get the son home to finish his homework.

I suppose Bob Ricker had a right to not appear on a video without having a waiver/release signed. On the other hand, this was a public meeting in a public facility. Not to mention, it's Bob Ricker, who should have no fear of appearing on film as he has done so many times before. What was his fear of speaking on camera?

Like several of us eluded to, I was there to get information. I was not there are a representative of VCDL, OCDO, or any other group. In fact, my purpose in going was to subject my son to a lesson in civics (or what turned out to be uncivility), plus he enjoys coming along with me. We usually have at length discussions following any such events and talk to each other about the events.

I see no reason why they couldn't have proceded with the remainder of the agenda without Bob Ricker speaking. Apparently, they had other material they intended to cover. It seemed to me that Bob Ricker was the only person that was against the filming of himself. By indicating he would not speak if the waivers remained unsigned. Does anyone else think that he may have been manipulating these women?

 

[Tess]

imported post

vrwmiller wrote:

bohdi, thanks for the information above. I, too, was disappointed that they cancelled the meeting. It was a pleasure to meet you. I apologize to the rest of the crowd for not staying longer for association afterwards, but I had to get the son home to finish his homework.

I suppose Bob Ricker had a right to not appear on a video without having a waiver/release signed. On the other hand, this was a public meeting in a public facility. Not to mention, it's Bob Ricker, who should have no fear of appearing on film as he has done so many times before. What was his fear of speaking on camera?

Like several of us eluded to, I was there to get information. I was not there are a representative of VCDL, OCDO, or any other group. In fact, my purpose in going was to subject my son to a lesson in civics (or what turned out to be uncivility), plus he enjoys coming along with me. We usually have at length discussions following any such events and talk to each other about the events.

I see no reason why they couldn't have proceded with the remainder of the agenda without Bob Ricker speaking. Apparently, they had other material they intended to cover. It seemed to me that Bob Ricker was the only person that was against the filming of himself. By indicating he would not speak if the waivers remained unsigned. Does anyone else think that he may have been manipulating these women?

I also captured a quote (notebook only, not electronic) from the man running the computer projection system. He said (don't have my notes with me so this may not be verbatim) "It's a public place but it's a private meeting", or maybe "...it's MY meeting." That's when I wrote in my notes "the newspaper said the public was invited." That man told another in the room he is the spouse of one of the two - either the outgoing or the incoming MMM president.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Perhaps the MMM can get legal advice from the same lawyers that helped them put this page together on Virginia firearms laws. (bring your duct tape)

The misinformation on that page is not the result of innocent ignorance. They had a lawyer help them put it together. It is intentional propaganda. I particularly like the one concerning CHPs and that there is no training requirement.

As for violations of the open meeting requirements, technically they may have already violated the law when they advertised an open meeting, and then announced that the meeting was cancelled, if they subsequently went someplace and met even in a small group to discuss the evenings planned events.

The tape clearly shows that the reason for shutting down the meeting was because of the audience present. You might be able to shut down a public meeting for a lot of reasons, but not liking who is in the audience is not one of them. The whole purpose of an open meeting is so ANYONE can see what is going on, weather you agree with them or not.

You may very well be right about your assertion above that MMMers "technically" "violated the law" already by cancelling the meeting for the stated reason they did.  I don't know.  Do you have a citation of the law in this area, Hawk?  Is there any recourse or cause of action?

I wonder, too, what is the penalty for cancelling one meeting--let's say for an unacceptable reason, as was clearly the case last night? What if they turn around and say, "Oops, we looked at the regs and we will start all over with public meetings--beginning with our next one. No harm, no foul?  Do you have any cites, Hawk?

As a general comment, it seems to me that the MMMers are in full battle mentality with regard to gun/rights advocates and VCDL. Why? What got them so motivated to be reactive and retaliatory. Was it any justified reason?  

Right after the first MMM meeting that OCDC/VCDL group went to, we were kicking around the situation. One guy seem to be defending the MMMers quite a bit. He said:

If you look at all this from their point of view, the VCDL presence at their meeting was excessive and it was frightening. From what I have read, if the armed citizens did not outnumber them, it was close. So how would they see such a presence of armed strangers that virtually took over their meeting, and certainly had an impact on the evenings agenda?

That was you who said it, Hawk. Apparently you changed your mind a bit, eh?

:?

Contextomy, HankT's most favored logic fallacy.

 

[IanB]

imported post

Bohdi, it was nice to meet you last night. Until I asked who you were after the meeting was cancelled I had no idea who you were or why you were filming. All I knew was I had a MMM camera on me (Jim Solo / Asian woman) and you there filming me. Since you had pro gear like the Asian lady, and were willing to sign the waiver I had you tagged as one of the MMM supporters they called in for assistance! I apologize for not being friendly and introducing myself earlier, I thought you were there to document my activities for Ricker or the MMM group.

I was not willing to sign any document they provided for many reasons. I'll detail two of them here:

1: I am not a lawyer. I don't sign documents of this nature w/o a lawyer present.

2: The release was handwritten, and there was a lot of space between the agreement language and where signatories would sign. This would allow the MMM group to add language to the agreement at a later time and date.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

No problem brother, I don't knock you at all for not signing, and am glad you didn't to be honest. I did have reservations about it, but I have a copy of what I signedincase whoever wrote it decided to try what you said. I didn't think you were unfriendly toward me, no harm done. Wish I would have been able to meet you all prior to the meeting, but I was delayed getting out of my house, eeeerrrrrgh.

 

[HankT]

imported post

nakedshoplifter wrote:

I was not willing to sign any document they provided for many reasons. I'll detail two of them here:

1: I am not a lawyer. I don't sign documents of this nature w/o a lawyer present.

Well, that's a plausible reason. But, of course,that means that you were assured of not getting to film any of the scheduled meeting. Just the way it worked out. The MMMers were being retaliatory for the first meeting and figured out a way to exert their insistence to control thesecond meeting. The MMMers outmaneuvered you at the first meetingtoo, although not with the waiver gambit. I don't recall what it was. I think they just asked you not to tape and you agreed, saying you were going to "insist" on taping the second one. They probably anticipated that you either wouldn't sign or that you would and that they would retain some measure of control over the video.


nakedshoplifter wrote:

2: The release was handwritten, and there was a lot of space between the agreement language and where signatories would sign. This would allow the MMM group to add language to the agreement at a later time and date.

You could have asked them to give you a copy of the signed agreement. It was in a library, so there should be plenty of copiers around. If they would not have agreed to giving you a copy, that would have been a different story.


I see the points of bohdi, longwatch and a couple others who say you did the right thing by not signing. But i would suggest it would have been much better if you had.

You'd have the video, a copy of the waiver and the time to see if the waiver was even legal. If it would be legal somehow, you'd be no worse off than now (actually better since you could cite the contents and show it privately). If the provisions were found to be illegal or not sustainable, then you could have simply posted the video of the meeting. You could have done with it what you (legally) wanted to.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Next time Hank, you should come to help us poor Virginians figure this all out.

Naked you did just fine. You too Bohdi.

The Monday morning quarterback comments don't mean a thing if the guy was not even in the stadium.

Regards

 

[HankT]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Next time Hank, you should come to help us poor Virginians figure this all out.

Naked you did just fine. You too Bohdi.

The Monday morning quarterback comments don't mean a thing if the guy was not even in the stadium.

That's odd. Hawk, you were not at the first meeting and you said this:

If you look at all this from their point of view, the VCDL presence at their meeting was excessive and it was frightening. From what I have read, if the armed citizens did not outnumber them, it was close. So how would they see such a presence of armed strangers that virtually took over their meeting, and certainly had an impact on the evenings agenda?

Different logic? Different ethics? DifferentMonday morning?

 

[bohdi]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

Next time Hank, you should come to help us poor Virginians figure this all out.

Naked you did just fine. You too Bohdi.

The Monday morning quarterback comments don't mean a thing if the guy was not even in the stadium.

That's odd. Hawk, you were not at the first meeting and you said this:

If you look at all this from their point of view, the VCDL presence at their meeting was excessive and it was frightening. From what I have read, if the armed citizens did not outnumber them, it was close. So how would they see such a presence of armed strangers that virtually took over their meeting, and certainly had an impact on the evenings agenda?

Different logic? Different ethics? DifferentMonday morning?

You know, you two sound like an old married couple.....:what:just saying.....

 

[BobCav]

imported post