I got this continuing legal education advertisement this morning, laughed out loud, and thought of our doublegun misfires forum. Think I should sign up?...Geo
Fundamentals of Online Defamation Litigation >> CLE Video Re-Broadcast | November 19, 2015 3 HR CLE (2:00 - 5:15 PM Eastern) This class is designed to provide an introduction to online defamation litigation. We will discuss the laws that create a cause of action, the information an attorney should obtain from a prospective client to properly evaluate a case, and an overview of the major legal issues that may come up during the case. By the end of the class you will know what causes of action may be available to your client, the factors you should consider when selecting a litigation forum, how to identify the person who posted the material, the most common defenses and objections raised in such litigation, and how to use a judgment to remove content from the internet. Learn more / Register online... Key Topics: • Potential causes of action • Information to obtain from your client • Ethical obligation to vet your client’s allegations • Statute of limitations considerations • Application of the discovery rule and single publication rule • Deciding whether to sue a specific person, entity, or a John Doe defendant • Identifying the person who posted the material • What an IP address is and why you need it • How to match up an IP address with a specific internet service provider • How to get an account holder’s name and address from an internet service provider • Common defenses and objections • Measure of damages • Using a judgment to remove content from the internet Presented by: Christopher B. Ingle is a litigation attorney with Rose Law Group, PC, where he is the chair of the cyberlaw department. Mr. Ingle’s practice focuses on commercial litigation, online defamation and harassment, defining the boundaries between free speech and actionable conduct such as bullying, preventing and responding to cyberattacks and data breaches, and protecting intellectual property on the internet.
Logan Elia has a diverse practice that includes years of experience in business litigation, cyber law, and civil appeals. In addition, Elia leverages his courtroom experience – some of which he gained working as a prosecutor – to assist his clients in criminal defense, adversarial bankruptcy proceedings, and construction law.
Don't even have to visit face to face with a client. Can sit at home, surf the net and email 'em in your underwear. Next month's class, navigating the virtual court room. Tell it to the judge by clicking on the gavel.
Seems to me Geo. that several regular posters on this forum whom frequently make defaming statements about specific posters on this site with resect to their integrity and business dealings might have some reason to be concerned about their conduct...
is that the same rose law firm that hillary clinton worked for
Beats me. Ain't progress and technology wonderful! Who knew that using a snappy 'nom de net' was no protection at all of your identity when anyone with an IT department would like to make your acquaintance...Geo
Could be opportunity knocks? Is the net the new ambulance. Do you really need an IT dept or just a scary looking letterhead. Yes, we can process that settlement online. Next.
I knew this thread would turn into a lawyer bashing. Don't bother me none though; I'm just an elderly country lawyer in the twilight of a mediocre career anyway. I don't want a new specialty, I'd rather buy and research an interesting new/old gun.
My op was not meant to be threatening to anyone, but the knowledge that this stuff is out there really ought to give pause to those who don't realize that there is no anonymity on the internet. And that there are those who would like to capitalize on a new twist in litigation...Geo
George, in my opinion, everyone hates lawyers, except for the one that they use.
I love my lawyer. He has collected many, many, many thousands of dollars for me that I would have otherwise gone without. And he has protected my money from several rascals, scoundrels, and thieves that had hired lawyers. When I was a young man I drove 60,000 miles a year for my construction business and I also had a heavy foot. He kept the State of Texas from revoking my driving privilege. He got me title to an undivided interest in a farm I inherited from an executrix determined to beat me out of it. He saved my son from a difficult situation involving a Trans Am and a light pole and the police.
So Stewart is one of the finest human beings in the universe in my book.
I knew this thread would turn into a lawyer bashing....
Naw, it's all in fun. You might pm nca though. Seems he has the makings of an enthusiastic clerk. You can spruce up the old cabin, no metal siding please, and he can do all the grunt work for your new venture.
Geo. has a valid point. Sometimes the technique used to make someone shut their yap is just a threatening letter. Sometimes it's a lawsuit you can't afford to fight.
Your IP is not anonymous. Your provider is not anonymous. Nor any of the gadgets linked to them.
My understanding is that if there is observable economic loss, internet name calling is a real expensive compulsion.
I only know one person here that has seemingly experienced economic loss due to internet opinions. He's probably the best potential client for a budding loya.
There may of course be other measurables that come in to play, but the one I'm most familiar with is Yelp!
I knew this thread would turn into a lawyer bashing. Don't bother me none though; I'm just an elderly country lawyer in the twilight of a mediocre career anyway. I don't want a new specialty, I'd rather buy and research an interesting new/old gun.
My op was not meant to be threatening to anyone, but the knowledge that this stuff is out there really ought to give pause to those who don't realize that there is no anonymity on the internet. And that there are those who would like to capitalize on a new twist in litigation...Geo
Sorry George, I was just trying to make a funny. That's all.
Seems to me Geo. that several regular posters on this forum whom frequently make defaming statements about specific posters on this site with resect to their integrity and business dealings might have some reason to be concerned about their conduct...
Seems to me that nca225 is still a coward and a slimy piece of shit who thought I would just forgive and forget that he posted filthy remarks about my daughters. Maybe nca would like to sue me for reminding folks what a low life scumbag he is and for giving my fact based opinion. Perhaps nca really is such an idiot that he forgot about repeatedly making "defaming statements" with "resect" (sic) to my business dealings and integrity by repeatedly lying about my purchase of a Lefever shotgun.
I did some of my own research into this topic awhile back when one of Geo's fellow lawyers suggested that I could be sued. I learned that it is still quite legal to give your opinion about someone, whether it is on the internet or on TV or in an article or editorial. I learned that you should not make obvious libelous or slanderous statements. These are statements that you know to be false. If you know or believe or can prove someone is a liar or a slimy piece of shit, for example, then you have not slandered that person. If you have the brains to save a quote that shows someone is a liar or anti-gun or even a scumbag that said filthy things about your daughters, that aggrieved person can wipe their ass with their crybaby complaint. I frequently call Ed Good an Anti-Gunner and have saved dozens of his Anti-Gun statements. Ed Good calls me an Anti-Gun mole but could never provide one anti-gun word from me. Which of us might have a problem if I was a thin-skinned pussy? Actual libel or slander is very difficult, read expensive, to prove, and actual damages tougher yet. It was suggested that I should be sued to create financial damage or disincentive to me, legal censorship and punishment if you will. I learned that life is a two-way street and that I could always counter sue or even file an anti-SLAPP action in some states to recover legal fees. I also learned that the vast majority of these cases end up enriching the plaintiff's lawyer and go nowhere.
As always, everything I post on this forum is my opinion.
Keith, did you ever think that there are people that sue for sport? Or that just by volume they could break you? I'm guessing you haven't had to respond to many complaints.
I'd think twice about your position on litigation.
There's always a bigger gorilla, and it's best not to rattle his cage.
It doesn't matter to some people if they break you with judgements or fee's. They just like to see you sweat, and go broke. And then, as you tilt at the windmill, and slowly go broke, your family turns on you, you insurance company turns on you, and your Lawyer quits because you can't pay. Then they really start to grind on you.
With the internet, you can be served in whatever jurisdiction the loss occurred. I think I'd pick Manhattan.
Got the cash ready to spend to argue about name calling in Manhattan Keith? I'd ask my wife about her thoughts on that.
Just the hotel bills from the delays and interruptions break most people there.
I did some of my own research into this topic awhile back when one of Geo's fellow lawyers suggested that I could be sued. I learned that it is still quite legal to give your opinion about someone, whether it is on the internet or on TV or in an article or editorial. I learned that you should not make obvious libelous or slanderous statements. These are statements that you know to be false. If you know or believe or can prove someone is a liar or a slimy piece of shit, for example, then you have not slandered that person. If you have the brains to save a quote that shows someone is a liar or anti-gun or even a scumbag that said filthy things about your daughters, that aggrieved person can wipe their ass with their crybaby complaint. I frequently call Ed Good an Anti-Gunner and have saved dozens of his Anti-Gun statements. Ed Good calls me an Anti-Gun mole but could never provide one anti-gun word from me. Which of us might have a problem if I was a thin-skinned pussy? Actual libel or slander is very difficult, read expensive, to prove, and actual damages tougher yet. It was suggested that I should be sued to create financial damage or disincentive to me, legal censorship and punishment if you will. I learned that life is a two-way street and that I could always counter sue or even file an anti-SLAPP action in some states to recover legal fees. I also learned that the vast majority of these cases end up enriching the plaintiff's lawyer and go nowhere.
As always, everything I post on this forum is my opinion.
Sounds like we have an F. Lee Bailey in our mists here!
But really, I'm pretty sure there are three or four lawyers on this board who are chuckling at your post there princess. Would you mind explaining exactly WHO got defamed?
CZ, I don't know if the US is most litigious place on earth, as many say, but you'd think by now members would know truth is not an absolute defence against libel, slander, defamation.
Not to belabor this, because people seem to think the host is somehow insulated from the courts, but Dave isn't.
When you attack, you cast the biggest net you can. Let all the parties served argue with each other, etc. Let them spend all their resources finding a way to not go to court 5 expensive years from now. The grinding process proceeds.
The big fish eat the guppy.
It would probably take the site host almost an hour to sell out every one of those named in a suit.
I don't know what's being laid down, CZ, but it seems the board's high and low venues may be finally self-correcting, each calling for decent comportment to smother the nastiness, and our host seeing his duty and doing it. (We don't know if Jim's departure from Misfires was voluntarily or not.) Maliciousness is not permitted on any of the sites where I participate. It degrades the site.
Truth lives where we struggle daily in our communities, our churches, our organizations and our political parties to live to high standard of human values.
That's why I asked Dave "to look at" increasingly inflammatory posts while homeland security is collecting metadata zealously into every aspect of our lives. Keeping grief from Dave is his responsibility---and ours.
So tell me this ClapperZapper... why didn't you just sue me when I repeatedly asked you to prove the false facts you presented about the Dept. of Energy a while back? I gave my opinion of you then, and it hasn't changed. Aren't you a big gorilla, and haven't I rattled your cage enough? I think people like you and King would love to think they can control the conversation through fear and intimidation.
An elderly retired lawyer friend who had a reputation in my area of being nasty and ferocious divorce lawyer told me why he stopped practicing divorce law. After successfully picking the bones of his client's ex-husband, the angry man walked up to him on the steps of our county courthouse and drilled him. He broke his jaw and a couple teeth. The man was arrested and convicted of assault. My friend the lawyer told me his attacker is now a free man and he had next to nothing to lose in any civil actions due to his assault. But my friend had to endure pain, surgery, and dental work and still suffers from severe headaches from TMJ as a result of the attack.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
CZ, I don't know if the US is most litigious place on earth, as many say, but you'd think by now members would know truth is not an absolute defence against libel, slander, defamation.
I also believe that King would love to think his words above are true. Of course, why would we expect respect for the First Amendment from this foreigner who spends so much time here attempting to undermine the Second Amendment?
Originally Posted By: King Brown
That's why I asked Dave "to look at" increasingly inflammatory posts while homeland security is collecting metadata zealously into every aspect of our lives. Keeping grief from Dave is his responsibility---and ours.
So King, please tell us how Dave responded when you ratted out Jim and attempted to say he was making death threats against your anti-gun hero George Soros?
It is very revealing to see King once again standing on the side opposite of truth and honesty. Of course, King was the only one here who defended Lyin' Brian Williams and who suggested that I should forgive the cowardly slimy piece of shit nca225 for posting vile remarks about my daughters.
Now we have King suggesting that Jim was ejected from Misfires when it was evident that Jim simply got tired of dealing with him and several other disgusting dishonest Liberals.
Originally Posted By: ClapperZapper
You kids still don't get it.
You are spending Dave's money. Not yours.
If what ClapperZapper is saying was true, Dave Weber needs to shut down Misfires and do like Hillary Clinton and destroy the archives and PM records.
I been called an a..hole more than a few times myself lonesome. I can't say I disagree. Do you think I can sue myself for imaginary damages in Manhattan? All I need is some imaginary friends like John F. Kennedy or M.L.K. as character witnesses. Do you think they'll lie for me?
I do think we need to differentiate between ordinary everyday a..holes, lying a..holes, anti-gun a..holes, and stupid idiot a..holes.
Everyone who participates on this site should be held liable for causing me to voice my opinions. Please send me your best double to cover your share of the expenses and liability. Jagermeister apparently saw this coming, and that is why he doesn't even own a double. He's down at the gun rental store laughing at all of us.
The last person I saw who could have been financially damaged here was Carl Sparkes, the new owner of Jost Winery in Nova Scotia, when King accused him of mistreating his employees. I wonder why King chose to potentially expose Dave to liability when he lectures the rest of us about our duty to protect him?
Everything I said has already been tested and litigated.
Choice of venue is but one of the nasty, expensive, arguments used as a technique to club the guppy.
It's unimportant to me if any of you believe any of what I wrote.
You are welcome to carry on in any fashion that Dave can afford on your behalf.
Myself, I'm a practical guy. I asked my wife how much money I could spend defending against a defamation suit filed by someone I insulted over the internet. She said "Why don't you take the dog for a walk."
(We don't know if Jim's departure from Misfires was voluntarily or not.) Maliciousness is not permitted on any of the sites where I participate. It degrades the site.
Jim left because he realized that arguing with a brain washed-brain dead liberal was fruitless...if you can prove me wrong you're welcome to sew me.
Jim would have left years ago if the reason was brain-dead liberals. He tried assiduously to be reasonable. His posts latterly indicated considerable emotional strain. He's an honest man. I'd be pleased to see him back in his old fighting trim.
Talking about Italian SxS Jim? Seemed more like a partisan hack, constantly posting poorly thought out diatribes from basement bloggers and right wing nut jobs, often without attribution and sometimes including his own un-noted edits. That Jim?
Old saying: He who goes to the law takes a wolf by the ear...Geo
Old saying:
"99 12/% of the lawyers ruin it for the rest of them !"
BTW; what a bunch of cry baby wannabee moderator's and pussy's.Seems to me this forum has been run just fine with out you clowns trying to tell others what they can and can not say.
No wonder some of you clowns go running to your wives for advice?
That clown Ed Good got himself in enough trouble here-with the real and only moderator as I recall threatening-and like the coward he is never did,to sure me and a couple others.I see there are several other clowns on here trying to scare people with the same bs.What a laugh !
you all go back to play time and scaring people,
hey see the new NRA commercial? kinda like it-great message;
BTW; what a bunch of cry baby wannabee moderator's and pussy's.Seems to me this forum has been run just fine with out you clowns trying to tell others what they can and can not say.
This forum has run just fine for you and a few other rightwingnuts who've bullied a number of good people off the forum. The gall of you whining about anybody trying to tell you what you can say!
Loved the NRA commercials. I have no problem with the political information and opinions you post here, Dave. I can separate the wheat from the chaff on my own and so can everyone else. Don't get mad if everyone doesn't agree with your take on some of the propaganda though.
As far as the continuing legal education advertisement I posted to begin this thread, it was very much for real and one of many such that I receive daily. If it doesn't matter to you just don't worry about it. If nothing bad don't happen you'll know you done the right thing...Geo
....This forum has run just fine for you and a few other rightwingnuts who've bullied a number of good people off the forum. The gall of you whining about anybody trying to tell you what you can say!....
Why you back stabb'in....I've read about subversive anti gun moles like you on the internet. Just kidding, weren't you the guy that took a bunch-o-continuing ed on how to cash in on all the classes you take? Plant the seed, stir the pot and subliminal adverts about 'experience' in the field. Hmmmmm.
....This forum has run just fine for you and a few other rightwingnuts who've bullied a number of good people off the forum. The gall of you whining about anybody trying to tell you what you can say!....
Why you back stabb'in....I've read about subversive anti gun moles like you on the internet. Just kidding, Hmmmmm.
Craig I know I rarely snarl back at anyone here, but Dave's post hit me wrong. In a hypocritical way. Not a popularity contest down here in the trenches. People should not, however be put off from posting honest opinions...Geo
Bull$hit George,"continuing education" ha-scare tactics that most here are laughing at.Just read were it"hit you wrong" good !Thats why I kicked your cage George and happy to do it again,keep it coming pal ,this whole thread hit me wrong ! No one was "run off the board" because of anyone on here bulling them-maybe they can't handle the fact that its a forum were most of the members are conservative and they made the choice,bad one, to lie down with the liberals-a minority here in and in this country! I certainly wouldn't waste my time on a liberal leaning forum.
BTW,If YOU, or anyone else does not like what I or anyone else says you have 3 choices.
A) Use the "ignore" feature,even a cry baby wannabe moderators can figure that out ! B) STFU and take it C) Leave,take a break.Many including me have a great life and don't spend hrs on forum's crying and scaring people into what they can or cannot post on here.
Once again this whole thread is BS, not once have the "little girl, cry babies wannabee moderators" ever proven anything that goes on here would have any chance of getting sued for by some coward who got his feelings hurt on a internet forum !
BTW; I will say what I want, confront lies and BS anytime I feel like on here unless the real moderator has an issue with it as it is "his forum to run NOT yours or anyone else's".
Paula Deen got sued a year or two ago in a frivolous suit and won because the plaintiff failed to state a legal claim. It was a Pyrrhric victory as her empire came crashing down when details of her racially charged remarks in depositions became public. The Plaintiff got zero but Paula lost multi-millions. It's no fun being a hurt plaintiff, but there can be a lot of misery on the defendant's side in a lawsuit as well, win or lose.
Still waiting to hear from ed's lawyer - a couple of years later.
You think you are an expert on everything; tort law, Webley actions, the Webley screw grip, case hardening. You think yOu are an expert on the English gun trade.
Please share some more of your expert knowledge on that AA Brown made Gallyon. Tell us how Webley made everbody's actions.
Maybe tell me what ed's lawyer is going to say to me in that letter he is going to send me someday.
yOu are fUll of iT.
yOu were wrOng, agAin.
Because you are very stUpid you can only type very stUpid stuff.
Still waiting to hear from ed's lawyer - a couple of years later.
You think you are an expert on everything; tort law, Webley actions, the Webley screw grip, case hardening. You think yOu are an expert on the English gun trade.
Please share some more of your expert knowledge on that AA Brown made Gallyon. Tell us how Webley made everbody's actions.
Maybe tell me what ed's lawyer is going to say to me in that letter he is going to send me someday.
yOu are fUll of iT.
yOu were wrOng, agAin.
Because you are very stUpid you can only type very stUpid stuff.
Still waiting to hear from ed's lawyer - a couple of years later.
You think you are an expert on everything; tort law, Webley actions, the Webley screw grip, case hardening. You think yOu are an expert on the English gun trade.
Please share some more of your expert knowledge on that AA Brown made Gallyon. Tell us how Webley made everbody's actions.
Maybe tell me what ed's lawyer is going to say to me in that letter he is going to send me someday.
yOu are fUll of iT.
yOu were wrOng, agAin.
Because you are very stUpid you can only type very stUpid stuff.
Still waiting to hear from ed's lawyer - a couple of years later.
You think you are an expert on everything; tort law, Webley actions, the Webley screw grip, case hardening. You think yOu are an expert on the English gun trade.
Please share some more of your expert knowledge on that AA Brown made Gallyon. Tell us how Webley made everbody's actions.
Maybe tell me what ed's lawyer is going to say to me in that letter he is going to send me someday.
yOu are fUll of iT.
yOu were wrOng, agAin.
Because you are very stUpid you can only type very stUpid stuff.
Still waiting to hear from ed's lawyer - a couple of years later.
You think you are an expert on everything; tort law, Webley actions, the Webley screw grip, case hardening. You think yOu are an expert on the English gun trade.
Please share some more of your expert knowledge on that AA Brown made Gallyon. Tell us how Webley made everbody's actions.
Maybe tell me what ed's lawyer is going to say to me in that letter he is going to send me someday.
yOu are fUll of iT.
yOu were wrOng, agAin.
Because you are very stUpid you can only type very stUpid stuff.
Still waiting to hear from ed's lawyer - a couple of years later.
You think you are an expert on everything; tort law, Webley actions, the Webley screw grip, case hardening. You think yOu are an expert on the English gun trade.
Please share some more of your expert knowledge on that AA Brown made Gallyon. Tell us how Webley made everbody's actions.
Maybe tell me what ed's lawyer is going to say to me in that letter he is going to send me someday.
yOu are fUll of iT.
yOu were wrOng, agAin.
Because you are very stUpid you can only type very stUpid stuff.
This forum has run just fine for you and a few other rightwingnuts who've bullied a number of good people off the forum.
I am curious who the "good people" are who have been run off this forum by "rightwingnuts"???
I'm also wondering why there isn't similar concern for other good people who have left in disgust after becoming sick of dealing with the leftwingnuts?
We don't see any concern for Jim, aka Italiansxs, or a bunch of other Conservatives (aka rightwingnuts)who have left. We do see King and Replacement still piling on Jim when he isn't even here to defend himself. Jim explained that he was leaving in disgust, but his own explanation has been dishonestly twisted by King to suggest that he was either under some severe mental strain or that he was banned from posting in Misfires.
keith look who is left posting in the Misfires Forum. Practically everyone has left. Amarillo Mike and Hojo have their own thing going. King Brown stays around cause likes to rile you up. Otherwise not many left around here. Not a particularly friendly place. I really don't think many have left due to disgust with liberals. But maybe you could name some.
OK, so maybe it is just the nature of politically dominated forums to devolve into gang tackle bullying. But when what I refer to as "rightwingnuts" begin attacking other conservatives for not being pure enough they are not doing our common cause any favors. We just lose supporters.
My original post was in good faith and contained some information that should be of interest especially in Misfires. You said you had already researched it yourself, so it must be of interest to you at least. Don't attack me (you didn't, Dave K did) for offering the information....Geo
Members will note the little fella's continual twisting. Neither Replacement or I piled on Jim. Quite the opposite. Replacement, reporting accurately Jim's latter posts, asked me if the good man I had described is the same Jim. I replied in the affirmative, said he wasn't always that way. He is an honest, reasonable man whose irrational posts appeared to be from stress; he'd rest a while and be back. As for Jim being banned, I referenced the responsibility of all of us to keep the personal out of it, including Dave as administrator, and said we don't know whether Jim left voluntarily or not. Jim's departure was rational and commendable under the circumstances.
Talking about Italian SxS Jim? Seemed more like a partisan hack, constantly posting poorly thought out diatribes from basement bloggers and right wing nut jobs, often without attribution and sometimes including his own un-noted edits. That Jim?
OK Replacement... I see it now. And so does everyone with half a brain. "Partisan hack"... "posting poorly thought out diatribes..." Yes Replacement, those were some nice clarifications which no reasonable person should think were less than complimentary. Ahem.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
(We don't know if Jim's departure from Misfires was voluntarily or not.) Maliciousness is not permitted on any of the sites where I participate. It degrades the site.
Uh, wrong again King. We actually do know if Jim's departure from Misfires was voluntary or not... because he told us himself why he was leaving. And why was Jim IGNORING your posts? I believe it had something to do with your dishonesty. So who is doing the twisting here? To suggest otherwise can only mean that his departure was involuntary. Since Jim is still posting in other forums here, we can conclude there is no involuntary departure due to illness, death, or being banished by Dave W. Can you provide some other weasel word explanation please?
Originally Posted By: King Brown
That's why I asked Dave "to look at" increasingly inflammatory posts while homeland security is collecting metadata zealously into every aspect of our lives. Keeping grief from Dave is his responsibility---and ours.
What you were saying there is that you ratted Jim out to Dave. You have admitted to that before. If you were so concerned about keeping grief from Dave, why did you use his venue to post defamatory comments about Carl Sparkes, the new owner of Jost Winery? Didn't you just reference "the responsibility of all of us to keep the personal out of it, including Dave as administrator."?
You also claim you saw irrationality in Jim's posts but do not see the same irrationality in your posts where you link our vigilance of our 2nd Amendment to your wild-assed claim that we accept mass murders and school shootings. Yet somehow, you do not link your own participation and profit in the wine making industry to the deaths and destruction of lives from drunken driving and excess alcohol consumption.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
Geo, of course I did not attack you. Thanks for noticing. There was no reason to. But I do question what the difference is between what DaveK or I post and what King and Replacement post... except for the obvious dishonest explanations they both gave.
Still waiting to hear from ed's lawyer - a couple of years later.
You think you are an expert on everything; tort law, Webley actions, the Webley screw grip, case hardening. You think yOu are an expert on the English gun trade.
Please share some more of your expert knowledge on that AA Brown made Gallyon. Tell us how Webley made everbody's actions.
Maybe tell me what ed's lawyer is going to say to me in that letter he is going to send me someday.
yOu are fUll of iT.
yOu were wrOng, agAin.
Because you are very stUpid you can only type very stUpid stuff.
The omnipresent protector of all of us from the antis still doesn't get it that his fulminations are all about him, a narcissist making a Misfires monument to himself: Look guys, look at me, I'm smiteing all the antis, King's thread is 80,000 views!
There isn't an anti-gunner here. Look at it, as Geo has. Misfires is a freak show. The little fella's two threads postulating Ed and me as anti-gun comprise 100,000-plus views. Indulgent porn. The main forum has 300,000-plus views.
Geo, I don't stay to get his goat. I'd like to make Misfires less safe for fools.
Talking about Italian SxS Jim? Seemed more like a partisan hack, constantly posting poorly thought out diatribes from basement bloggers and right wing nut jobs, often without attribution and sometimes including his own un-noted edits. That Jim?
OK Replacement... I see it now. And so does everyone with half a brain. "Partisan hack"... "posting poorly thought out diatribes..." Yes Replacement, those were some nice clarifications which no reasonable person should think were less than complimentary. Ahem.
Go back over ISS's posts and refute my description. I have no reason to be complimentary, since I do not care for him or his posts. You have not seen his PMs to me. Being mildly critical is not piling on, except perhaps in your egocentric parallel universe.
Quote:
I see it now. And so does everyone with half a brain.
Nice to see that you finally recognize and acknowledge your shortcoming. One among many.
I clearly conveyed that even people with half a brain, unlike you Replacement, could see that your so-called clarification was intended to deny your insulting description of Jim. Since you seem to think what you said about Jim is merely mildly critical, I'm sure you understand that I am merely being mildly critical about you when I say you are an idiot on the low end of the idiot scale.
You think I am attacking you ?I have not even started pal.
Talk about gal ,you come on here trying to "bully" people into some sort to "pc" BS because your a lawyer and apparently don't like the "rightwing nuts" on here. Then you come after ME for exposing this farce .Keep swinging little Georgie,maybe some of the other little girls can help you but I am not backing down pal.
"Separate wheat from chaff"hey ? Damn Georgie, I know how to separate the horse from whats left behind, and that's what this whining cry baby wannabee moderator thread is !
The omnipresent protector of all of us from the antis still doesn't get it that his fulminations are all about him, a narcissist making a Misfires monument to himself: Look guys, look at me, I'm smiteing all the antis, King's thread is 80,000 views!
There isn't an anti-gunner here. Look at it, as Geo has. Misfires is a freak show. The little fella's two threads postulating Ed and me as anti-gun comprise 100,000-plus views. Indulgent porn. The main forum has 300,000-plus views.
Geo, I don't stay to get his goat. I'd like to make Misfires less safe for fools.
First off, I'm not smiting (or smiteing) all of the anti's, but I am illuminating King Brown's and Ed Good's anti-gun rhetoric by reproducing their own words and saving them in one convenient thread where no sane person could deny them. I said, no SANE person could deny them.
They are no narcissistic monument to myself King, but they are your legacy. I'm pretty sure no-one even thinks of me when they read your words denigrating the strategies of the NRA or suggesting that we concede ground to the anti-gunners. If you are not happy with what you said, then why did you say those things?
Originally Posted By: King Brown
I'd feel better about 2nd protection if our side stopped shooting itself in the foot with the makes-no-difference between 10 and larger magazines, cross-messaging of the worst kind.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
How about this King... do you remember saying this from your post # 308159 on 1/8/13?
"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.)"
It is not in any way, shape, or form Pro-Gun or Pro-NRA or Pro-2nd Amendment to suggest that "Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom." But you didn't simply suggest it King. You came right out and said it.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
You're right King... this is a freak show. Look at all the freaks in denial of their own words. You are like an abortion doctor claiming to be pro-life. And now you are imagining me trumpeting that 80,000 have viewed your thread. Do you check the tally every day? Don't blame me for how many people viewed your anti-gun rhetoric. You and Ed said those things, not me. I merely voiced my opinion that you are here to support and defend anti-gun politicians, and to LULL and undermine us, and to criticize our Right to Keep and Bear Arms based upon the evidence you provided. If you wish to shoot the messenger, that is fine by me. But you'll have to shoot yourself.
Anyone on this board who calls for civil discussion is routinely attacked by a few right wing zealots. George is one of the few gentlemen who remain. I know Last Dollar personally and he is a good man and a conservative who left this board in disgust due to the nut jobs. He had this crazy idea that winning the WH was more important than being deemed pure enough by the radicals. We have our very own Freedom Caucus here who likes to sit in judgement. It is a comical snap shot of what is wrong with the Republican party on a national level....it is self defeating and a sad state of affairs.
Anyone on this board who calls for civil discussion is routinely attacked by a few right wing zealots. George is one of the few gentlemen who remain. I know Last Dollar personally and he is a good man and a conservative who left this board in disgust due to the nut jobs. He had this crazy idea that winning the WH was more important than being deemed pure enough by the radicals. We have our very own Freedom Caucus here who likes to sit in judgement. It is a comical snap shot of what is wrong with the Republican party on a national level....it is self defeating and a sad state of affairs.
I miss LD around these parts too. It was probably a bunch of things, but he had an odd little meltdown about comments to a picture of a whale off the back of his boat.
It didn't seem to be about political purity, just feelings got the upper hand in a decision that I'd figure was right for him.
You did read what King just wrote didn't you? Someone may try civil discussion about political purity, and not even realize that they're being 'played' as a fool. Weird, eh?
I enjoyed Last Dollar's posts. Greg Taggart as well. Greg's problem he is a liberal educator. He hasn't posted on Doublegun since 2010. If you miss him, he's posting over on Shootin' Spotesm'n now. I don't know why he doesn't come back here, the wingnuts there give him hell. Who knows, maybe the same guys...Geo
The Freak Show continues with King, Ed Good, and SKB considering it mean spirited to repeat and reproduce King's own anti-2nd Amendment words. You'd think he'd be proud of them but he wishes to dance away from them and pretend that he is pro-Gun. It's much the same with our self-described "Independent Moderate" Caitlyn SKB who is very moderate when it comes to defending anti-gun Liberal Democrats, but demonizing and insulting when it comes to Conservative Republicans. His description of Last Dollar as a Conservative is as dishonest as anything I have ever read here. All of the so-called "Independent Moderates" have short memories when it comes to recalling Last Dollar lambasting and insulting the Conservatives here. I don't even recall Greg Taggart and do not believe I ever had any discussion, civil or otherwise, with him. I'm still waiting for Geo to tell me who the poor sensitive "good guys" are who were driven off by mean Conservatives. You'd think there was no similar attempt to drive off Conservatives via trolling, insults, and implied threats of legal action. Take a look at virtually all of Replacement's recent posts and try to tell me that it is only rightwingnuts engaging in nastiness. I'm sure that noticing the hypocrisy will once again make me a villain.
Here's King's own words again. Read 'em and weep King.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
The omnipresent protector of all of us from the antis still doesn't get it that his fulminations are all about him, a narcissist making a Misfires monument to himself: Look guys, look at me, I'm smiteing all the antis, King's thread is 80,000 views!
There isn't an anti-gunner here. Look at it, as Geo has. Misfires is a freak show. The little fella's two threads postulating Ed and me as anti-gun comprise 100,000-plus views. Indulgent porn. The main forum has 300,000-plus views.
Geo, I don't stay to get his goat. I'd like to make Misfires less safe for fools.
First off, I'm not smiting (or smiteing) all of the anti's, but I am illuminating King Brown's and Ed Good's anti-gun rhetoric by reproducing their own words and saving them in one convenient thread where no sane person could deny them. I said, no SANE person could deny them.
They are no narcissistic monument to myself King, but they are your legacy. I'm pretty sure no-one even thinks of me when they read your words denigrating the strategies of the NRA or suggesting that we concede ground to the anti-gunners. If you are not happy with what you said, then why did you say those things?
Originally Posted By: King Brown
I'd feel better about 2nd protection if our side stopped shooting itself in the foot with the makes-no-difference between 10 and larger magazines, cross-messaging of the worst kind.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
It's hardly mean-spirited to note that I'm an Obama supporter. I'm proud of it, apparent here as long as he's been around. He's anti-gun but has kept his legislative gun in his holster to position his party for '16.
How about this King... do you remember saying this from your post # 308159 on 1/8/13?
"Your messages appear as from one who hasn't been involved directly in action of what it takes to beat back grabbers other than a NRA membership. (And that antagonizing NRA comment while the nation mourning was no service to our cause, as I said here at the time. Better that the NRA would consider what Obama proposing and it would respond in good time in the country's best interests etc.)"
It is not in any way, shape, or form Pro-Gun or Pro-NRA or Pro-2nd Amendment to suggest that "Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom." But you didn't simply suggest it King. You came right out and said it.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Democracies make choices. Americans accept mass murder to defend an individual right to bear arms in the name of personal freedom.
You're right King... this is a freak show. Look at all the freaks in denial of their own words. You are like an abortion doctor claiming to be pro-life. And now you are imagining me trumpeting that 80,000 have viewed your thread. Do you check the tally every day? Don't blame me for how many people viewed your anti-gun rhetoric. You and Ed said those things, not me. I merely voiced my opinion that you are here to support and defend anti-gun politicians, and to LULL and undermine us, and to criticize our Right to Keep and Bear Arms based upon the evidence you provided. If you wish to shoot the messenger, that is fine by me. But you'll have to shoot yourself.
keet: if you were sincere here, one would hope to see you engage in civil discourse...however, what we see instead is a constant flow of redundant rudeness...
and because of your long history of jumping to wrong conclusions and making false statements here, few take you seriously...certainly, not i.
and keet, as for our right to keep and bear arms, there is no federal guarantee of that right. the federal government was never granted the authority to guarantee anyone the right to keep and bear arms. all the second amendment does is to limit the federal government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in the context of a well regulated militia...
and therefore, in my opinion, all federal laws, rulings and policies regarding arms are unconstitutional...and, as per the tenth amendment, regulation of arms and other powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution and its amendments, are left to the states or to the people...
if you wish to advocate for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a national right of people to keep and bear firearms, then do so...but, please...cease your nonsense here.
....How about a list of those conservtives run off by the liberals....
'We' ran the old King off, got him to vote liberal for the first time ever! Where do you find them smilie things that look like the eyes are bugging out?
I am curious who the "good people" are who have been run off this forum by "rightwingnuts"???
"I'm still waiting for Geo to tell me who the poor sensitive "good guys" are who were driven off by mean Conservatives."
keith, was that a request for a list? How about a list of those conservtives run off by the liberals...Geo
Yes Geo, that was a request for a list. Even a decent representative partial list would be nice.
Then we can try to play fair and balanced for a change and tackle the question of Conservatives who were run off by Liberals... Or more accurately, Conservatives who got sick and tired of trying to debate people who lied and presented false data and then got all huffy and butt-hurt when they were called out on it.
That pretty much sums up why Jim departed, but King Brown dishonestly attempts to paint a different scenario. But of course, I am mean-spirited and wrong for pointing that out.
Not wasting my time on making a list; doubt you are either. I think my beef here is with Dave K, and the issue seems to be his anger over my original post about defamation liability. You were already aware of it. Anyone who thinks the subject of this thread is unimportant is either foolhardy or judgment proof.
I don't quite know how to respond to Dave's nastiness in this thread. I tried reason and that didn't work. Only thing else I can think of is to reply in kind, and I'm not going to do that because it would just shame me. I guess I'll just hold steady. Maybe he'll run out of liquor or whatever is driving his nightly nasty-grams.
Oddly enough, neither King Brown nor anyone else has retained me to vet their Doublegun posts so if you have questions about their posts, you will have to take it up with them..Geo
Even a partial list would have been nice Geo, since you mentioned all of the poor "good guys" who have been run out of Misfires by "rightwingnuts". I did mention Jim, one good guy who left because of his disgust with leftwingnuts.
You don't vet King's posts and I don't vet Dave's posts. I do question a lot of King's posts, but some sensitive guys have a real problem with that. I don't plan to get between you and Dave, or Mike and jOe for that matter. I think you're all big boys and you should either deal with the heat yourselves or just get out of the kitchen... like Last Dollar did.
I don't see where there were ever a lot of people who posted on threads in Misfires. It has been characterized as a sandbox or a dunce corner by many who complain that Dave even created it at all. King has frequently mocked it and all of its' participants, just yesterday calling Misfires a Freak Show. Yet he also acts as if it is some strategic high ground that he says he must defend from fools. He can eliminate the biggest fool by following Last Dollar out the door.
Originally Posted By: King Brown
Misfires is a freak show.
Geo, I don't stay to get his goat. I'd like to make Misfires less safe for fools.
I am still shaking my head over Caitlyn SKB trying to tell us Last Dollar was a conservative. That's about like saying that George Soros is an NRA supporter. Some lies are too ridiculous to call them lies.
Listen Pal, your thread is a complete JOKE no anger I,like most of us are laughing at this ! Just look at it,a rally point for all the name calling that could be mustered up and not one "I will sue you" in the bunch !Proving my point !
Could it be Georgie that with all your your whining a cry baby antics you still have not come up with one person I-or any other of those horrible "right wing nuts" have run off here ?
I can name several members that have come and gone for different reasons,mostly I suspect to busy enjoying life then spending it on here 24/7 but only one other guy that played the lawsuit card that was Ed Good,do you really want to be in that company with that clown ?
No go and think of something else smart-ass to say and realize I will not back down,your thread is a big Fucking JOKE
a decides to sue b for deformation on the internet. a is known. b is unknown.
first question: does b as an unknown have any legal liability?
second question: if the only way a summons can be served on b is via an ip address search, then how does that search lead a process server to b and to his or her identity and location?
it is my understanding that an ip address search will only lead one to the location of the internet service portal provider, where the ip user accesses the internet. if a court order were obtained, could the portal provider then be required to submit the ip address to the court? if so, one still does not have the id of the offender, only the address of where the offense originated.
so the question remains: how does a process server determine who to serve?
zapper: please be so kind as to esplain the process as to how the offending party is identified, particularly if there are multiple users on the same network and using the same devices...
Man I sure hope Mr. Sniffle'bean doesn't sooo me for making fun of his prized Moss'turd pump shet'gun..
jOe: Does Ted prefer his Mossberg over all his other guns, even that Frenchie gun, the Darne with that odd ball action (you know, that gun Ted thinks he pulled a sneaky on you with the case colors)? A Mossberg might be easier to reload, at least faster, for sure. A Mossberg has a top safety too, seems easier to operate than a side safety. Maybe Ted isn't that far off in his preference for his Mossberg if that's the case? Idk?
RE the case color, jOe, of course everyone knew it was a joke and that you knew they were real cyanide colors. In terms of the Mossberg and cheapness, you may have something there. Ted does seem to prefer cheapness, as evidenced by getting his wife a single shot hammer gun to shoot. Not sure the type, but I'm guessing it's one of the old junker single shot hammer guns......you know, like the ones you see at Cracker Barrel over the fireplace. He even poo pooed getting her a Franchi, the old 20's aren't even that expensive, only about $500. Why not a Franchi 28 for the wife if recoil were a problem (or a benelli) but the shells are likely too expensive, alas, a single shot hammer gun for the poor girl. ;-)
Because jOe is very stUpid, everyone didn't know it was a joke, including jOe. When he typed it he thought those factory original colors on that Darne were tOrched.
RE the case color, jOe, of course everyone knew it was a joke and that you knew they were real cyanide colors. In terms of the Mossberg and cheapness, you may have something there. Ted does seem to prefer cheapness, as evidenced by getting his wife a single shot hammer gun to shoot. Not sure the type, but I'm guessing it's one of the old junker single shot hammer guns......you know, like the ones you see at Cracker Barrel over the fireplace. He even poo pooed getting her a Franchi, the old 20's aren't even that expensive, only about $500. Why not a Franchi 28 for the wife if recoil were a problem (or a benelli) but the shells are likely too expensive, alas, a single shot hammer gun for the poor girl. ;-)
The single shot is an Italian "Companion" 20 gauge hammerless shotgun. I never said it was a hammergun, you just assume many things, like all H&H Royals are built to light game gun configuration, something that anyone who knows anything at all about the guns understands is not true. If you find a Companion at a Cracker Barrel, I'd be quite surprised. They are a far better than average quality single shot. Another thing you assumed, is that the 28 recoils less than the 20, which, is simply untrue. Remember what I said about assuming things, Buzz? I'll give you some quick schooling, because you, like jOe, need quite a bit of it. The 20 gauge Winchester Featherlites, loaded in the Companion, simply kick less and are quieter than the commercial 28 gauge loads, in any 28 gauge gun we have tried. You know Buzz, you spend a lot of time talking out of your butt. You post untruths, and plain and simple bullshit, either for a cheap thrill, or due to the outright stupidity of your assumptions. Do continue the love fest with jOe, it demonstrates more, in a shorter amount of time, than anything I can really say. Just like jOe, don't feel the need to "man up" and admit anything you ever posted is wrong, or untrue.
Nobody would expect that out of either of you two.
Well Ted, I wondered how long it would take you but you finally took the bait. Yay, you didn't disappoint once again. Yes, those Italian 'companion' guns are so ugly, they probably wouldn't want one at Cracker Barrel. Also, I think you would have your hands full convincing the thousands of skeet shooters that the 20 kicks less than the 28, but whatever there. Disappointed you didn't make comment on your Mossberg or Darne, though. You took the bait though, so good enough. Thanks Ted.
Oh, and one other thing, Ted. In the Browning BSS SLE thread I will admit that I made comment to Kem on how nice his Grade II SLE really was, which I meant. The man just made a big purchase and was proud of his new find. Now comes Ted in with his classic buffoonery, blubbering about the poor handling qualities and the clubbiness and the fit of the guns. In reality, they are pretty damn nice guns for around $5,000. No, they aren't Holland Royals, but they are nice. But Ted, with your comments in that thread, you might as well have thrown mud in the man's face. Yes, I believe you were mean spirited in that thread and maneuvered your way through like only a clown would.
My opinion, then and now, was that some would find the BSS sidelock to be clubby, and some wouldn't, because that would be a matter of gunfit. Which, varies from individual to individual.
I also noted that I did not find the guns to be clubby, but, other posters on the board, had. I also noted that I have been on the lookout for one of these for quite some time. Hardly a condemnation of the guns, save to an idiot like you.
Never shot a WInchester 20 gauge Featherlite load, have you Buzz?
Look where Larry Brown corrected me on a mistake I typed about who produced the Japanese Winchester guns. See where I said he was right, and I was wrong? That is called manning up, and taking responsibility for a mistake.
We are still waiting for you to do that in the screw grip post. You see, you were all wrong in that post, and kept going on and on like you were right, even after English gunmakers very familiar with the design pointed out you were wrong. Very wrong.
You never manned up, jOe. You never do. Amarrillo Mike has been pointing this out for a long time here, because he is sick of your boorish behavior on the board, and if you had simply posted the fact that you were wrong, and thanked the guys who knew you were wrong, and corrected you, none of those posts in misfires with your name in the title would be here.
Really, jOe. It is that simple.
So, what does the word "lame" mean in your end of town, jOe?
It was so enlightening the first time. About how full if it you really are.
Ted, in the AA Brown thread you referenced and linked, jOe insulted those who disagreed with him. Why? They hadn't insulted him. They even went out of their way to step over his insults. And he was wrOng, and wrOng again, and wrOng again, and the whole time he was insulting them for daring to disagree with the omniscient HomelessjOe.
How could anybody so ignOrant be so arrOgant?
He must have been cOmpensating because he knew he really was a stUpid, ignOrant, meAn-spirited, ill-mAnnered dOg.
It was so enlightening the first time. About how full if it you really are.
Ted, in the AA Brown thread you referenced and linked, jOe insulted those who disagreed with him. Why? They hadn't insulted him. They even went out of their way to step over his insults. And he was wrOng, and wrOng again, and wrOng again, and the whole time he was insulting them for daring to disagree with the omniscient HomelessjOe.
How could anybody so ignOrant be so arrOgant?
He must have been cOmpensating because he knew he really was a stUpid, ignOrant, meAn-spirited, ill-mAnnered dOg.
Even a Purdey with hacksawed barrels is only worth what some fool will pay for it.
Posturing? Look up the meaning of the word, oldster. You won't be there, ever, we saw the picture of you back when you did even dumber things on this board, and you would be on life support if you tried hunting RLWMA. The drive might kill you.
Not a place for internet tyrants with stupid black eagles.
Like you. Now go find some turkeys to sluice, out of the pickup window.
Best, Ted
Mr.Sniffle'bean is it true that Moss'turds and Darne barrels really take a shine to chit stained cleaning patches ?
It was so enlightening the first time. About how full if it you really are.
Ted, in the AA Brown thread you referenced and linked, jOe insulted those who disagreed with him. Why? They hadn't insulted him. They even went out of their way to step over his insults. And he was wrOng, and wrOng again, and wrOng again, and the whole time he was insulting them for daring to disagree with the omniscient HomelessjOe.
How could anybody so ignOrant be so arrOgant?
He must have been cOmpensating because he knew he really was a stUpid, ignOrant, meAn-spirited, ill-mAnnered dOg.
Seems to me that nca225 is still a coward and a slimy piece of shit who thought I would just forgive and forget that he posted filthy remarks about my daughters. Maybe nca would like to sue me for reminding folks what a low life scumbag he is and for giving my fact based opinion. Perhaps nca really is such an idiot that he forgot about repeatedly making "defaming statements" with "resect" (sic) to my business dealings and integrity by repeatedly lying about my purchase of a Lefever shotgun.
I did some of my own research into this topic awhile back when one of Geo's fellow lawyers suggested that I could be sued. I learned that it is still quite legal to give your opinion about someone, whether it is on the internet or on TV or in an article or editorial. I learned that you should not make obvious libelous or slanderous statements. These are statements that you know to be false. If you know or believe or can prove someone is a liar or a slimy piece of shit, for example, then you have not slandered that person. If you have the brains to save a quote that shows someone is a liar or anti-gun or even a scumbag that said filthy things about your daughters, that aggrieved person can wipe their ass with their crybaby complaint. I frequently call Ed Good an Anti-Gunner and have saved dozens of his Anti-Gun statements. Ed Good calls me an Anti-Gun mole but could never provide one anti-gun word from me. Which of us might have a problem if I was a thin-skinned pussy? Actual libel or slander is very difficult, read expensive, to prove, and actual damages tougher yet. It was suggested that I should be sued to create financial damage or disincentive to me, legal censorship and punishment if you will. I learned that life is a two-way street and that I could always counter sue or even file an anti-SLAPP action in some states to recover legal fees. I also learned that the vast majority of these cases end up enriching the plaintiff's lawyer and go nowhere.
As always, everything I post on this forum is my opinion.
And this cumming from keeth!!!! What a joke! Should be a law about the pot calling the kettle black!
Ted it's not what I "think" but what I've experienced with vintage English SxS's while you were busy polishing your Mossy'turd shotgun barrels with yer chit stained drawers.
It was so enlightening the first time. About how full if it you really are.
Ted, in the AA Brown thread you referenced and linked, jOe insulted those who disagreed with him. Why? They hadn't insulted him. They even went out of their way to step over his insults. And he was wrOng, and wrOng again, and wrOng again, and the whole time he was insulting them for daring to disagree with the omniscient HomelessjOe.
How could anybody so ignOrant be so arrOgant?
He must have been cOmpensating because he knew he really was a stUpid, ignOrant, meAn-spirited, ill-mAnnered dOg.
It was so enlightening the first time. About how full if it you really are.
Ted, in the AA Brown thread you referenced and linked, jOe insulted those who disagreed with him. Why? They hadn't insulted him. They even went out of their way to step over his insults. And he was wrOng, and wrOng again, and wrOng again, and the whole time he was insulting them for daring to disagree with the omniscient HomelessjOe.
How could anybody so ignOrant be so arrOgant?
He must have been cOmpensating because he knew he really was a stUpid, ignOrant, meAn-spirited, ill-mAnnered dOg.
It was so enlightening the first time. About how full if it you really are.
Ted, in the AA Brown thread you referenced and linked, jOe insulted those who disagreed with him. Why? They hadn't insulted him. They even went out of their way to step over his insults. And he was wrOng, and wrOng again, and wrOng again, and the whole time he was insulting them for daring to disagree with the omniscient HomelessjOe.
How could anybody so ignOrant be so arrOgant?
He must have been cOmpensating because he knew he really was a stUpid, ignOrant, meAn-spirited, ill-mAnnered dOg.
Judicious use of the moderator's power to ban trolls, trolling, and baiting would also make this a better place.
And you'd be the first brain dead mO'f'r troller to go...
I'm guilty......Ted chastised me for not admitting to anything so I'm admitting I baited him earlier in this thread. He totally pissed me off in the Browning BSS sidelock thread, really throwing mud in the new owner of the Grade II's face, but really it was all in an effort to give the statements I made in the thread less credence. Statements such as 'downright ridiculous' were made by none other than Ted after I said, well if a Browning BSS sidelock isn't svelte then a Holland Royal isnt svelte either'. Ted likes to be argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, so in my opinion my baiting of him got him what he deserved. I don't regret it. Not for a second.
Total and complete bullshit again, Buzz. The only even slightly negative comment leveled specifically at the BSS sidelock in the entire thread was that they weren't a collectable yet. I didn't say it.
You did.
No one threw mud, in any way, shape or form at the new owner, or his gun. A few folks had mentioned they had owned them and sent them down the road looking for lighter guns. I pointed out that it was quite likely the guns didn't fit them. A gun that doesn't fit someone has nothing per say wrong or inferior about it, it simply doesn't fit that particular human.
If pointing that out is slinging mud, God help us.
Ted do those chit stained cleaning patches (made from your old pAnties) really put a shine on the MOss'turd barrel ?
If you ever looked at anyone else's undies, I'm sure the complete lack of any stains would be a wonderous surprise to a rube like you. Soap and laundry equipment miss your little corner of the world, jOe? Sure sounds like it.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Good point Treb!
Of course, wrOng-agAin-jOe just wants to change the conversation to the strength of English wildfowl guns and from the fact that hE got the maker, the action, the lockup, and the hinge pin all wrOng on the Gallyon in this thread:
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Good point Treb!
Of course, wrOng-agAin-jOe just wants to change the conversation to the strength of English wildfowl guns and from the fact that hE got the maker, the action, the lockup, and the hinge pin all wrOng on the Gallyon in this thread:
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Good point Treb!
Of course, wrOng-agAin-jOe just wants to change the conversation to the strength of English wildfowl guns and from the fact that hE got the maker, the action, the lockup, and the hinge pin all wrOng on the Gallyon in this thread:
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Good point Treb!
Of course, wrOng-agAin-jOe just wants to change the conversation to the strength of English wildfowl guns and from the fact that hE got the maker, the action, the lockup, and the hinge pin all wrOng on the Gallyon in this thread:
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Total and complete bullshit again, Buzz. The only even slightly negative comment leveled specifically at the BSS sidelock in the entire thread was that they weren't a collectable yet. I didn't say it.
You did.
No one threw mud, in any way, shape or form at the new owner, or his gun. A few folks had mentioned they had owned them and sent them down the road looking for lighter guns. I pointed out that it was quite likely the guns didn't fit them. A gun that doesn't fit someone has nothing per say wrong or inferior about it, it simply doesn't fit that particular human.
If pointing that out is slinging mud, God help us.
Best, Ted
You certainly are fond of butchering the King's English with the crude term 'bullshIt' which you have used 3 times in this thread alone, there Ted. I'm beginning to believe you don't know how to utilize proper English. Improper English, guttural responses and condescending replies, such as 'downright ridiculous' are most unbecoming.
RE the case color, jOe, of course everyone knew it was a joke and that you knew they were real cyanide colors. In terms of the Mossberg and cheapness, you may have something there. Ted does seem to prefer cheapness, as evidenced by getting his wife a single shot hammer gun to shoot. Not sure the type, but I'm guessing it's one of the old junker single shot hammer guns......you know, like the ones you see at Cracker Barrel over the fireplace. He even poo pooed getting her a Franchi, the old 20's aren't even that expensive, only about $500. Why not a Franchi 28 for the wife if recoil were a problem (or a benelli) but the shells are likely too expensive, alas, a single shot hammer gun for the poor girl. ;-)
That was nothing more than an error re the hammer gun. The cheapness part was and is likely very accurate. How much does one of those cheap 'companion' guns cost? $250-$300. Cheap. Don't let your wife read this. She would surely be disappointed knowing her husband bought her such a cheap piece of junk (she already knows how ugly the gun is). However, it almost seems understandable from a guy who hunts Ruffed Grouse with a slinged gun, though. The great grouse hunter, Ted..... What a joke.
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
I guess your rational is that if you keep posting the same lies over and over then someone besides a mentally challenged idiOt like you will believe them....
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Originally Posted By: treblig1958
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Originally Posted By: treblig1958
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Originally Posted By: treblig1958
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Originally Posted By: treblig1958
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Originally Posted By: treblig1958
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Originally Posted By: treblig1958
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
The English always had or have trouble building stout guns for waterfowl hunting and handling those stout waterfowl loads, everyone knows that.
Of course, for the last few centuries or so they built guns that can handle loads that can take down an eight ton elephant, a five ton rhino, a four ton hippo and a few two ton cape buffaloe, but those stout waterfowl guns to bring down those 4 pound pit bull like Canadian geese, yep, that's beyond them.
Originally Posted By: treblig1958
Thanks Mike. All those poor guys over in Africa having to suffice with those old worn out English built guns probably a hundred years old or close to it, but still knocking down dangerous game left and right, those poor guys, they don't know what they're doing.
Someone better go over there and Ed-U-ma-cate them. Learn them up good.
Treb why does ol' stUpid keep offering opiniOns on that gun?
hE was wrOng about the maker. hE was wrOng about the action. hE war wrOng about the lockup. hE was wrOng about the hinge pin.
Who would think jOe knew anything about doubleguns, much less English doubleguns, and much, much less that particular English doublegun.
