Bark River Posts

Cougar Allen said:
The grammar is a little confusing, but I believe Whitie means "those who are familiar with Mike's record are offended by his repeated dishonesty." That is certainly true, and the documentation is right here on this forum: you can easily find posts by people who are familiar with Mike's record who are clearly offended by his dishonesty. Truth is an absolute defense against the charge of slander.
Click to expand...

Well, that could be where the problem lies. Perhaps I interpreted the verbiage incorrectly. Now that you have thoroughly explained it, it seems to make more sense. It appeared to me at first read, that the "dishonesty" language was meant to be personal rather than general. . Much obliged for your assistance.
 
Last time this came up, I did some research, including with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Is part of the "dishonesty" a reference to the failure of Blackjack to pay its bills/meet its contractual commitments after it went into bankruptcy?
 
The facts are that Mike Stewart has left a trail of unhappy business partners and collaborators in his wake for over 20 years.

The federal government had a laundy list of allegations against him. They were only able to convict him on a lesser charge of bank fraud and he was convicted of a felony and given three years probation. Good for him.

If you choose to support him, good for you. Don't complain if you get porked.
 
Bladeandbarrel said:
The facts are that Mike Stewart has left a trail of unhappy business partners and collaborators in his wake for over 20 years.

The federal government had a laundy list of allegations against him. They were only able to convict him on a lesser charge of bank fraud and he was convicted of a felony and given three years probation. Good for him.

If you choose to support him, good for you. Don't complain if you get porked.
Click to expand...

Porked?. :confused:

Other than being amused and entertained by your super silly gratuitous post. . What else are you implying?.

Because really, I thought this was all over.
 
sunnyd said:
Because really, I thought this was all over.
Click to expand...

Guyon said:
One or two misdeeds, one might be able to rationalize and write off as creative differences or poor money skills. But when they start to pile up, when a pattern emerges (Blackjack, Fisk, Youell in just this short post), should one continue to ignore it? I think it's a legitimate question, and no one has offered up a satisfactory answer as to why we, as members of the knife community, should ignore or excuse this kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

Some, I guess, are still hoping to see legitimate posts regarding things like: why Jerry Fisk would have the audacity to claim Stewart took a design without paying royalties, why Stewart's trouble with the bank was all a mistake, and why Stewart thought it better judgment simply to pay back Youell on his own timeline. About the best we've gotten so far is that there's more to Mike Stewart than a bunch of one-sided reports and that maybe we'll know the truth someday.

It's true that so much of the talk about Mike Stewart's past has been one-sided, but maybe that's because no one else has produced any facts to contradict some of the postings.

I, for one, hope to see some of the other side. But all I've read so far is that Stewart provides great customer service to a lot of folks (which I'm sure is true) and that his company puts out a great knife (which I know is true).
 
I think he weant the word "porked" is a reference to being intercoursed in a sexual manner, or at least it was in grade 7 for me.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top