Look what someone found

[Spark]

I look at post after post on this same topic, and all I see are paths that forever turn around and dive back into the same darkened path.
But I believe there is another way, another path that the people in this story could take to free themselves for endless bickerings and bitterness.

To forgive.
To seek to do good to the very ones who now are our targets and we theirs...
To turn the other cheak to past mistakes and hurts.
To be known as a peacemaker, and no longer as just one voice in the din of the mob.
To drop the rocks...

"Forgive" ... "he learned his lesson" ... "he made some mistakes!" ... "He took his lumps!" ... "he paid his price"

Dude, no offense but in order to forgive it actually requires someone owning up to having done wrong. That doesn't seem like it's so, or would you say him telling these tales until I bothered to document how long it was going on for is a sign of acknowledgement? I'm not calling for any judgement, so I can't grant any forgiveness either. That's something the individual has to do. I'm just saying "here is the behavior, draw your own conclusions."

Where's all the talk of forgiveness for Lynn Thompson? Or Maxpedition? Or me? I don't see any. I just see "oh, so and so is a bad person, rawr boycott!"

Again, the hypocrisy is amazing.

 

[roughedges]

Now return to the lesson, see yourself there within the story.
What side are you on?
Are you standing with the Master. ...or clutching a rock?

So, I am either on "the Master's" side or am throwing stones? thats like a bad michael jackson song... "its black, its white"!

Get over yourself, fella. I'll side with whomever speaks the truth whether its popular or not. Funny thing about the truth: there are no sides involved (except for right and wrong, obviously) and it always comes out in the end.

So, what do you suggest people do in this situation, Allan, and not in some hypothetical "lesson"? Should all just ignore the lies and years of deceit? How in the world does that make anyone a better person? Or how about those who have actually served and felt no need to embellish their careers and thereby benefit off the creation of a false personal legend? Are they worse for feeling anger over the deception?

Your so-called argument has so many holes in it I don't know why anyone even pays attention to you, myself included. I feel my IQ slipping for even bothering.

 

[thombrogan]

Allan Mostad,

You used to make Klingon weaponry, but you claim you don't understand Sci-Fi folk or the tactical knife crowd.

You referred to a relative as 'a family member,' but went with said relative to be 'a good parent.' Aren't good parents proud enough of their children to not refer to them as 'a family member?'

You seem more upset with Spark for being verbally abused by Strider than you are with Strider for his abusive remarks.

I'm glad you're above 'choosing sides' in this conflict, but am puzzled as to what you've chosen in place of sides.

 

[Allan Molstad]

Dude, no offense but in order to forgive it actually requires someone owning up to having done wrong.

The MOMENT you tell yourself, "I cant forgive until he repents" thats the moment you turn control of yourself over to this other person and allow them to rule over the matters of your own heart.

My point is that- To forgive is the only way out of this.

Now anyone can judge the guilt of another,
and anyone can forgive another once they see real long-lasting proof that the person has truly repented of his errors.
Anyone can do that because it's easy....it's also of little value.

So what am I talking about?
To be a true "peacemaker' you have to be able to forgive the very ones who are currently causeing you the most harm.
To forgive without being asked.
To forgive without seeing any change in the other person at all...
This is how we learn if someone follows the lessons of a Master who was able to forgive they who yet were at the time tossing dice .

 

[Allan Molstad]

Allan Mostad,

I'm glad you're above 'choosing sides' in this conflict, but am puzzled as to what you've chosen in place of sides.

Again, we are all given lessons that can serve us as guides to the way we interact with each other.

Like the guide of turning the other cheak.
This should be what we are known for doing. It thereby should also be something that I myself should be known for doing.

This helps limit our zeal to "get even",
it controls our need to "look good in front of others'
It directs our future efforts away from pointless personal attacks, and helps us see the wisdom in offering to forgive the many flaws we see in others.

When I am attacked by another, I feel the same need to answer back in kind.
Eye for an eye, is a very real temptation.

But the problem with "eye for an eye', is that the result of that mind set is that you always end up with two blind guys swinging at each other in the dark....

 

[Spark]

The MOMENT you tell yourself, "I cant forgive until he repents" thats the moment you turn control of yourself over to this other person and allow them to rule over the matters of your own heart.

Sorry, but all this talk of one-sided forgiveness is straining my eyes. Tell you what, Allan, I forgive you for being a hypocrite. I forgive you for having double standards, and I forgive you for acting like my pointing out the BS is worse than Mick Strider's having done so for years.

 

[roughedges]

I figure that if Strider stood up and said, "hey, I'm sorry, I screwed up. I know I screwed up." he'd be worthy of much respect and total forgiveness. In that circumstance, he would recieve it from me. It takes a real man to admit when he's made such a mistake and a big man to accept his public lumps. It'd also have the additional benefit of difusing all these threads.

But I suspect he will never do that. And he is by no means required to do so. But, unless and until he does so, he, imo, is not deserving of any respect or forgiveness from any of us.

If anyhting, I believe that Allan Molstad should be preaching at Strider's unquestioning sycophants, at those who follow and defend him without question and apparently with no issue whatsoever regarding his multiple lies.

 

[Allan Molstad]

he'd be worthy of much respect and total forgiveness. .

Thats the deal, none of us are...
None of us are actually worthy of being forgiven anything by anyone.

True forgivness is not centered around the guy who was in the wrong, it's rather a concept dealing with the heart of the person who has anger ...

What Im talking about is that same thing that was pointed out to the rock holding mob by the Master.

The challenge we face is that when we are confronted with the results of what our zeal against others has caused us to do, that we dont end up being the last guy holding on to his rock.

 

[Gene Martin]

Allan,

You'll have to forgive me in that I haven't yet figured out how to drag quotes on this thing. But to address a few of your statements:
You have tried, to a degree, to take the high road and bring this around to a Bible lesson, or use the Bible for a lesson. That can be a good thing. But let's look a little farther than having the rock in hand. Jesus next words to the woman were to go and sin no more.
All forgiveness is based on repentence before God.
Jesus said that if we have something against a brother to take it to him and try to resolve the problem. If that fails, take some witnesses. If that fails, stand the offender before the congeation. If that fails, to throw him out.
Jesus made no apologies whatever for condemning, in the harshest words possible, the religious leaders for their perversion of truth.
The Word says that liars will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Rather than base your premise anout this on not throwing rocks, here's the problem that as I see it:

Mick lied, continues to do so, and is unrepentant. Problem.
Spark called him to righteous behavior and to repent. Good thing.
Mick is unrepentant. Problem
Spark brought the matter to him, very specifically. Good thing.
Mick continues to lie and evade. Bad thing.
Spark identifies sin. Good thing.
Mick denies and obfuscates. Problem

When Jesus took a scourge and drove the money changers from the Temple, he acted righteously. He didn't apologize. When God said he hates a false weight or measure, He speaks of what we call consumer fraud today. Sound familiar.

Of you want to take the high road, do so in context, David was a warrior and a man after God's own heart. He called right right and wrong wrong, even to his own sin. Jesus taught love, but also taught truth. No where in the Bible does He tells us to go out and to endorse the falsehoods of men. We are told to expose sin and darkness.

Your analogy to the woman in adultery could do with a better analogy. That was used to try to trick Jesus. He turned the tables on them, but still admonished the woman. He forgives, when we repent.

Be careful about defending evildoers lesat you find yourself in the position of Roamns 1, where the people are condemned for not just accepting unrighteous conduct, but even approving it.

Christians should be ready and willing to call wrong what it is. We are not doe eyed innocents with our hands folded meekly in front of us. When Jesus spoke of meek people, the word means strength under control, not wimp.

I appreciate you trying to reconcile things, but let's look at the big picture, not the little one. Someone has built himself and his company's rep on falsehoods, and continues to do so. Maybe he cannot help himself, I dunno. But one cannot, as a Christian, accept or defend such behavior. We can chose to forgive, but God doesn't forgive continuing sin. He hates it. And in forgiving, the Word says nothing about allowing someone to continue to take advantage, or us defending the sin of the sinner.

Also forgive my spelling. I spell way better than I type.

Gene

 

[Deadhead Archer]

Awesome post, Gene! :thumbup:

 

[digitalrebelttu]

You need to be very specific if you are going to make such allegations, because I've been. As for the allegations about Mick Strider forming a corporation to avoid the "felon selling to the government" issue, will his own words do?

http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-b...ebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000509;p=1#000022

Would you say it's speculation there, counselor?

Again, you have to be specific. I stated that I found it hard to believe such a story, especially given his other credibility issues and my personal experience. Opinions are allowed to be just that.

Again, be specific. I showed the mag pouches & holsters. Quotes were provided of him talking about doing mag dumps, having "throwables" and wanting pistols for carry. But I did not say "THIS IS PROOF!"

Amazing that you are willing to jump to conclusions without basing them on facts yourself, counselor.

Newsflash - everything I stated as fact, I'll stand behind. Every opinion I have, I'll stand behind and stated it as such. I've repeatedly stated that any incorrect information should be corrected and literally begged for evidence disproving anything I've had to say. So far, none's come up.

If there's going to be a suit, it'll come regardless. It'll be interesting to see what happens during discovery.

Well, I like the counselor part- is that supposed to be a put down or an attempt to rile me up?

Contracting- please make up your mind- either strider is a liar or not but he can't be lying when the information supports what you want and be truthful when you want to use the info to crucify him. Just because someone thinks something is the law does not make it so.

Steven L. Schooner, an associate professor and contracting expert at George Washington University Law School, said that although there is no explicit prohibition against giving contracts to felons or people with poor business histories, the government is obligated to ensure that potential vendors have a satisfactory record of business ethics and integrity, and that they have the financial resources to meet contractual obligations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/28/AR2006042802345_pf.html

I have to be more specific- I have to be nothing, I'm not posting speculation, you're the one posting all of your "proof." You asked for examples in what you said and I provided 3.

Your above qoute is inherently contradictory because you say that Strider has a pattern of lying and you don't trust his word but then you turn around and rely on his word to show that he has done wrong. For someone who has posted about logical fallacies, you surely must see that.

Anyone can read my posts concerning the information that is supported by hard proof- the criminal history, the civil case- and see that I am not a Strider supporter but neither am I going to give others a pass. Strider was sued for making claims false claims about Osman and you are using that to justify posting of this, yet you are doing the same thing and embellishing and speculating beyond known facts. You have accused strider of 1-fraudalent contracting and carrying/ possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. You have posted those as conclusory statements, based solely upon the words of someone who you call a liar- you have not posted a statute, caselaw, or federal regulation pertaining to federal contracting nor have you posted any information regarding whether strider had the terms of his probation modified or whether he petitioned to have his firearm privileges restored.

Its laughable that you think you can escape a defamation claim by posting allegations which may or may not be true and asking for others to refute your claims. The same as LT is absolutely stupid to post this stuff on his corporate website and open his company to action. I posted as a warning to anybody in this to be careful of which topics to go off on, whether anyone wants to heed that advice, I don't really care.

 

[Thomas Linton]

...
Contracting- please make up your mind- either strider is a liar or not but he can't be lying when the information supports what you want and be truthful when you want to use the info to crucify him. Just because someone thinks something is the law does not make it so.

As an attorney, you surely know that the statements of the other side are generally admissible as to the truth of the matter asserted when those statements are contrary to the pecuniary or penal interests of the declarant. For example, were Mr. Strider to admit a fact contrary to his business interests or interests in staying out of the slam, such an admission is admissible evidence of the truth of the matter admitted. That is so even were it to be the case that he is otherwise an unreliable source of information.

Your above qoute is inherently contradictory because you say that Strider has a pattern of lying and you don't trust his word but then you turn around and rely on his word to show that he has done wrong. For someone who has posted about logical fallacies, you surely must see that.

Beyond it's being the law, the logic of the the law is that sane persons seldom say things that are BOTH contrary to their interests AND intentionally inaccurate. The law is interested in truthfulness, or the probability of truthfulness. One is always free, of course, to argue that the statements quoted are not, in fact, accurate.

Anyone can read my posts concerning the information that is supported by hard proof- the criminal history, the civil case- and see that I am not a Strider supporter but neither am I going to give others a pass. Strider was sued for making claims false claims about Osman and you are using that to justify posting of this, yet you are doing the same thing and embellishing and speculating beyond known facts. You have accused strider of 1-fraudalent contracting and carrying/ possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. You have posted those as conclusory statements, based solely upon the words of someone who you call a liar- you have not posted a statute, caselaw, or federal regulation pertaining to federal contracting nor have you posted any information regarding whether strider had the terms of his probation modified or whether he petitioned to have his firearm privileges restored.

I don't place you firmly in any camp. And it's prudent to stick to facts, rather than drawing inferences from facts.

Its laughable that you think you can escape a defamation claim by posting allegations which may or may not be true and asking for others to refute your claims. The same as LT is absolutely stupid to post this stuff on his corporate website and open his company to action. I posted as a warning to anybody in this to be careful of which topics to go off on, whether anyone wants to heed that advice, I don't really care.

Actually, one might argue that failure to refute a claim when one had the opportunity AND one would have been expected to refute that claim constitutes proof of the accuracy of that claim: silence as a permissible inference of the truth of the accusation. But that's just an argument, and the person who selected silence is free to explain why he did so.

Erring on the side of caution is good advice.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

As an attorney, you surely know that the statements of the other side are generally admissible as to the truth of the matter asserted when those statements are contrary to the pecuniary or penal interests of the declarant. For example, were Mr. Strider to admit a fact contrary to his business interests or interests in staying out of the slam, such an admission is admissible evidence of the truth of the matter admitted. That is so even were it to be the case that he is otherwise an unreliable source of information.


Beyond it's being the law, the logic of the the law is that sane persons seldom say things that are BOTH contrary to their interests AND intentionally inaccurate. The law is interested in truthfulness, or the probability of truthfulness. One is always free, of course, to argue that the statements quoted are not, in fact, accurate.


I don't place you firmly in any camp. And it's prudent to stick to facts, rather than drawing inferences from facts.


Actually, one might argue that failure to refute a claim when one had the opportunity AND one would have been expected to refute that claim constitutes proof of the accuracy of that claim: silence as a permissible inference of the truth of the accusation. But that's just an argument, and the person who selected silence is free to explain why he did so.

Erring on the side of caution is good advice.

Mr. Linton, I am aware of the hearsay exception which you describe, however, the point that I was making was not whether it is a truthful statement, i.e. that strider said it and believed it, but whether he is mistaken in the law and he can not be guilty of a "crime" if said crime is not in fact a crime.

As far as his statements being used against him, absolutely, I agree with you, but the fact finder does not have to believe his words and his attorney could impeach his own client's propensity for truthfulness by pointing to a past pattern of untruthfulness (in some circumstances).

While I agree with you in principal about failure to correct statements, in this specific instance, the accusations I specifically pointed out involve accusations of criminal conduct and his 5th amendment rights are relevant.

My overall point was cautioning everyone to watch what they are saying because I don't want to see anyone here, or even LT for that matter, to open themselves to legal peril because of this stuff.

 

[Spark]

Oh hay, welcome back. I trust your respite was productive. Actually, when I tell you to be specific, I'm asking you to directly quote what I said, because this post of yours:
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4363439&highlight=government#post4363439

coupled with the quote I provided straight from the "horse's mouth" would make for an interesting "defamation" case, especially since it's hard for me to be "defaming" or "libeling" him if it's just a repeat of his own words, correct? Your statements that I'm "speculating" on various aspects of this are very interesting, but completely ignore Mick Strider's responsibility in these speculations / conclusions, including the statements he's made. There's a difference between willfully lying about someone, and repeating the claims made by the person you are referencing.

You are right though, I should correct that segment of my post from:

Since the corporation is not registered in Mick Strider's name, Government contract regulations about purchasing from convicted felons are neatly bypassed.

to

Mick Strider statement above implies that since the corporation is not registered in Mick Strider's name, Government contract regulations about purchasing from convicted felons are neatly bypassed.

Would that salve your ire? From the beginning I've repeatedly asked that people correct any wrong information I have.

With regards to Mick Strider possessing firearms, I'm sorry but I can't find a spot where I specifically stated that he was, 100%, no doubt about it in possession of them. I stated repeatedly I am angered when I read about felons talking about using firearms, that he is lying (or even worse, given his felony, telling the truth) about having them, that I find it funny he'd have CQB gear complete with holster for firearms he can't touch, and that his talk certainly implies he's handling them on a regular basis. But you are going to have to be specific if you are going to claim that I stated he is carrying and / or possessing them.

If someone's going to level defamation charges at me over this, a lawyer is going to have a field day with all the testimony Mick Strider himself provided. Ever hear of the "reasonable man" defense? Or "reasonable suspicion"? Given the hard fact that Mick Strider is a convicted felon, and the hard fact of his parole paperwork provided, and the hard fact that his posts about firearms and mag dumping and such were made right here during his parole period, would you say that a reasonable man would conclude that either he's lying (faking his rep / knowledge, destroying his credibility, damning one way), or telling the truth (felon with a firearm, damning the other). There's no good outcome for him either way.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

You are right though, I should correct that segment of my post from: to

Would that salve your ire? From the beginning I've repeatedly asked that people correct any wrong information I have.

I'm sorry but I'm used to discussing legal matters with people who have the intelligence to follow along, so here it is slowly- IF THERE ISN'T A FEDERAL LAW AGAINST CONTRACTING WITH A FELON, HE CAN'T BE ACCUSED OF DOING IT, EVEN IF HE THINKS HE IS DOING THAT. I posted a qoute and a link, you have not posted any support that there is such a law.

With regards to Mick Strider possessing firearms, I'm sorry but I can't find a spot where I specifically stated that he was, 100%, no doubt about it in possession of them. I stated repeatedly I am angered when I read about felons talking about using firearms, that he is lying (or even worse, given his felony, telling the truth) about having them, that I find it funny he'd have CQB gear complete with holster for firearms he can't touch, and that his talk certainly implies he's handling them on a regular basis. But you are going to have to be specific if you are going to claim that I stated he is carrying and / or possessing them.

I'm sorry what is the point of that section then? You describe all of the above and say that he can't possess a firearm b/c of his probation and his felony conviction- the whole point being to imply either explicitly or implicitly that he is guilty of violating his probation or federal law. It is not my fault that you are laboring under false notions of the standards of proof or evidence required in a defamation action.

If someone's going to level defamation charges at me over this, a lawyer is going to have a field day with all the testimony Mick Strider himself provided. Ever hear of the "reasonable man" defense? Or "reasonable suspicion"? Given the hard fact that Mick Strider is a convicted felon, and the hard fact of his parole paperwork provided, and the hard fact that his posts about firearms and mag dumping and such were made right here during his parole period, would you say that a reasonable man would conclude that either he's lying (faking his rep / knowledge, destroying his credibility, damning one way), or telling the truth (felon with a firearm, damning the other). There's no good outcome for him either way.

I'm sorry but you are simply not providing accurate legal arguments- reasonable suspicion has nothing to do with defamation actions and there is no reasonable man defense. Truth is the defense to a defamation action and if the underlying truth is that he was lying about having a firearm, ergo he can not be held criminally responsible for lying about possessing a gun, only if he in fact did. That is what you are accusing him of. I don't really care if you don't have the native intelligence to follow those arguments.

The hard fact is that he has shown to have a history of lying, he can claim that he was the shooter on the grassy knoll, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Spark]

I'm sorry but your lack of intelligence in being able to use the quote button is really annoying. So, if you are going to level ad hom's there, buddy, you might want to learn the extremely, extremely, extremely simple VBCode.

Here, I'll show you:

I'm sorry but I'm used to discussing legal matters with people who have the intelligence to follow along, so here it is slowly- IF THERE ISN'T A FEDERAL LAW AGAINST CONTRACTING WITH A FELON, HE CAN'T BE ACCUSED OF DOING IT, EVEN IF HE THINKS HE IS DOING THAT. I posted a qoute and a link, you have not posted any support that there is such a law.

IF THERE ISN'T A FEDERAL LAW ABOUT CONTRACTING WITH A FELON, WHY DID HE MAKE A SPECIFIC POINT TO BRING IT UP? Saying I'm "defaming" him, when my statements are made on his claims where he brags about it is a tough sell.

I'm sorry what is the point of that section then? You describe all of the above and say that he can't possess a firearm b/c of his probation and his felony conviction- the whole point being to imply either explicitly or implicitly that he is guilty of violating his probation or federal law. It is not my fault that you are laboring under false notions of the standards of proof or evidence required in a defamation action.

The point of the section is that it speaks to his credibility. I'll say it slowly, so you can FOLLOW ALONG

• Option A: he is lying about dumping mags, carrying guns, throwables and such to the point where he'd have a specialized CQB style rig, complete with mag pouches, grenade pouches, and a holster. That he'd go to such lengths to puff himself up when he can't even possess, much less own, carry or use a firearm speaks volumes.
• Option B: He's telling the truth about all that. This is bad for him, because he was still under his parole, right?
  Unless he's had his 2nd amendment rights restored, felon + gun = no no in the eyes of the law.

At the least, it shows yet another area where Mick Strider has difficulty with the truth. At the worst, it shows he's breaking the law. I don't care either way, because neither option speaks highly of him.

I'm sorry but you are simply not providing accurate legal arguments- reasonable suspicion has nothing to do with defamation actions and there is no reasonable man defense. Truth is the defense to a defamation action and if the underlying truth is that he was lying about having a firearm, ergo he can not be held criminally responsible for lying about possessing a gun, only if he in fact did. That is what you are accusing him of. I don't really care if you don't have the native intelligence to follow those arguments.

The hard fact is that he has shown to have a history of lying, he can claim that he was the shooter on the grassy knoll, but that doesn't make it so.

I'm sorry, but unless you can provide quotes of me stating unequivocally that he did possess firearms, good luck with making a defamation case. I really don't care if you lack the native intelligence to use the quote button properly, but your ad homs are getting tiresome.

Statements presented as facts must be false to be defamatory. Either Mick Strider was lying about firearms handling, or was telling the truth about handling them while on parole; neither one paints a pretty picture for him. Either way he's going to have to prove they are false for me to have defamed him, and his own words will definately bite him there. But since you keep bringing up defamation, tell me: What is the "Fair comment" defense?

I'm glad you agree he has a history of lying, because that is the overall point here.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

I'm sorry but your lack of intelligence in being able to use the quote button is really annoying. So, if you are going to level ad hom's there, buddy, you might want to learn the extremely, extremely, extremely simple VBCode.

Here, I'll show you: IF THERE ISN'T A FEDERAL LAW ABOUT CONTRACTING WITH A FELON, WHY DID HE MAKE A SPECIFIC POINT TO BRING IT UP? Saying I'm "defaming" him, when my statements are made on his claims where he brags about it is a tough sell.

The point of the section is that it speaks to his credibility. I'll say it slowly, so you can FOLLOW ALONG

• Option A: he is lying about dumping mags, carrying guns, throwables and such to the point where he'd have a specialized CQB style rig, complete with mag pouches, grenade pouches, and a holster. That he'd go to such lengths to puff himself up when he can't even possess, much less own, carry or use a firearm speaks volumes.
• Option B: He's telling the truth about all that. This is bad for him, because he was still under his parole, right?
  Unless he's had his 2nd amendment rights restored, felon + gun = no no in the eyes of the law.

At the least, it shows yet another area where Mick Strider has difficulty with the truth. At the worst, it shows he's breaking the law. I don't care either way, because neither option speaks highly of him.

I'm sorry, but unless you can provide quotes of me stating unequivocally that he did possess firearms, good luck with making a defamation case. I really don't care if you lack the native intelligence to use the quote button properly, but your ad homs are getting tiresome.

Statements presented as facts must be false to be defamatory. Either Mick Strider was lying about firearms handling, or was telling the truth about handling them while on parole; neither one paints a pretty picture for him. Either way he's going to have to prove they are false for me to have defamed him, and his own words will definately bite him there.

I'm glad you agree he has a history of lying, because that is the overall point here.

WHERE IS THE FEDERAL LAW THAT PREVENTS A FELON FROM CONTRACTING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Where? Have you looked? You really are a joker in over your head- how's that for an ad hom- you can get pissy over that as a diversion away from not providing proof of what you are saying.

What about your defenses? I noticed how you dance around those to throw a hissy fit over an ad hom attack while doing it yourself.

 

[Spark]

WHERE IS THE FEDERAL LAW THAT PREVENTS A FELON FROM CONTRACTING WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? Where? Have you looked? You really are a joker in over your head- how's that for an ad hom- you can get pissy over that as a diversion away from not providing proof of what you are saying.

What about your defenses? I noticed how you dance around those to throw a hissy fit over an ad hom attack while doing it yourself.

Ya know what, I'm not getting into a shouting match with you. Even a cursory glance at Wiki shows defenses against defamation that reinforce what I've been saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Here, let's look under defenses -

• Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as in English Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.
• Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
  ...
• Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.
• Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.

Those apply to everything I've stated. If they don't, explain why.

I didn't bring up the "felon dealing with the Government" issue - Mick Strider did. In 2005. On multiple websites. Saying I "defamed" him, by repeating what he claimed, is a stretch.

If you are going to talk about people lacking intelligence, don't get pissy when you are shown to have a similar lack. Otherwise, address the specifics of this.

 

[digitalrebelttu]

Ya know what, I'm not getting into a shouting match with you. Even a cursory glance at Wiki shows defenses against defamation that reinforce what I've been saying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Here, let's look under defenses -
Those apply to everything I've stated. If they don't, explain why.

If you are going to talk about people lacking intelligence, don't get pissy when you are shown to have a similar lack. Otherwise, address the specifics of this.

You are using wikipedia as your legal advice? Please get real. Cite me legal authority to caselaw that is actually valid and legally controlling.

O yeah, where is the federal law, regulation, or caselaw that says that a felon can't contract with the federal government- where is it?

I'm not your lawyer and I don't have any obligation to explain the law to you, you, as the person making the statements, have a resonsibility to know the law. You have not disclosed here any valid law or any citation to valid law apart from wiki.

I've posted multiple times now- where is the federal law on contracting? Where? Address that specific.

 

[Spark]

You are using wikipedia as your legal advice? Please get real. Cite me legal authority to caselaw that is actually valid and legally controlling.

Nope, just providing a cursory search result that shoots holes in your claims of defamation. Claims you seem unwilling to back up. Claims that you repeat, as if ad nauseum repitition makes them true.

O yeah, where is the federal law, regulation, or caselaw that says that a felon can't contract with the federal government- where is it?

I'm sorry, you are going to have to show me how a reasonable person wouldn't buy Mick Strider's claim regarding incorporating to avoid the "regulation" (whether or not it exists), as cited above. I mean, why would he even say that if it wasn't the case? It just digs a bigger hole for himself by implying that his motivation is "Hey, check me out as I deliberately use manuevers to do biz with the gov even though I'm a felon lol"

I'm not your lawyer and I don't have any obligation to explain the law to you, you, as the person making the statements, have a resonsibility to know the law. You have not disclosed here any valid law or any citation to valid law apart from wiki.

Hah, ok, tell you what. How about you show that I knowingly and willingly made claims with malice, when I know they weren't factually correct, before you tell me that I, as a reasonable man, aren't entitled to my opinion.

I've posted multiple times now- where is the federal law on contracting? Where? Address that specific.

I've posted multiple times now: Statements made on good faith, opinion, reasonable comment, and heck, even Innocent dissemination would work there - Mick Strider made the claim, I repeated it, and unless you can prove that it was defamatory, sorry about your luck. BTW, there's a case cite in that link