-
All For Sale threads must have a pic showing the knife being sold with written date listed, your username & Bladeforums or BFC to prevent photo harvesting from elsewhere - scammers hate this one trick! The rules for The Exchange can be found here. Please read and follow them. Stop using Paypal Friends & Family and follow our best practices to prevent getting ripped off or having a bad deal.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Spark crossed a line
- Thread starter dizos
- Start date
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 29,205
I think what Michelle is saying is that things will get sorted out through the proper channels, not by being hashed out on a forum. That's how I took it anyway.
It's just you.
Unless you think Michelle was calling out Spark or someone else for a rumble behind a local 7-Eleven.
I think that as much as anyone can, I understand why this topic or others like it, will never get sorted out online.
It's a signal to noise issue. Even in the thread in which I was an infamous participant, there was a lot more heat than light.
Even though I have disavowed doing so, it wouldn't be rocket science to do more public records digging on Mr. Strider. So what then? Even that won't settle the issue, even if words lept off of a scanned page calling into question major parts of his bio.
He ain't gonna talk about it and none of us will be in a position to compell answers out of him.
That's why it won't be settled, probably ever, let alone online.
The people that cut him slack will continue to do so, the ones that don't won't
I have decided to not really care anymore. Anyone who can read English will be able to draw their own conclusions about everyone's motives, alliances, foibles, mistakes, lies, whatever.
I have convinced myself that the further pursuit of these issues, about the conduct or motives about anyone connected to the latest controversy, no matter to what degree, is a waste of time, resources, and poisons any mutual goodwill that posters may have ever had for one another.
It's no wonder that peacemakers get frustrated when fighting is so "fun."
Matteo Escobar
Gold Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2002
- Messages
- 4,140
OK, thank goodness. I read it to mean that the only way to settle this is face to face, and I know how Strider and his supporters prefer to settle disagreements with others.
Michelle,
not that I care at all about this thread as I feel it was just started to sway attention from other issues.
But, I noticed that almost every thread you have been involved in has been to argue with others on this forum. Almost none of your discussions have been constructive.
My question to you is what brought you here? It certainly wasn't to participate in a community. It was to fight mainly.
Do you not agree that if someone went over to some other forums that you participate in, that would be banned well before they ever got as many posts as you if they went in there to argue as you have done here.
Cougar Allen
Buccaneer (ret.)
- Joined
- Oct 9, 1998
- Messages
- 75,769
An infraction has been issued. If you keep that up you'll be walking the plank in no time.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 15,223
Brandon, if you aren't familiar with it the "are you still beating your wife" comment is a well known example of a question with no possible positive outcome, typically asked to make the responder look bad. No matter what, it plants the suggestion that the person being asked is a wife beater, even if they deny it. Same thing with "Are you still touching kids?" or "Are you still meeting random men for sex in alleys?" or various others.
I could be wrong, but the I believe the point he was trying to make is that your question could be interpreted in the same light. I didn't see your question as such, so I answered it. I could be completely wrong about his intentions in making the statement, however it's pretty well known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_you_still_beat_your_wife
is an example of it.
I could be wrong, but the I believe the point he was trying to make is that your question could be interpreted in the same light. I didn't see your question as such, so I answered it. I could be completely wrong about his intentions in making the statement, however it's pretty well known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_you_still_beat_your_wife
is an example of it.
Thanks for that explanation, I thought he was just slamming me.......of course only he could confirm his intentions. I'm not the only one who felt that way, I received two emails asking wtf was up with his post, if we had a history or something.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 15,223
No worries. Unfortunately in the last couple years I've had to learn a lot of the logical fallacies out there, otherwise I'd think the same thing you were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
has a list of most of the arguments that are made on erroneous foundations; I've been guilty of more than a few when I was learning how to debate back in college. It's an eye opener if you've never seen it before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
has a list of most of the arguments that are made on erroneous foundations; I've been guilty of more than a few when I was learning how to debate back in college. It's an eye opener if you've never seen it before.
Actually, the more I think about it, I can't really make the connection between my inquiry and his. My question did not imply you were a bad person, his obviously alluded to the fact I was of less than stellar moral character.
This thread is about you. I asked you a question, and you responed concisely. He took it up with me personally IMHO......in your own words, by asking a question designed to make the responder look bad.
I'm a firm believer in the fact that you shouldn't type anything you wouldn't say to a man's face. Search every one of my posts here, I've never done it. His crossed that line IMHO.
If my response warrants an infraction, I'll happily accept it, but I think it doesn't jive very well with the flow of this thread.
This thread is about you. I asked you a question, and you responed concisely. He took it up with me personally IMHO......in your own words, by asking a question designed to make the responder look bad.
I'm a firm believer in the fact that you shouldn't type anything you wouldn't say to a man's face. Search every one of my posts here, I've never done it. His crossed that line IMHO.
If my response warrants an infraction, I'll happily accept it, but I think it doesn't jive very well with the flow of this thread.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 15,223
I can't speak for his intentions, and I can understand your response based on your perceptions. If you are saying that your response was based on your perception that he was insulting you purposefully, I have no problem with your reaction, I am just less than thrilled that you responded in such a manner. If you can see my perspective that this sort of reaction isn't appropriate here, and agree not to act as such in the future, I have no problem removing the infraction against you. It's set to expire anyhow at the end of next month, so it's not a permenant mark against you.
Michelle;
The moderators here at Bladeforums are also uncompensated in any way, shape, or form. They also volunteer their time to assist with a hobby that they also love. However, you don't see them over on other forums pounding their chests in undying suppport of Spark, or over on those other forums telling people their actions are hialrious at best.
Oh, yeah. Not that it is any of your business, I have an agreement with the mods here concerning my posts. My posts are not considered cross forum bashing at all. Only forum I named was Badlands, and that was in reference to your admin status there. As for the kool aid, you can swallow that one however you like it. With whipped cream maybe?
I'm not going to dissect any more of your reply to me. I'm not going to continue to waste my time on your diatribe. Yes, that is all it is, Michelle, since you aren't capable of answering the hard questions concering your 'boss'.
You also receive a redundant windbag award for the day. Congrats!
The moderators here at Bladeforums are also uncompensated in any way, shape, or form. They also volunteer their time to assist with a hobby that they also love. However, you don't see them over on other forums pounding their chests in undying suppport of Spark, or over on those other forums telling people their actions are hialrious at best.
My 'behavior' is nothing more than trying to ascertain the facts about Mick Strider. You have offered nothing, nor have you answered the pointed questions about your own beliefs; do you think it is ok to lie about your service record to sell knives? You have not answered this question in any of your posts at BFC. That is why I firmly beieve you'd be out at Badlands if you did answer honestly.
Since you aren't a mod or administrator here, you have no business telling me squat. What I wrote may not be to your liking, and since you aren't an admin here, you can't edit it. Too bad for you.
Oh, yeah. Not that it is any of your business, I have an agreement with the mods here concerning my posts. My posts are not considered cross forum bashing at all. Only forum I named was Badlands, and that was in reference to your admin status there. As for the kool aid, you can swallow that one however you like it. With whipped cream maybe?
I'm not going to dissect any more of your reply to me. I'm not going to continue to waste my time on your diatribe. Yes, that is all it is, Michelle, since you aren't capable of answering the hard questions concering your 'boss'.
You also receive a redundant windbag award for the day. Congrats!
Spark clearly states his accusations in the first post of this thread.
In the following 14 post of the aforementioned thread, Spark carefully and concisely lays out compelling, apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence for each and every one of his accusations. His presentation is sparse, clear, and convincing.
The rebuttals which have been advanced thus in the aforementioned thread and in this one far fall into 21 categories. Here is each rubuttal and the counter-argument to it:
1) Spark is a <insert favorite derogatory term here>
Maybe Spark is a dirty, rotten scoundrel (or whatever other term you want to use), but that doesn’t matter because Spark has been very careful to back up every one of his accusations with apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence. The compelling nature of his accusations and the truth of his accusations do not rest upon Spark’s character; they rest upon that evidence. Attacking Spark’s character does not address the accusations or take them off the table.
2) Spark was wrong for having brought this up.
Maybe, but that doesn’t matter now because it IS brought up now. The compelling nature of Spark’s accusations and the truth of his accusations speak for themselves. Attacking how the accusations got on the table does not take them off the table.
3) Spark was wrong to have handled this issue in such a directly-confrontational way.
Maybe Spark was wrong to have handled it like he did. How it was brought up doesn’t matter because it is brought up. The compelling nature of his accusations and the truth of his accusations do not rest upon Spark’s judgment or actions; they rest upon the evidence. Attacking Spark’s judgment or actions does not address the accusations or take them off the table.
4) Spark should have handled this privately, not publicly like this.
Maybe, but the accusations are on the public table now. But, again, the issue here is not spark’s judgment. The issue is the accusations and the evidence that supports them. Arguing about how Spark chose to handle this does not take the accusations and the evidence off the table.
One can argue that the key accusation that Spark makes against Mr. Strider, that he continuously misrepresents his military service and background, is something that Mr. Strider does very publicly. So, in some respects, maybe it is appropriate for Spark to raise the issue publically.
5) Spark offered to pay Kevin McClung -- and maybe others -- for “dirt” on Mr. Strider. That’s not ethical.
Maybe that is a little underhanded or even questionably ethical. But, the compelling nature of his accusations and the truth of his accusations do not rest upon Spark’s ethics; they rest upon the evidence. How Spark got that evidence is not nearly as important as the veracity of that evidence. Attacking Spark’s ethics or actions does not address the accusations or the evidence or take them off the table.
6) Spark is doing this because of business competition with Mr. Strider, professional jealousy, or because of some personal vendetta against him.
Maybe that is true, but Spark’s motives aren’t at issue here. Why Spark brought it up doesn’t matter because it is brought up. The compelling nature of his accusations and the truth of his accusations do not rest upon Spark’s motives; they rest upon the evidence. Attacking Spark’s motives does not address the accusations or take them off the table.
7) This is all just a bunch of b.s.
Were that it were so easily dismissed. But Spark has been very careful to back up every one of his accusations with apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence. The result is that these accusations do not appear to be rumors or hearsay.
8) This is all just old stuff. It’s all been covered in the past.
Maybe. But that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be covered again if it hasn’t been answered in the past. Spark has given a concise, consolidated presentation of accusations that have been circulating and rumored for a long time. But accusations don’t go away with age. They go away when they are addressed completely.
9) This is all just a witch hunt.
A "witch hunt" is based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence, hearsay, unsubstantiated rumors, baseless speculation, vague suspicions and raised-eyebrow innuendoes. Spark has been very careful to back up every one of his accusations with apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence. The compelling nature and the truth of his accusations rest upon that evidence.
10) This is all just a bunch of USN, Badlands, Bladeforums cross-forums bickering!
Not one of Spark’s accusations even mentions USN, Badlands, or Bladeforums. Spark’s accusations and the evidence that supports them are against Mr. Strider, not against USN or Badlands
11) Strider knives are great knives and Strider Knives is a great company.
True. But that’s not what’s at issue here. None of Spark’s accusations say otherwise. The broad agreement here is that Strider knives are well-designed and well-made and fully combat-worthy and that Strider Knives is a great company, an American manufacturing company, and a job creator.
12) Mike Strider is a nice, friendly, charitable man.
That may very well be true. Many posters here have enumerated his good deeds. But that’s not what’s at issue here. None of the accusations say that he isn’t friendly or charitable. That can not excuse habitually, continuously, and presently misrepresents – indeed, it would appear, radically exaggerates – himself and his background and knowingly allows other to so as well which is what Spark has accused him of.
13) What about Kevin “Mad Dog” McClung or Lynn Thompson or whoever else?
They may have problems of their own, but they are not the issue that Spark has raised. Spark has carefully presented a series of serious accusations against Mr. Strider. Spark has carefully backed each one up with apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence. The wrongdoings of others can not excuse any wrongdoings of Mr. Strider.
14) Just about all of us have something in our past that we’re not proud of. Why does what happened decades ago matter today?
Spark’s charges are really not so much about Mr. Strider’s past as they are about Mr. Strider’s present and apparently continuous practice of misrepresenting – indeed, it would appear, radically exaggerating – that past. Spark charges that Mr. Strider lies to the industry and community each and every day even until today. That is not something that is deep and buried in the past. What Spark alleges that Mr. Strider lies about may be decades-old, but Spark alleges that the lies themselves are very present and on-going.
It appears that Mr. Strider has not, himself, put his past behind him but very much wears his past – or at least a highly-embellished version of it – very prominently every day. By frequently bringing his past up, Mr. Strider himself makes his past a very present subject of current discussion.
If a man claims to be a specially-qualified heart surgeon by virtue of his education and his past work, then that man’s education and work history, his past, becomes a legitimate topic for discussion. Spark asserts that Mr. Strider implies that his past gives him some special qualification as a knife designer and maker which makes his past a legitimate topic of discussion. When Mr. Strider chooses to use his past as a credential for his current work, then he, himself, makes his past a legitimate topic of discussion.
15) What does the background of a knife maker matter? He makes great knives!
Refer to item 14 above. A knife maker’s background really doesn’t matter much unless he, himself, chooses to use it as a credential for his current work.
16) Mr. Strider has addressed all of this junk in the past.
Some of these allegations have, indeed, floated around as rumors and gossip for many years. Spark has now gathered them all up into one clear, sparse, concise presentation with apparently-credible, apparently-comprehensive, documentary evidence and put them all in one place at one time. If Mr. Strider has addressed these allegations in the past, then there should be no problem addressing them again because all evidence should be in order. Gathering the refutations with their credible, comprehensive, documentary evidence into one clear, sparse, concise presentation and putting them all in one place at one time would clear all of these allegations, all of the rumors, all of the gossip off the table one and for all. We could sticky this thread and anytime someone heard one of these persistent rumors, we could just point them to this thread and be done with it.
17) Mr. Strider has addressed all of this on another forum.
Maybe. But the allegations and the evidence supporting them are posted here on this forum. If Mr. Strider has already addressed all of this, then it should be very easy for him to post that presentation here too. Again, we could then sticky this thread and anytime someone heard one of these persistent rumors, we could just point them to this thread and be done with it.
18) Mr. Strider doesn’t have to answer to anyone… least of all Spark.
No, he doesn’t have to. But, he may choose to. The allegations Spark has made against him are very serious and are obviously causing quite a bit of division within the knife community. It would be a great service to the community if he would answer them.
19) Mr. Strider is a very busy man and he hasn’t got time for all of this nonsense.
If Mr. Strider has already answered these allegations in the past and recently on another forum, then it should be quite trivial to simply repost those responses here. If he is to busy to so himself, he has at least one employee who posts here and could take care of that for him with his imprimatur. If the response were concise and comprehensive and backed by credible, documentary evidence, then this whole discussion would end quickly and he would not have to continue dealing with the ongoing rumors and gossip and allegations. In the long-run, that would be a time-saver for him. Again, we could simply sticky this thread and the matter would be put to rest.
20) Nobody cares about this stuff anyway.
Then how do you explain over 1600 responses and over 77,000 views? Obviously, some people do care about this.
21) Can’t we all just forgive and forget?
The knife community has, over the years, displayed a remarkable capacity to forgive and forget. But, Spark charges that Mr. Strider has not repented from his misrepresentations and that Mr. Strider continues to offend by continuing to misrepresent his military experience and continuing to knowingly allow others to do so on a present and on-going bases.
All of Spark’s accusations have one thing in common: They are backed up by apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence.
All of the rebuttals have two things in common: 1) none of them addresses the actual allegations or the evidence supporting those allegations, and 2) they all try to shift the topic of discussion away from those allegations and that evidence; they are distraction tactics.
Most of the counters to the rebuttals have one thing in common: They refer back to the apparently-credible, apparently-comprehensive, documentary evidence that Spark has offered to support his allegations.
It all comes down to that evidence. If you want to refute Spark’s allegations, then you MUST attack that evidence. In all of the now closing on two thousand posts that have been made on this subject in recent days, nobody has done that. WHY? WHY? WHY? That is the only route to clearing this matter up. Everything else is just wasted bandwidth.
Spark said:
In the following 14 post of the aforementioned thread, Spark carefully and concisely lays out compelling, apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence for each and every one of his accusations. His presentation is sparse, clear, and convincing.
The rebuttals which have been advanced thus in the aforementioned thread and in this one far fall into 21 categories. Here is each rubuttal and the counter-argument to it:
1) Spark is a <insert favorite derogatory term here>
Maybe Spark is a dirty, rotten scoundrel (or whatever other term you want to use), but that doesn’t matter because Spark has been very careful to back up every one of his accusations with apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence. The compelling nature of his accusations and the truth of his accusations do not rest upon Spark’s character; they rest upon that evidence. Attacking Spark’s character does not address the accusations or take them off the table.
2) Spark was wrong for having brought this up.
Maybe, but that doesn’t matter now because it IS brought up now. The compelling nature of Spark’s accusations and the truth of his accusations speak for themselves. Attacking how the accusations got on the table does not take them off the table.
3) Spark was wrong to have handled this issue in such a directly-confrontational way.
Maybe Spark was wrong to have handled it like he did. How it was brought up doesn’t matter because it is brought up. The compelling nature of his accusations and the truth of his accusations do not rest upon Spark’s judgment or actions; they rest upon the evidence. Attacking Spark’s judgment or actions does not address the accusations or take them off the table.
4) Spark should have handled this privately, not publicly like this.
Maybe, but the accusations are on the public table now. But, again, the issue here is not spark’s judgment. The issue is the accusations and the evidence that supports them. Arguing about how Spark chose to handle this does not take the accusations and the evidence off the table.
One can argue that the key accusation that Spark makes against Mr. Strider, that he continuously misrepresents his military service and background, is something that Mr. Strider does very publicly. So, in some respects, maybe it is appropriate for Spark to raise the issue publically.
5) Spark offered to pay Kevin McClung -- and maybe others -- for “dirt” on Mr. Strider. That’s not ethical.
Maybe that is a little underhanded or even questionably ethical. But, the compelling nature of his accusations and the truth of his accusations do not rest upon Spark’s ethics; they rest upon the evidence. How Spark got that evidence is not nearly as important as the veracity of that evidence. Attacking Spark’s ethics or actions does not address the accusations or the evidence or take them off the table.
6) Spark is doing this because of business competition with Mr. Strider, professional jealousy, or because of some personal vendetta against him.
Maybe that is true, but Spark’s motives aren’t at issue here. Why Spark brought it up doesn’t matter because it is brought up. The compelling nature of his accusations and the truth of his accusations do not rest upon Spark’s motives; they rest upon the evidence. Attacking Spark’s motives does not address the accusations or take them off the table.
7) This is all just a bunch of b.s.
Were that it were so easily dismissed. But Spark has been very careful to back up every one of his accusations with apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence. The result is that these accusations do not appear to be rumors or hearsay.
8) This is all just old stuff. It’s all been covered in the past.
Maybe. But that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be covered again if it hasn’t been answered in the past. Spark has given a concise, consolidated presentation of accusations that have been circulating and rumored for a long time. But accusations don’t go away with age. They go away when they are addressed completely.
9) This is all just a witch hunt.
A "witch hunt" is based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence, hearsay, unsubstantiated rumors, baseless speculation, vague suspicions and raised-eyebrow innuendoes. Spark has been very careful to back up every one of his accusations with apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence. The compelling nature and the truth of his accusations rest upon that evidence.
10) This is all just a bunch of USN, Badlands, Bladeforums cross-forums bickering!
Not one of Spark’s accusations even mentions USN, Badlands, or Bladeforums. Spark’s accusations and the evidence that supports them are against Mr. Strider, not against USN or Badlands
11) Strider knives are great knives and Strider Knives is a great company.
True. But that’s not what’s at issue here. None of Spark’s accusations say otherwise. The broad agreement here is that Strider knives are well-designed and well-made and fully combat-worthy and that Strider Knives is a great company, an American manufacturing company, and a job creator.
12) Mike Strider is a nice, friendly, charitable man.
That may very well be true. Many posters here have enumerated his good deeds. But that’s not what’s at issue here. None of the accusations say that he isn’t friendly or charitable. That can not excuse habitually, continuously, and presently misrepresents – indeed, it would appear, radically exaggerates – himself and his background and knowingly allows other to so as well which is what Spark has accused him of.
13) What about Kevin “Mad Dog” McClung or Lynn Thompson or whoever else?
They may have problems of their own, but they are not the issue that Spark has raised. Spark has carefully presented a series of serious accusations against Mr. Strider. Spark has carefully backed each one up with apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence. The wrongdoings of others can not excuse any wrongdoings of Mr. Strider.
14) Just about all of us have something in our past that we’re not proud of. Why does what happened decades ago matter today?
Spark’s charges are really not so much about Mr. Strider’s past as they are about Mr. Strider’s present and apparently continuous practice of misrepresenting – indeed, it would appear, radically exaggerating – that past. Spark charges that Mr. Strider lies to the industry and community each and every day even until today. That is not something that is deep and buried in the past. What Spark alleges that Mr. Strider lies about may be decades-old, but Spark alleges that the lies themselves are very present and on-going.
It appears that Mr. Strider has not, himself, put his past behind him but very much wears his past – or at least a highly-embellished version of it – very prominently every day. By frequently bringing his past up, Mr. Strider himself makes his past a very present subject of current discussion.
If a man claims to be a specially-qualified heart surgeon by virtue of his education and his past work, then that man’s education and work history, his past, becomes a legitimate topic for discussion. Spark asserts that Mr. Strider implies that his past gives him some special qualification as a knife designer and maker which makes his past a legitimate topic of discussion. When Mr. Strider chooses to use his past as a credential for his current work, then he, himself, makes his past a legitimate topic of discussion.
15) What does the background of a knife maker matter? He makes great knives!
Refer to item 14 above. A knife maker’s background really doesn’t matter much unless he, himself, chooses to use it as a credential for his current work.
16) Mr. Strider has addressed all of this junk in the past.
Some of these allegations have, indeed, floated around as rumors and gossip for many years. Spark has now gathered them all up into one clear, sparse, concise presentation with apparently-credible, apparently-comprehensive, documentary evidence and put them all in one place at one time. If Mr. Strider has addressed these allegations in the past, then there should be no problem addressing them again because all evidence should be in order. Gathering the refutations with their credible, comprehensive, documentary evidence into one clear, sparse, concise presentation and putting them all in one place at one time would clear all of these allegations, all of the rumors, all of the gossip off the table one and for all. We could sticky this thread and anytime someone heard one of these persistent rumors, we could just point them to this thread and be done with it.
17) Mr. Strider has addressed all of this on another forum.
Maybe. But the allegations and the evidence supporting them are posted here on this forum. If Mr. Strider has already addressed all of this, then it should be very easy for him to post that presentation here too. Again, we could then sticky this thread and anytime someone heard one of these persistent rumors, we could just point them to this thread and be done with it.
18) Mr. Strider doesn’t have to answer to anyone… least of all Spark.
No, he doesn’t have to. But, he may choose to. The allegations Spark has made against him are very serious and are obviously causing quite a bit of division within the knife community. It would be a great service to the community if he would answer them.
19) Mr. Strider is a very busy man and he hasn’t got time for all of this nonsense.
If Mr. Strider has already answered these allegations in the past and recently on another forum, then it should be quite trivial to simply repost those responses here. If he is to busy to so himself, he has at least one employee who posts here and could take care of that for him with his imprimatur. If the response were concise and comprehensive and backed by credible, documentary evidence, then this whole discussion would end quickly and he would not have to continue dealing with the ongoing rumors and gossip and allegations. In the long-run, that would be a time-saver for him. Again, we could simply sticky this thread and the matter would be put to rest.
20) Nobody cares about this stuff anyway.
Then how do you explain over 1600 responses and over 77,000 views? Obviously, some people do care about this.
21) Can’t we all just forgive and forget?
The knife community has, over the years, displayed a remarkable capacity to forgive and forget. But, Spark charges that Mr. Strider has not repented from his misrepresentations and that Mr. Strider continues to offend by continuing to misrepresent his military experience and continuing to knowingly allow others to do so on a present and on-going bases.
All of Spark’s accusations have one thing in common: They are backed up by apparently-credibly, apparently-conclusive, documentary evidence.
All of the rebuttals have two things in common: 1) none of them addresses the actual allegations or the evidence supporting those allegations, and 2) they all try to shift the topic of discussion away from those allegations and that evidence; they are distraction tactics.
Most of the counters to the rebuttals have one thing in common: They refer back to the apparently-credible, apparently-comprehensive, documentary evidence that Spark has offered to support his allegations.
It all comes down to that evidence. If you want to refute Spark’s allegations, then you MUST attack that evidence. In all of the now closing on two thousand posts that have been made on this subject in recent days, nobody has done that. WHY? WHY? WHY? That is the only route to clearing this matter up. Everything else is just wasted bandwidth.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
- Messages
- 3,652
Gollnick,
Is there a reason you keep calling Mick Strider by the wrong first name? In all of your posts on the topic, even in the other thread, you refer to him as "Mike", and not Mick. Just curious.
Regards,
3G
I am abashed to say it, but Gollnick: please stay on topic. This thread is not about anyone other than Spark and whether his actions were "over the line". The fact is, that your post repeatedly describes why Spark's actions were "wrong", "unethical", and a "little underhanded", resulting in putting something on the table that "maybe" should not have been.
The earlier post by Spark threatening libel for someone's stating an apparently true, if inconvenient, fact of his past indicates a continuing pattern by him. It was, again, over the line behavior. Certainly, he has had opportunity to answer the simple question of whether its true or false, but has refused to do so. And its germaine since that is precisely the topic of this thread.
Let's all try to keep the focus where it belongs, instead of repeatedly bringing in a rehash of a locked thread nearby.
The earlier post by Spark threatening libel for someone's stating an apparently true, if inconvenient, fact of his past indicates a continuing pattern by him. It was, again, over the line behavior. Certainly, he has had opportunity to answer the simple question of whether its true or false, but has refused to do so. And its germaine since that is precisely the topic of this thread.
Let's all try to keep the focus where it belongs, instead of repeatedly bringing in a rehash of a locked thread nearby.
Sorry, an error on my part. Just a bad habit of typing Mike, I guess. I will endeavor to correct that in the future. You will notice that I usually refer to Mr. Strider very respectfully as Mr. Strider which is truly intended as an indication of respect.