Unfortunately, a good fraction of the posts in this thread are off-topic. And, unfortunately, they are just reitterations of the arguments in the aforementioned previous thread. Hopefully, by showing people the nature of those arguments, we can, in fact, move this thread back onto its topic.
-
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
Unfortunately, a good fraction of the posts in this thread are off-topic. And, unfortunately, they are just reitterations of the arguments in the aforementioned previous thread. Hopefully, by showing people the nature of those arguments, we can, in fact, move this thread back onto its topic.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 15,223
Jbravo, the question was answered by myself, and further explained by another person. It was not a "true" or accurate statement by the person in question, so anyone spreading that information is, in fact, spreading lies.
As for continuing patterns of my behavior, be specific, and I will address them like I've addressed others. However, spread lies about me willfully, based on hearsay or rumor, and you'd better believe I'll take action on it. If you cannot be specific, don't drag it up. If this thread is about me crossing the line, be specific about this instance, because otherwise you are engaging in a "witch hunt" as I believe the favorite term is.
Furthermore, Gollnicks post states that my actions "might" or "maybe" unethical or wrong, however, that does not mean they are. The larger question is, if you are going to hold me to the fire for anything I've done, what is your stance on someone who willingly, intentionally, and repeatedly misrepresented, fabricated, or outright lied about themselves, their experience, and their background? Because, sir, I'm going to laugh at anyone invoking a double standard or showing blatant hypocrisy by doing so while muttering excuses about their "friend".
In all my life I've only met a handful of people I could refer to as 'saintly' - to be sure, even they were not perfect humans. So what is all this rubbish about? It's group therapy disguised as knife talk.
If a person or group need psychotherapy because something is eating them up- go ahead, see a therapist! In studying online communities Ive noticed that most- though not all, are really just a form of group therapy - a form of virtual Tupperware party. It's not about about the Tupperware you see,that's just a pretext for trading in the latest gossip. That's unfortunate when each forum purports to be about a special area of community interest.I've documented these distractions in over 30 domains! Indeed, I see no place for threads that diverge from the core into group therapy, geopolitical speculation and downright vulgarity. The whole point of special interest forums is the special intrest- 'The Stuff Itself' if you will.
Just spin off a whole separate forum if a subject is important enought to you. Call it "MickStriderLiarForum" or "SparkTheSnitchForum". Get the picture? Makes more sense than every forum in creation building traffic from the obviously disfunctional psyches of the whole human race 'spitting it all out' in meaningless subthreads when the core is supposed to be about BLADES.
If a person or group need psychotherapy because something is eating them up- go ahead, see a therapist! In studying online communities Ive noticed that most- though not all, are really just a form of group therapy - a form of virtual Tupperware party. It's not about about the Tupperware you see,that's just a pretext for trading in the latest gossip. That's unfortunate when each forum purports to be about a special area of community interest.I've documented these distractions in over 30 domains! Indeed, I see no place for threads that diverge from the core into group therapy, geopolitical speculation and downright vulgarity. The whole point of special interest forums is the special intrest- 'The Stuff Itself' if you will.
Just spin off a whole separate forum if a subject is important enought to you. Call it "MickStriderLiarForum" or "SparkTheSnitchForum". Get the picture? Makes more sense than every forum in creation building traffic from the obviously disfunctional psyches of the whole human race 'spitting it all out' in meaningless subthreads when the core is supposed to be about BLADES.
Cougar Allen
Buccaneer (ret.)
- Joined
- Oct 9, 1998
- Messages
- 75,770
Moodino, if you want to go to a forum about blades you might start with the Blade Discussion Forum and move on from there to more specialized forums about blades here at Bladeforums. This forum is not about blades.
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 15,223
Jbravo - the question was answered - Mike Turber was my employer, that has been no secret. I worked as a webmaster for him from 98-2000 or so. My webmaster duties included running BFC, WOW's website and other work. I was not paid $1500 a month to simply watch over this site. Whether or not I had a "silent partner" when I became the owner of BladeForums.com has no bearing on any of these discussions. My being sole owner of this site and others has no bearing on how much "profit margin" is involved in this business. Spreading misinformation as truth about my business and myself is grounds for libel and I cautioned Michelle against that.
There is a very simple and clear answer for you jbravo. Do you have anything specific about this situation you want to ask?
There is a very simple and clear answer for you jbravo. Do you have anything specific about this situation you want to ask?
Spark, I know you didn't like the statements, but I don't believe they would be up to a level of libel. First, everything she said was, in my opinion, the truth (you have to lie to have libel) or put forth as an assumption/opinion. She said she was surprised to read xxx. Do you have something to show she was not surprised to read that? She even provided where she read it.
I was going to post on this when you first called libel, then Michelle said she talked to you on the phone, I figured I would stay out of it. But since it is raising it's head again, I thought it would be interesting to put up some information from EFF on libel (http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php) for those who want a better explanation. This may help stop all the cases of people screaming libel here (not just this thread or you).
You see, unlike Spark, I don't profit one wit for my participation in the forums. I was actually suprised when I read that he used to get paid $1500 per MONTH just to keep watch over this place. One would assume that now that his silent partner is gone, his profit margins on this place have increased considerably. Enough to pass out hundreds of dollars worth of free subscriptions to people if they'll "help him out".
I don't need to be part of "a club". I don't need to be paid big bucks to participate in my passion, the knife industry.
m1
So, to now dissect the statement, she first states that a personal feeling (later providing the location she read it). Then an assumption.
I am at a loss on how this gets to a level of libel. But then I am also still baffled how the jumps to conclusions were made before. So to bring it back on topic, I do believe that a line was crossed (it appears multiple lines) by Spark.
--Carl
DAMMIT!!!!! I don't know Spark, I don't know Michelle, and I don't know Micky Burger, but once and for all STOP the arguing about libel and whether Spark got paid.
Michelle quoted these exact words from the original communication to Spark about BFC's operating loss:
Then Michelle said this:
Never, ANYWHERE, does it say Spark got PAID for his time watching over BFC. Spark got paid a set amount to do a LOT of different things. He spent a certain amount of time on BFC, but he did not have a check cut to him for $1500 per month for that time spent. BFC oversight was one of his many duties and the percentage of time spent on BFC equated to about $1500 per month worth of labor. That is what that communication seems to say. It was a discussion about the overall operating loss, and the time Spark spent on a losing enterprise.
The original communication said 'ACCOUNTS FOR', Michelle said 'PAID'. Two different things.
You guys asked about it, Spark clarified it. THE END.
Michelle quoted these exact words from the original communication to Spark about BFC's operating loss:
Then Michelle said this:
Never, ANYWHERE, does it say Spark got PAID for his time watching over BFC. Spark got paid a set amount to do a LOT of different things. He spent a certain amount of time on BFC, but he did not have a check cut to him for $1500 per month for that time spent. BFC oversight was one of his many duties and the percentage of time spent on BFC equated to about $1500 per month worth of labor. That is what that communication seems to say. It was a discussion about the overall operating loss, and the time Spark spent on a losing enterprise.
The original communication said 'ACCOUNTS FOR', Michelle said 'PAID'. Two different things.
You guys asked about it, Spark clarified it. THE END.
If you look at the quote that you supplied, it made clear that statements of fact dressed up as opinions (or "personal feelings") CAN rise to the level of libel.
For example, if I wrote "It is my opinion that you are a child molester," it would be a reasonable assumption for one hearing this that I have some reason to believe it, and that your status as a child molester (or not) is in question. This statement might well give rise to an actionable libel claim. As for being baffled by the conclusions that were made before, I realy don't think they are that confusing. WHat conculsions are you baffled by?
For example, if I wrote "It is my opinion that you are a child molester," it would be a reasonable assumption for one hearing this that I have some reason to believe it, and that your status as a child molester (or not) is in question. This statement might well give rise to an actionable libel claim. As for being baffled by the conclusions that were made before, I realy don't think they are that confusing. WHat conculsions are you baffled by?
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 15,223
To use your own quote:
Me being paid $1500 just to watch over this site is a false statement of fact. Implying that I only do this site for money is a false statement, especially when it loses money. Saying I'm using this site to hurt people's business intentionally is an outright lie.
Examine this again:
Notice how many things are wrong there.
If someone wants to make claims about my intentions, spread false information, and uses it to publically try to defame me, guess what? It fits your above quoted criteria. Every statement I've made, I've backed up with evidence. Everything I've claimed as opinion, I've stated clearly as such. I've repeatedly requested rebutting information for every statement and opinion and publically stated I'd change anything if proof was provided. Compare and contrast.
I cautioned Michelle against making libelous statements. After our phone call (which was after my post on the subject) I don't think it's her intention to portray me in that light. That said, I'm not going to let such statements go unchallenged.
Again, what does Spark's personal finances have to do with Mick Strider and his alleged fabrications and half-truths? I just re-read the OP's first post for this thread and even he makes zero mention of Spark's finances. The OP asserts that Spark started the "other" thread due to some personal grudge or vendetta that he has against Mick Strider. If you really want to "stay on topic" please provide proof that Spark is on a mission to destroy Mick Strider for personal gain or to settle some old score. The rest of this is lame diversionary tactics that are as fake as a $3 bill.
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,553
Time to take the brain in for a little tune up, I think. ekg, eeg, mri... whatever. I think something's misfiring there fella.
But that is not what she said, she said she was surprised to read it. That can not be proven false, because only she knows if she was surprised or not. She did not make a statement of fact, she made a statement of how she felt upon reading information, both here and in another forum. Further, when asked about the statement, she showed where she had read it.
I guess I like to see people fully read, and not read into a statement what they wish, before screaming libel. In my mind, attacking someone falsely with malice (or the intention of harm) is a big thing, and I get tired of seeing it thrown around carelessly.
--Carl
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,553
But what she claimed she had heard, what she was "surprised by", was not what she read. It was, purposefully or not, written in such a way that the vast majority of readers would assume that something is true which is demonstratably not. Perhaps it was innocent, perhaps intended at misdirection.Or perhaps it was done as a thinly veiled attempt to smear Spark's name. Only Michelle knows.
I agree that it is not enough to make a case for libel but I do see how Spark could take it in the fashion he did. In fact, I also assumed that her intent.
I agree that it is not enough to make a case for libel but I do see how Spark could take it in the fashion he did. In fact, I also assumed that her intent.
I don't care about anyones finances, that is not what I cared about. I also don't know if Spark is on a mission to destroy Mick, or has some idea that he did something and wants it exposed.
The reason I still believe that Spark stepped over a line is the lack of evidence presented. There is a lot of "that couldn't have happened, so he lied" but no proof. What has been proven, has backed up claims made. So I have a hard time calling someone a liar when the "hard" proof backs up claims made, and the whole tower of "proof" to call them a liar is "soft" touchy feely stuff.
Someone posted a link to POWNET earlier, and even there, the parts they are pulling up of the service time is in agreement with statements made by Mick. There are still hearsay and speculation from some of the major players in this fiasco, but there is no evidence. No one who claims to have heard XXX from his lips.
--Carl
However, I read the statement the same way she did. This isn't the first time I had seen that statement, but I didn't care, running a forum is hard work, if someone makes some money off of it, I don't care. To be libel, the third case you stated would have to be true. She would have had to know it to be false, and then presented it as a fact in order to hurt Spark. Her responses to questions about the source tends to make me think it was a misreading of the post. I read it the same way, others probably did too.
--Carl
- Joined
- Oct 2, 1998
- Messages
- 15,223
Finally something worth addressing.
1. I can't prove a negative. That's impossible. I can't prove Mick Strider wasn't in combat at some point. Only he can prove that he was. I have proven that he wasn't in combat during his military service career, his records show that. I've proven that he's made claims that he's a combat vet. I've provided quotations of his friends stating he's a combat vet. I've provided links to quotes from lawsuit settlement documents showing that he admits he has zero combat experience. So, those facts add up to one thing: Mick Strider wasn't telling the truth about being a combat veteran. If he has something to disprove this, posting it would blow these statements out of the water, right?
2. Mick Strider made claims about a plea deal involving being sentenced to Somalia as punishment for his carjacking felony. Federal sentencing guidelines show that's not an option. The Army is an all volunteer force, people don't get sentenced there as punishment for felonies. Mick Strider has refused to provide any copies of such a plea agreement. Mick Strider had no special skills from his Army training that would even make him an attractive candidate for such a deal. Mick Strider admits he was a spinal damaged E1, who was barred from re-enlistment, and had a shitty attitude; not exactly the ideal candidate for any "special treatment" involving being sentenced to serve in Somalia. Furthermore, his DOD info shows he went AWOL - between that, his loss of rank, his injury and the carjacking felony, the 6 years being out of the military and utter lack of special skills training during his 11 months total service time, with only 65 days total in C 2/75, I can't see why anyone would entrust him involving any mission in Somalia.
3. Mick Strider has consistently mislead everyone about his past. The magazine articles didn't write themselves. His friends didn't just pull that he's a combat vet with a "chestfull of medals" out of their ass. Nobody forced him to sit at the computer keyboard and type out statements about charging gunmen with knives in the service of the US Government, changing ammo load outs to 7.62, or being a combat vet. These are all his actions, and his alone.
You can say there's no proof. The proof is there, you just don't want to see it. Mick Strider is refusing to back up his claims. He wouldn't even provide accurate service dates, or show his actual DD214, without redaction. He's spinning but it's not working. If you are going to say I "stepped over the line", I'd say that line was well and truly crossed years earlier by other parties. Say what you will about my gathering all these items into one area, but that doesn't put the blame on me for any of Mick Strider's actions.