Strider Knives, Game Over!

[jbravo]

Lance, I appreciate you being willing to demonstrate the openess you are simply requesting from others. It does demonstrate good faith IMO. Did you also post your DD214?

Originally copied and posted by Tamishigiri:

"just a bunch of guys like Kevin McClung, Lance Harris, and Lynn Thompson who have never served in any L/E or Military capacity, yet feel the need to "out" those who did. Its called envy and regret."

No DD214 for him.

 

[RVNVET]

Originally copied and posted by Tamishigiri:

"just a bunch of guys like Kevin McClung, Lance Harris, and Lynn Thompson who have never served in any L/E or Military capacity, yet feel the need to "out" those who did. Its called envy and regret."

No DD214 for him.

Don't know what Lance did to you to warrant such a comment. But the two individuals that this thread is about are of Military and LE backgrounds. Neither seem to impressive, just or upright men to me. Nothing but a felon and liar's.

I see nothing to substantiate that Lance should be in their boat.

 

[Ed T]

Well, he might be full of sh*t as well.
Just because he may be pointing in the right direction doesn't mean he is a saint.
Most consultants are full of sh*t.
Although they do have proofreaders that help them get along in life.
He did type some bold print that says otherwise.
I was impressed for a minute.
Until I found the bold button and duped Wolfman's Superman endorsement.

OK, I am just being silly now. Feel free to disregard. Except, it is kind of funny.

 

[hardheart]

are you talking about Harris or Dwyer?

 

[Ed T]

are you talking about Harris or Dwyer?

Oh, I lost track.

JK. Harris. He posted some bold print that was supposed to validate him, but I am waiting for the scanned documents. I think he will post them as it appears he is in this to address his interests. It is late and the scans are not up and I am getting snarky.

 

[wolfmann601]

Most consultants are full of shit

Come on Ed, please change that to some consultants or I'll develop such a complex that I'll need Xanax!!!

 

[American Puukko]

It would seem that after all the hype--all the lies--all of the avoiding the issues--that all of the proof needed to end these spats about the truth or falsety behind strider knives is on Mick & Duane.

Any other angle is jus someone throwing up a weak smoke screen.

 

[teacher]

:thumbup:

I think what yanks alot of peoples chains about strider knives is that whole over the top image they apparently invented out of two seperately low speed high drag hitches in the service.

Lots of guys without service records make completely competent hard use knives that folks in the services wear with pride. Guess the strider crew were too legendary in their own minds to just be humble civilian makers. Maybe strider knives is an elaborite practical joke on the real special forces guys out there?

Look at us now, we get asked to train these suckers!!!

Man, just go read the sk archive here! It reads like Sgt. Slaughter doing nightmare grinds when he isn't busy saving the free world as Billy Badass.

Now it turns out that Tom Berenger has more USMC sniper kills than does Dwyer. Hell, even Billy Zane has a couple for the Company.

At least Berenger can act while keeping a firm wall between fantasy and reality.

strider is apparently all hat and no cattle and if there is a resistence to the truth, it can only come fom people wondering if they'll ever get back the full amount they overspent in the first place.

I'd hate to be positioned heavily in striders and hoping the market will go up. It's gotta be like record collectors hoping that autographed Milli Vanilli albums will sell for hundreds on ebay.

To me this says a lot.... so I brought it here by way of the quote & copy button....
[blie highlights are mine]

 

[RWS]

I suspect the Mayan calender will hit the year 2012 and the world will finally end before anything substantial regarding this matter comes from the Strider camp........or perhaps the fact that nothing has yet come from them regarding this matter is in fact rather substantial in and of itself?

I guess we could all sit around and hold our breath.......

 

[Firecap]

I suspect the Mayan calender will hit the year 2012 and the world will finally end before anything substantial regarding this matter comes from the Strider camp........or perhaps the fact that nothing has yet come from them regarding this matter is in fact rather substantial in and of itself?

I guess we could all sit around and hold our breath.......

I thought it was pretty well understood that the Strider Camp was not going to be posting anything in this forum... good bad or otherwise... so I don't know why this keeps getting brought up.
I really don't think they care what anyone on this forum has to say...so why should they come here and post. Especially since I have seen what happens when they do indeed post. It is like a bunch of fire ants attacking. Why should they go through the misery of that??

 

[wolfmann601]

Not 35 minutes ago I got a phone call from a friend who advised me that an idiot/moron/A-hole we both know has been telling folks that I am something I am not and am not someone that I say I am. Now, I don't own a business, sell poducts or services based on my life/training/experience and do not require a "history" to make dough. I am just your everyday Walter Mitty type guy who holds combat trained, "been there done that", types in the highest of regard and maybe even with a sliver of envy. It would have made no difference to anyone if I just laughed it off and said nothing but I went into orbit and immediately said what I had to defend my name. I made a few phone calls to people this moron and I have in common and defended my name to them. I guess it is simply human nature I suppose, go figure.........

 

[teacher]

I thought it was pretty well understood that the Strider Camp was not going to be posting anything in this forum... good bad or otherwise... so I don't know why this keeps getting brought up.
I really don't think they care what anyone on this forum has to say...so why should they come here and post. Especially since I have seen what happens when they do indeed post. It is like a bunch of fire ants attacking. Why should they go through the misery of that??

I totally agree with you .... :thumbup:

Probably everybody else here does also, I don't think anyone expects them to come on here and say anything. I personally would probably keel over if either one did...

Right here.... http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies365.htm ... would be just fine though.... I'm not particular.

As far as that goes, anywhere would be just fine.. as long as it is REAL and not just BS with more rhetoric and smoke n' mirrows
........

 

[teacher]

Not 35 minutes ago I got a phone call from a friend who advised me that an idiot/moron/A-hole we both know has been telling folks that I am something I am not and am not someone that I say I am. [........................].....

I heard it all the way down here wolfmann......... you have a Space Shuttle parked in your back yard.

What bothers me the most though is that yours is reportedly the same color as mine .......

I had mine first... what's wrong with you ???

........

Take note of smileys and breath deep.... if you even need to...... :thumbup:

 

[tirod3]

Strider is apparently all hat and no cattle and if there is a resistence to the truth, it can only come fom people wondering if they'll ever get back the full amount they overspent in the first place.

I'd hate to be positioned heavily in striders and hoping the market will go up.

Knives are not an investment - except for a very few knowledgeable professionals who know when to sell. It's blatant puffery to suggest the average Joe can even make a buck on it, like they could retire to Florida on the vast sums to be made. You're better off selling Bibles.

Like we could invest in Knife Futures on the board and get rich. Frankly, if you think you can, remember not to spend the egg and butter money, investments are money you can lose - Rule #1.

Second ridiculous misconception in this thread: Military Service in Combat = Anointed Omniscience as Knifemaker. This crap started a long time before SKI got in the game, and they didn't invent it.

Let's just remember some facts first - the military worldwide pretty much doesn't teach knifefighting as a skill at all, they teach marksmanship with a firearm. They also don't teach the individual skills as a MOS to make knives. Tool design, ergonomics, layout, shop practices, forging, grinding, soldering, material selection, etc are certainly not military combat skills, and not taught in the traditional combat track leading to service in a real bullets flying environment. It would be an obviously stupid thing to waste a soldier's time on, and reduce his/her survivability on the battlefield.

If you believe combat gives some heightened karma knowledge about knife design and construction, please take a pause for a serious reality check. If it still doesn't click that there is NO relationship, then ok, remain deluded. I can't change your mindset. You drank that koolaid, live with it.

At least consider the major knifemakers who never served - Scagel, Randall, Loveless, and thousands of other designers who have been turning out knives for centuries. And please consider this: if combat service were required for weapons design, then where did all the firearms designers come from? Industry, not the service. Colt, Browning, Winchester, Glock, to name a few.

If anything, prior servicemen making knives is a rarity. They start late acquiring knowledge and skills, and attempt to compete with school trained manufacturers already in business for decades - who have massive distribution networks already in place.

All hat and no cattle is a poor description for guys who hand forge damascus, invented the nightmare grind, the gunner grip panel for firearms, and stays in business in spite of the microburst of negative attention a business competitor started.

Any knife newby asking "What's better, a SnG or Sebenza? is a unvarnished testimony to the skills, design, and marketing insight these guys have demonstrated. They compete with the acknowledged best.

If there is a problem with this thread, it starts with two false assumptions, and builds on them to overlay a gilding of enormous deception that knives are some kind of holy ornament only the True Believer can appreciate.

Anybody up for a trip to Guyana? 1280 posts tells me there is lots of potential customers here. Frankly, Hill and Obie are more entertaining right now.

I'm going for more popcorn.

 

[hardheart]

to quote the same person you did

Lots of guys without service records make completely competent hard use knives that folks in the services wear with pride.

I'm not sure what you're trying to tell American Puukko, or if maybe you're trying to tell it to the Strider buyers.

 

[Spark]

If anything, prior servicemen making knives is a rarity. They start late acquiring knowledge and skills, and attempt to compete with school trained manufacturers already in business for decades - who have massive distribution networks already in place.

All hat and no cattle is a poor description for guys who hand forge damascus, invented the nightmare grind, the gunner grip panel for firearms, and stays in business in spite of the microburst of negative attention a business competitor started.

Any knife newby asking "What's better, a SnG or Sebenza? is a unvarnished testimony to the skills, design, and marketing insight these guys have demonstrated. They compete with the acknowledged best.

If there is a problem with this thread, it starts with two false assumptions, and builds on them to overlay a gilding of enormous deception that knives are some kind of holy ornament only the True Believer can appreciate.

If there's a problem with this thread, it starts with the deceptions that have been ladled out en masse by a variety of individuals. I've excised a fair bit of your post away, but there's a number of things that should be addressed.

1. Good designs & products sell themselves. They don't need fanciful tales of derring do to bolster an image. Whining about entrenched competitors or late starts isn't a valid excuse for lying about yourself.

2. "All hat and no cattle" is an apt description for someone who portrays themselves as a "combat vet" or having "years of special operations experience" or other "special skills" and is caught out with none of the above. EDIT: In addition, no amount of blameshifting will lay the responsibility of those actions on the shoulders of any "competitors", especially when it's your own actions that wind up getting those claims brought to light. You don't get to make excuses for your lack of history when you talk smack about another vet, get caught, and sued.

3. Asking "which is better" isn't a testimony to anything. It's a question. How the people who respond act, however, can definitely be attributed to skills, designs, and marketing of whichever company is at the focus of the line of question.

4. The amount of obfuscation, excuse making, and other nonsense displayed trying to somehow change the facts is still astounding.

 

[RWS]

I thought it was pretty well understood that the Strider Camp was not going to be posting anything in this forum... good bad or otherwise... so I don't know why this keeps getting brought up.
I really don't think they care what anyone on this forum has to say...so why should they come here and post. Especially since I have seen what happens when they do indeed post. It is like a bunch of fire ants attacking. Why should they go through the misery of that??

Wrong interpretation......My post referring to their deafening silence has nothing to do with them posting a response just in this thread or just in this forum. Also, my post doesn't mention BF as a presumed response location and I would never expect them to post a response here addressing their fantastic and heroic military fantasies.

 

[Tamishigiri]

I. WHAT IS DEFAMATION?
Libel or Slander: Libel is written, slander is oral.

Historically, defamation consisted of slander and libel. Slander is defamation by speaking, and libel is defamation by means of writing. After the invention of the printing press, the permanence of the written word meant that libel caused far more damage than slander. Slander, however, had a big impact in pre-literate communities where the spoken word was the primary way information was exchanged.

In modern times, the legal distinction between libel and slander has been narrowed. Most modern defamation cases involve libel, and modern writers have come to use the term "defamation" to describe both libel and slander.

Defamation consists of the following:

(1) a defamatory statement;

(2) published to third parties; and

(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Each of these element has generated controversy. We shall examine them in turn:


A. A Defamatory Communication

What is a "defamatory" statement?

1. A statement which causes harm to reputation.

A statement is defamatory if it "tends to injure the plaintiff's reputation and expose the plaintiff to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, or degradation." Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569, 573 (Minn. 1987). When the defamatory meaning is not apparent on its face, the plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving such extrinsic facts. Anderson v. Kammeier, 262 N.W.2d 366, 371 (Minn. 1977).


2. Defamation Per se

Some statements are so defamatory that they are considered defamation per se; and the plaintiff does not have to prove that the statements harmed his reputation. The classic examples of defamation per se are allegations of serious sexual misconduct; allegations of serious criminal misbehavior; or allegations that a person is afflicted with a loathsome disease. The historical examples of loathsome diseases are leprosy and venereal diseases. Allegations that a person is afflicted with AIDS may well constitute a modern variation on this form of defamation per se.

When a plaintiff is able to prove defamation per se, damages are presumed, but the presumption is rebuttable.


3. What Constitutes Injury to Reputation?

The plaintiff must establish proof of damage to reputation in order to recover any damages for mental anguish; see Gobin v. Globe Publishing Co., 232 Kan. 1, 649 P.2d 1239, 1244 (1982); Swanson v. American Hardware Mutual Ins. Co., 359 N.W.2d 705, 707 (Minn. App. 1984) (rev. denied) ("To establish a claim in a defamation action [plaintiff] must prove that the [defendant] made false and defamatory statements about them which injured their reputation.").

Evidence of plaintiff's poor reputation is generally admissible to mitigate damages. Davis v. Hamilton, 92 N.W. 512, 515 (Minn. 1902); Finklea v. Jacksonville Daily Progress, 742 S.W.2d 512, 517 (Tex. App. 1987). If an individual's reputation cannot be further damaged, a defamation suit serves no purpose, wastes judicial resources, and hinders First Amendment interests. Id.

The "libel-proof" plaintiff. A plaintiff is "libel-proof" when his reputation has been irreparably stained by prior publications. At the point the challenged statements are published, then, plaintiff's reputation is already so damaged that a plaintiff cannot recover more than nominal damages for subsequent defamatory statements. Marcone v. Penthouse Int'l Magazine for Men, 754 F.2d 1072, 1079 (3rd Cir. 1985).

However, a court will not dismiss a defamation action merely because the plaintiff already has a bad reputation. Schiavone Construction Co. v. Time, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 1511, 1516 (D.N.J. 1986), rev'd, 847 F.2d 1069, 1072-73 (3rd Cir. 1988). Finklea, 742 S.W.2d at 516 ("[E]ven the public outcast's remaining good reputation is entitled to protection.") Rather the statement upon which the defamation claim is based should relate to the same matters upon which the prior bad reputation was founded, or to substantially similar matters.

In extreme cases, a plaintiff's general reputation may be so bad that a court will hold a plaintiff libel-proof on all matters. For example, Charles Manson or Adolph Hitler could not be damaged by defamatory statements. Langston v. Eagle Publishing Co., 719 S.W.2d 612, 623 (Tex. App. 1986).


B. The Statement was published to third persons

Defamatory statements must be communicated to a third party. You cannot defame someone by speaking to them alone, or by muttering to yourself. This element of defamation is virtually always satisfied when claims are made against newspapers and broadcast media.


C. The defendant knew or should have known that the
communication was false

Defamation allows recovery for unfair damage to reputation. As a consequence, if true statements are made about a person which damage their reputation, they cannot maintain a lawsuit.

This is a relatively recent development. One origin of libel and slander laws was a criminal cause of action by the English Crown used to silence its critics; hence, it was the truth of the alleged libel which provoked the lawsuit. However, as the right of free speech developed and gained support, the use of defamation to suppress true statements was rejected. Virtually all states today apparently require that the alleged defamatory statement be false before a defamation action may proceed.

For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held:

We hold that a private individual may recover actual damages for a defamatory publication upon proof that the defendant knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that the defamatory statement was false. The conduct of defamation defendants will be judged on whether the conduct was that of a reasonable person under the circumstances.

Jadwin v. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 367 N.W.2d 476, 491 (Minn. 1985). Other cases follow this reasoning. See LeDoux v. Northwest Publications, Inc., 521 N.W.2d 59, 67 (Minn. App. 1994) ("In order for a statement to be defamatory . . . it must be false."); Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc., 759 F.2d 644, 648 (8th Cir. 1985), cert. den., 479 U.S. 883 (1987) ("Libel, by definition, consists of publication of a false and unprivileged fact.").

However, the U.S. Supreme Court has expressly reserved the question of whether the U.S. Constitution requires purely private defamation plaintiffs to prove falsity in all cases. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 476 U.S. 767, 779 n.4 (1986). In other words, there may be no constitutional barrier if a particular state wishes to allow defamation actions even for true statements.

How false is false? The test is whether the alleged defamatory statement as a whole is true or false. Minor inaccuracies are not subject to defamation claims if the overall substance of the statement is true. "The plaintiff cannot succeed in meeting the burden of proving falsity by showing that only that the statement is not literally true in every detail. If the statement is true in substance, inaccuracies of expression or detail are immaterial." Jadwin, supra, 390 N.W.2d at 441.

No Defamation by Implication. Failure to report all the facts may lead to a defamatory conclusion by the reader. But unless the overall substance of the statement can be proven false, no defamation claim will arise. "[T]he cause of action known as defamation by implication . . . is not recognized in Minnesota." Kortz v. Midwest Communications, Inc., 20 Media Law Rep. (BNA) 1860, 1865 (Ramsey County Dist. Ct. 1992). A public official may not maintain a defamation by implication claim. Diesen v. Hessberg, 455 N.W.2d 446, 451 (Minn. 1990).


D. Negligence Is Standard Of Liability

In Minnesota, the defendant is liable if it "knew or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care" that the defamatory statement was false. Jadwin, supra. This is the standard formulation for liability based on negligence, that is, liability arising from failure to take due care.

This is a low standard of liability. However, First Amendment considerations substantially limit the application of this standard.


II. Defenses to Defamation

A. Truth

Truth is a complete defense to a defamation claim. This is simply the flip side of the requirement that plaintiff prove the falsity of the alleged defamatory statement.




http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies366.htm

 

[Tamishigiri]

"Delusions of Grandeur is a false belief that one is more important or powerful than they really are. It is often associated with Psychosis (an inability to correctly evaluate reality). "



"PTSD is not a psychosis. Personality traits and character flaws are usually set in childhood. PTSD people do not lie any more than anyone else."

 

[wolfmann601]

If you tell the world you are somebody that has done some real important or heroic crap you best have done all you claim to have done.

If you did not do what you said you did and you are not what you said you are then you are 100% to blame. You are a Poser that started all this and do not have a character or good name capable of being damaged and there is nothing to sue because there is no damages.......period.

By now I would think DD would have put this all to rest and shut up all his major hater/detractors, if he could.

Kind of seems to me like maybe he cannot................................

Oh and Teacher about the space shuttle......It's yours!!!! The moron claimed I was good looking, athletic and tall

We all know that's a crock and I had to immediately defend myself and my name.....quick!!!