Why Lynn Thompson Rules!

Mono said:
LOL ..... seems I also have a better sense of humor than you do, too. :)

I buy what I like, and prefer to buy from those who know what integrity means.

But I won't lose sleep if you prefer to buy from scumbags. :p
Take care, little sis. :D
Click to expand...

Oh yes you are vastly superior to most everybody I've ever met! Bows deeply before the great "Mono"! I'm not worthy, I'm not worthy!:(
 
"I buy what I like"

Now there's a thought.

"and prefer to buy from those who know what integrity means"

Thats seems like a relative term "intergrity" to me:rolleyes: What someone deems integrity another may deem something different.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, or so the saying goes:yawn:

Brownie
 
To: Jill -

There you go..... and it only took you a few days to learn. :D :p

If it makes you feel better to pretend that I'm an arrogent ass, go ahead. ;)

~~~~~~~~~~~

To: brownie -

Perhaps there are a few things that folks would disagree on, regarding the definition of integrity. But some things are universal. Even in this day & age....

Terrorist - targets anyone. Civilians and government institutions.

Freedom Fighter - Never targets civilians.

Hope that helps!
 
Freedom Fighter - Never targets civilians.

Perhaps you could research the history of south american and african "freedom fighters" of different countries and their actions against civilians, who the US sometimes backed and called "freedom fighters" in that time period.

Brownie
 
brownie0486 said:
Freedom Fighter - Never targets civilians.

Perhaps you could research the history of south american and african "freedom fighters" of different countries and their actions against civilians, who the US sometimes backed and called "freedom fighters" in that time period.

Brownie
Click to expand...

Do I look like the government? Did I ever say those terrorists were freedom fighters?

I stand behind that definition. There's a difference between a real Freedom Fighter, and a terrorist who gets labeled as one.
 
My point exactly about the idea of "perception" and differing points of views on about any subject, including the word "integrity" and what it means to different people.:D

You just made a great case for others opinions on the subject.

Brownie
 
brownie0486 said:
My point exactly about the idea of "perception" and differing points of views on about any subject, including the word "integrity" and what it means to different people.:D

You just made a great case for others opinions on the subject.

Brownie
Click to expand...

I personally don't purchase CS products due to the owner's integrity. Whether or not he's in line with his personal integrity is irrelevent for me. It's very possible that Hitler was and Bin Laden is congruent with their personal philosophy and integrity. I don't agree with them. Does that make me "right"? Depends on who you ask. Does it matter as far as I'm concerned? Not really. Are we all allowed to have our own opinions? Sure, what's the problem?
 
Are we all allowed to have our own opinions? Sure, what's the problem?

Exactly what I was conveying here. We can make our own decisions based on our own set of criteria where blade purchases are concerned.

The problem often only arises when those who make the decision to make purchases from a company that others feel is run by someone without "integrity"; suffer the verbal abuse of others for those decisions; and have to listen to the holier than thou speaches here about how they, by purchasing [ and hence supporting ] that company are now considered in the same light as the company they purchased from.

I wonder how many smoke cigarettes here, and therefore support the tobacco companies? Certainly everyone knows those companies didn't get any integrity till the truth came out about their lying about the effects of that product even though they had evidence to the contrary.:rolleyes:

Think Hypocrisy here. Many of the holier than thou's would certainly fall under that term in other areas of the lives right?:cool:

Brownie
 
Don't know about "holy," but here's a view from Ohio.

Here, it is a felony to carry a knife concealed that is a "deadly weapon."

What is a "deadly weapon"? In Ohio, that is any knife [or other object] that is "designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon."

Now say you are carrying a certain CS product. Some LEO, not realizing what a swell person you are, arrests you for CCW.

The underpaid, overworked prosecutor assigned to the case is trying to figure out how to meet the State's burden of proving that the knife was "designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon." What PROOF might he or she offer?

How about the statements and video demonstration of the owner of the company that places the knife in commerce?

State law varies, but don't kid yourself that there is no suignificance to peddling knives as well-designed killing tools.
 
The underpaid, overworked prosecutor assigned to the case is trying to figure out how to meet the State's burden of proving that the knife was "designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon." What PROOF might he or she offer?

How about the statements and video demonstration of the owner of the company that places the knife in commerce?

That could be used, certainly. But that can be used with any knife you buy. Lets look at the facts here based on your statements above.

Other than a "jack-knife" with a nail nick like your grandad used to carry for "chores", any "tactical" folder could be described/offered to the jury as being designed with the intent to carry it with the intention of using it to potentially defend yourself, could it not?

A knife that has a thumbhole so you can get the blade opened one handed and quickly at that, could be used as an example to show you were not carrying the knife for "chores".

A knife that has a pocket clip, so it can be accessed quicly, coupled with a thumbhole or stud could be used as an example by that same prosecutor if he was smart as well.

Brownie
 
I have no problem with people that purchase things from companies that I think have poor ethics. I do however have problems with people that state in an almost proud fashion that it doesn't matter to them if the company is run by a thief, liar, uses slave labor, whatever, so long as they get what they want for the price they want. I will also tell those people want I think.
 
I have no problem with people that purchase things from companies that I think have poor ethics.

I do however have problems with people that state in an almost proud fashion that it doesn't matter to them if the company is run by a thief, liar, uses slave labor, whatever, so long as they get what they want for the price they want. I will also tell those people want I think.


Keith, those two statements are quite contradictory in nature. Are you saying that you don't have a problem with someone buying a product you don't support as long as you don't know about it? It seems that way from the above statements. Most people don't know anything about the company they buy anything from to begin with. It would be impossible to expect every person to research the company before buying their prodicts. If they did research it, they'd find most companies or their owners would fall under the title of "thief, liar, uses slave labor". How would anyone be able to determine the owner had not cheated on his spouse once, lied to his boss once, etc? It would be impossible.

Being impossible, I tend to look to the time/value equation, and not the ethicals associated with any company. If I were to do that, it would take up most of the time I have to enjoy the products I do buy.

I'm one who buys products based on my perceived value for the dollars I spent. I could care less who made it, who that supports or doesn't support. Thats ANY product, including the chinese SKS's I buy for their real value or the foreign products which are better made.

It's a time/value money equation. My time to make it has value to me. I spend it according to the value I perceive as better than another product.

Brownie
 
brownie0486 said:
My point exactly about the idea of "perception" and differing points of views on about any subject, including the word "integrity" and what it means to different people.:D

You just made a great case for others opinions on the subject.

Brownie
Click to expand...

Not really. Call me crazy, but I feel the government knew those guys were terrorists. But from a PR standpoint, it looks bad if you're being honest. So they lied and called them "Freedom Fighters." It wasn't a case of having a differing point of view based on perception.

Integrity works the same way.
 
Monocrom;

You seem to be saying you believe in absolutes in this world, and of course there are none. It's something perhaps to strive for, but rarely, if ever, found in the real world.

Back to that "perception" again.:rolleyes:

Brownie
 
brownie0486 said:
The underpaid, overworked prosecutor assigned to the case is trying to figure out how to meet the State's burden of proving that the knife was "designed or specially adapted for use as a weapon." What PROOF might he or she offer?

How about the statements and video demonstration of the owner of the company that places the knife in commerce?

That could be used, certainly. But that can be used with any knife you buy. Lets look at the facts here based on your statements above.

Other than a "jack-knife" with a nail nick like your grandad used to carry for "chores", any "tactical" folder could be described/offered to the jury as being designed with the intent to carry it with the intention of using it to potentially defend yourself, could it not?

A knife that has a thumbhole so you can get the blade opened one handed and quickly at that, could be used as an example to show you were not carrying the knife for "chores".

A knife that has a pocket clip, so it can be accessed quicly, coupled with a thumbhole or stud could be used as an example by that same prosecutor if he was smart as well.

Brownie
Click to expand...
I am not saying that a vague standard is comforting. However, I distinguish between an arguable point and a slam dunk.

What juror will be convinced it's only a tool made to open with one hand for convenience vs. PROOF that is it expressly designed to open wound channels (Cut to video of large man in tights slamming blade into animal flesh.)?

Or, not to forget our "friends" at Dark Ops, would you want to defend the practicality of a clip to keep from losing an important tool (which serveral courts have held to constitute open carry) or a knife designed with "blood spray" and "covert deanimation" in mind?

It ain't a perfect world, but this sort of advertising, however well it sells to some, makes for more problems -- down the line and right now.

The only Ohio court to consider a reported knife CCW case held that a "pocket knife," without proof of design or adaptation as a weapon, was not a "deadly weapon." LT has ending that problem for many CS products. No need to wait for "liberals."
 
The tool is just that, an inanimate object.

The "intent" of the person charged is where the case will be made or broken by your defense attys [ if they are smart enough ].

As well, the proof would have be in evidence that you knew of that video, perhaps having bought that video, not strictly on the fact you carried a certain product.

If that were the case, the KaBar could be illustrated as a killing weapon, afterall, it has been used in the military for decades, not only as a "tool", but also as a "weapon" of opportunity.

Ot take the Striders as an example. The smart prosecutor could make the case for soldiers carrying them into combat, and thouhg one may never have been used for killing, it could be stated that these folders are used in a combat threatre [ the inference to the jury would be the same, that you are carrying a knife that combat soldiers carry ].

Or to go one step further, one good prosecutor could take the ER straights, whose design of some were expressly made for miliary ops. The list is endless in reality if the prosecutor wants to dig deep enough.

It's the "intent" of your carrying that weapon that will be the issue if your attys are good enough, not the folder you are carrying or the adcopy of that product [ which you may or may not have been aware of to begin with ].

Brownie
 
brownie0486 said:
Are we all allowed to have our own opinions? Sure, what's the problem?

Exactly what I was conveying here. We can make our own decisions based on our own set of criteria where blade purchases are concerned.

The problem often only arises when those who make the decision to make purchases from a company that others feel is run by someone without "integrity"; suffer the verbal abuse of others for those decisions; and have to listen to the holier than thou speaches here about how they, by purchasing [ and hence supporting ] that company are now considered in the same light as the company they purchased from.

I wonder how many smoke cigarettes here, and therefore support the tobacco companies? Certainly everyone knows those companies didn't get any integrity till the truth came out about their lying about the effects of that product even though they had evidence to the contrary.:rolleyes:

Think Hypocrisy here. Many of the holier than thou's would certainly fall under that term in other areas of the lives right?:cool:

Brownie
Click to expand...

From this perspective, I agree :).
 
Did somebody bring up Dark Ops again? Oh, wait, it's a Cold Steel thread.........



























Same difference.:D

Regards,
3G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top