Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Free Speech, Part II

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Del Norte County, CA
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    When I ran for County Supervisor last year, against a rabid enviro, my neighbors truck was burned while I held a rally at my house.

    They are fanatics and the fact they are threatening you is no surprise. Their tactics are totalitarian and they have an end justifies the means mentality.

    I am proud to be a Kifaru customer, and doubly proud of you for not being intimidated. I think I will work extra hard this year and spend more of my money to buy your wonderful, innovative, and well built outdoor products.

    I will recommend them to anyone I can too.

    "Resistance to tyrants is obediance to God"
    Aim small and damm your eyes.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Finally back at Polk
    Posts
    356

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    The real terrorists here are the Eco-terrorists that carry out or even threaten humans with harm, or destroy property, in a cowardly attempt to achieve their narrow minded 'protection' of anything they lump into the catagory. [img]/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif[/img]

    This is true whether or not they subscribe to the ramblings of groups like PETA (ALF) or Green Peace (ELF).

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    586

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    Kutenay quote: " I often strongly disagree with the ornery bugger, but, he is obviously an honourable man.....his critics could take a few lessons in that regard."

    Well said.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Jet Capital, washington
    Posts
    2,547

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    I think Mark Paulson said it first, a "boycott" won't have any effect. Somehow I don't think the type of person who would become a Kifaru customer will be swayed by a meritless call to boycott.

    So Sundles is a bit emotional on the Wolf topic. It's not my passion but I'm not offended by what he says. I don't fault Kifaru for providing a free speech forum wih allows a person to make an impassioned case on an issue.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Ct
    Posts
    4,563

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    "The Boycott"

    So these people are not going to buy anything. Oh No. I donít remember anyone from Kifaru saying anything about the topic pro or con. I support Mr. Sundles because I don't like the FEDs pushing stuff on people and using my money to do it.

    I wonder what these people are not going to buy. A small pull out? Maybe they will pool all of their money together and spring for a field chair? Darn. I want a field chair. Maybe because no one from Kifaru said anything pro or con about killing wolves I will hold off on the 35 dollar purchase until Kevin clears this whole thing up.
    WARNING DO NOT TOUCH HOT STOVE
    -----SEVERE BURNS MAY RESULT------

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    eugene, oregon
    Posts
    4,492

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    The hypocrisy of these people is boundless. Threats seem to be OK when they use them but not vice versa. I have had my share of threats (the death kind and otherwise) and it is my experience it is all talk and no action. This forum seems to thrive on civil discourse, maybe that is what they fear the most (they being unable to communicate civilly as evidenced by threats tendered against others). Ignore them and they will go away.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    209

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    Just spent some time catching up on the boards and couldn't believe what I was reading. My inards were all in knots and then I got to Anth's post and well all I can say is that humor can be very good medicine.

    Dust-devils will come and go and the cycle will continue.

    In the meantime....Guess we'll all just keep on keeping on.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Washington, state
    Posts
    1,564

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    Same post as the other thread....

    This isn't really about evidence or the right to express an opinion. It's about trying to angle via power/controls to insure that your opinion either takes root or pushes out your oposition. Kevin and Patrick aren't going to help, either side.

    Of course that raises real problems for you bushrat. Not because you are wrong, but because in the absence of smoking guns, people tend to fall back on gut. Sundles has been in this place for a looong time. He has earned the respect of a great many. Even those who earnestly disagree with him (I can't speek for them) would, I believe, generally say they find him to be honest if extreme.

    He has a track record, it lends folks in the absence of pure facts to give him benefit of the doubt in matters of uncertainty. You don't get that benefit. Because it's earned. You can't get it inserted by a moderator. It can't be removed from Tim.

    If you want to make the point that Tim's assertions aren't supported, make the counter assertion. "I say that NO Canadian outfitters EVER poison wolves." It has the same basis without facts. It's equally valid on its face.

    Problem still remains though, and that's the crux. We are left to make assumptions on evidence not present and we only have our own common sense and the weight we lend to the message maker. You can't email someone in Canada, lein on a moderator or otherwise get respect and credibility added to your stature. It's not like adding RAM to your computer.

    Because this is a community and not a random forum this is the only way you have to go. People here know each other, if only cyber-ly. On a random street corner you'd have far less problem "proving" to the satisfaction of an audience your point. This isn't a street corner.
    Angelfarts Sausage Co. Get way-back, powered by Angelfarts.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    443

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    More or less same as other post and same as what Kevin B said I think:

    I don't even think it was even neccessary for Kevin to have invoked protection of freedom of speech in this instance. Common sense should have been sufficient and prevailed. If some guy belches at a truck stop diner and some other guy complains to the manager, the manager shouldn't have to invoke freedom of speech to explain to the guy why he, the manager, shouldn't have to get involved on this one. As for Sundles apparent indigestion, order something else. That's what menus are for. Now if they were serving somebodies roadkill that isn't exactly what one might call fresh, that might be something to take up with the proper authorities. Still, like I said, as long as the coffee is good and refills are free and fast, what's the big deal?

    I consider myself a treehugger of sorts, perhaps even a wolf-lover though I know less than squat about them. Sundles is passionate about certain issues concerning wolves. He is likely representative of a group of people, at least one in number, likely many more besides. Since I know jack squat about wolves and how they get along with people, and I would like to know more, I would like to here everything he has to say because, well if nothing else he is a person involved with wolves. If he mispells a few words, and may or may not be mistaken on some of Canada's geographical or political features, I have no problem reading through all that. For the record, I have no experience with Sundles tables manners. I was only speaking allegorically. I am sure his table manners are at least as good as my own.

    As for the other fellow. Who knows, he might be right after all but he probably just went about it all wrong. It happens.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lakeland, Florida
    Posts
    46

    Default Re: Free Speech, Part II

    Regardless of the veracity of the wolf information, I applaude Kifaru for not bending over to the extremists seeking to make this country an Orwellian nightmare. I see it all the time, with someone having to piously say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone", just because some rube, or group of rubes, perceived some slight.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •