I don't understand...

[Spartacus]

I missed this foolishness the first time around so lets talk about it now...

...on Dec. 13th, 2009 you said you were going to start OCing, yet many times you've boasted how you have more credibility than others since you've been carrying since the 1970's, with the implication being that you were Open Carrying. When called out on that you admitted that you stopped OCing in the 70's and carried concealed until Dec 2009 when Hubert convinced you to OC again. You've been lying through implication and omission about your experience OCing to bolster your credibility, surreptitiously claiming your 3 to 4 decades of experience illegally carrying concealed somehow matters in a forum dedicated to OC.

You have an incomplete understanding so I can't blame you for this. I have carried open and concealed while living in several different states across the country since the 70's when I was indeed arrested in downtown La Crosse for OC where I spent the night in jail and my sidearm, a S&W .38 special was confiscated and never returned to me.

When I joined WCI I was indeed in the habit of carrying concealed and realized that it wasn't just about my personal safety but that I could do more good going back to OC in order to influence others.

You've been proven to be a hypocrite with your own words. You talked very big when Paul surrendered his ID under duress after watching two others be arrested because legally he was not required to do so, yet on Dec. 13, 2009 you freely admitted you informed your Town Supervisor (or someone along those lines) that you were going to start OCing...something you admitted you were not legally required to do, but you did so because "we didn't know the full story". Two side of the same coin, yet in your case it's okay, but in Paul's case it was not.

Apples and oranges.

After being found not guilty for defending myself with a handgun I had several run-ins with an egotistical town deputy which lead to my town manager informing me that his deputies were employees and not public servants and had no legal obligation to serve and protect anyone. I informed him that I would be OCing which coincided with my joining WCI and promoting the cause. How you can compare that to coughing up a drivers license when not driving is beyond me.

I don't know why I bother Don, as I could care less what you think about me but there you have it. As I have mentioned several times all you have to do is PM Hubert to confirm my story as he did a CCAP search to check me out when I first joined WCI.

 

[Spartacus]

Fifth, since you've opened it up, here's your character...you're a liar, a hypocrite, braggart and a bully.

I'm gonna need to hear from you on this statement Don.

You pretty much crossed a line with that statement and I'll need a retraction or satisfaction.

 

[The Don]

I'm gonna need to hear from you on this statement Don.

You pretty much crossed a line with that statement and I'll need a retraction or satisfaction.

Ah...Step 7 of The Spartacus Maneuver...Spartacus claims he is the victim.

Anyway...seriously? You want an apology? I mean, that's basically what you're asking for, right? Well, since we all know that in your world, "real men" don't apologize, and you've still not apologized to me, I can safely say that I'm "pretty much" not inclined to issue a retraction (i.e. apologize).

Besides, 1) the truth never requires an apology, and 2) I think I explained each of those points clearly. You tried to spin them in an earlier response, but that doesn't negate their inherent truth and my guess is that's what you don't like.

As for your satisfaction...well, to quote a favorite movie of mine, "Get used to disappointment."

I'm also reminded of the final portion of Glen Bateman's conversation with Randall Flagg.

Or to put it another way as a whole (and to borrow from Step 7) I think you're just being thin-skinned. After all, I'm just telling it like I see it and giving the hard answers. If you don't like it, maybe you should just leave or put me on ignore.

 

[J.Gleason]

I'm gonna need to hear from you on this statement Don.

You pretty much crossed a line with that statement and I'll need a retraction or satisfaction.

Bwhaaaaa! haa! haa! haa! ROFLMFAO!

OMG! He wants a retraction or "Satisfaction"
What does "Satisfaction" mean, you gonna break his legs?
Sounds like a direct threat to me and NOW the mods have ample reason to ban you from this forum.

I think it should be at the request of all members (Not including the WCI board) and from that point on every member should place Spartacus on ignore and not respond to any of his postings.

 

[Doug Huffman]

It is a threat.

Also known as clarigation and androlepsy.

 

[JerryD]

Sure seems like a threat, which is clearly against the rules.

here is a question for people.

What do Mick Jagger and Spartacus have in common?

most people should be able to figure the answer out.

 

[The Don]

What does "Satisfaction" mean, you gonna break his legs?
Sounds like a direct threat to me and NOW the mods have ample reason to ban you from this forum.

I was kinda wondering that, too. My first thought when I read his post was, "or what, big guy?", followed by, "hey, that was a thinly (poorly) veiled threat."

par for the course, with him, though.

 

[JerryD]

[video=youtube;qXcNQTa3zgs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXcNQTa3zgs[/video]

 

[The Don]

Sure seems like a threat, which is clearly against the rules.

here is a question for people.

What do Mick Jagger and Spartacus have in common?

most people should be able to figure the answer out.

now that's good stuff!

 

[Spartacus]

You have an incomplete understanding so I can't blame you for this. I have carried open and concealed while living in several different states across the country since the 70's when I was indeed arrested in downtown La Crosse for OC where I spent the night in jail and my sidearm, a S&W .38 special was confiscated and never returned to me.

When I joined WCI I was indeed in the habit of carrying concealed and realized that it wasn't just about my personal safety but that I could do more good going back to OC in order to influence others.



Apples and oranges.

After being found not guilty for defending myself with a handgun I had several run-ins with an egotistical town deputy which lead to my town manager informing me that his deputies were employees and not public servants and had no legal obligation to serve and protect anyone. I informed him that I would be OCing which coincided with my joining WCI and promoting the cause. How you can compare that to coughing up a drivers license when not driving is beyond me.

I don't know why I bother Don, as I could care less what you think about me but there you have it. As I have mentioned several times all you have to do is PM Hubert to confirm my story as he did a CCAP search to check me out when I first joined WCI.

You can't answer this so you post that.

In opposition to the OP's thread title, "I do understand."

 

[McX]

you guys just dont get it, sparticus gets to you because you allow it. he doesnt chase me as i am courteous to him, and he knows i'll walk if i get attacked- not attack him back. conversely i dont attack him because i don't do those kind of things, and he sees that. plus we get along. discussing issued is one thing, slapping each other is another. i dont think anyone should get banned for defending a position. please go back on topic.

 

[The Don]

I guess I shouldn't have combined my answers. Some people find that hard to follow. (apparently.)

This is where I answered that:

You tried to spin them in an earlier response, but that doesn't negate their inherent truth and my guess is that's what you don't like.

 

[oak1971]

Well this is certainly entertaining if nothing else. IBTL

 

[Spartacus]

I guess I shouldn't have combined my answers. Some people find that hard to follow. (apparently.)

This is where I answered that:

I never spun anything. You however enjoy spinning your responses to whatever advantage you think you enjoy over me. Its nothing in reality though, only in your own mind.

I'm curious though. In what world do you live in where you think you can call someone a liar without proof or repercussions?

 

[Wisconsin Carry Inc. - Chairman]

you guys just dont get it, sparticus gets to you because you allow it. he doesnt chase me as i am courteous to him, and he knows i'll walk if i get attacked- not attack him back. conversely i dont attack him because i don't do those kind of things, and he sees that. plus we get along. discussing issued is one thing, slapping each other is another. i dont think anyone should get banned for defending a position. please go back on topic.

Spot on McX

 

[Spartacus]

you guys just dont get it, sparticus gets to you because you allow it. he doesnt chase me as i am courteous to him, and he knows i'll walk if i get attacked- not attack him back. conversely i dont attack him because i don't do those kind of things, and he sees that. plus we get along. discussing issued is one thing, slapping each other is another. i dont think anyone should get banned for defending a position. please go back on topic.

When I was last in AZ I let the vultures circle and when they lined up just right I took out two or more with one shot.

But thanks for the thought my friend and you are exactly correct. There are a number of guys here that I have only the deepest respect for. I could have gotten after you for coughing up your license as well, but you have never tried to set yourself up as any kind of leader or authority in the movement which is why I got after the other guy. Leaders need to be fearless. I have personally used that line from Star Wars on the cops before many years ago. It made them laugh and they left me alone when I waved my hand and said "these are not the droids you are looking for".

One time I got pulled over for speeding very late at night on an empty highway in Kansas and after a few minutes of verbal sparring with the officer he told me he did not like my demeanor and liked it less when I asked him if that was a misdemeanor. I got a warning ticket. lol

 

[Doug Huffman]

As I said.

Spot on McX

Impeached by failure to repudiate.

 

[Spartacus]

Impeached by failure to repudiate.

Why would Nik feel the need to repudiate you Doug? Or me? Or anyone for that matter.

The ground is level at the foot of the OCDO cross and no repudiation or glorification is needed.

 

[McX]

Impeached by failure to repudiate.

rigth on! if i get impeached does that mean i get to go home early?!
i can think of one guy who needs to be impeached, and it aint Nixon.

 

[The Don]

I gave my proof when I stated that, in my opinion, you're a liar. Do I need to explain it again?

You've claimed repeatedly in many posts that you've been "carrying" since the 70's. The implication being, since this is an "Open Carry" forum and it's primary focus is "Open Carry" and the discussions center around "Open Carry" that you've been "open carrying" for all those years.

You did this on purpose and used it as reasoning for why your opinion about OC issues counts for more than the opinion of others.

I can't find the exact post (I think it was in a thread that was deleted), but the best example of this is when you said was something to the effect of "The Don has in his signature that he's been sockpuppet free since 1974, but I was arrested for OCing around that time in La Crosse and I've been carrying ever since." The clear implication with that statement is that you were OPEN carrying.

We then find out that you've not been open carrying all of those years, but much of that time was actually spent illegally carrying concealed and you only started open carrying again in December of 2009.

A lie of implication or omission (which is what that was) is still a lie.

As a former pastor or minister (no disrespect, I forget which it was you said you were) that shouldn't be hard to understand. Christ, I'm a crappy lapsed-catholic-turned-athiest and I understand that.

Now you're saying that you carried legally some of those years in other states and whatnot. That's may be true and it's fine if it is, but it still doesn't change the fact that you lied via implication and omission before that came to light.

Simply put, if you were under oath and were directly asked, "Have you practiced open carry consistently and regularly since the 1970's, as you've implied on numerous occasions?", your answer would have to be "No."

That is the proof of what makes you a liar - your own words. I've said it something like 4 or 5 times already. I'm not sure how much more you think I need to say.