# Robert âLaVoyâ Finicum



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

"Oregon law enforcement officials said Tuesday that two Oregon state troopers were justified in shooting Finicumon Jan. 26 because he failed to heed their commands to surrender and repeatedly reached for his weapon."

"As Finicum stood in the snow, authorities told him multiple times to lie on the ground and surrender. Finicum yelled &#8220;you&#8217;re going to have to shoot me&#8221; while reaching into his jacket three times. Fearing he had a gun, troopers fired three rounds, all of which hit Finicum. *A loaded pistol was found in his jacket pocket*."

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/198...ing-of-protester-was-justified-and-necessary/


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Lucky he was white or they'd be in trouble


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The death just wouldn't matter to many if he had been black, hispanic, or muslim. It only matters because he's a white male. The fact that he went for a gun and stated repeatedly, âyouâre going to have to shoot meâ doesn't mean a thing to them. White male is the key.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Many haven't seen anything but the poor quality heli video, that doesn't show anything.
Here is an article, with the video from inside LaVoy's truck, complete with audio.

https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/08/fbi-agents-investigated-for-coverup-in-shooting-death-of-lavoy-finicum-as-new-video-released-from-inside-vehicle/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TraderBob said:


> Many haven't seen anything but the poor quality heli video, that doesn't show anything.
> Here is an article, with the video from inside LaVoy's truck, complete with audio.
> 
> https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/03/08/fbi-agents-investigated-for-coverup-in-shooting-death-of-lavoy-finicum-as-new-video-released-from-inside-vehicle/


The link looks a lot like an anti law enforcement website. Just sayin'. ETA: It's an opinion piece/blog by the owner of the site that was arrested for taking pictures of the police. "Photography is Not a Crime was launched in 2007 after Miami multimedia journalist Carlos Miller was arrested for taking photos of Miami police during a journalistic assignment in order to document his trial.

He quickly learned that citizens from all over the country were being harassed, threatened and arrested for recording in public, so he began documenting these incidents on his blog as he waited for his trial to begin."

So because one FBI guy lied about discharging his weapon negates that Finicum went for his gun three times? I think that the agent should be terminated from the FBI.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I watched a rather lengthy video on this last night and it's the first time I'd seen the recording from inside the truck as well as the fact that police had broken down the previous video we had already seen. 

The video I watched was pretty honest and also disclosed that the FBI had failed to disclose to investigators two shots they had fired and that remains an ongoing investigation. One specifically struck the roof of the truck. 

The recording from inside the truck does evidence that Finicum was directed to lie down several times before he was shot and while I don't believe that just because someone tells an officer they should shoot them, they should be obliged, his repeated response does speak to his refusal to comply with police. 

The one officer that so many had spoken behind Finicum was in fact carrying a tazer with the hope of using non lethal force and would have been allowed to continue trying until Finicum appeared to go for his gun for the third time. 

The video I watched clearly stated that the police department had shot Finicum and according to law, they were justified but it also indicated that there were issues with the FBI's actions and clearly detailed the steps the police have taken regarding their actions.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The death just wouldn't matter to many if he had been black, hispanic, or muslim. It only matters because he's a white male. The fact that he went for a gun and stated repeatedly, âyouâre going to have to shoot meâ doesn't mean a thing to them. White male is the key.


Yep, that's how they got away with it.
If he'd been black, Obama would have cried, Sharpton would have incited a race war, Soros would have bused in hundreds to "protest" and set fire to whatever they could find and you all would have been demanding the shooters heads.
but, he was white, so it's all cool.
The racists don't care about this guy or the hundreds others who are killed.
Bigots run the country, we expect nothing approaching fairness or tolerance from them or their mindless groupies. 
Carry on your hate campaign.


----------



## TraderBob (Oct 21, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> The link looks a lot like an anti law enforcement website.


I don't give a crap who posted it...It's the video.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

wr said:


> I watched a rather lengthy video on this last night and it's the first time I'd seen the recording from inside the truck as well as the fact that police had broken down the previous video we had already seen.
> 
> The video I watched was pretty honest and also disclosed that the FBI had failed to disclose to investigators two shots they had fired and that remains an ongoing investigation. One specifically struck the roof of the truck.
> 
> ...


Michael Brown refused to comply and the racists made him into a martyr when he was nothing but a thug, a criminal, and a doper.
The hypocrisy of the leftist haters around here is mind boggling.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> The link looks a lot like an anti law enforcement website.


What happened to your anti cop rhetoric now?
Change your mind, or does skin color really matter to you?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TraderBob said:


> I don't give a crap who posted it...It's the video.


They hate cops remember?
Oh wait, they don't hate Obama's hit men, just real cops.
They don't even seem to mind the feds were shooting at kids.
they call it justified.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

TraderBob said:


> I don't give a crap who posted it...It's the video.


What about the video? Can you explain? It proves that Finicum was told to lay down, plus he stated, "youâre going to have to shoot me" repeatedly.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> They hate cops remember?
> Oh wait, they don't hate Obama's hit men, just real cops.
> They don't even seem to mind the feds were shooting at kids.
> they call it justified.


Generalizations prove you don't know what you are posting about.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> What happened to your anti cop rhetoric now?
> Change your mind, or does skin color really matter to you?


Please quote my posts where I have expressed an "anti cop rhetoric" or admit you're lying about what I said, *again*. It's becoming quite a habit...


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

The video with the video from inside the vehicle:

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw9sfuFGghY[/ame]


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

What is the "inside video" supposed to prove? It clearly shows Finicum being asked many times to get out of the truck, and he states no and you'll have to shoot me. It then shows him taking off in the truck, putting it in a snowbank, exiting the truck, being asked to lay down down (multiple times) and obviously reaching for a weapon. 

Can anyone explain?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Generalizations prove you don't know what you are posting about.


Really, you need to stop telling me what to post.
I saw the video, the feds shot at the car before he even got out.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> What is the "inside video" supposed to prove? It clearly shows Finicum being asked many times to get out of the truck, and he states no and you'll have to shoot me. It then shows him taking off in the truck, putting it in a snowbank, exiting the truck, being asked to lay down down (multiple times) and obviously reaching for a weapon.
> 
> Can anyone explain?


Well then, by golly, just go ahead and shoot him


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Please quote my posts where I have expressed an "anti cop rhetoric" or admit you're lying about what I said, *again*. It's becoming quite a habit...


My fault for taking the bait I guess
Carry on with your hatred, I'll get off your bridge


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> Really, you need to stop telling me what to post.
> I saw the video, the feds shot at the car before he even got out.


Painterswife's statement was an _opinion_, not an order. I hope that helps. 

I do believe, in my first post, I indicated that the FBI agent(s) should be terminated from their job for lying about discharging their weapon. It still has no bearing on Finicum's refusal to do what law enforcement told him to do.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> My fault for taking the bait I guess
> Carry on with your hatred, I'll get off your bridge


You're admitting you lied about my "anti cop rhetoric"*?* That's a good start! Implying I'm a troll wasn't nice tho.

Edit: to highlight what should be obvious. Is it OK to say duh?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> Really, you need to stop telling me what to post.
> I saw the video, the feds shot at the car before he even got out.


I am commenting on your post not telling you what to do. Sorry you can't tell the difference.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

A leader of the armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge killed by police was shot three times in the back, a county prosecutor said on Tuesday, calling the shooting "justified and necessary."


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Michael Brown refused to comply and the racists made him into a martyr when he was nothing but a thug, a criminal, and a doper.
> The hypocrisy of the leftist haters around here is mind boggling.


There are quite a few that feel Finicum is a martyr as well. 

I know a family member of the rancher shot in Idaho and have been watching for the report on that as well. I've watched some of their friends and family go from devastated and wanting answers to believing that Finicum is nothing short of a saint who was martyred for their own cause. 

From my position, I hate neither man and did appreciate the fact that in this particular case, the police offered a solid report, openly shared video from inside the truck as well as explaining their actions, clearly indicated under what laws they felt justified their actions and weren't afraid to hold the FBI accountable for their actions as well as indicating what action they had taken to make them accountable for withholding information. 

In the video I watched, all senior members were fully prepared to answer questions from the media and took the time to back up their responses with video, diagrams, autopsy reports and audio recordings from within the truck.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Just like the black kid in Ferguson, MO.
He didn't do what the cops ordered him too. Only difference is, the white community won't riot, burn buildings and generally raise hell, because most realize he could still be alive if he would have complied.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Fishindude said:


> Just like the black kid in Ferguson, MO.
> He didn't do what the cops ordered him too. Only difference is, the white community won't riot, burn buildings and generally raise hell, because most realize he could still be alive if he would have complied.


Um, excuse me, didn't the "white community" take over a government building and tear up some of Uncle Sam's crap in this case?

I really wish the Brown shooting in Ferguson would have been captured on video like this encounter! Probably would have saved a whole lot of angst, property damage, and me and my fellow MO taxpayers a lot of money.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> You're admitting you lied about my "anti cop rhetoric"? That's a good start! Implying I'm a troll wasn't nice tho.


Now you are putting words in my mouth
I think what you are doing is against the rules, you might want to check.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I am commenting on your post not telling you what to do. Sorry you can't tell the difference.


I can, but apparently you can't or won't.
You and your friend just go ahead and play your games, I really don't care 
Maybe you need a hobby?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> Um, excuse me, didn't the "white community" take over a government building and tear up some of Uncle Sam's crap in this case?
> 
> I really wish the Brown shooting in Ferguson would have been captured on video like this encounter! Probably would have saved a whole lot of angst, property damage, and me and my fellow MO taxpayers a lot of money.


It wouldn't have saved any money, the racists wanted a riot, they bought it, paid for it and got it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> I can, but apparently you can't or won't.
> You and your friend just go ahead and play your games, I really don't care
> Maybe you need a hobby?


It seems you care enough to comment.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Cornhusker said:


> It wouldn't have saved any money, the racists wanted a riot, they bought it, paid for it and got it.


What got that situation so inflamed to start with, was Brown's buddy telling a local reporter Brown had his hands up when he was shot. It was a lie - but that first report went far and wide and got the community riled up. It generated the rage. That's what the "hands up don't shoot" signs were all about - that lie. I really believe if there had been video so the lies were proven out right off the bat, things would have gone differently. Or if there had been video, the punk probably wouldn't have lied in the first place.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

painterswife said:


> It seems you care enough to comment.


Like I said, I shouldn't take your bait
My fault.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> What got that situation so inflamed to start with, was Brown's buddy telling a local reporter Brown had his hands up when he was shot. It was a lie - but that first report went far and wide and got the community riled up. It generated the rage. That's what the "hands up don't shoot" signs were all about - that lie. I really believe if there had been video so the lies were proven out right off the bat, things would have gone differently. Or if there had been video, the punk probably wouldn't have lied in the first place.


And Obama jumped on that lie like a fat girl on a cupcake, and rode it into a riot.
This time?
Nah, dead guy was too white for that hateful bigot Obama to care.
The hypocrites are now celebrating the death of a man who stood by his beliefs.
But then that's the kind of people they are.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

Cornhusker said:


> And Obama jumped on that lie like a fat girl on a cupcake, and rode it into a riot.
> This time?
> Nah, dead guy was too white for that hateful bigot Obama to care.
> The hypocrites are now celebrating the death of a man who stood by his beliefs.
> But then that's the kind of people they are.


Who here has celebrated his death? Why would Obama comment on this? Is he expected to comment on every justified police shooting?

And I will surprise you I think he should have kept quiet about the Brown shooting just like the Martin one. And if asked said something generic like "anytime there is a death of a young person it is tragic for his family and once the police complete there investigation we will have the answers we need"


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

*Um, excuse me, didn't the "white community" take over a government building and tear up some of Uncle Sam's crap in this case?*

That damage was pre-shooting.
My point was they won't go nuts calling this an unjustified shooting, and start tearing hell out of things.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Fishindude said:


> *Um, excuse me, didn't the "white community" take over a government building and tear up some of Uncle Sam's crap in this case?*
> 
> That damage was pre-shooting.
> My point was they won't go nuts calling this an unjustified shooting, and start tearing hell out of things.


No, they _occupied_ a federal bird refuge and tore it up.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

keenataz said:


> Who here has celebrated his death? Why would Obama comment on this? Is he expected to comment on every justified police shooting?
> 
> And I will surprise you I think he should have kept quiet about the Brown shooting just like the Martin one. And if asked said something generic like "anytime there is a death of a young person it is tragic for his family and once the police complete there investigation we will have the answers we need"


No one here celebrated Finicum's death, it's just more rhetoric from a poster that specializes in it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> *Michael Brown* refused to comply and the racists made him into a martyr when he was nothing but a thug, a criminal, and a doper.
> The hypocrisy of the leftist haters around here is mind boggling.


It's apples and oranges.
Race has nothing to do with this topic, and it's lame to make *everything* about Obama

Get some new material


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Really, you need to stop telling me what to post.
> I saw the video, the feds shot at the car before he even got out.


No, the "feds" didn't fire any shots until he was getting out of the truck, and neither shot hit him


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, the "feds" didn't fire any shots until he was getting out of the truck, and neither shot hit him


Correct, it was some local LEOs that fired on the moving truck


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

po boy said:


> Correct, it was some local LEOs that fired on the moving truck


Yes, the Oregon State Police fired 3 rounds as the truck was approaching the roadblock at 70 MPH. 

I saw no evidence the windshield was broken so they may have just been trying to disable the vehicle

Finincum wasn't actually hit until he reached for his gun


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, the Oregon State Police fired 3 rounds as the truck was approaching the roadblock at 70 MPH.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



According the press conference I watched, the clarified where each shot struck the vehicle in an attempt to disable and no mention of windshield although one was to the engine area.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh my they in deep trouble now.
PORTLAND, Ore. â The federal government on Wednesday leveled additional charges against Ammon Bundy and dozens of others who staged an armed takeover of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon. *One weapons allegation carries the possibility of life in prison.*

A grand jury indicted Bundy and most of his co-defendants on a new charge of firearms possession in a federal facility after the group seized the nature preserve in January to oppose U.S. land restrictions. Others are accused of a second firearms allegation, theft or damaging an archaeological site considered sacred to the Burns Paiute Tribe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> According to the press conference I watched, they clarified where each shot struck the vehicle in an attempt to disable and no mention of windshield although one was to the engine area.


I thought I remembered reading that somewhere but I didn't have the source.
I remember it said those 3 were fired from an AR-15 .223


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Oh my they in deep trouble now.
> PORTLAND, Ore. â The federal government on Wednesday leveled additional charges against Ammon Bundy and dozens of others who staged an armed takeover of a national wildlife refuge in Oregon. *One weapons allegation carries the possibility of life in prison.*
> 
> A grand jury indicted Bundy and most of his co-defendants on a new charge of *firearms possession in a federal facility* after the group seized the nature preserve in January to oppose U.S. land restrictions. Others are accused of a second firearms allegation, theft or damaging an archaeological site considered sacred to the Burns Paiute Tribe.


It's going to be tough to beat that charge with all the videos they made of themselves as evidence.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

keenataz said:


> Who here has celebrated his death?





Irish Pixie said:


> No one here celebrated Finicum's death, it's just more rhetoric from a poster that specializes in it.




Some did, most have been deleted now.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...itia-occupies-federal-building-oregon-17.html

The feelings about the matter were made clear at the time, on both sides.
Since it ended the way it did, predicted by some, applauded by others, the suspicions or approvals of the actions taken by the feds won't be viewed any differently now.

Whether Finicum would still be alive today if he had made it to the sheriff he was going to meet with is something we'll never know.
Was this the same sheriff that publicly released the info on the FBI agents being investigated?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Some did, most have been deleted now.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...itia-occupies-federal-building-oregon-17.html
> 
> ...


Perhaps you're unaware that just because something has been deleted from public view doesn't mean it's gone forever and I just did a pretty thorough search and can find nothing indicating any member here celebrated the death of a man in any way. 

Perhaps you'd like to send me a pm offering me the name of these posters so I can further research your claim. In the event that you are correct, I will gladly reinstate these joyous comments.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> Perhaps you're unaware that just because something has been deleted from public view doesn't mean it's gone forever and I just did a pretty thorough search and can find nothing indicating any member here celebrated the death of a man in any way.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to send me a pm offering me the name of these posters so I can further research your claim. In the event that you are correct, I will gladly reinstate these joyous comments.


No, thank you.
I am aware of the viewing of "deleted" comments by the moderation board. That advantage is far superior to any recollection I may have, in addition to not seeing a post BEFORE it gets deleted, I would be foolish to pursue the point.
The few that remain undeleted are undoubtedly open to interpretation as to "celebration".
On THAT point, we can respectfully agree to disagree. 
I'll decline the offer to single out anyone, as they have a right to their opinion and I have no desire to encourage it any further.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

w


farmrbrown said:


> No, thank you.
> I am aware of the viewing of "deleted" comments by the moderation board. That advantage is far superior to any recollection I may have, in addition to not seeing a post BEFORE it gets deleted, I would be foolish to pursue the point.
> The few that remain undeleted are undoubtedly open to interpretation as to "celebration".
> On THAT point, we can respectfully agree to disagree.
> I'll decline the offer to single out anyone, as they have a right to their opinion and I have no desire to encourage it any further.


So you have a right to accuse HT members of a horrible thing but don't care to back it up.


----------



## Vikestand (Feb 27, 2015)

Cornhusker said:


> And Obama jumped on that lie like a fat girl on a cupcake, and rode it into a riot.
> This time?
> Nah, dead guy was too white for that hateful bigot Obama to care.
> The hypocrites are now celebrating the death of a man who stood by his beliefs.
> But then that's the kind of people they are.


I'd say the video made all the difference, just as MO Cow stated. If there was a video of the Mike Brown incident, there would not have been any Obama support or riots.


----------



## Vikestand (Feb 27, 2015)

It's pretty simple these agents and police officers are no different than any of us. They have families and a job to do. When you don't listen and you tempt fate more than once, you're forcing the hand of the law. Unfortunately somebody lost their life and another has to live with taking it. 

People need to stop hyping these folks. Th Yvette accomplished nothing other than their fifteen minutes of fame. And now some jail time.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> w
> 
> So you have a right to accuse HT members of a horrible thing but don't care to back it up.


Did you really expect anything to confirm the assertion? I certainly didn't. There are posters that are well know for this type of defamation with no proof to back it up whatsoever.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> No, thank you.
> I am aware of the viewing of "deleted" comments by the moderation board. That advantage is far superior to any recollection I may have, in addition to not seeing a post BEFORE it gets deleted, I would be foolish to pursue the point.
> The few that remain undeleted are undoubtedly open to interpretation as to "celebration".
> On THAT point, we can respectfully agree to disagree.
> I'll decline the offer to single out anyone, as they have a right to their opinion and I have no desire to encourage it any further.


Please provide your definition of 'celebrated'. If those that aren't deleted can be found but subject to interpretation, it could also be said that you may be misinterpreting their comment.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> Please provide your definition of 'celebrated'. If those that aren't deleted can be found but subject to interpretation, it could also be said that you may be misinterpreting their comment.



Seriously?
Isn't that like me asking to provide your definition of "not nice"?

Just for the heck of it, I reread the pages of that thread AFTER that section.
I'm not going to pull up and quote the posts with cute little names for the ones arrested and the posts about making fun of the "snack video" - the contempt for those who defied the federal government is there for all to see.
To think it wasn't "celebrated" when the *criminals got what they deserved* (no quotes"", only my interpretation) looks like a clear case of denial, to me.
:shrug:

I would expect the same reaction if I refused to acknowledge the remorse some expressed, like yourself, to the loss of life, regardless of the circumstances.

Apparently this is a situation where the standard of "proof" is set too high for me to meet.
If the requirement is a post with an invitation to a celebration party or something similar, "I'm glad Finicum is dead", I'm sorry to disappoint you.
I'm unable to present such "proof", other than what I already have.
But to say I posted nothing at all in response, is simply not true, despite what others may think.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Seriously?
> Isn't that like me asking to provide your definition of "not nice"?
> 
> Just for the heck of it, I reread the pages of that thread AFTER that section.
> ...


To believe that criminals face the justice of the law is a good thing and the equate that with celebrating someone death is where you go wrong. I believe you know and understand that but won't own up to your mistake of posting that HT members actually celebrate someone death.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Seriously?
> Isn't that like me asking to provide your definition of "not nice"?
> 
> Just for the heck of it, I reread the pages of that thread AFTER that section.
> ...


So you're essentially saying that someone may have made light of the cause but nobody offered congratulations or celebrated the death of a man.

If you're prepared to make claims against members and the mod team, I really do feel that you should be able to back up those claims. Don't you?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Well, I'll tell you what, *farmerbrown*. I did not "celebrate" Mr. Finicum's death, but I believe justice was carried out that day. Mr. Finicum repeatedly put himself in harm's way. He openly challenged law enforcement to shoot him. He recklessly drove out of their blockade and ran his vehicle into a ditch, nearly hitting one officer. He endangered the lives of law enforcement officers and others by his own reckless actions after exiting his vehicle.

I've worked closely with law enforcement officers who have had to fire on and kill suspects in the course of carrying out their duties. None "celebrated" the death of the individual they killed. One suffered a great deal of PTSD from the event. 

As was pointed out by *Vikestand*, law enforcement officers are people, too. They have families, friends, mortgages. They're human beings, just like you and me. Most are good and some are not. "The Government" that you continually rail against is made up of folks like that. Government is you and it is me -- or should be. 

There are many things I don't like about what's happening to our government these days, and I work hard to change them. If you don't like things about it, you can work to change them, too. But don't expect me to support anarchists who resort to tactics of overt violence and use their firearms to further their ridiculously erroneous interpretation of our Constitution, twisted to suit their personal wishes.

I don't "celebrate" Mr. Finicum's death, but I am relieved that no law enforcement officer lost his or her life that day. I watched those videos, and in my opinion, law enforcement exercised great restraint in waiting as long as they did to fire on Mr. Finicum. Those situations unfold fast and split-second decisions must be made for better or worse. I saw a completely justifiable shooting. In fact, I was surprised he wasn't killed the *first* time he reached across his body. I am sorry for the choices he made that resulted in his death, but they were his choices to make. I am glad the Oregon State troopers who killed him were exonerated -- but not surprised. 

You can call Mr. Finicum a hero if you want to. That is your right. And I will refrain from grabbing the juvenile low-hanging fruit of characterizing him as a "Teahadist" or "Y'all Qaeda," because I consider such name-calling a tactic for those with no substantive argument to make. But don't excoriate me for being relieved that no civilian or law enforcement officer was hurt that day, or that Mr. Finicum died instead of one of them.

You and others who feel as you do seem to want to instigate some big, anarchistic rising up against "The Government." Some openly advocate taking up arms against "the enemy." Mr. Finicum made his stand for what he believed. Did you imagine blood would not be shed?

Does the government overreach? Oh, my hell, yes. Taking over a wildlife refuge, harassing locals, brandishing guns and generally acting thuggish is probably not the most effective method of stopping that. I find such a tactic worthy of contempt. But hey; you do it your way, and I'll do it mine. No "celebrating" of a misguided, senseless death required.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

How many times can I like a post. One doesn't seem enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Apparently this is a situation where the *standard of "proof" is set too high* for me to meet.


It only involves actually *showing some*
So far there hasn't even been an effort made


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It only involves actually *showing some*
> So far there hasn't even been an effort made


Anything that even remotely hints at a celebration of Finicum's death would suffice. No one did so that will be impossible...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Anything that even remotely hints at a celebration of Finicum's death would suffice. No one did so that will be impossible...


This is as close as it came, according to farmrbrown :



> To think it wasn't "celebrated" when the **criminals got what they deserved** (no quotes"", only my interpretation) looks like a clear case of denial, to me.


I'd call that a simple statement of fact, not a celebration, and even then it could have been talking about the others since it's not a real quote, and may be a fabrication for all we know.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for anything to be substantiated


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The bait in the water now looks like chum, lol.
You guys are relentless, I'll admit that.

Of course this naturally means I can now be criticized as a hypocrite for going back on my word now also............




RichNC said:


> I just have to tell ya, this whole thing with the "stand off" has me laughing my pants off on a daily if not hourly basis, it is so just silly/fruitless/funny and while I want it to end and the bird sanctuary to get back to normal I don't want it to end because it is just to darn funny!!





RichNC said:


> Hey darlin' I been spinning around on this planet for 73 years, and to date this is one of the most comical things I have ever seen. Really, comedians, famous ones couldn't image to write this kind of material, it is just silly and has been since day one...also please send snacks and socks or money that I can steal and go spend on booze, or money to pay the ER bill when one of the other "militia" men beats me up, or send a press release explaining why I said I was in the Marines but never have been, I am telling you this whole thing is comedy gold!!





arabian knight said:


> Ya and I have big bowl of popcorn munching away at this now soap opera that some seem to think is so serious. But it is funny as heck and I munch away to my hearts delight. And these squatters that are at some time going to find themselves behind bars and the ket thrown away for good, at what they are trying to pull off.





elevenpoint said:


> Shots fired...one dead...





arabian knight said:


> And Bundy goes to jail. Good Now maybe this carp can get over with. Leader locked up the rest will get cold feet or be arrested also.






*Then the page of deletions, and a moderator warning..........
What could be going on, I wonder?*




wr said:


> Keep it civil if you'd like to keep the thread open.





wr said:


> The member sent me a pm regarding the post that had been deleted and it was deleted because of a single comment that contributed to the strife.
> 
> I suggested the member rephrase his comment rather than starting a precedent of mods editing members words.
> 
> There is nothing technically wrong with someone commenting that a person stood for what they feel is right.




....................and it continues................



basketti said:


> I just saw a new name for the Malfeur Snackhounds:
> 
> The Ranch Davidians! :nanner:





basketti said:


> Maybe I'm misremembering but didn't he do a video in which he proclaimed he wouldn't ever be locked up? Given the criminal activity he was involved in, that is as good as a suivide note in my opinion.





Irish Pixie said:


> Could be. I didn't watch all the videos, to me it was just a bunch of idiots that took over a bird refuge.





basketti said:


> nice that he had the kids as a cash cow.





*And if there wasn't a similar feeling going on at the time, this post would seem to be as "false" as mine, no?*




MO_cows said:


> I don't know why they would pick the wildlife refuge as their ground zero and I don't agree with those tactics, however it does seem like the Hammonds got a raw deal. Sending them both back to prison for 5 years, well that likely puts them out of business, losing them their grazing permits. So in a roundabout way, it could be seen as "government takeover" of their lease land. And especially now that a man has died, I think it is callous and tacky to make up "not so funny" names for their cause. Especially the one that is attached to a previous mass death.






basketti said:


> But normal folks don't run and take over wildlife refuges and beg for snacks.
> 
> The Malheur YeeHawdists are clearly not the coldest beers in the fridge.





basketti said:


> What were they really hoping to accomplish? It seems like they only associated with people who shared their rather radical beliefs and somehow thought that most people would agree with them.
> Even here in the rural west, most people ridiculed them. They seem to be very disconnected.





Miss Kay said:


> Now that they broke into a government facility, resisted arrest, and who knows how many other crimes, they will all be convicted felons. Which means, they can no longer have guns. Yep, the government will now take their guns or else they go back to prison. Wouldn't it have been better to just do a legal march on the capital, or start a petition for signatures, or heck maybe even run for office so they could change the laws they didn't like. But no, they had to go down in a blaze of glory only his buddies got cold feet and didn't jump out with their guns. Like they say, stupid is as stupid does!





wr said:


> Please keep discussion civil.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> The bait in the water now looks like chum, lol.
> You guys are relentless, I'll admit that.
> 
> Of course this naturally means I can now be criticized as a hypocrite for going back on my word now also............


Are you implying that those posts are evidence of people celebrating death?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> The bait in the water now looks like chum, lol.
> You guys are relentless, I'll admit that.
> 
> Of course this naturally means I can now be criticized as a hypocrite for going back on my word now also............


Only one of those referred to Finicum, and simply said "shots fired, one dead". 

You have nothing, which we already knew from the start
Stop pretending you're some sort of victim


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Are you implying that those posts are evidence of people celebrating death?


I think at least the majority of those posts were _prior_ to Finicum's death. Someone is grasping at straws...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Are you implying that those posts are evidence of people celebrating death?


Yes.



Bearfootfarm said:


> Only one of those referred to Finicum, and simply said "shots fired, one dead".
> 
> You have nothing, which we already knew from the start
> Stop pretending you're some sort of victim



Uh huh.......and the very next post said.........???




Irish Pixie said:


> I think at least the majority of those posts were _prior_ to Finicum's death. Someone is grasping at straws...




Nope.
I wasn't finished, I tried to tell y'all to just read the pages, but you wouldn't accept that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well then you have yet to prove your assertions. Not once did anyone celebrate a death.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

painterswife said:


> Well then you have yet to prove your assertions. Not once did anyone celebrate a death.



Sure. This probably didn't mean "good" at all.....



> Good Now maybe this carp can get over with.


And all those comments of ridicule were actually meant to convey sincere sadness at the tragic results.
Is that pretty much the way I got it all wrong?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

No one on this forum, member or mod, celebrated the death of Robert LaVoy Finicum. The poster will never admit he was wrong tho, not ever. 

I'm not going to contribute to any further "enjoyment" that is obviously gained from discussion of this type with him.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes.
> 
> *Uh huh.......and the very next post said.........???*
> 
> ...


No, we don't "accept" you simply saying "read the thread" when you made specific allegations without offering any proof

If you want to drag up old threads you should paste links to the *specific* quotes you say back your claims



> Uh huh.......and the very next post said.........???


This is what it said:


> Originally Posted by arabian knight View Post
> And Bundy goes to jail. Good Now maybe this carp can get over with. Leader locked up the rest will get cold feet or be arrested also.


Where's the "celebration"?
(Here's a hint: There is none)

The hole gets deeper the more you dig


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Irish Pixie said:


> No one on this forum, member or mod, celebrated the death of Robert LaVoy Finicum. The poster will never admit he was wrong tho, not ever.
> 
> I'm not going to contribute to any further "enjoyment" that is obviously gained from discussion of this type with him.


I have no problem continuing the discussion. Every time he posts allegations with no substance his posts look even more foolish.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Oh, brother. So "celebrate" isn't the right word. Step right up folks, a new course in "How to Weasel by Wordsmithing" is underway. 

There was contempt, mockery, disrespect, zero regard for the human dignity of those misguided people. Mostly before, some after the shooting. But now nobody wants to own it, because it wasn't a "celebration". Alrighty then.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Sure. This probably didn't mean "good" at all.....
> 
> And all those comments of ridicule were actually meant to convey sincere sadness at the tragic results.
> Is that pretty much the way I got it all wrong?


He said "And Bundy goes to jail. Good...."

You know you got it wrong and you're grasping at straws



> Then the page of deletions, and a moderator warning..........
> *What could be going on*, I wonder?


You should know since it was one of your posts which caused most of the deletions. 

Do you think that's not obvious? 

Is that what you're hoping for now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Oh, brother. So "celebrate" isn't the right word. Step right up folks, a new course in "How to Weasel by Wordsmithing" is underway.
> 
> There was *contempt, mockery, disrespect*, zero regard for the human dignity of those misguided people. Mostly before, some after the shooting. But now nobody wants to own it, because it wasn't a "celebration". Alrighty then.


Words mean what they mean.

"Celebrate" wasn't the correct adjective, and he originally only spoke about 
"Finicum's death" being celebrated, so any comments which came before aren't relevant

The ones bolded above are what *we* are getting now, based on false allegations. It's a recurrent theme


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Oh, brother. So "celebrate" isn't the right word. Step right up folks, a new course in "How to Weasel by Wordsmithing" is underway.
> 
> There was contempt, mockery, disrespect, zero regard for the human dignity of those misguided people. Mostly before, some after the shooting. But now nobody wants to own it, because it wasn't a "celebration". Alrighty then.


Celebrating a death is quite different than being fine that someone faced the consequences of their actions with the law. Not one of the posts said that a death was the right consequence either.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

*Farmerbrown and MO_cows*, you are conflating ridicule of the Bundy tactics with celebrating the death of one of their adherents. Those are different things and you don't get to bootstrap from one thing to the other. Words do matter and there is a difference.

Their tactics were absurd and very worthy of ridicule. That doesn't mean anyone "celebrated" Finicum's death. By drawing such a conclusion, you are attempting to unfairly demonize anyone who criticized the lame tactics employed by the Bundy crew by implying the critics danced joyfully around a fire when Finicum died. Sorry, but no sale.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Raeven said:


> *Farmerbrown and MO_cows*, you are conflating ridicule of the Bundy tactics with celebrating the death of one of their adherents. Those are different things and you don't get to bootstrap from one thing to the other. Words do matter and there is a difference.
> 
> Their tactics were absurd and very worthy of ridicule. That doesn't mean anyone "celebrated" Finicum's death. By drawing such a conclusion, you are attempting to unfairly demonize anyone who criticized the lame tactics employed by the Bundy crew by implying the critics danced joyfully around a fire when Finicum died. Sorry, but no sale.


More than their tactics were ridiculed and by some after the death. 

'nuff said.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> More than their tactics were ridiculed and by some after the death.
> 
> 'nuff said.


Perhaps you can share actual examples, as have been repeatedly asked for here. So far I haven't seen any. What I've seen is a lot of what I described above: "I read this, so it must mean that." It doesn't.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> More than their tactics were ridiculed and by some after the death.
> 
> 'nuff said.


Still no one ever said they were happy with anyone's death. Claiming otherwise is telling lies.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Still no one ever said they were happy with anyone's death. Claiming otherwise is telling lies.


There are some people that just don't care if they lie... Sad, but true.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

painterswife said:


> Still no one ever said they were happy with anyone's death. Claiming otherwise is telling lies.


As I recall many posters stated the death was unfortunate or words to that effects. Pretty sure I did.

Now after that caveat some have said-with his actions the response of the police was justified, again paraphrasing.

But I certainly don't equate that to celebrating.

And yes the whole thing was foolish on the protesters part.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Could it also be said that members 'celebrated' Freddie Gray's death as well because they spoke of the possible actions of the police or in some cases mentioned his lifestyle may have contributed to his death?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> Could it also be said that members 'celebrated' Freddie Gray's death as well because they spoke of the possible actions of the police or in some cases mentioned his lifestyle may have contributed to his death?


Yeah, pretty much.
You can start ticking off names and see if you can now try to trip me up on the bias path.

Michael Brown?
Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman? (Depending on one's bias, Zimmerman wasn't killed of course, but I noted some gleeful posts on his troubles)
Have there been others?
You bet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, pretty much.
> You can start ticking off names and see if you can now *try to trip me up* on the bias path.
> 
> Michael Brown?
> ...


It's sad how you think everything revolves around you
No one needs to "trip you up"
You do quite well all on your own


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Seriously?
> *Isn't that like me asking to provide your definition of "not nice"?*
> 
> Just for the heck of it, I reread the pages of that thread AFTER that section.
> ...






Irish Pixie said:


> Anything that even remotely hints at a celebration of Finicum's death would suffice. No one did so that will be impossible...




Funny how that went, like I told wr it would from the start.......


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Funny how that went, like I told wr it would from the start.......


Still no proof of the lies you posted. You said HT members celebrated the death and they did not.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Funny how that went, like I told wr it would from the start.......


If you knew that, why didn't you know your "celebration" claim was false?

You're just derailing yet another thread to make it all about you


----------



## Alaska (Jun 16, 2012)

I just dont know how anyone can watch the video (from the vehicle) and read the autopsy reports and believe the shooting is justified. Ruby Ridge, waco, now Finicum all under the caring liberal democrat administrations. A hard working god fearing Rancher shot down for trying to make a point. He never had a gun in his hand never pointed a gun at anybody never even verbally threatened anybody. All that feel the shooting was justified need to look deep inside there soul. Our government is now ready to jail us for not buying into the global warming bs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Alaska said:


> I just dont know how anyone can watch the video (from the vehicle) and read the autopsy reports and believe the shooting is justified. Ruby Ridge, waco, now Finicum all under the caring liberal democrat administrations. A hard working god fearing Rancher shot down for trying to make a point. *He never had a gun in his hand* never pointed a gun at anybody *never even verbally threatened anybody*. All that feel the shooting was justified need to look deep inside there soul. Our government is now ready to jail us for not buying into the global warming bs.


There's lots of empty emotional rhetoric and misinformation there that ignores the simple fact that his actions alone lead to his death that day.

There is no requirement for a "gun in the hand".


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you knew that, why didn't you know your "celebration" claim was false?
> 
> You're just derailing yet another thread to make it all about you


Because it's not false.
Y'all Qaida, Ranch Davidians, Stupid is, as stupid does?
No, I said from the beginning I wouldn't get a direct quote of "I'm glad Finicum is dead."
Just an underlying feeling, or hint, as IP said.
How many posts were deleted? Dozens?
You blamed that on me as well.
If the ones that remained aren't obvious enough, then what did the deleted ones look like?
Oh, they were just fine too, according to the mod that challenged me along with the rest of you.
Well, here's a little comment for all of you.
I'm not the one who is lying.
If you can't admit your own feelings to others even when it is as plain as the nose on your face, then you are lying to yourselves and everyone else.

And since the mod is now going to join in the fray and continue to allow you and others free reign of your "not nice" insults, I'm going to do the same.
I told you this weeks ago Bearfoot, I'm NOT your doormat.

Other people may put up with an obnoxious bully, but I WILL NOT !!!

Delete away WR, give out infractions, ban me if you want, but I'm not going to allow this stuff to go on without defending myself.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's lots of empty emotional rhetoric and misinformation there that ignores the simple fact that his actions alone lead to his death that day.
> 
> There is no requirement for a "gun in the hand".




No.
That requirement is for others, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Oh. the. drama.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> No.
> That requirement is for others, right?


No, there's no requirement beyond a "reasonable belief" of imminent danger.

Given his history, prior statements and the general context of the moment, it's quite reasonable to believe he was reaching for a weapon (which he had)

http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.219


> Â§ 161.219Â¹
> Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
> 
> Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209 (Use of physical force in defense of a person), a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person *unless the person reasonably believes* that the other person is:
> ...


http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/02/oregon_statutes_outline_when_a.html



> 161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer *reasonably believes* that:
> 
> (a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or *threatened imminent use of physical force against a person*; or (b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
> 
> (d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or (e) The officer's life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Because it's not false.
> Y'all Qaida, Ranch Davidians, Stupid is, as stupid does?
> *No, I said from the beginning I wouldn't get a direct quote of "I'm glad Finicum is dead."*
> Just an underlying feeling, or hint, as IP said.
> ...


So you knew from the beginning what you said was false, just as we did.
Why keep repeating yourself?

I didn't "blame" all the deletions on you 
I pointed out the *reality* yours was the first deleted, and many of the rest were for quoting yours. 



> I'm not the one who is lying.


Actually you are, since you made an accusation and can't show anything to support it. 

Now you're still ranting away, creating lots of needless drama because you want to pretend you're the victim somehow



> I told you this weeks ago Bearfoot, I'm NOT your doormat.
> Other people may put up with an obnoxious bully, but I WILL NOT !!!


This thread isn't about you, no matter how much you want it (and most every thread) to be. 

Put me on ignore if you don't want to see my posts. 
You don't have to "put up" with anything 

Otherwise you will have to take Shine's advice:



> "If you want to control the content, buy the forum"


Your hissy fits are childish and boring though.
You should get over yourself


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Because it's not false.
> 
> Y'all Qaida, Ranch Davidians, Stupid is, as stupid does?
> 
> ...



The deletions occurred before the man's death so I struggle to find the connection between those comments and the celebration of a man's death. 

You're welcome to defend yourself but do you not feel that the members you've accused of such a thing have the same right? 

I will gladly delete any post you can provide the celebrates the death of any human but discussing the consequences of ones actions is not a celebration. 

Catchphrases in the media for the cause prior to the shooting don't qualify as a celebration of an event that hadn't happened.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Oh. the. drama.


You forgot to call me a "queen", it's an important part of the insult to man, don't ya know?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> The deletions occurred before the man's death so I struggle to find the connection between those comments and the celebration of a man's death.
> 
> You're welcome to defend yourself but do you not feel that the members you've accused of such a thing have the same right?
> 
> ...


Tell ya what, go back and look at the dates of those deletions again and the dates of the posts surrounding them.
Then compare them with 1/26/16........the date he was shot.
Lemme know about my "truthfulness" when you get back to me on that.



And for the LAST time, I'm not GONNA ask you to delete any posts.
The only post I think I ever reported was a mod's (And I think it was yours) and I got an infraction for doing that!
Here's the part I don't get.

If I think someone is a ridiculous waste of human flesh on the planet, and I've said so - of course I'm glad when he's gone!
Yes, I said it and I meant it, what the heck is wrong with standing by your beliefs and thoughts?
If someone says it, they should own it, not backpedal and say......"Uh, no, I didn't really mean it like THAT."
Horse hockey.
That's like the Southern expression, "Bless his heart!"
:umno:

That's not really a sincere desire to see God's blessings bestowed upon them.
Ask someone what it REALLY means if ya don't know.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So you knew from the beginning what you said was false, just as we did.
> Why keep repeating yourself?
> 
> I didn't "blame" all the deletions on you
> ...


I'm going to give YOU some advice.
Don't let your alligator mouth overload your mockingbird tail.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> Tell ya what, go back and look at the dates of those deletions again and the dates of the posts surrounding them.
> Then compare them with 1/26/16........the date he was shot.
> Lemme know about my "truthfulness" when you get back to me on that.
> 
> ...



I reviewed all deletions and they related to media names for the cause. Not one relates to the death of a human or even a specific member of the group. 

Again, no celebration of the death of a human but I stand by my original statement and will delete any comments that celebrate the death of Finicum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm going to give YOU some advice.
> Don't let your alligator mouth overload your mockingbird tail.


I've heard that before.
It's called "communicating threats" in legal terms.
You may want to rethink things


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Tell ya what, go back and look at the dates of those deletions again and the dates of the posts surrounding them.
> Then compare them with 1/26/16........the date he was shot.
> *Lemme know about my "truthfulness"* when you get back to me on that.
> 
> ...


If you were "truthful", you wouldn't have made the accusations in the first place. There were deletions before and after Finicum's death.

Those that came afterwards were due to your lack of self control while discussing the Hammond's convictions, trying to say they were "convicted of terrorism" and had nothing to do with Finicum.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you were "truthful", you wouldn't have made the accusations in the first place. There were deletions before and after Finicum's death.
> 
> Those that came afterwards were due to your lack of self control while discussing the Hammond's convictions, trying to say they were "convicted of terrorism" and had nothing to do with Finicum.


That's funny, here's what I said.......



> The judge is the one that actually called them terrorists, at their sentencing that sent them back to prison.
> 
> And even though the "official" conviction is arson, under the 1996 anti-terrorism law, the sentence, including the high amount of fines and restitution is what they are required to pay.



And if you think Finicum's presence in Oregon and his eventual death had "nothing" to do with the Hammond's conviction you're deceiving yourself once again.

As for my "self control" I admit, you put it to quite a test at times.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I've heard that before.
> It's called "communicating threats" in legal terms.
> You may want to rethink things




ound:ound:ound:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> That's funny, here's what I said.......
> 
> And if you think Finicum's presence in Oregon and his eventual death had "nothing" to do with the Hammond's conviction you're deceiving yourself once again.
> 
> As for my "self control" I admit, you put it to quite a test at times.


Again you ignore the *context*.

The discussion *immediately preceding *the deletion of your insult had nothing to do with Finicum

Don't blame me for *your* lack of control.
You've been doing it for quite a long time

There's still no evidence anyone "celebrated" anyone's death, as you *falsely* claimed


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> ound:ound:ound:


You've been making the same lame threats for many months
You lost credibility long ago

You just want to be the center of attention


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I haven't lost a darn thing.
Previous discussions with you about legal matters, like evidence, etc., has taught me that it's a lost cause.
:umno:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-277.1.html
The same thing goes for "context".


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> *I haven't lost a darn thing*.
> Previous discussions with you about legal matters, like evidence, etc., has taught me that it's a lost cause.
> :umno:
> http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-277.1.html
> The same thing goes for "context".


I still say you've lost all credibility, based on past statements of a similar nature



> Â§ 14-277.1. Communicating threats.
> (a) A person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor if without lawful authority:
> (1) He willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another;
> (2) The threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means;
> ...


You say you don't lie, so it must be true that you meant what you said, but then you claim it's not a threat because you didn't mean it?

You're right, no reasonable person would believe you meant what you said.

You just keep proving you want it always to be about me or you.

Same thing *from last July*: 


> farmrbrown:
> Hey man,
> *Last time*.
> I'm tired of your insults and baiting.
> ...


It's become a long boring Soap Opera


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

:hysterical:
Thank you, a perfect example.

Unless being introduced to real men or discussing wildlife is a "willful threat to physically injure" you, your charge is "incredible".
Not to mention, a homesteading forum isn't a place such a person should visit.:grin:

But as far as truth or false goes, answer me this.......

If someone is derided and maligned as much as the Oregon occupiers were (by some) and they were viewed as enemies of the state, vandals, thieves and armed thugs.............if one of them was shot confronting law enforcement, why *wouldn't* it be reasonable to believe those that thought that way would celebrate his demise?
I remember the day when Bin Laden was killed, and the sentiments expressed that day. He was considered "the enemy" and his death brought no tears or remorse to anyone I saw, just the opposite.
Which "truth" am I supposed to believe?
The feelings expressed on those posts or the denial told to me now?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> :hysterical:
> Thank you, a perfect example.
> 
> Unless being introduced to real men or discussing wildlife is a "willful threat to physically injure" you, your charge is "incredible".
> ...


You can't prove your "celebrated" claim, and now you just look pathetic trying to rationalize that failure. 

The truth that is "reasonable to believe" is you made false claims you can't substantiate outside your own imagination.




> Unless being introduced to real men or discussing wildlife is a "willful threat to physically injure" you, your charge is "incredible".
> Not to mention, a homesteading forum isn't a place such a person should visit.:


Says the admitted con man
You have no credibility. That's been well documented by your own posts.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/specialty-forums/general-chat/536677-finding-lo

Ramble on if you like, but it's too boring to me to continue now that you've killed another thread with your melodrama


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Oh, there was never any doubt in my mind you and a few others would say I never "proved" it, I said so from the beginning.
I never "proved" the arson statute fell under the antiterrorism statute.
I never "proved" the Hammonds took a plea deal.
Court documents with sworn affidavits of prosecutors and judges did not qualify as "proof" to you.
That's why I'm a drama queen and you are never wrong.
:hysterical:

Beyond that obvious absurdity, there's seldom a tolerance for a difference of interpretation or opinion. "It's my way or the highway"

Take the term "downtown".
What does that mean to you?
I doubt we would have the same definition. 
In our closest town, a small one, I consider 3 or 4 blocks on either side of Main street to be "downtown" for a length of about 10 blocks long.
But be careful when asking for directions to one of those businesses........... 
My wife found that out and it's still an inside joke to us. :grin:
One street over from Main St.............."Oh no, WE aren't *downtown*".
ound::doh:
In some cases it's like proving a cherry is the color "red" to a person who was blind at birth..........Good luck with THAT one. :shrug:


But go ahead and have your "entertainment". 
I see that one thread where your advice and help is noticeably absent, seems to be one of your favorites to re-link now.
I gotta say, it's one of my favorites too.
:goodjob:


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You can't prove your "celebrated" claim, and now you just look pathetic trying to rationalize that failure.


Because I remember posts in the Bundy Militia thread that were seemingly in support of the killing of Finicum, I just went back to look for those posts. Guess what? There must be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 dozen deletions right after the inclusion of Lavoy's death. 

So, here you are, putting Farmrbrown in the same position as Bush put Saddam: Prove that you have no WMD or we'll invade. 

You want Farmrbrown to prove the "Celebration" aspect of Lavoy's killing when most if not all of the posts that he would use have been deleted. 

Quite interesting on your part, even if he was 100% correct, the ability for him to disprove your allegations has been removed. 

At this point and due to those deletions, it would be reasonable for you and everyone else to drop this requirement for him to prove what he said or, if it is absolutely necessary for you to have your proof, then it would be reasonable for you to request that the mods undelete the deleted posts for him to be able to satisfy your request.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> Because I remember posts in the Bundy Militia thread that were seemingly in support of the killing of Finicum, I just went back to look for those posts. Guess what? There must be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 dozen deletions right after the inclusion of Lavoy's death.
> 
> So, here you are, putting Farmrbrown in the same position as Bush put Saddam: Prove that you have no WMD or we'll invade.
> 
> ...


Wr has stated several times that none of the deleted posts reference a member or mod celebrating Finicum's death. Are you saying she's lying?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Wr has stated several times that none of the deleted posts reference a member or mod celebrating Finicum's death. *Are you saying she's lying?*


So, Farmrbrown will not have the opportunity to clear up this problem?

As we have seen recently, one person's celebration could be another's nod of approval.

Does he get the chance or not?

Are you trying to stir up trouble with your final question?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> Because I remember posts in the Bundy Militia thread that were seemingly in support of the killing of Finicum, I just went back to look for those posts. Guess what? There must be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 dozen deletions right after the inclusion of Lavoy's death.
> 
> So, here you are, putting Farmrbrown in the same position as Bush put Saddam: Prove that you have no WMD or we'll invade.
> 
> ...



I could have accepted that but instead the member making these allegations used a comment attributed to Arabian Knight to substantiate his proof that in fact someone had said 'good' in relation to Finicum's death when that comment was in fact in response to a comment made regarding the arrest of one of the occupiers. 

My offer for the member to pm me and advise me as to what member(s) made these comments still stands and to date, I have received no response.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Shine said:


> So, Farmrbrown will not have the opportunity to clear up this problem?
> 
> As we have seen recently, one person's celebration could be another's nod of approval.
> 
> Does he get the chance or not?


How would I know? Farmrbrown is the only person (that I know of) that has stated Finicum's death was celebrated. Wr has stated that was no celebration in the deleted threads and I trust her word, she has nothing to prove or face to save.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

wr said:


> I could have accepted that but instead the member making these allegations used a comment attributed to Arabian Knight to substantiate his proof that in fact someone had said 'good' in relation to Finicum's death when that comment was in fact in response to a comment made regarding the arrest of one of the occupiers.
> 
> My offer for the member to pm me and advise me as to what member(s) made these comments still stands and to date, I have received no response.


Truthfully I do not have a dog in this particular fight but realistically, to require of one that they do a certain thing when all possibility for him to do that certain thing has been removed is quite unfair. It is exactly the same "prove a negative" as mentioned before.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Shine said:


> Truthfully I do not have a dog in this particular fight but realistically, to require of one that they do a certain thing when all possibility for him to do that certain thing has been removed is quite unfair. It is exactly the same "prove a negative" as mentioned before.


He stated that there are still posts standing that can be "interpreted" as celebrating Finicum's death but will notbsoecify which posts these are. If he's going to make broad accusations against others he should back them with more than just his opinion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Oh, there was never any doubt in my mind you and a few others would say I never "proved" it, I said so from the beginning.
> I never "proved" the arson statute fell under the antiterrorism statute.
> I never "proved" the Hammonds took a plea deal.
> Court documents with sworn affidavits of prosecutors and judges did not qualify as "proof" to you.
> ...


Actually, you provided proof of many of the things you claimed. You just didn't provide proof to me that what you concluded these events were proof of was valid. The facts weren't in much contention. What they meant was. Not all agreed that the sum of these events was the government abuse you seem to think it added up to. 

But now you've accused people of doing something that most here would disagree with. You've provided no proof to back up those accusations. Provide one post that says what you claim. I would likely disagree with your interpretation but one never really knows, does one? I'd like to a least be given the chance.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> Because I remember posts in the Bundy Militia thread that were seemingly in support of the killing of Finicum, I just went back to look for those posts. Guess what? *There must be somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 dozen deletions right after the inclusion of Lavoy's death.
> *
> So, here you are, putting Farmrbrown in the same position as Bush put Saddam: Prove that you have no WMD or we'll invade.
> 
> ...


None of the conversation immediately prior to the flurry of deletions was about Finicum 

WR already said the deleted posts contain nothing about any "celebration".

You can look at them and see the first deletion in that string was for "insults" and those that followed were for* quoting* the first. Note who made that first post also.

What would be "reasonable" is to not make claims that one can't prove.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Shine said:


> Truthfully I do not have a dog in this particular fight but realistically, to require of one that they do a certain thing when all possibility for him to do that certain thing has been removed is quite unfair. It is exactly the same "prove a negative" as mentioned before.


You're correct, it is hard to prove a negative, if it were a negative but I have also offered to work with this member. 

The problem I have is that instead of taking me up on that offer, the member chose to take a comment of Arabian Knight completely out of context to substantiate their position. Is this fair to the member who's words were used out of context to put them in the position that since they approved of the arrest, they will celebrate the shooting? 

What has this member done to deserve to have their head served on a platter and does he deserve to have his public reputation harmed because someone tried to make their words fit an entirely different scenario? 

I can live with 'I dunno, it must have been deleted,' or 'I guess I misinterpreted a post,' or even, 'nasty mod poofed my evidence,' but I'm really not cool with misusing the words of a member, who is not involved in the thread and leaving them open to repercussions that may arise from such accusations.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> So, Farmrbrown will not have the opportunity to clear up this problem?
> 
> As we have seen recently, one person's celebration could be another's nod of approval.
> 
> ...


He has the opportunity to "clear up the problem" by either showing his proof or admitting he made false allegations.

Are *you *trying to stir up trouble with your final question?.
Or are you still attempting to derail a thread by discussing something other than the actual topic? Remember this?:

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...43-62-million-cubic-feet-methane-per-day.html


> As much as you would have it otherwise, I am asking you straight up. Please stop. *This issue is important, there is no room for petty bickering*.
> 
> Mods, please take notice.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> I could have accepted that but instead the member making these allegations used a comment attributed to Arabian Knight to substantiate his proof that in fact someone had said 'good' in relation to Finicum's death when that comment was in fact in response to a comment made regarding the arrest of one of the occupiers.
> 
> My offer for the member to pm me and advise me as to what member(s) made these comments still stands and to date, I have received no response.


That's correct, except for your characterization of the post AK responded to, it was AK that added "Bundy arrested."



> Shots fired...one dead...


I told you I would refuse your offer to snitch privately and I've kept my word.
You can count on that remaining the same.
AK was indeed one of the ones remaining that caught my eye, and one of the few that I was most reluctant to single out, because although I often disagree with his opinions, I greatly respect his courage to state them and stand behind them.
:goodjob:

The final carrot offered me was, "Just a hint will do" and now you want to parse over commas and periods about what "good" meant.
I know exactly what it meant.
We all have a good side and an ugly side. If y'all want to think any of us can hide them, go ahead and believe that. I can't hide mine and won't even try.
If I thought a man was contemptable and doing wrong, I'd say I was glad he was dead and let it stand at that, ugly or not.
If some of you can't honestly do that, that's on you, not me.
I'm not gonna change your mind because you don't know what I do, and I already said I wouldn't PM you and tell you how I know. The posts are there to read, read them. I don't think I ever saw the second page of deleted posts, but it seems that others did. That's irrelevant to me in light of what I saw already.

Play your silly games of hide and seek amongst yourselves.
Good day.
:cowboy:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> That's correct.
> I told you I would refuse your offer to snitch privately and I've kept my word.
> You can count on that remaining the same.
> AK was indeed one of the ones remaining that caught my eye, and one of the few that I was most reluctant to single out, because although I often disagree with his opinions, I greatly respect his courage to state them and stand behind them.
> ...


I was one of those who criticized Bundy, Finicum and others for their actions. I celebrated no one's death. I can separate some one doing wrong with making a personal observation that they are contemptible. I know none of these people personally and while I think they are misguided in their thinking and deserve punishment for breaking the law I wish no physical harm to any of them. And that included Mr Finicum. There are many good people I vehemently disagree with on any number of issues. While I might find their thoughts contemptible I don't find them contemptible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The posts are there to read, read them.* I don't think I ever saw the second page of deleted posts*, but it seems that others did. That's irrelevant to me in light of what I saw already.
> 
> *Play your silly games* of hide and seek amongst yourselves.
> Good day.


You posted *3 times* on that page, and the last time was only 2 days ago.
You saw it, and we all know you saw it. 

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...itia-occupies-federal-building-oregon-23.html

(And Shine's "2 dozen" was really only 7)

No credibility at all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Well I guess my saving copies of things could come in handy. I have PDF's of 99 percent of the deleted posts. I will read through it a couple of times but so far I see no evidence of Farmrbrowns accusations.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You posted *3 times* on that page, and the last time was only 2 days ago.
> You saw it, and we all know you saw it.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...itia-occupies-federal-building-oregon-23.html
> ...


LOL - you might want to work on those counting skills...

I counted 40 on one page alone.

Didn't you mention something about Credibility? 

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...itia-occupies-federal-building-oregon-17.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> LOL - you might want to work on those counting skills...
> 
> I counted 40 on one page alone.
> 
> ...


Those were mainly due to language used in the links, and for comments *not about the topic*, so they couldn't be "celebrating Finicum's death" if they weren't *about *the thread topic.

The allegation came months after the deletions, so using them as an excuse seems pretty lame.

Three of the quotes posted as "proof" came *weeks* before Finicum's shooting took place.
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...itia-occupies-federal-building-oregon-16.html


> 01/*08*/16, 08:57 PM
> RichNC RichNC is offline
> 
> Join Date: Aug 2014
> ...


The deletions I referred to were on the last page, which is the one I saw when told "go read the posts" and the thread was bumped back to the top.


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those were mainly due to language used in the links, and for comments *not about the topic*, so they couldn't be "celebrating Finicum's death" if they weren't *about *the thread topic.
> 
> The allegation came months after the deletions, so using them as an excuse seems pretty lame.
> 
> ...


...too foolish an attempt on your part to even try to formulate a reply - lol 

That page was posted the DAY after Finicum was killed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Shine said:


> ...too foolish an attempt on your part to even try to formulate a reply - lol
> 
> That page was posted the DAY after Finicum was killed.


The dates on three of the posts* cited* were were 1/*08*/16.
Finicum was shot on the 26th.

I even highlighted the date in the one I quoted.

They were used as "proof" even though they were made weeks *before* he died

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...itia-occupies-federal-building-oregon-15.html

There were no posts at all from the 12th until the 26th.

There's still no proof of any "celebration" by anyone at all.
Also note there are no comments chastising anyone for "celebrations" even though some posted seemingly irrelevant music videos


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The dates on three of the posts* cited* were were 1/*08*/16.
> Finicum was shot on the 26th.
> 
> I even highlighted the date in the one I quoted.
> ...


Deleted posts just after the shooting posted by Cornhusker did accuse others of celebrating the death. His basis for that was that posters called the group of protesters names. There was no celebrating of anyone's death.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You posted *3 times* on that page, and the last time was only 2 days ago.
> You saw it, and we all know you saw it.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...itia-occupies-federal-building-oregon-23.html
> ...


Let me spell it out for you Bearfoot, before you insert your foot in your mouth again with more libel.
*I never saw what the posts originally said BEFORE they were deleted. Others did, but that's irrelevant to me.
*


Of course I can SEE the page now. It consists of half a page of "post deleted"........I have know idea what was on it BEFORE the deletions other than one comment was mine and I don't remember what I said.
It was undoubtably a reply to your post, "404 to get back where we started."
But that was 2 months ago.
I remember that was I said was smart aleck, but not what I consider an "insult".
Nevertheless, the mods opinion was it was an insult, and I have yet to accuse her of "lying".
Funny, how that "opinion/lying" view is a one way street here on this thread...........


And I know about the 1/8/16 dates.
I saw them as I was gathering quotes and decided to leave them in for what you have trouble seeing........context.
Often am opinion formed by a group PRIOR to an event, is relevant after the fact.
The thread is over 20 pages long, but I didn't think that 3 posts prior was inappropriate to show the pattern that continued thereafter.

Once again, the predictable nitpicking distractions are what is important to you, not the elephant in the room.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> I was one of those who criticized Bundy, Finicum and others for their actions. I celebrated no one's death. I can separate some one doing wrong with making a personal observation that they are contemptible. I know none of these people personally and while I think they are misguided in their thinking and deserve punishment for breaking the law I wish no physical harm to any of them. And that included Mr Finicum. There are many good people I vehemently disagree with on any number of issues. While I might find their thoughts contemptible I don't find them contemptible.


Yes, that's correct. Several others expressed the same sentiment.
I can pull their quotes out as well to "prove" that they were NOT glad he was dead, but I won't.
The posts are still there for all to read who said what.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Let me spell it out for you Bearfoot, before you insert your foot in your mouth again with more *libel*.


It's not "libel" to say you've offered no real evidence of your allegation, because as you say:



> The posts are still there for all to read who said what.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Ever get into a conversation that seems to go no where?
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZksQd2fC6Y[/ame]


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, that's correct. Several others expressed the same sentiment.
> I can pull their quotes out as well to "prove" that they were NOT glad he was dead, but I won't.
> The posts are still there for all to read who said what.


The posts are there for everyone to read. I can understand why you don't wish to pull out quotes that disprove your claim. That's not your responsibilty. I do feel it is your responsibility to provide those posts which you claim still exist that do support it. Two people can look at the same words and judge them differently and walk away both still feeling they are correct. But, to use your word, I find the act of making blind accusations contemptible . Even if I think the person doing it is a good person.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> The posts are there for everyone to read. I can understand why you don't wish to pull out quotes that disprove your claim. That's not your responsibilty. I do feel it is your responsibility to provide those posts which you claim still exist that do support it. Two people can look at the same words and judge them differently and walk away both still feeling they are correct. But, to use your word, I find the act of making blind accusations contemptible . Even if I think the person doing it is a good person.


I think you misunderstood me, even though I tried not to be misunderstood in that post.

It isn't that pulling out quotes that some expressed remorse at his death would disprove any others. I didn't want to quote ANY, from the beginning and said so more than once.
I saw yours, WR's, and probably half a dozen more that said the same thing.
I didn't say or even imply that the opinion in question was even a majority view on his death.
That WOULD be false, and absurd if I DID say it.

As I thought about this today, I was reminded of two things.
1) I wasn't alone in that opinion, I think there were at least 2 more people that felt as I did.
2) I haven't looked thoroughly to verify this, but so far, the denials and repudiations have mostly been from people who DIDN'T seem glad about it, NOT from the ones who I said appeared to "celebrate" his death.
Irish Pixie would be the only exception that I recall.

(I'll look back and correct that 2nd one if I'm wrong)

Odd, don't you think?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I think you misunderstood me, even though I tried not to be misunderstood in that post.
> 
> It isn't that pulling out quotes that some expressed remorse at his death would disprove any others. I didn't want to quote ANY, from the beginning and said so more than once.
> I saw yours, WR's, and probably half a dozen more that said the same thing.
> ...


What I find odd is that someone like you, a person I've disagreed with but respected, is acting in this way. People can disagree, even on what words mean. They can't discuss those disagreements intelligently unless both are looking at the same words. You say these words still exist. I'd love to discuss them but the only way I can be sure we're discussing the same thing is if you point to the posts that bother you so. You continue to make vague allegations and allusions to bad behavior by others and say you won't offer proof. To me, such actions are far worse than being a "snitch".


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> What I find odd is that someone like you, a person I've disagreed with but respected, is acting in this way. People can disagree, even on what words mean. They can't discuss those disagreements intelligently unless both are looking at the same words. You say these words still exist. I'd love to discuss them but the only way I can be sure we're discussing the same thing is if you point to the posts that bother you so. You continue to make vague allegations and allusions to bad behavior by others and say you won't offer proof. To me, such actions are far worse than being a "snitch".


It's pretty simple really.
I don't have time for another long, multi-quote reply with corresponding 
"proof" of what I'm about to say, so it'll be long after the sun goes down today before I'm back here again. I'll keep it short. 

I said from the beginning I'd rather leave my statement as is, no singling out to offer "proof".
That wasn't good enough.
"Show me, show me, show me!"
So I did.

Then the predictable argument that the color was salmon, fuscia or plum.......but it definitely wasn't pink!

A few others saw it as pink, too. But no, I'm just a darn liar.

Not everyone that approves of something, celebrates it, I know that.
But to think that no one, no one at all did, and that it isn't there in black and white (not pink, salmon or whatever) is a fantasy world I don't live in.

I gotta go...........


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> It's pretty simple really.
> I don't have time for another long, multi-quote reply with corresponding
> "proof" of what I'm about to say, so it'll be long after the sun goes down today before I'm back here again. I'll keep it short.
> 
> ...


I realize you said you wouldn't offer proof. That you didn't want to "snitch". You've stayed true to that but it is that tactic which I find underhanded and unscrupulous. "You know what you said!" might be an acceptable argumentative ploy in your world. It's not in mine. If you wish to accuse others of something stand up and do it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

BTDT, page 4.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

po boy said:


> Ever get into a conversation that seems to go no where?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZksQd2fC6Y


In todays world _Who_ would have been cited for steroid use and wife beating and been replaced by _Whom_ who is more proper and shiny. But _What_ has secret issues that no one else knows about and _I Don't Know Who_ is voting for the Donald but telling everyone he likes Bernie.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> BTDT, page 4.


I seem to have lost my secret decoder ring.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> I seem to have lost my secret decoder ring.


Don't you hate it when that happens? Look in the junk drawer in the kitchen.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

One more has been arrested for being stupid in public:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/ano...ng-to-start-shooting-federal-law-enforcement/


> Another armed militant who participated in the occupation of a federal wildlife reserve in Oregon early this year has been taken into custody, the Oregonian reports.
> 
> Scott Willingham, 49, was arrested on Wednesday in the tiny town of Mount Vernon, just outside Malheur National Forrest. Willingham was arrested at a motel after threatening to &#8220;start shooting federal law enforcement officers&#8221; in the morning.
> 
> At the time of his arrest, Willingham was armed with a semi-automatic rifle and 230 rounds of .308 ammunition, according to the Oregonian. He was charged with unlawful use of a weapon, which is a felony, and a misdemeanor count of disorderly conduct.


----------

