Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Sat Oct 23, 2021 9:12 pm

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 Not entirely hypothetical question 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:08 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
joelr wrote:
Jeremiah wrote:
The .MHT file is problematic, in that many/most Web browsers don't natively handle it. There's a plugin for Firefox to do it, and it seems to work OK. In the interests of open discussion, I converted it down to regular HTML, and it looks OK- just missing the avatars. Joel, if I email the file to you, will you post it?
Absolutely. Thanks for the work; I wasn't able to get Amaya to do that, and would have preferred to make it easy to read.

That said, I doubt it'll make much of a difference, as the old "horticulture" joke suggests.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:11 am 
Raving Moderate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Minneapolis
joelr wrote:
Jeremiah wrote:
The .MHT file is problematic, in that many/most Web browsers don't natively handle it. There's a plugin for Firefox to do it, and it seems to work OK. In the interests of open discussion, I converted it down to regular HTML, and it looks OK- just missing the avatars. Joel, if I email the file to you, will you post it?
Absolutely. Thanks for the work; I wasn't able to get Amaya to do that, and would have preferred to make it easy to read.


Sent to your gmail.

_________________
I'm liberal, pro-choice, and I carry a gun. Any questions?

My real name is Jeremiah (go figure). ;)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:16 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
And posted, as received, right here.

As soon as Paul has had a chance to digest how easy it is for others to see the thread that he's had more than a month to look over, let's look at each individual response, separately and together, to put them into the context that Paul's still insisting has been lacking.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:25 am 
In the time out chair
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:22 pm
Posts: 106
But who has given you the rights to read what was considered private conversations?

Plblark had a good point. Using some esoteric argument to put him done does not deny the accuracy of his point.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:31 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Blued Steel wrote:
But who has given you the rights to read what was considered private conversations?
That would be telling. Let's just say that somebody with access to this felt I ought to know, just like the folks who filmed the ACORN folks in their "hypothetical" thought folks ought to know.

That said, I think part of the problem with the day care site is that there are a lot of folks there who at least had access to Scott D. Olson's "question" (we don't know, at this point, how many read it, shrugged, and said, "well, fraud's no big deal -- and, after all, 'Sam' has a lot of clout here, and I wouldn't want to offend him and his buddies,") something he knew or should have known, and he felt comfortable enough there to openly contemplate fraud, without fear of embarrassment.

Save some indignation for future episodes, BS; you'll need it.

Advance notice: one contains a lie that (to be generous) several instructors let their names be put to.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:50 am 
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 818
Location: downtown Mpls
Blued Steel wrote:
But who has given you the rights to read what was considered private conversations?


Was it private? I don't consider this forum private so much as "less public". To be private (to me) requires a much higher level of care; personally knowing all involved (which can't be the case here because other people add members) or signed contracts (the typical employment situation with trade secrets).

That said, I'm not likely to pull stuff out of here and post it publicly, because I feel that would be wrong; but given sufficient provocation (as defined by me) I would reveal stuff from here.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:58 am 
Senior Member

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:52 pm
Posts: 211
Location: Greenfield, MN
I get a kick out of how the question we are disucssing was supposely this private conversation. Get real this was posted on a chat board that has 'some' restricted access. There is no expectation of confidentiality other than X number of guys being granted permission to view it.

If you are that worried about what people might read on a board then I suggest folks get a real understanding of internet security and choose a method of communications that is more appropraite. Heck if this had been done with email or PM it would be easier to justify the privacy, a phone maybe better, face to face in a room with the door closed and noone else around better yet, with your lawyer still better.

But on an internet chat board with what I'm guessing is a dozen or more people having access, you might as well put it on youtube.

The fact of the matter is it was not very bright to ask the question in the first place, if the guy just owned up to not thinking before he typed it, I could accept it as a brain fart(we all have done it to some extent) and move on. Heck I'd give the guy credit for standing up to the mistake. But alot of folks seem to be a big hurry to defend him, which makes you wonder about them and their motivation for taking his side.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:07 am 
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:02 pm
Posts: 818
Location: downtown Mpls
joelr wrote:
That said, I think part of the problem with the <a href=http://mnguntalk.com>day care site</a> is that there are a lot of folks there who at least had access to Scott D. Olson's "question" (we don't know, at this point, how many read it, shrugged, and said, "well, fraud's no big deal -- and, after all, 'Sam' has a lot of clout here, and I wouldn't want to offend him and his buddies,")

Or thought "that's a really bad idea, but a bunch of others already said so and I have nothing to add".

Joel, when something is posted here in an equivalently-limited forum on a Sunday evening, how many people typically read it in the first 3 or 4 hours?

I generally find that I have more effect on influencing the behavior of others when I politely inform them that what they seem to be suggesting is a bad idea, than when I jump up and down and scream and threaten. If I say "You shouldn't do that" it isn't because I agree with doing it, it's because I want to discourage him from doing it. If I scream "DON'T DO THAT YOU CRIMINAL IDIOT" it isn't so much to discourage him as to make myself feel better or maybe show off for the peanut gallery.

So, from reading that thread: someone suggested doing something wrong. Over the next few hours, a bunch of people said not to, and some made suggestions about other things. The result was that nobody did anything wrong, and it turned out that there was an unspecified reason (the other state's permit) for the original request.

What would be a better result?


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:22 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
SethB wrote:
joelr wrote:
That said, I think part of the problem with the <a href=http://mnguntalk.com><a href=http://mnguntalk.com>day care site</a></a> is that there are a lot of folks there who at least had access to Scott D. Olson's "question" (we don't know, at this point, how many read it, shrugged, and said, "well, fraud's no big deal -- and, after all, 'Sam' has a lot of clout here, and I wouldn't want to offend him and his buddies,")

Or thought "that's a really bad idea, but a bunch of others already said so and I have nothing to add".

Joel, when something is posted here in an equivalently-limited forum on a Sunday evening, how many people typically read it in the first 3 or 4 hours?

I generally find that I have more effect on influencing the behavior of others when I politely inform them that what they seem to be suggesting is a bad idea, than when I jump up and down and scream and threaten. If I say "You shouldn't do that" it isn't because I agree with doing it, it's because I want to discourage him from doing it. If I scream "DON'T DO THAT YOU CRIMINAL IDIOT" it isn't so much to discourage him as to make myself feel better or maybe show off for the peanut gallery.

So, from reading that thread: someone suggested doing something wrong. Over the next few hours, a bunch of people said not to, and some made suggestions about other things. The result was that nobody did anything wrong, and it turned out that there was an unspecified reason (the other state's permit) for the original request.

What would be a better result?
Well, we don't know what the result was; we know what Scott D. Olson said the result was. That may even be true.

A better result would have been for the BCA to do its job, and investigate to see if instructors are actually following the law (which they apparently don't), rather than engage in desultory and minimal actions when they find that instructors aren't (see the huge gap between the first reports to the BCA and the eventual issuance of an awfully wimpy letter saying, "Don't keep doing that.").

It's a fair question, but it's hobbled by the assumption that this one tentative feeler toward fraud is the only thing that's seriously wrong in some instructor circiles. I think that's, at best, yet to be established to be the case, and there's at least some evidence to lead to the conclusion that it's just not so.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:24 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Blued Steel wrote:
Using some esoteric argument to put him done does not deny the accuracy of his point.
Nah. It falls apart all on its own; waving the word "context" around isn't an argument, but a distraction.

That said, Paul is -- and you are -- perfectly free to provide some real context in which an instructor and head of a certifying organization could explore the possibility of fraud and have all that be perfectly peachy keen.

Go right ahead.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:48 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:52 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Northeast Minneapolis
joelr wrote:
Well, we don't know what the result was; we know what Scott D. Olson said the result was. That may even be true.
Let me get this straight: you don't know what, if anything, actually happened aside from a guy thinking about doing something wrong. In effect you are up in arms about a thought.

joelr wrote:
A better result would have been for the BCA to do its job, and investigate to see if instructors are actually following the law (which they apparently don't), rather than engage in desultory and minimal actions when they find that instructors aren't (see the huge gap between the first reports to the BCA and the eventual issuance of an awfully wimpy letter saying, "Don't keep doing that.").
You are not talking about this particular case, are you? Could you please make that distinction?

joelr wrote:
It's a fair question, but it's hobbled by the assumption that this one tentative feeler toward fraud is the only thing that's seriously wrong in some instructor circiles. I think that's, at best, yet to be established to be the case, and there's at least some evidence to lead to the conclusion that it's just not so.
This case is this case and other cases are other cases. What evidence of any wrongdoing is there in this case? Do you have anything to prove this went beyond a "tentative feeler"? Otherwise, it seems like you want the BCA to investigate thought crime.


On a somewhat tangential note, I wish you would stop comparing this to the ACORN scandal. There actions actually took place. Encouragement and how-to advice on committing fraud and other crimes were given and this was documented. Here the fraudulent action was not encouraged. All you have is proof of someone asking a stupid question.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:55 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:00 pm
Posts: 373
Quote:
...Had a gentleman call today about taking the Permit to Carry Class and he was wondering about bringing his 19 yr. old daughter with his group of students. I understand that you cannot APPLY for a P2C until you are 21. Should I issue a certificate with no date--to be filled in later? Should I tell him to just have her take the class when she has turned 20 as the certificates are good for one year ? I am open to any and all ideas and feedback. Thanks in advance. Scott


Nothing about this seems hypothetical to me. What would you guys be saying if someone posted something like this in a different restricted forum:

Had a gentleman call today about having a certified inspection at his new company. I understand that you cannot APPLY for a government bid with the certified inspection unless the company has been in business for 24 months. Should I issue the certification with no date--to be filled in later? Should I tell him to ask about the certified inspection when he is legally able to submit a government bid? I am open to any and all ideas and feedback. Thanks in advance. - Goverment Inspector Ps: My certified inspections expire in 12 months.

_________________

In a big country dreams stay with you, like a lover's voice fires the mountainside. Stay alive.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:07 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
Me? I'd say the same damn things -- except, of course, I don't have any professional or emotional investment in the government inspections movement, so I'd likely be a bit less furious. And Paul would likely not be defending the hypothetical scumbag, as he wouldn't have the "context" of liking to go out drinking with the guy, and therefore wouldn't be inclined to repeteadly and boneheadedly choose to deny the plain and unambiguous meaning of the words the scumbag chose to type.

You'll notice that Paul hasn't come out to defend the ACORN employees by playing the "context" card.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:32 pm 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
White Horseradish wrote:
joelr wrote:
Well, we don't know what the result was; we know what Scott D. Olson said the result was. That may even be true.
Let me get this straight: you don't know what, if anything, actually happened aside from a guy thinking about doing something wrong. In effect you are up in arms about a thought.
Nope. I don't read minds.
Quote:

joelr wrote:
A better result would have been for the BCA to do its job, and investigate to see if instructors are actually following the law (which they apparently don't), rather than engage in desultory and minimal actions when they find that instructors aren't (see the huge gap between the first reports to the BCA and the eventual issuance of an awfully wimpy letter saying, "Don't keep doing that.").
You are not talking about this particular case, are you?
Depends on the meaning of the word "case." I don't see how this rises to the level of an indictable crime, but I think it provides more than enough suspicion to begin an investigation of a company that, in a general way, the BCA is supposed to be keeping an eye on, anyway.
Quote:
Could you please make that distinction?

joelr wrote:
It's a fair question, but it's hobbled by the assumption that this one tentative feeler toward fraud is the only thing that's seriously wrong in some instructor circiles. I think that's, at best, yet to be established to be the case, and there's at least some evidence to lead to the conclusion that it's just not so.
This case is this case and other cases are other cases. What evidence of any wrongdoing is there in this case? Do you have anything to prove this went beyond a "tentative feeler"? Otherwise, it seems like you want the BCA to investigate thought crime.
Nope.
Quote:


On a somewhat tangential note, I wish you would stop comparing this to the ACORN scandal.
Me, I wish Jennifer Aniston would start calling to ask me out on a date. Not all wishes are granted.
Quote:
There actions actually took place.
Well, yes and no -- as the ACORN apologists keep pointing out, no fraudulent paperwork was actually filed there. They just explained how it could be done.
Quote:
Encouragement and how-to advice on committing fraud and other crimes were given and this was documented. Here the fraudulent action was not encouraged.
It would be fairer to say, I think, that there's no evidence, at present, of the fraudulent action -- and at least we're in agreement that it was fraud being considered, I trust -- having actually been completed.

There are possibilities, consistent with what was written, where it was. I think they're unlikely -- it would require a whole lot more intelligence than Scott D. Olson appears to have to have come up with a credible story to cover the fraud -- but I guess we'll never know.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Not entirely hypothetical question
PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:26 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 9:52 pm
Posts: 700
Location: Northeast Minneapolis
joelr wrote:
Me, I wish Jennifer Aniston would start calling to ask me out on a date. Not all wishes are granted.
You know perfectly well what I meant.

joelr wrote:
Well, yes and no -- as the ACORN apologists keep pointing out, no fraudulent paperwork was actually filed there. They just explained how it could be done.
Which is not at all what happened here. Your comparison is still not valid.
joelr wrote:
It would be fairer to say, I think, that there's no evidence, at present, of the fraudulent action -- and at least we're in agreement that it was fraud being considered, I trust -- having actually been completed.
And how does "no evidence" translate into "sufficient cause for investigation"? It would be a fishing expedition. Why do you think that would be a good thing?


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 108 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group