Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Talk To Webmaster US military sniper rifles

Jeezus,....you've really gone off the deep end with this "Dual Identity" bit,....haven't you, champ?

WTF do we call you now,.....?

Oldman Liar, .....Lee Oldman,....OldLee 1942,.....

what?

GTC3

Omg. I cant believe i just sat here and read the entire 43 pages of this thread. I feel i have read myself retarded...

Having said that, as a new member of this forum i will be disregarding any information posted by Lee24 or oldfart1942 and will soon been searching this forum for an "Ignore" feature.

Carry-on, Gents!

In the beginning I thought oldman 1942 was just someone who had not followed the Lee24 saga and didn't realize just how faked the whole guy is. What he has proven in his defense of Lee in this thread, and with his similar posting characteristics, is that he's either a Lee sock puppet or a prodigy.

It'll be interesting to see if he follows Lee's path of posting absurd stuff that is easily verified as BS or if he'll decide to become useful for something more than an amusing distraction.

I've read the proceedure for posting my pictures and I think I may open a photobucket account. In the mean time, could someone tell me how to post internet pictures here. I've seen pictures of some very nice guns on the internet, and although I can't afford them, I could vicariously "own" them and post a picture here as if they were mine.



P.S. Disregard the above! By asking the above question, it would be too easy to determine that the pictures are faked. I should follow the example of Lee and Oldman and be more devious.

rattler, you continue to try to aggrandize yourself by claiming that I "argued with you about libel laws". I merely saw you posting some innaccurate information, and being much better informed and educated (in law school) on the subject, corrected some of your misconceptions. You need to hire a good lawyer, if you are in the "news" business and in the habit of attacking people for a living. Also, the protections a newspaper gets for lying do not apply to your personal attacks and fabrications, such as here on the Internet.

As for VAnimrod practicing law, he doesn't. I asked him straight up, and he said he is not a lawyer.

Pugs, your merely claiming that someone is this or that doesn't make it so, especially when you are unable to offer any contradicting facts.

there yah go again dumb arse, a newspaper doesnt get any more protection from libel laws than an individual, both are covered under the same First Amendment rights.....as for personal attacks you have provided zero proof on your end so you have yet to prove that i am wrong....a simple picture proves i am wrong.....but you cant do it.....so since you cant prove that i am wrong there is no harm done......dumb arse....

The same applies to you..


I see now that besides engineering school you've also been to Law School, is ther any School that you have not attended?

Why don't you just post the pictures of the .375 H&H Winchester M 70 with "Made in Columbia,SC" and quit making an a** of yourself. Oh,I forgot YOU DON'T HAVE ONE!

he has stated that we are not worthy to see them....we dont deserve to see them cause we aint special enough....guessing you have to be on whatever drugs he is to see them...

yep it seem that way.

rattler,
You last post shows that you know way too little about libel laws to be posting on the Internet, much less publishing a newspaper. It is a good thing newspapers have the extra protection of the NY Times v Sullivan decision. Libel and slander are torts, most of which have no protection under the First Amendmendment. The First Amendment applies to political speech, for individuals and the press, but has been extended by liberal judges to protect pornography, music, lousy art, tatoos, clothing, other things. You need to hire a lawyer and listen to him.

I am not a lawyer, but from what some of the professed lawyers posting here tell me, I had a lot more education in libel than they did in my law classes.

Posing as Lawyer now?

shows what you know....all NY Times v Sullivan decision did was say if a publisher knew the info to be false they could not publish it and seek protection behind the 1st Amendment.....if to their knowledge it was true they got 1st Amendment protection.....that ruling didnt do jack chit to give newspapers more protection than an individual.....if you print something you know to be false you can be held accountable under libel laws....all it did was establish an actual malice standard....


your google fu is weak.....dumb arse.....

jwp475, your ignorant school yard taunts like, "The same applies to you", are quite impotent, coming from someone who posts no facts.

Everything I posted about the sniper rifles and ammunition, I backed up with references to official US Army and USMC documents and public statements by officers. Don't let expertise and facts sway you, though.

IIRC he is in fact a lawyer, just not one currently practicing law. That means he is still a lawyer with a degree from law school, something you don't have.



You've been offered many documented facts that contradict many of your claims and you offer nothing acurate or verifiable in return but merely resort to the "you're not worthy" line.

As far as someone claiming to be someone or something they are not, there are many here who have offered verifiable proof over the years. I suspect I have met face-to-face on the order of 40 Campfire members between the Raton get together, the DC Grill and Chills, and the TN pig hunt over the last four years. To a man (and woman Sassy!) they have proven to be enjoyable, trustworthy, honest and down to earth people. Based on this track record I assume the best of a person until proven otherwise. I read an awful lot of your posts before I decided to call you out on some of your lies about topics I am well versed in and make sure other people see your "facts" for what they are, suspect until verified by independent sources.

My opinion on Oldman is still out but he certainly seems to have tendencies that are similar to your and if I were an administrator with access to some simple data the results might be interesting.

Now, back to reviewing some Wireshark data to finish up the first draft of a report so I can deer hunt on Wed with another campfire member.

NY Times v Sullivan......all it did was establish an actual malice standard....

That's right, the plaintiff who has been lied about by a newspaper or broadcast must prove malice on the part of the media. Ordinary citizens are guilty of slander by spreading falsehoods, without malice, and in many cases without knowledge of it being false or any intent to do harm.

Big difference. If you don't think so, as Dan Rather.

The next fact that you post to support your claims will be your first...

i think your missing the point, in either case the individual or newspaper thought it to be true, unless you can prove otherwise libel or slander hasnt really taken place....kinda like here, you could prove me guilty of it by posting a picture of it, since you refuse to do so you cant prove me guilty....by refusing to post a picture you refuse to hold up your end of holding me guilty of libel so libel has not occurred...

Gee, I thought you were a lawyer. Of course that was before you became a rocket scientist working under cover as a tow truck driver.