The original announcement about their termination was posted shortly after their ad was pulled, accounts locked, and email sent. We left it up for a day or 2 and pulled it, they continued to bash the site, including personal attacks against several people here.

If they want to be treated like adults, they should not turn to lies and deceit. Kevin's doing this for the extra publicity, thinking he was in the clear. Against what TBK says, this posts show that they denied Robert being involved with AAC until June of 2006, meanwhile he has had strong ties to them since fall of last year. (IP matches prove that.) So which one is it, was he or wasn't he involved with AAC when he was pushing their products and attacking competitors?

While we're answering the tough questions, why did Kevin feel so threatened by the post below questioning the SCAR-SD?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The SCAR-SD is hearing safe? Robert Silvers has said the SCAR-SD is louder than the M4-2K which is not hearing safe. Who is right and who is wrong? Any info on the cans that were returned by the .MIL? I not sure what you are talking about. The M4-2000 is way below hearing safe. The SCAR-SD is not as quiet, but is still hearing safe. It has never tested otherwise. I guess that you are wrong, but I am still not certain as to what you are confused about. What cans returned by the .MIL? I think that you may be confusing us with someone else. You seem to be a filter for a lot of rumors. For just "rumors" you seem to take me pretty seriously...seriously enough to call and threaten me and then call around and ask questions about me. I think you are a liar and a thief, as does more than just a few people in the firearms community. Fret not though, Kevin, the truth will set you free.

Why did he resort to using outside influences to track down multiple user's personal information, send them threats, AND post their private information?

With regards to CAR-15, I apologize. I should not have contacted him through your site. I do not feel that I used “bully tactics,” I simply asked an anonymous individual to confirm his name and mailing address. I am sending him a legal notice, a Cease and Desist Letter. Verifying addresses saves legal expenses. I have seen, on several occasions, that your staff has been slow to react to these attacks. So, I tended to be more proactive than you would like. Again, I apologize. I initially used the “Report” button with a Joseph comment, and was warned by your staff not to use the feature to complain about a comment within a post. I took this to mean that I should handle these situations outside of AR15.com. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding

I realize Robert is his biggest asset (see below), so for him to fly off the handle like he did when they couldn't sneak Robert in obviously hurt. The truth is Robert lacks in social skills and is not only quick to share his thoughts, but also to attack those who has differing opinions.

Robert’s account seems to be locked. I would like to know why, and have it unlocked. Robert is a very important part of our technical staff and one of the most knowledgeable individuals in the world concerning silencers for firearms. He is important to our web presence and answers numerous questions on a daily basis involving nearly every silencer, on your forum and countless others. He is a tremendous source of honest information and has tested hundreds of silencers from nearly everywhere in the world. It would seem to be a crime to not have Robert part of a silencer forum, especially with the lack of knowledge about the subject. His personality may not agreed with everyone, but he is honest and knowledgeable.

These are things we've been handling behind the scenes and had warned Kevin to stay away from. Don't misunderstand this post, it's to clarify things people were confused about and to respond to Kevin's lies and attacks by posting a hidden relationship which was used to push AAC's agenda way before they admitted as much.

I will say this again, AAC makes some damn fine products, but Kevin and Robert will do whatever it takes to sell them. I should have looked into things sooner, but at least we took a stand and did not back down on keeping their actions in check. When they ran out of options Kevin pushed buttons to get himself removed.

Example: Previous Thread


In the end they wanted out because Robert would not be unlocked and now they are trying to hype the drama to gain from it. We've been here for 10 years doing our best for the community and working to bring quality companies and shooters to the table. I stand behind our actions over the past year.

I felt some of this additional information would help clear up a few things that went on behind the scenes. I'll give this a day more and we'll move past it.

Quoted: Quoted: Funny you reference that thread since it's a clear indication of the type of AAC midirection we had to deal with on a regular basis. Funny, I don't see any midirection in the statement made by rsilvers: Consider the Warlock and AAC Pilot. I don't have experience with the AWC so I can't say, but the Pilot, Warlock, and Outback-II are the three nicest .22 cans I know of and my favorite is the Pilot due to an extra level of cosmetic quality. From my personal experience with .22 silencers, his statement is spot on and I have to agree 100%.  From you experiences with silencers, what's misdirecting about it?

The guy asked for opinions on three different cans, none of which were AAC cans.  He indicated he knew about AAC cans (Silver's tried to backtrack by assuming he did not- seems he, like you, needs to bone up on his reading comp. skills) but was only asking about the other three.  It wasn't a thread asking for the "best" or any and all cans, JUST THOSE THREE (emphasis added for your benefit).   Silvers recommended an AAC can.

If you do not understand how that was midirection to an AAC product, then I am obviously wasting my time.  

Quoted: 1) Steve raising the concern publically in Cara's thread, leading to the thread jacking (and let's be realistic -- ultimately leading to the banning.)

This was the final straw in this mess. Steve's questioning of the post could have been handle better and could have been handled privately. As I've said AAC wanted Robert's voice on the site regardless of how it got there. Nobody attacked Cara or was offended by Cara, we simply did not trust AAC or their goals.

2) GB posting a "AAC is a bunch of liars" post.  Like I said, that was unprofessional.  Locking the thread didn't help either, but I guess we have another one now.

When I made the initial post it was to notify people why they were gone and I posted shortly after I emailed them and removed them from the site. (Email went out first, code needed to change to remove their banner, etc) At that time I expected things to die down, but perhaps I worded it wrong. I was still talking to Kevin to handle closure for things.

3) GB posting in another thread regarding NFA collections about how he wouldn't do business with AAC.  However, once it was pointed out that he was thread jacking, he apologized and retracted his posts (kudos to him for that.)

At that point I was upset with what turned out to be like 2 days worth of insults, attacks, and BS posted by AAC and their fan boys. This is where I let some personal emotion out and I apologized, apologize again, and removed the information.

I then took the time to put together some proof of why I called them liars. I followed this up with more examples a few minutes ago that show the type of person Kevin is. He is quick to cry about someone attacking him, will use outside means to threaten and attack, and relies on Robert for technical help to sell his cans. Robert will never be unbiased and people know that. It doesn't mean he's not a smart guy or doesnt know cans, he simply is on the AAC payroll.

4) The locking of the thread once GB had said his piece.  Yes, we have another one now, but here's the problem with locking these types of threads: It allows those in power (the staff) to control the discussion as it suits them.  If they don't like what's being said, regardless of CoC violations, they can simply stop the conversation.

The reason we cleaned out some of the threads was to remove AACs advertising posts. The other threads were spread between forums and not offering much so I consolidated, shared more information on this mess, and figured to keep a single point for discussion. To my knowledge no posts have been edited here nor any users locked or silenced in any fashion. I always try to ask that people discuss things openly and just not derail topics, especially once questions are answered.

You wonder why Kevin / Robert are actually quoting folks on here and replying over on the other forum?  Because they're in a position where ARFCOM staff has a stage and a large audience that they can voice their side of the story to.  Meanwhile, AAC does not.  They have a much smaller audience over on s-t.  How would you like it if somebody you had a disagreement with put duct tape over your mouth, drug you into court, and told the judge their side of the story while you just had to sit there and take it?

So why have they allowed insults and attacks to be their top 5 posts on the site when it's a neutral informational site on silencers? Don't buy into their BS, Kevin wants to draw this drama out to get more attention thinking it will help him out. He can say what he wants, we've got 10 years of running this place and the only issues we've had have been this year, since we've actively been busting people for doing wrong. In each of these we have lost money for the good of the site.

I understand your point about the larger stage, but I offered them to return to the site (Kevin and Cara) and to avoid any further issues if they simply removed the attacks on their site which they began. They very easily could have ended this and everyone would have been better off.

Quoted: Quoted: Could you please explain your email to Kevin about offering advertising to other suppressor mfg.;s at a reduced rate? I would like to know about that too. I would also be curious as to what the percentage of posts were showing the (presumably NAT) IP from AAC put up against frequency of posts and total posts.  If there is a clear patter, well, there's a clear pattern.  If not, then it would suggest that there is an element of truth to rsilvers explanation.  Just curious. No, I don't own any AAC products.

If you click on the "Advertising Information" link on the extreme lower left of every page you will see the advertising for the site for 2006 has this toward the bottom:

:: SOLD OUT FOR 2006 ::

If most of the fiscal year has been paid by one company (AAC) then another company can get a deal for the balance of the year.  Simple.

Also, GB owns the place so he is free to negotiate any deal he wants with advertisers.  I read his e-mail to KevinAAC as merely a "we won't miss you and can quickly/easily replace you with someone else, especially given the reduced cost to whatever company fills the available slot."  

I do know for a fact the site had several more companies wanting the places at the top of every screen than we had space available.  Again, if GB wants to make a special deal for another company (suppressor company?) it is his perogative to do so.  That's just business.  

Personally, I would not have mentioned it to KevinAAC as I view it as simply none of his concern or business at that point.  YMMV

Quoted: Quoted: I would also be curious as to what the percentage of posts were showing the (presumably NAT) IP from AAC put up against frequency of posts and total posts.  If there is a clear patter, well, there's a clear pattern. My offer still stands to analyze those logs with software, GB.  Just email them to me and I'll whip something up in shell or perl.  I think it would be interesting to know what percentage of rsilver's posts came from AAC.  That could tell us the "probability" that S_P was actually rsilvers.

I can tell you without talking to him there is no way he is going to waste time doing that.  Messing with such things burns valuable time and in this case would serve absolutely NO useful purpose.  If the "probability" is 1% or 99% the end result is still the same.  

I think you keep "offering" this just so you can run back to their site (as "Stupid Redneck") and post about it.  I did get a kick out of yesterday's posts you made--post here, then run over there and say, "I bet my last post over there will get me banned."  

There is no reason for you and I to get into any kind of spat, but when you posted on the last page my post "would be more believable" or somesuch I can't help but to question your motives, given your series of posts on both sites.  

Quoted: Quoted: I would also be curious as to what the percentage of posts were showing the (presumably NAT) IP from AAC put up against frequency of posts and total posts.  If there is a clear patter, well, there's a clear pattern. My offer still stands to analyze those logs with software, GB.  Just email them to me and I'll whip something up in shell or perl.  I think it would be interesting to know what percentage of rsilver's posts came from AAC.  That could tell us the "probability" that S_P was actually rsilvers.

You and I both know the amount for information to go through is intensive, we both know the results mean nothing, we both know that they posted from the same location on multuple times. KevinAAC, RSilvers, Suppressor_Professor. The point isn't if they were or weren't all the same person, it's if there was any doubt on our parts that Cara was Cara when that post was made. (In regards to that specific issue.) The fact that Kevin purposely avoided posting it himself and using an unidentified account is enough to warrent a second look for us.

Now in regards to why those IPs are important, you and I both can add 1 and 1 and realize that AAC claiming to have no affiliation with Robert, and vice-versa, yet having visible connections since 2005 means they have lied. Robert was a suspected AAC shill and we've linked them together over a long period of time, extending way past their "official" hiring.

I don't know that using quotes from ian187 is a good way to prove anything one way or the other?

Quoted: You see, I just dislike BS.  And this entire situation has worn out the battery in my BS detector.

I understand.  

First, let me say I did not intend to be the least bit combative in my post just above, so I hope I didn't come across that way.  I genuinely like you from your past history here, so please let me make that very clear.  

Here's the thing--

It's difficult to discuss this for someone like me (and the rest of the staff) as we know ALL the details of the situation, having watched--or even been involved--for a number of months.  The site has a very strict rule about revealing "staff stuff" publicly, for obvious reasons.  We CANNOT carry items from the Staff Forum and post them publicly.  Our challenge then is to reveal enough to get the facts out, but to also keep our bacon out of the fire with GoatBoy over the "staff stuff" rule.  He knows we're trying to help, but the last thing we need to do is to post something which would make things worse, or even get HIM sued.  It's a very tough line to walk.  

You may have noticed over the years we are absolutely fanatical in protecting our credibility and integrity.  This is personally important to us, but it is also vital in order to serve in our staff capacities here.  If we say "the sky is blue" we cannot function if you feel the need to run outside and check.  The bottom line is, our credibility is all we have.  We guard it very jealously and go to great lengths to avoid putting cracks in it.  

This gives me a good place to say this:  Had this identical situation occurred involving ANY other advertiser (well, save L-W, for obvious reasons) it wouldn't have caused a ripple, let alone a storm.  We have MUCH past history with AAC, so that, coupled with their response to it, has caused this to happen.  The mere fact of bringing them on as advertisers was done with great trepidation--and was opposed by most of the staff--due to the past problems with rsilvers.  We're not enjoying it, but this is a big "we told you so" for the staff, as we saw this as inevitable.  

Quoted: I did get a kick out of yesterday's posts you made--post here, then run over there and say, "I bet my last post over there will get me banned."   Sad, isn't it?  That I would truly believe that, I mean.  And I am a little surprised that I haven't been, to be honest with you.

There's no reason to remove you for questioning our actions or motivation in this, that's your job to do so and to protect the integrity of the site and our actions.

I'm not upset that you're upset over this. I am trying to clear the air of things we had to deal with, respond to lies, and answer any questions you might have.

All I ask is that we continue to move forward and not rehash things we answer. That hasn't happened here so I don't see a problem. Kevin obviously has his platform over there and I have mine. He will spout off whatever he feels is right and I will do my best to stick to facts and keep my opinion out of it as you already slapped me for that once.

I'm sorry this happened, I really am. I offered them their accounts and to put this behind us several times and we saw how Kevin responded. Now he's upset and has every right to be, we're sharing info he didn't want the public to see.

Oh ya to answer the question about advertising. We are offering discounts to suppressor manufacturers to encourage their participation on the forums and to help improve this part of the site. Now is a great time to help rebuild this forum and put this mess behind us!

Quoted: SP had like 10 total posts, this last point is retarded.

She had FOUR--and that is part of the point which their side (I'm counting you as being on their side for obvious reasons) refuses to acknowledge.  If you simply read the e-mail Cara posted on S-T.com, which she had received from EdAvilaSr, you will see the reason given for the whole thing--using an account to post an official company thread which was not identified as being affiliated with the company (no time to get the exact quote).  She posted it, yet completely ignored that and jumped to, "I was NOT trolling!!!" in her post on S-T.com.  Her identity, whether she had actually allowed rsilvers to use the account, the number of posts on the account, etc. DO NOT MATTER.  The ONLY thing which matters is the combination of past problems and the violation of the advertising agreement.  This was the umpteenth time this has been stated--PLEASE let it sink in this time.  

If you happen to be acquainted with anyone who advertises here, ask them about it, as it was sent to EVERY company which advertises here, shortly after the L-W debacle, and became part of the "advertising agreement."  

Quoted: SP had like 10 total posts, this last point is retarded.

This proves our point. With 10 posts we have no way to tell if it was Robert or Cara or someone else using the account. There's no history and there was at least one IP match for the two accounts.

Come on, JosephR--you have a very clear grasp of the situation, but please leave out the personal attacks.  I'd suggest an edit of your first paragraph.  

JosephR, I think ORinTX is not trying to start shit or stir a pot.  I have found him to be someone simply looking for the truth.  Given the amount of lies being repeated over and over, I find it refreshing.

So . . . go easy please.

Quoted: Since my screen name was used, I will chime in here.  While I don't have any problem with AAC or Kevin (in fact, I purchased a Pilot recently).  I can tell you that at one point, I had asked a couple of questions about how RSilvers was allowed back on and Kevin got pretty pissed off and IM's me with my personal information in it.  When I asked him how he got it, he wouldn't say.  I was pretty pissed off over it and I let him know that.  I never received a letter to "cease and desist".  Nor whould I have given a shit if I would have got one. The bottom line here is that this situation is over, get it? OVER!  For Christ's sake, move on.  I can't believe all of the bitching and whining going on here and at ST.com.  Unbelievable!

Sorry you got drug into this, I was considering blocking out your username, but figured I should post the full msg.

I've emailed Kevin an offer to stop this by both sides agreeing to put it behind them. This offer does not include the unlocking of their accounts. Kevin's last email (before my offer) was not very nice, but I will leave that out of this discussion for now.

Quoted: I am confused.  Please let me know if this is what happened. RSilvers was banned.  I understand why.  Dont agree with it but understand. AAC has an advertising agreement which states only 2 (TWO) people can post on behalf of the company.  These people are Kevin and Freddy as decided by AAC. Cara posts on behalf of AAC.  Neither Freddy or Kevin was removed from the "official company advertising account Representative" status and thus AAC has 3 corporate accounts instead of the agreed upon 2.   So was Cara's account pulled for this violation or was AAC completely banned? I can understand limiting the number of people to 2 as that was agreed upon.  I can not understand a banning of AAC from the board completely. That's a huge mistake IMO if that is what happened.

There actually isn't a limit on accounts, although we ask for 2-3 company reps, we don't restrict if there are more. Freddy, Kevin, and Robert were the 3 identified account reps. Cara posted on behalf of Robert from an unidentified account, which staff had no clue about. Her account was locked because it was potentially Robert of posting for Robert who had been banned. (Her insulting a staff member didn't help.)

If you read through this post you will see why AAC's account was terminated.

Quoted: first sentence or first paragraph about class?

You did an edit as I was composing--then I had to leave for a while.  Please keep things "polite and businesslike" as this is a technical forum.  This thread may be completely off-topic and atypical, but this is still a technical forum, so don't want anything remotely along the lines of a personal attack.  Thanks.  

Quoted: Quoted: The guy asked for opinions on three different cans, none of which were AAC cans. He indicated he knew about AAC cans (Silver's tried to backtrack by assuming he did not- seems he, like you, needs to bone up on his reading comp. skills) but was only asking about the other three. It wasn't a thread asking for the "best" or any and all cans, JUST THOSE THREE (emphasis added for your benefit). Silvers recommended an AAC can. If you do not understand how that was midirection to an AAC product, then I am obviously wasting my time. No need for bone up on anything brother - but I don't agree with you and I bet others don't as well.  Just because someone names two cans that aren't on a list, that doesn't mean misdirection was in play.  Seriously, how many threads on here asking "If I had to choose from this list:" end up having people suggest items that aren't on the list.  Stop taking yourself so seriously....

OK, now I think you're just being coy.

He named two, he recommended the AAC can.  Reasonalbe people will agree that it was a midirection, but let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.  

If you want, have the last word- I'm kinda sick of stating the obvious over and over.

Quoted: <snip> Like I said, you're WAAAAY to emotional about this, JosephR.  And you have consistently been resorting to personal attacks. You've stated your opinion more than once.  In fact, you seem to reply to pretty much every post you disagree with.  I reserve the right to be repetitive too.  And I'll do it without stooping to your schoolyard level, either.  I know you disagree with me, and I'm ok with that.  I'm not getting emotional about this.  Please try to behave like an adult.  Even the mods are telling you to kick it down a couple of notches, and they agree with you.

He really does have the pertinent facts down almost too good.  If I didn't know better I'd swear he was a staffer's troll account.  


He definitely does NOT lack in reading comprehension, is the only explanation.  

Quoted: You don't understand.  What he offered to do was correlate the posts of Silver to the use of the AAC IP address.  If, say, a minority of Silver's posts originated from the AAC network, then Silvers defense that he posted from there when he was there would make sense.  If not, then clearly it doesn't.

That is nowhere near right. The point isn't they are the same person is that they had a relationship before they admitted to it. The fact that IPs match several times over the past year, almost 12 months prior to him being officially employed, is the item on the table. With 4 posts S_P could have been anyone and can't be proven to be Silvers or not be Silvers, there's just not enough info.

Ah, well the only people who will know the relationship is them and those close to them. This leaves us with the proof that there was some sort of relationship there before he was officially hired by them. I wont make assumptions as to the type or extent of the relationship, but it's clear he was at their location/facility on multiple occasions.

Quoted: I think that we are talking at cross purposes.  I am talking about tracking IP use back quite a ways, not specifically with regard to "Supressor Professor" and I am talking about ORinTX's offer.  I may be misunderstanding him, and given how lively this whole debate has been I may be misunderstanding you, but I know what I would do to prove that Silvers was AAC and not an occasional visitor.  I have to do this sort of thing from time to time with security audits.

This isn't as complicated as it appears you are making it--we are not making an absolute accusation of Silvers having used the account to post.  It doesn't matter if it was him or not.  What DOES matter is it strongly appeared it MIGHT be him, which caused us to dig.  Upon digging we found him posting from their facility a year (or so) prior to when they admitted he became an employee (reference e-mails posted earlier which discuss this).  Even THAT is not the "big issue."  

The real thing is due to the ugly history with rsilver it was made very, very clear he was not to post here under any circumstances.  In an effort to keep this under control they were allowed to advertise with the agreement only specific accounts would be used to post on behalf of the company.  Cara posting under the "Suppressor_Professor" account violated this--on purpose or accidently (unlikely) doesn't matter.  THAT is the "big issue"--but even that likely could have been resolved with "one more chance" if they had not responded in the manner they did.  They clearly did/do not want to be here.  We (staff in particular) are sick to death of dealing with them.  They are second only to REMOVED in causing disruption for staff to deal with, so we didn't want them as advertisers to begin with, and are now thrilled they are gone.  

Think about it--staff NEVER deals with advertisers, except for any personal purchases we make through them.  The site SHOULD have strictly a "mutually beneficial" relationship with advertisers.  When an advertiser causes problems in the forums, then GB gets his money from them but staff has to put out the brush fires.  Oh joy.  

I don't know how many companies are here, but almost all of them NEVER cause ANY problem at all.  This is how it should be.  A big thanks to all of them.  


Edited to avoid further discussion distractions.