Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/4/2002 2:10:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2002 2:21:01 PM EST by Happyshooter]
From Glock Talk:
Hi folks. I recently received a certified letter, from Front Sight Firearms Training Institute's lawyer, concerning negative posts made on Glock Talk. In addition to wanting me to ban an individual that made allegations against them, the message threatened legal action against this site if I didn't 'Carefully check posts in the future concerning Front Site'. Well, I have no intention of 'carefully checking' every post made about Front Sight, under threat of legal action, so I will no longer allow them to be discussed on this site at all. Please do not mention them or discuss them in any post here. I will instruct the moderators to remove any post mentioning Front Sight, directly or indirectly. I don't like having to do this, but I don't like being strong-armed either...Eric
View Quote
Please keep this in mind while chosing a training school.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:15:31 PM EST
based on that info. I think Front Sight sucks ass! [devil]
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:19:55 PM EST
Originally Posted By cnatra: based on that info. I think Front Sight sucks ass! [devil]
View Quote
First rule is we don't talk about front site er, I mean fight club.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:25:20 PM EST
Damn those Scientologists!!! *waves fist*
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:25:56 PM EST
#1. Did anyone libel or slander Front Sight on GT? #2. If not, would you support an organization that supports the second amendment and not the first? (weird question huh?) #3. Is this a job for the AR15.com Army?
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:38:25 PM EST
Frankly this shows both Front Sight AND Eric in a bad light. Not good to give into blackmail.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:40:14 PM EST
Isn't that place in Kalifornia? No wonder.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:46:37 PM EST
I think lots of people may pick a different school based on this BS.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:47:22 PM EST
While I would first like to slam "Fist Schite", I have forgotten how to pose a logical argument against them. Cnatra posted and his damned avatar has caused me to loose all reason... again! [bounce]
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 2:59:25 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 3:01:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2002 3:03:25 PM EST by captainpooby]
No, I mean really. Wolfpack got treated like criminal and the whole board lit up. Now, Eric at GT gets threatened with "legal action" by real lawyers and no one wants to slam them where it hurts? I missed the first fight till it was already 7 pages long. Anyone know Eric personaly who can get the skinny? Are we afraid of scientologists?
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 3:46:24 PM EST
btt
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 4:03:58 PM EST
That really sucks... and one of our own, no less. One more instance of gunowners being their own worst enemy.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 4:24:32 PM EST
This is very disturbing. What is Front Sight afraid of? This is the tactic of a thug.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 4:31:05 PM EST
Moderators, you need to lock this before the lawyers come after us.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 4:46:06 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 4:51:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2002 4:55:44 PM EST by Fingers]
Here's the thread that caused all the commotion over on Glocktalk until they delete it. [url]www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106133[/url] I was fairly involved in it but pretty much a neutral party. I hope I don't have a certified letter coming from Frontsight too. [:\] This is fairly serious. Diana, one of the posters has a lawsuit filed against her by FS. You can get the details, they are posted near the end of the thread. I'm going to Frontsight this weekend and I'll have to ask them what the F*ck over? I'm kind of surprised they got on Eric's case. Most of the inflamatory stuff came from obvious pro Scientology trolls. Everyone else was fairly civil. You can do what you want but be careful, they aren't afraid to file a lawsuit and they are a no win deal. Their attorney has posted on some sites but he does it covertly i.e. he doesn't have the balls to say who he is and even denies being associated with FS even though he was shown to be posting from the same server FS uses. Edited cause I forgot to enter the URL and can't spell.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:01:26 PM EST
It was bad enough having to watch what you post around all of the feds, state doj, adl, splc, and agent provocateurs, but now lawyers representing gun owners? WTF is up wit dat? Can you hear it? There, listen carefully. It is the sound of the gun culture imploding! WOO HOO!!!!
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:02:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/4/2002 5:04:34 PM EST by 8531sgt]
Just another sign of the enemy within. With folks like this around we we don't have to worry about bin laddy and the AQ's. Walk around with your nose in the air you're gonna drown. ibtl too...
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:09:21 PM EST
As a website, there is no duty to moderate EVERY damn post, whether true or false. Glocktalk would win a MSJ pretty quickly, but an individual MIGHT not be able to shirk a suit. However, the main issue is why the fuck would FS sue gun owners??? Why don't they just post the truth and let intelligent people decide for themselves? Sounds like I will not be going to FS anytime soon and I had actually been thinking about a trip out there specifically for it. ARCOM ARMY should advance on this one!
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:21:12 PM EST
All those who have firearms stored there should reconsider. IBTL!
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:21:22 PM EST
balzac you are right. This is an issue for the AR15.com ARMY if there ever was one! These people are crapping in their own house. On their own people. Lets tack this, do a little research, and if its worthy, do our thing. There was a post yesterday about L.Ron Hubbards military records and how many inconsistancies the scientoligists have told about it. It was buried in another thread with a link to website. Can anyone find it? JMHO
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:27:38 PM EST
First, WTF is IBTL???????????? And it better not be something stupid. I know you guys like to beat "catch phrases" to death. Also, I'd like to exercise my Free Speech rights by quoting a song written by Maynard J. Keenan of the group Tool, the song is called "Aenima" from the album of the same name. "F*ck L. Ron Hubbard and f*ck all his clones..." I wonder if maynard, Tool and Elektra Records were threatend with litigation? D.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:28:18 PM EST
[RED ALERT] Scientologists are very sue happy. With the exception of RAMBUS and the RIAA, I've yet to find a more sue-hapy organization... [/RED ALERT] I wonder why? (j/k, it's obvious why)...
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:30:08 PM EST
The Scientology MO is to quell bad press through threatened legal action. If someone is threatening to sue, it could be an indication that they really are actively involved in that inane cult.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:34:21 PM EST
Originally Posted By Gadsen: First, WTF is IBTL????????????
View Quote
In Before The Lock
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:39:04 PM EST
Ok, I get it. The second amendment is worth a fight. The first isnt. (feels weird huh)
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:45:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A: [RED ALERT] Scientologists are very sue happy. With the exception of RAMBUS and the RIAA, I've yet to find a more sue-hapy organization... [/RED ALERT] I wonder why? (j/k, it's obvious why)...
View Quote
RAMBUS and the RIAA are trying to protect intellectual property, but what about the Scientologists? There's certainly nothing intellectual about that organization! [;)]
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 5:50:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A: [RED ALERT] Scientologists are very sue happy. With the exception of RAMBUS and the RIAA, I've yet to find a more sue-hapy organization... [/RED ALERT] I wonder why? (j/k, it's obvious why)...
View Quote
DOJ.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 7:10:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 7:33:11 PM EST
These folks don't just threaten to sue, they do it. Here's Diana's site: [url]www.dianahsieh.com/scientology/[/url] Here's a site with some biographical info on Hubbard:[url]www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/atack-freedom-trap.html[/url] Here's an excerpt of his military background: 6 THE WAR YEARS Hubbard's eyesight had prevented his admission to the U.S. Naval Academy, prior to his enrolment at University. In 1941, he was accepted into the Navy Reserve after receiving a waiver for his inadequate vision. Many outlandish claims were made by Hubbard about his achievements while in the U.S. Navy. For instance, he bragged that he had been the first returned casualty from the Far east. In fact, he was shipped to Australia in December 1941, and he sufficiently antagonised his superiors to be returned to the U.S. after only a few months. After his return, in March 1942, Hubbard was posted as a mail censor in New York. The Scientologists have boasted that Hubbard "rose to command a squadron". Factually, he oversaw the refitting of two small vessels in U.S. harbours. His second such command was withdrawn after a cruise down the west coast. During the course of this journey, Hubbard managed to involve a number of craft in a 55-hour battle against what he believed to be two Japanese submarines. The incident was reviewed by Admiral Fletcher who pronounced "an analysis of all reports convinces me that there was no submarine in the area ...The Commanding Officers of all ships except the PC-815 (commanded by Hubbard) state they had no evidence of a submarine and do not think a submarine was in the area." Hubbard completed this "shakedown cruise" by firing on a fortunately uninhabited Mexican island. He was removed from command, and Rear Admiral Braisted wrote in a fitness report, "Consider this officer lacking in the essential qualities of judgment, leadership and cooperation. He acts without forethought as to probable results ... Not considered qualified for command or promotion at this time. Recommend duty on a large vessel where he can be properly supervised." The advice was followed, and Hubbard served briefly as a navigation officer aboard the USS Algol, before its departure from U.S. waters. Hubbard was one of hundreds of officers transferred to the School of Military Government on the Campus of Princeton University. This was to lead to Hubbard's later and completely false boast to have graduated from Princeton. In a more candid moment, Hubbard said that he "flunked" his overseas examination. 7 WAR WOUNDS At different times, anywhere from 21 to 27 medals have been claimed for Hubbard, including a Purple Heart, awarded only to those wounded in combat. Not only was Hubbard not wounded, but apart from his imaginary submarine battle, he never saw combat. He received four routine service medals for his duty in Australia and the U.S. In an article called "My Philosophy", Hubbard claimed to have been "blinded with injured optic nerves, and lame with physical injuries to hip and back, at the end of World War II ... My Service record stated ... `permanently disabled physically'." Elsewhere, Hubbard said that a few days before the end of the war, he managed to get the better of three petty officers in a fight in Hollywood. In contradictory accounts, Hubbard claimed to have spent either one or two years at Oak Knoll Naval Hospital, developing Dianetics and curing his injuries through its use. The origin of Dianetics is obscured by conflicting Scientology accounts, which variously assert that his recovery came in 1944, 1947 or 1949. Factually, Hubbard spent the last months of the war largely as an outpatient at Oakland Naval Hospital. His chief complaint was an ulcer, though between his admission to hospital and his separation from the Navy his eyesight deteriorated markedly. This visual deterioration became part of his pension claim to the Veterans Administration. There are many more sources of info on Scientology on Diana's site. Its pretty entertaining if you ask me, the Scientology stuff, not what happening to her, that's downright scarry.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 7:40:58 PM EST
Originally Posted By mattja:
Originally Posted By Dave_A: [RED ALERT] Scientologists are very sue happy. With the exception of RAMBUS and the RIAA, I've yet to find a more sue-hapy organization... [/RED ALERT] I wonder why? (j/k, it's obvious why)...
View Quote
RAMBUS and the RIAA are trying to protect intellectual property, but what about the Scientologists? There's certainly nothing intellectual about that organization! [;)]
View Quote
Actually, (a) Rambus was trying to monopolize the memory industry through fraud (according to the trial, where they were convicted of fraud), and (b) the scientologists claim the exact same thing (that their 'sacred texts and teachings' (basically, any discussions of their cult) are their intelectual property, and that any unauthorized discussion is copyright infringement. I wouldn't put it past them to say that 'Scientology' is trademarked, and cannot be used without permission (they'd loose, but they'd still try)... If one ever needed an example of the abuse of IP law, Scientology is it. As for the recording industry, they've filed some pretty off-the wall suits (in addition to their IP battles).
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 7:42:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By SeaDweller:
Originally Posted By Dave_A: [RED ALERT] Scientologists are very sue happy. With the exception of RAMBUS and the RIAA, I've yet to find a more sue-hapy organization... [/RED ALERT] I wonder why? (j/k, it's obvious why)...
View Quote
DOJ.
View Quote
It's the DOJ's job to sue people. So yeah, I guess they're sue happy (in the same way lawyers are... heh...)...
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 8:33:22 PM EST
Bad move for Front Sight, they may not mind acting like the Dems. but it's not going to bring gun owners in the doors. You don't have to like everything people say but you damn well better let them say it.
Link Posted: 11/4/2002 11:44:22 PM EST
Just attended the 4 day handgun class this weekend (bay 7). When I got back and heard all of this it greatly disheartened me. Piazza can be a great boon to the 2a supporters....but only if he's upfront and honest.
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 5:07:47 AM EST
That's a pretty tame website for Diana to get sued over. What kind of image is this guy trying to gain by suing everyone? Scientology or not, we don't need people like that on "our side."
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 12:22:15 PM EST
the scientologists claim the exact same thing (that their 'sacred texts and teachings' (basically, any discussions of their cult) are their intelectual property, and that any unauthorized discussion is copyright infringement. I wouldn't put it past them to say that 'Scientology' is trademarked, and cannot be used without permission (they'd loose, but they'd still try)... If one ever needed an example of the abuse of IP law, Scientology is it.
View Quote
Screw them. Two can play at that legal bullshit. From now on any discussion of the aforementioned group, they shall forevermore be referred to as the Church of Shitology.
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 3:43:16 PM EST
I've been to Frontsight a couple of times and am going back this weekend. I've been one of their strongest supporters on Glocktalk and here but this is enough to turn me away from the place. The instruction and the instructors are great but these heavy handed tactics by the management there is way over the line of decent behavior. If the place is so good they should have nothing to worry about. The truth will come out. People say all kinds of crap on the internet but most of us are intelligent enough to filter out the BS and make informed decisions based on our own experiences or ones of people we trust. We don't blindly take every thing we read as factual. So why sue everyone that says something bad about the place. Hell Diana didn't even really say anything bad, she just asked some questions. She's a Frontsight First Family member and by virtue of her large investment in the place has a right to know a little about the dude running the place. This is really getting out of control. I'll try to find a little more about all of this when I'm there this weekend.
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 3:52:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By Fingers: I've been to Frontsight a couple of times and am going back this weekend. I've been one of their strongest supporters on Glocktalk and here but this is enough to turn me away from the place. The instruction and the instructors are great but these heavy handed tactics by the management there is way over the line of decent behavior. If the place is so good they should have nothing to worry about. The truth will come out. People say all kinds of crap on the internet but most of us are intelligent enough to filter out the BS and make informed decisions based on our own experiences or ones of people we trust. We don't blindly take every thing we read as factual. So why sue everyone that says something bad about the place. Hell Diana didn't even really say anything bad, she just asked some questions. She's a Frontsight First Family member and by virtue of her large investment in the place has a right to know a little about the dude running the place. This is really getting out of control. I'll try to find a little more about all of this when I'm there this weekend.
View Quote
I agree with this. I have been impressed with Front Sight's training and setup. I checked out Diana Hseiuh's web site and I found nothing in it that was slanderous or libelous. She asked some straightforward questions and asked for some answers. In fact, she went out of her way to give Front Sight the option to respond. Classic free speech. This is also a classic lawsuit designed to suppress public discourse. Front Sight has no idea what it is getting into if it continues down this path. Lots of Second Amendment activists support the First Amendment as well. Personally, I have no preference or dislike either side, but I do know that I dislike the suppression of legitimate speech. Front Sight may win this battle if Diana H. does not have the resources to fight. But it will lose the war. We will not stand for this. Front Sight: if you are listening, withdraw your lawsuit now, or face the negative publicity that will result.
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 4:12:27 PM EST
Jeeze, this is like killing your wife cause she won't give you some. Why would they attack the very people that support them? It makes no sense to me.
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 4:13:18 PM EST
The Glock talk folks are talking boycott. If they are going to use such tactics against there own potential students, then I will not be going back. This is quite disheartening. [url]http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113171[/url]
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 4:17:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 4:23:24 PM EST
It doesn't make any sense and it is disheartening. They are doing some very good work to promote our Second Amendment rights. I can't imagine why they would do this to their supporters. There's got to be more to the story. I hope it's not that his ties to Scientology are greater than his support for the Second Amendment.
Link Posted: 11/5/2002 4:33:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By sociopath: Isn't that place in Kalifornia? No wonder.
View Quote
Located in Nevada.
Link Posted: 11/6/2002 12:18:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:
Originally Posted By mattja:
Originally Posted By Dave_A: [RED ALERT] Scientologists are very sue happy. With the exception of RAMBUS and the RIAA, I've yet to find a more sue-hapy organization... [/RED ALERT] I wonder why? (j/k, it's obvious why)...
View Quote
RAMBUS and the RIAA are trying to protect intellectual property, but what about the Scientologists? There's certainly nothing intellectual about that organization! [;)]
View Quote
Actually, (a) Rambus was trying to monopolize the memory industry through fraud (according to the trial, where they were convicted of fraud), and (b) the scientologists claim the exact same thing (that their 'sacred texts and teachings' (basically, any discussions of their cult) are their intelectual property, and that any unauthorized discussion is copyright infringement. I wouldn't put it past them to say that 'Scientology' is trademarked, and cannot be used without permission (they'd loose, but they'd still try)... If one ever needed an example of the abuse of IP law, Scientology is it. As for the recording industry, they've filed some pretty off-the wall suits (in addition to their IP battles).
View Quote
I thought the two fraud judgements against rambus were overturned? They are lawsuit happy though, which is kind of lame.
Link Posted: 11/16/2002 11:36:16 AM EST
Wanna see the actual lawsuit filing? Here it is: [url]http://www.dianahsieh.com/scientology/lawsuit.2002.10.29.html[/url]
Link Posted: 11/16/2002 12:32:37 PM EST
Couple of facts, Eric (owner of Glocktalk), is recovering from surgery, and cash is understandably tight for him now. In response to the threatening letter, Eric has banned all discussion of "the training site that shall not be named", both positive and negative. He also dropped them as a sponsor and sent them back their advertizing money. So, he hasn't rolled over. He just stiff armed them. There also is talk about a possible threatening letter having been sent to the folks at thefiringline.com. Don't quote me on that one.
Link Posted: 11/21/2002 3:10:32 PM EST
All because "Ignatius Piazza, a 41-year-old chiropractor from Santa Cruz County, California" doesn't want anyone asking too many of the wrong questions, I guess. [:(]
Link Posted: 12/30/2002 4:15:41 AM EST
You DEFINITELY wanna hit the thread at TFL: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138756&highlight=piazza
Top Top