Since he obviously put us together on the same team, since he has yet to respond, and since you obviously obliterated him in this discussion; I will count this as a victory! Even though you did all the work and research, it's a team effort, right?Charles L. Cotton wrote:Well Glockenhand a/k/a Harry Callahan a/k/a [your real name], I had hoped you would answer this question but I wasn't overly optimistic. So now I'll respond to your post.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Before I respond to this post, let me ask you to clarify the statement you made, i.e. "Blaming a single entity or person demonstrates something else entirely and it ain't good." What is the "something else entirely . . . that is being demonstrated and please explain how it isn't good.glockenhand wrote:Charles, I don't know what your overt threat in "Don't do it again" is suppose to mean. I have not done anything wrong. I have worked in corporate security for the past 25 years. While things have definitely changed in that time, most of our thought processes have not. I have officed out of New York, Arizona and now Texas. In each case we follow the same criteria in determining any local or regional site codes we must follow. We begin with federal law, then state and local law. Once that matrix is compiled, legal interprets the code. After that process risk management is consulted. Other variables do come into play as well, but I assure you that local politics do not. It is a monies game pure and simple. I have heard of OCT and/or Grisham. I have even heard of you Charles. Some good...some not. However, I assure you that our decision to post 30.06 & 30.07 at our Texas sites has nothing to do with local issues you've descrived. Truth is, from a risk perspective we don't like anyone that we don't employ to enter our premises with a firearm and that includes local law enforcement (off duty) or armed civilians.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Coming to the defense of the person/entity that have caused Texas gun owners problems while issuing veiled insults to those who opposed those destructive tactics demonstrates much more. Don't do it again. Your goal is to stifle criticism of OCT and/or Grisham and that's not going to happen.glockenhand wrote:Blaming a single entity or person demonstrates something else entirely and it ain't good.
Chas.
Now Charles ( both of you I guess), I don't fully understand the rift between you and the entities you've mention. I can however recognize intolerance and around here at least on the surface, it feels rampant. I could be wrong and I hope I am. But never in my life would I dream of speaking to anyone in a manner as those here have done to me.
edit:
re: obamacare, no one likes it it. It is a badly written law that attempts to solve an issue it wasn't designed to solve. However, it was amusing to hear legal gripe about interpreting it. Anyone who voted for it I hold accountable. As I understand it, dems from around Hillary Clinton's time were/are the real architects of it. Obama just penned it.
Chas.
First, a little history. You joined the Forum under your real name and real email address in April of 2012. Thirty days later, you decided to join under the name Harry Callahan. (One can only wonder why you wanted two registrations.) In August, 2015, Harry Callahan was banned for multiple rule violations and you joined again as Glockenhand on Oct. 19th, just 15 days ago.
So it is interesting that in your above-quoted post, you try very hard to give the impression that you are new to Texas and the Forum. Why would you do that when you've been a Member since 2012? Your post also implies that you just have a passing familiarity with OCT, CJ Grisham and me, but your posts under both Harry Callahan and your real name condemn Grisham/OCT tactics. Why then did you write that " I don't fully understand the rift between you and the entities [OCT/Grisham] you've mention [sic]" Now I can understand why you wrote " I have even heard of you Charles. Some is good . . . some not." Banning you as Harry Callahan was not intended or expected to get me on your Christmas card list. But why act like you really knew little about OCT and Grisham? Could it have been to further your attempt to make it look like you are new to Texas and the Forum? I guess you felt that it gave you an air of objectivity.
Let's talk about your work "in corporate security for the past 25 years." You state that you have had offices "in New York, Arizona and now Texas." You explained in great detail your intimate involvement in developing security protocols during the last quarter century. You assured Forum Members that decisions about firearms are strictly about money and that . . . Well, let's look at precisely what you said: "I assure you that local politics do not [play a role in security decisions]. It is a monies game pure and simple." You even stated that your company doesn't want anyone armed on company premises, including off-duty police officers.
I admit that I'm not too good at math, but the numbers don't seem to add up, nor does the job title. According to your profile in multiple locations on the Internet, for the last eight plus years you have been a "senior network administrator" for a concrete company. Now if you were to claim that your corporate security experience pre-dates your work as a network administrator, and that you simply forgot about the last 8+ years, that would mean that you started in that industry around the age of 15. Do you see why I'm having a hard time with the math?
Okay, that's enough. You have been exposed for what you are, all because you decided to include in your post another insult toward Forum Members who didn't agree with your opinion. That got you banned as Harry Callahan, but obviously you didn't care because you would just register again. If you had just stated your opinion, you could have gone on posting under your pen name. Well, you could do so only until you violated Forum Rules again.
I'm going to ban you under this deceptive screen name, but you can respond using the registration under your real name. In spite of your deception, I have shown the courtesy of not disclosing your real name, so you will have to decide which is more important -- staying in the shadows or responding to this post.
If you try to pull this again, then your real name will be used in place of Harry Callahan, Glockenhand and any new registrations you enter. (Of course, they will be labeled [real name]-1, -2, etc.) If you try to claim I'm wrong about your identity, then I'll post the screen shots of your registrations and other information gathered and let everyone connect the dots. It's one thing to disagree and discuss the issue honestly and with civility. Posting under a pen name, rather than your real name under which you are also registered, so you can violate Forum Rules, insult Members and claim credentials you do not possess will get you banned yet again.
Chas.
I'm still curious about his motives behind it all, but not curious enough to hope that he responds. Just another mystery I suppose.
Thank you for the awesomeness Chas, I really like the way you wrote all of that. They way it led up to the end, priceless.
