560 replies to this topic

[dalbert]

Phil,
I am not mad at you. I enjoyed seeing you at the TATA Show & Shoot last weekend. I only want you to read the story before posting.

Fortyfivecal and bigbore,
Thanks for joining in. I agree with you about the inferior quality of the Numrich and Kahr products. That fact has never been in question.

Arthur,
You have it.

While the THOMPSON concept may indeed be alive today, it is not being manufactured by the same AOC started by Gen. Thompson, Marcellus Thompson, Thomas Fortune Ryan, or even the last legitimate owner of AOC, Maguire. Even if Kilgore went into production back in 1949, his TSMG's would not be manufactured by the original AOC. Nothing in TD"S SAR article changes this salient point.

I can tell you have not read my story or you would know everything you posted above is true. The history of the Thompson Submachine Gun does not involve the Auto-Ordnance Corporation (and in any future form or name) manufacturing the Thompson again after production ended in Bridgeport in 1944. However, the Thompson Submachine Gun as a product of a corporation was sold off in its entirely in 1949 to another corporation (Kilgore); and then to a group of investors (Willis and his associates); and later to George Numrich (Numrich Arms Company). Before my story, we did not have documentation any of that actually happened or more importantly, how it happened – now we do. The history and succession of the Thompson continues today (Kahr Arms). It is just as simple as that. I am glad we finally resolved this question to your satisfaction. It was certainly worth all my time. I may even quote you in a future article!

Well, since you have maintained at the outset of this thread that the Thompson need not have been manufactured after 1944 by the original AOC in order for it to be this 'unbroken chain," I understand why you do not dispute this point. But you are resolved to dispute the obvious conclusion of this point which is that, just like the history of any other manufacturing entity, once the orignal business ceases operation, retains its name, but sells off the assets to another buyer, with zero connection to the original AOC, what you have is the the sound of the chain popping into unrecognizable fragments.


While your story may provide additional flavor to the 1949 sale of assets to Kilgore that WJH alluded to in his "TGTMTTR," the essential recipe remains the same. As Phil has already pointed out, the "Kilgore advertising flyer for the M1A1 Thompson" does not constitute "documentation" in any sense of the word. YOU and DAVE thought Numrich's catalogs showing pictures taken from Maguire's operation in the 1940s' (but not stated as such in the catalog), proved he was manufacturing TSMG's. Of course it only proved the contrary.

I'm sure locating the "flyer" provided the impetus for the SAR article. But if it was really a "document," you would not have waited for the issue of SAR to be circulated, you would have posted this finding here as conclusive proof of what was sold in 1949 that WJH never saw.

Can you answer why it is critical to you and Dave to prove the AOC Thompson made today is manufactured by the same business that ceased operation in 1944? If this was/is an obvious and widely accepted fact, why bother with the SAR article that is intended to shore up this point?

But what about suggesting to Maguire's son to join this discussion?

Arthur,

Maguire's son has already contributed to this discussion indirectly during the course of TD's research, as did another CCA executive. The article was reviewed by them before it was published. CCA does not retain any rights to the Thompson. It was a product they (formerly Maguire Industries) sold off to Kilgore in 1949.

The article was published to provide exciting new information that was discovered in the Thompson field. I understand that new Thompson information is not something to which you normally gravitate. Helmer's work, which you quote often, was the greatest volume of historical work ever done on the Thompson, and there is more. Even he realizes there was more to it. He was ready to be finished with the Thompson story, to earn his degree, and to move on to greater pursuits in life. He was close to finding more Thompson information, but he had already uncovered so much, and the project was complete for its purpose, and for Helmer's interest. Would we be having this debate if Helmer had documented what TD found, and arrived at the same conclusions? No, we probably would not. Helmer also read the article before it was published, and was glad to see that his 40+ year old research led to even more findings. When I showed him a picture of Willis' "Tommy" book, he was amazed, and I think a bit proud that the research he started continues on. The only thing that kept him from finding the "Tommy" book at the time, and discovering more about Willis and Kilgore, was an apartment number for an address that had been provided to him. This was a lead that he left unresearched at the time. He explored almost all that he could, but his interest remained anchored firmly in the gangster era, and the amount of history he had already documented on the Thompson was and still is vast.

Based on your many statements, I sense you still don't understand (or acknowledge) the core argument. We don't argue that "the AOC Thompson made today is manufactured by the same business that ceased operation in 1944." We argue that there is a succession of the Thompson from 1916 to Kahr today. The Thompson is a product, one that has been passed along to different entities during all these years, in a chain of succession.

Let's do more to encourage research on the Thompson. TD's findings were substantial, and his efforts are worthy of praise.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

Based on your many statements, I sense you still don't understand (or acknowledge) the core argument. We don't argue that "the AOC Thompson made today is manufactured by the same business that ceased operation in 1944." We argue that there is a succession of the Thompson from 1916 to Kahr today. The Thompson is a product, one that has been passed along to different entities during all these years, in a chain of succession.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

The fact that a version of the TSMG was put back into production in 1975, and continues to be made in the version produced by Kahr, was never disputed by me or any other person, as far as I know. These are incontrovertible facts.

AND.

I also do not dispute the chronological order, or sequence, or "succession" if you prefer, of the TSMG from 1916 to the present day. These are also incontrovertible facts.

BUT,

The original TSMG, that is inexorably linked with the original AOC, does have a beginning (1916) and an end (1944). What transpired after that is not just a new chapter, but a brand new start that is distinctly different and separate from the historical significance of the original AOC and the THOMPSON. This is not only a logical break in the relevance and purpose of the product, but it is also a portent of a completely new and different organization that really does not have any substantive connection to the pre 1944 period.

Had Numrich/Trast/Kahr never resurrected the AOC name, this entire discussion would be moot.

[Norm]

Will this issue ever be resolved?

Will this thread ever end?

My head hurts!

Norm

Edited by Norm, 19 August 2008 - 12:32 AM.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

We don't argue that "the AOC Thompson made today is manufactured by the same business that ceased operation in 1944."
David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

"Kahr Arms is proud to preserve the legacy of Auto-Ordnance Corporation, the original maker of the famous Thompson submachine guns."

Could you explain this blurb from Kahr's website? Even though you and TD believe Kahr is part of the THOMPSON legacy, you do not suggest the AOC of pre 1944 is the same AOC of today, it sure seems that Kahr is declaring themselves to be the original AOC that contracted Colt and Savage to make TSMG's, as well as the AO of the 1940's that made TSMG's. Kahr must be referring to the post 1944 era, where the subsequent owners of the THOMPSON were using a new AOC namesake, one that had nothing to do with the original AOC.. This post 1944 "AOC" never made any TSMG's until 1975, at least none that has surfaced to be proven as such. The only AOC that Kahr could lay claim to is the post 1944 one.
http://www.auto-ordn...s/TBrochure.pdf

[PhilOhio]

TD,

O.K., thanks for the nice response. The last thing I want to do is have you think that I am attacking or trying to undercut the fine work you have been doing. But there's more to be done. Maybe we'll never finish, but not for a lack of trying.

David,

You say, "Let's do more to encourage research on the Thompson. TD's findings were substantial, and his efforts are worthy of praise." Right on. Exactly my point. We're all trying to get to the same place (I hope), trying to figure out the unvarnished truth. But to do that, we can't draw conclusions before we have in hand 100% of the objective facts to support them.

Arthur,

Amen! You saw the same thing that is at the front of my mind. In all its public advertising, Kahr Arms goes way overboard in emphatically saying it is the same, original, one and only company (Auto Ordnance) with has always been manufacturing the Thompson. This is utterly and totally false. There is no continuity, solely on this count, because AOC owned the Thompson name, logo, and all related intellectual rights. There is no record of their ever having been legally transferred. That is the one and only bottom line...for now, at least, until we perhaps uncover new evidence to the contrary...which TD or somebody may indeed do.

Something everybody now on this board is forgetting is that a few years ago, somebody on this board went to a great effort to determine what rights George Numrich had to use the AOC name. This member searched New York State, or some county records there, and found the only thing that counts: court filings. It turns out that George filed for exclusive use of the AOC name (after having used it for YEARS without doing so), was apparently opposed or challenged by nobody, and got the right by merely filing. Had he much earlier purchased these rights from ANYBODY, there would have been no need to do this so late; it would have already been done at the time of the sale and transfer. So a reasonable person would conclude that no such transfer took place earlier. Why would anybody do it a second time if it had already been done once?

Anybody see a hole in my logic?

So years later, George sold the AOC name to Kahr. They may think they own it, and I guess they do, and nobody seems to be challenging it. BUT, if they want to (falsely) claim unbroken continuity of ownership, they should have their lawyer do his due dilligence abstract search, where he should easily learn how, when, and under what circumstances Numrich gained the right to use the corporate name which he later sold to them.

Any lawyer worth half a s___ should have done this in the first place. Which he obviously did not.

Next. The Thompson trade name, logo, and related rights are not something floating around in outer space. They were owned by AOC, or whatever company it morphed into. But they were not just bouncing around among the atoms someplace. And we have no record that they were sold or legally transferred. This is the key, core, bottom line fact of this whole debate. Regarding continuity, nothing else matters but this fact, or lack of documentation.

Now. George Numrich could have also filed for exclusive use of these intellectual rights. But we have seen no record that he did. They most certainly were not, repeat not, a part of what he got when he filed to use the Auto Ordnance Corporation name. Had they been, this stuff would have been included in the documentation. "Thompson", as used in connection with the specific firearm design, and the bullet logo, and the copyrighted properties are separate entities. Maybe Numrich or Kahr later filed to use them. I don't know. Maybe nobody has bothered to research this. But I have most certainly not seen any documentation to refute my observations of this lack of documentation.

Ever hear the story of the Greeks arguing on the steps of the senate about how many teeth are in the mouth of a horse? It went on for hours, until a small boy came along and said, "Why don't you just count the teeth in the mouth of that horse over there?" Whereupon both sides set upon the boy, beat the crap out of him, and resumed their argument. To avoid this, see next paragraph.

Years ago, I suggested that anybody intent on proving this unbroken succession theory should just write or call Ira Trast (Numrich's successor and former #2 man) and see whether/where the documentation proving unbroken succession can be found...or, rather, if it exists. Apparently nobody has. And I suggested somebody should formally ask the folks at Kahr about the specific documentation for their emphatic unbroken succession claims. One might politely ask them to put up or shut up.

Has anybody done this, or plans to do so? I don't see how there can be any definitive analysis done of all these unbroken succession claims without asking the two most recent corporate players to make their case with documentation, rather than smoke and advertising baloney. Nothing else counts. Just facts, in the form of signed, sworn, notarized documents filed with a court clerk; and done so in a sequence which demonstrates the truth or falsity of the unbroken succession claims.

I don't care which way it comes out. I have no axe to grind. I honestly think it could shake down either way. And I'm curious. The only thing I know for sure, right now, is that we don't know for sure. And nobody has the evidence to claim otherwise. It is not in any article ever written anytime by anybody. If it exists, it is in one or more court files.

And TD, I only hope that I/we are not grinding you down by remaining skeptical on this one small but important bone of contention. I'm really curious about it. ...but not so much so as to have been willing to put in the time and effort you have. I'm too busy playing with guns and building drum greasers and walking a cat on a leash, which convinces some of my neighbors I am totally whacko...which might be a good thing to have them believe, somewhere down the line.

Norm,

You've just got to be patient with us, and the length of this thread. We're more harmless than those old Greek senators arguing on the steps of the Forum, because we don't beat up little kids over it. Not yet. And anytime you start feeling blue, just take a breather and think about how you came out on that divorce. That should put a grin on your face that goes all the way around to the back of your head. I know that kind of thing works for me.

[ClevelandShooter]

All we are talking about is semantics, The legacy lives on...... Too much for Arty and My astute collage Phil to understand.
Bill Out

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

All we are talking about is semantics, The legacy lives on...... Too much for Arty and My astute collage Phil to understand.
Bill Out

Too much for Doug Richardson, Gordon Herigstad, WJH, Roger Cox, and anyone else who understands that a "legacy" is more than an advertising slogan. The "legacy" has to live up to historical facts, not just creative marketing.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 19 August 2008 - 08:31 PM.

[dalbert]

All we are talking about is semantics, The legacy lives on...... Too much for Arty and My astute collage Phil to understand.
Bill Out

Too much for Doug Richardson, Gordon Herigstad, WJH, Roger Cox, and anyone else who understands that a "legacy" is more than an advertising slogan. The "legacy" has to live up to historical facts, not just creative marketing.

Arthur,

Yes, please keep those "historical facts" in mind during the next several months ...especially the "creative marketing" part involving some of your favorites...yours is a quote to remember, and one that I'll remind you of at a later time.

There have been many historical facts uncovered recently, and a legacy is established.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Norm]

Norm,

You've just got to be patient with us, and the length of this thread...

Just kidding!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

All we are talking about is semantics, The legacy lives on...... Too much for Arty and My astute collage Phil to understand.
Bill Out

Too much for Doug Richardson, Gordon Herigstad, WJH, Roger Cox, and anyone else who understands that a "legacy" is more than an advertising slogan. The "legacy" has to live up to historical facts, not just creative marketing.

Arthur,

Yes, please keep those "historical facts" in mind during the next several months ...especially the "creative marketing" part involving some of your favorites...yours is a quote to remember, and one that I'll remind you of at a later time.

There have been many historical facts uncovered recently, and a legacy is established.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

Dave,

Are you saying that Kahr jumped the gun in their advertising, where they state that the AOC of today is the same as that of the pre 1944 AOC, before the facts have been established to support this claim?

Can you explain how Kahr became confused into thinking that the AOC of today is the exact same one of 1944? Have you contacted them to straighten out this misapprehension?

BTW: Is General Thompson's image in the public domain, or did Maguire own Thompson's image and included it in the sale to Kilgore? Since Kahr seem to use it liberally in their advertising, and it appears on the NFM cover, as well as other media, it appears to be the former.

[PhilOhio]

Bill, the Cleveland Shooter says, "All we are talking about is semantics, The legacy lives on...... Too much for Arty and My astute collage Phil to understand.
Bill Out"

No Bill, that's not what we are saying. Perhaps in your mind it is "semantics". It's solid, boiler plate, set-in-concrete legality. Nothing less. I'm starting to see what it is that you people do not quite yet comprehend. Most of it is probably an honest lack of understanding of what constitutes "the Thompson", the "product" TD talks about.

TD said that when AOC folded, its owners sold its "product", "the Thompson", to somebody else. And this in turn changed hands several times, and that all of this constitutes unbroken succession.

What I am saying, which stands as the truth until there is documentation to disprove it, is that there is positively no documentary evidence that the "product", "the Thompson", which was a registered intellectual property, was ever sold to anybody. Zip, nada, zero evidence ever shown anytime, anyplace, on any planet, to anybody. Smoke. Harware and crates were sold. Nothing else. Zero. Not. Nuthin'. Ain't there. Never was. ...until we are shown evidence to the contrary. And I'm waiting to see that evidence presented by anybody. I'm open minded about it. I will never insist that it did not happen...just that we see no evidence that it did happen. Until we see the evidence, the default position is not that it did happen unless somebody can prove that it did not. That's the way the world works. I hope.

80 tons of Kilgore advertising brochure on "the Thompson", 300 interviews with former employees, all of their ID cards, the hard copy of their Class III manufacturing license, pictures of the building where they stored the Thompson stuff, and anything else we can think of does not change this. No transfer record and re-registration of the ownership rights to the Thompson name, copyright, and bullet logo exists, as far as any of us here know...unless somebody is concealing what they know.

A ton of new books with the hardest of covers changes none of this. Not one iota. I can't change it, Tom can't change it, Arthur can't change it, and David can't change it. The only thing that can change it is if we unearth evidence of the legal transfer. So far, we have not.

Nothing else makes any difference.

Nothing.

Zip.

It ain't semantics.

Are you starting to see a glimmer of light, Bill?

That's the way your "astute collage" sees it, and he wishes he had about $10,000,000 to bet on it, and somebody unwise enough to take the bet as to what the current situtation is, legally speaking. T-H-E-R-E I-S N-O U-N-B-R-O-K-E-N S-U-C-C-E-S-S-I-O-N. That's not my wish, or my opinion, but just how it is. Kahr's contrary claim is total B.S., i.e., bearing quite a striking resemblance to their typical product.

Please guys. Let's step back and have a reality check here. To argue the unbroken succession case, you simply have to have some foundation, other than anecdotal claims and "understandings" and "assumptions". There must be some legal documentation, anything of the sort which is the only way such things are done in the corporate business world, which this was and is. I hate to see somebody seriously embarrassed in a research or academic setting if this debate goes too much further, with people locked into a very wrong position which somebody is certain to ultimately knock to pieces. It's O.K. to talk about how the legacy of the Thompson got from Point A to Point B. But to do it accurately and truthfully, in a way that can be solidly defended among credible researchers, academics, and lawyers, we simply must delete that one itty bitty word "unbroken". The path is very much broken, and it zig-zags hither and yon, and bounces here and there, and stops and is lost for awhile. Then we see it pop up over there. There is a history, a story, all of it very interesting to us Thompson fruitcakes.

But please, let's never say, or even whisper "unbroken", because it is not. Wishful thinking cannot suddenly close the gap...or rather, the several gaps.

[TD.]

TD said that when AOC folded...

Phil,
I never made that statement in any story I wrote. I really wish you would read the published story before posting on matters your not fully informed about. Small Arms Review is a very easy magazine to acquire. I also wish you would expend some of this extra energy and time on original research. There is much more to be discovered with the Thompson.

I also do not dispute the chronological order, or sequence, or "succession" if you prefer, of the TSMG from 1916 to the present day. These are also incontrovertible facts.

Arthur,
You got it! You need not post anything else. (I would like you to read the story; I believe you will enjoy it.)

Hey everyone,
Is this fun or what I hope everyone enjoyed the story. Irrespective of what you believe, you will find a lot of new information about the Thompson - and that's what it is all about. Thank you.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TD said that when AOC folded...

Phil,
I never made that statement in any story I wrote. I really wish you would read the published story before posting on matters your not fully informed about. Small Arms Review is a very easy magazine to acquire. I also wish you would expend some of this extra energy and time on original research. There is much more to be discovered with the Thompson.

I also do not dispute the chronological order, or sequence, or "succession" if you prefer, of the TSMG from 1916 to the present day. These are also incontrovertible facts.

Arthur,
You got it! You need not post anything else. (I would like you to read the story; I believe you will enjoy it.)

Hey everyone,
Is this fun or what I hope everyone enjoyed the story. Irrespective of what you believe, you will find a lot of new information about the Thompson - and that's what it is all about. Thank you.

TD,

Are you saying that you disagree with Dave that the Kahr AOC of today is not the same AOC of the pre 1945 period?

We love new info about the TSMG. That's why we are here. But your SAR article does not validate Kahr pretending to be the original AOC. But of course your article was never about this, was it?

[PhilOhio]

TD said that when AOC folded...

Phil,
I never made that statement in any story I wrote. I really wish you would read the published story before posting on matters your not fully informed about. Small Arms Review is a very easy magazine to acquire. I also wish you would expend some of this extra energy and time on original research. There is much more to be discovered with the Thompson.

TD,

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, or didn't correctly phrase my perception of what you contend happened to AOC. I thought you said it ceased to exist as the ongoing manufacturer of the Thompson, its name was changed, and it or its parent corporation moved on to other things...and thus "the Thompson" product was sold to Kilgore. Have I got that wrong? Or is my use of the term "fold" being perceived in some unintended way?

You got me. I'll always rise to the bait of being told I don't know what I am talking about, when I'm pretty sure that I do.

I think that, for a non-lawyer, I am rather well and correctly informed on what constitutes transfer of ownership of registered trademarks, logos, products names, and intellectual property. For starters, it has to be documented and filed in the appropriate registry, or you can't protect that which has value. We have no evidence that it ever was, in the case of Thompson rights. So in the absence of such evidence, we are forced to conclude, at least for now, that it did not happen. This is not a murky issue which requires me to do a lot more research and to read your article before posting on that very narrow and specific issue. It's an open and shut corporate legal issue, not even requiring the assistance of an attorney to understand.

As you know, I have not read your article yet. That is hardly relevant, although you have raised this issue several times in challenging my posts. You've made your theories known here for years, so I doubt that I misunderstand what your position is. And I am not quite ready to accept your implied suggestion here that publication of a first article in a gun magazine equates to unassailable expertise on any subject at all, and that since I have not read it, I am not qualified to address the core point under discussion, "unbroken succession". But if your piece contends that there has been an unbroken succession of the Thompson trademark, logo, and intellectual rights, that would constitute a rather great public leap in making such a (presently unsupportable) case while, as you put it, "not being fully informed about" the hard facts essential to define such an argued legal transfer of ownership. And if that error did inadvertently happen, it might not hurt to think about writing and publishing some clarifying followup, to deal with this issue of missing documentation and unsupportable claims. Maybe you could call what we have here a non-smoking gun. This is the kind of thing that is easier to deal with early, before getting painted into a corner. This is not a minor point among Thompson fans and collectors. If somebody takes a very visible public posture in making one side or the other of this case, he had better know what he is talking about and be able to back it up with hard evidence, not opinions and unwarranted assumptions and retiree anecdotes. In my case, it's easy. I say only that I see no documentary evidence to support what I understand your "unbroken succession" theory to be. If the evidence suddenly appears, great. We're all happy; your theory is proven as fact (which it is not now), and I am happy because it would be positive information, rather than a lack thereof, which shapes our understanding in the future.

The broken (rather than unbroken) succession thing is a double-barreled firing of blanks. We don't see that Kilgore registered Thompson rights if they ever bought any (I personally think they did), and we don't see that George Numrich did it years later (I think he didn't). But much, much later he filed for AOC name rights....probably because he thought the name had value, nobody else had been using it, he had been sort of using it, and might want to sell it sometime. He was strictly a hardware liquidator. So the succession is not only broken, it is fragmented, as Arthur says. That is not to say that the pieces might not be put together eventually, if the missing links are found. Yet those links are missing, for now, unless you have just found them. If they appear, I'll bet we will hear about it instantly. Nobody would be happier than both of us.

Anyhow, TD, I recently subscribed to SAR online and am waiting to see if and when I get a copy of the current issue with your article. If not, I'll order it as a back issue. The magazines are simply unavailable anywhere in the area where I live. And SAR will never include such a recent piece in the great samples they post online.

Keep digging. There's no shortage of Thompson lore still in the "unknown" category. I just found some neat stuff last night, for another thread.

And again, all this is about fun and our mutual hobby. Nobody should get hot under the collar about any of this; certainly not me. It's good, honest, in-the-open debate with everybody (hopefully) trying to get "just the facts", as Joe Friday would say. I'm very happy that there are at least a few thinking people in the whole country who are able to get worked up enough over this stuff to even try to figure out what actually happened, and express their opinions and findings; while in the nearby city of Toledo, OH, it takes an entire public school system years to produce at least a few future voters who are able to sign their own names without too many mistakes.

[ClevelandShooter]

Hey everyone,
Is this fun or what I hope everyone enjoyed the story. Irrespective of what you believe, you will find a lot of new information about the Thompson - and that's what it is all about. Thank you.[/font][/size][/color]
[/quote]
TD, I very much enjoyed the story, one thing I found neat is the Ohio connection to the Thompson. From the General John (Cleveland) to Kilgore (Westerville). Thanks for all of the great Information.
To Phil, I in no way feel that I am learned on this subject. However my opinion of the documents presented leave me only to see that there is a clear cut line of secession. Also having served on many juries I can tell you that you do not want to go in front of one. Every one one that I have been on the evidence speaks for it self. As you have none to the contrary you would lose. Once again my opinion.
TD, keep up the great work
David, I loved the article on the Manville gas gun. I have a friend who is on this board that may have further information about them.
Bill Out

[PhilOhio]

...To Phil, I in no way feel that I am learned on this subject. However my opinion of the documents presented leave me only to see that there is a clear cut line of secession. Also having served on many juries I can tell you that you do not want to go in front of one. Every one one that I have been on the evidence speaks for it self. As you have none to the contrary you would lose. Once again my opinion...
Bill Out

Well Bill, considering your obvious expertise in dealing with juries and evidence, I look forward to seeing the first piece of this "unbroken succession" evidence which you can offer us, right here. As far as I know, none of us have seen it yet. Where you been hiding it? Is it shy? If, as you say, it "speaks for itself", I'm all ears. Wind it up, let it talk. In English, I mean.

My "evidence to the contrary" on this , of which you say I "have none", is the fact that...well, there is no objective documentary evidence of what you contend. I can't prove a negative. Help me out. I can't either accept or reject something that doesn't exist. Evidence. You know, all that signed, sworn, notarized, filed stuff that you, as a jury expert, must deal in just about every day. You insist that you are right, so can't you explain exactly why and how? As a jury expert, could you just show all us non-experts here your evidence, like the many times you must do it for all those jurors you straighten out on the facts? Here you are, with everybody's undivided attention. Go to it. Convince. Educate us.

Maybe we're almost there. Maybe you're just playing with us, tantalizing us. You've obviously seen "the documents presented" which prove "a clear cut line of secession", but you won't show them to us. Wait a minute! This issue may be totally different than I thought. "Secession"? Are you now telling us that AOC had at some point been given statehood during the war and later left the union in some sort of a snit? You must be not only a jury expert, but a historian with secret connections. This is the first time I am hearing any of this. Does this have anything to do with those rumors that Jeff Davis' grandson took over AOC from somebody, and moved "the Thompson" to Atlanta for awhile?

The plot thickens. Bill, you're always full of surprises.

You've "served on many juries", huh? Got somebody in the clerks office stacking the deck? You'd be the very first person I would know to have "served on many juries". Can you get a degree on that from the local community college? I take my hat off to your extensive and selfless record of public service.

David, how I love your board. I wouldn't know how to describe the education and entertainment value. As I learn more about the history of AOC, I'm realizing I knew next to nothing about it, and the real "secession" story, until now. I think the tip of the iceberg is just poking its cold little nose up.

Edited by PhilOhio, 21 August 2008 - 01:13 PM.

[ClevelandShooter]

...To Phil, I in no way feel that I am learned on this subject. However my opinion of the documents presented leave me only to see that there is a clear cut line of secession. Also having served on many juries I can tell you that you do not want to go in front of one. Every one one that I have been on the evidence speaks for it self. As you have none to the contrary you would lose. Once again my opinion...
Bill Out

Well Bill, considering your obvious expertise in dealing with juries and evidence, I look forward to seeing the first piece of this "unbroken succession" evidence which you can offer us, right here. As far as I know, none of us have seen it yet. Where you been hiding it? Is it shy? If, as you say, it "speaks for itself", I'm all ears. Wind it up, let it talk. In English, I mean.

My "evidence to the contrary" on this , of which you say I "have none", is the fact that...well, there is no objective documentary evidence of what you contend. I can't prove a negative. Help me out. I can't either accept or reject something that doesn't exist. Evidence. You know, all that signed, sworn, notarized, filed stuff that you, as a jury expert, must deal in just about every day. You insist that you are right, so can't you explain exactly why and how? As a jury expert, could you just show all us non-experts here your evidence, like the many times you must do it for all those jurors you straighten out on the facts? Here you are, with everybody's undivided attention. Go to it. Convince. Educate us.

Maybe we're almost there. Maybe you're just playing with us, tantalizing us. You've obviously seen "the documents presented" which prove "a clear cut line of secession", but you won't show them to us. Wait a minute! This issue may be totally different than I thought. "Secession"? Are you now telling us that AOC had at some point been given statehood during the war and later left the union in some sort of a snit? You must be not only a jury expert, but a historian with secret connections. This is the first time I am hearing any of this. Does this have anything to do with those rumors that Jeff Davis' grandson took over AOC from somebody, and moved "the Thompson" to Atlanta for awhile?

The plot thickens. Bill, you're always full of surprises.

You've "served on many juries", huh? Got somebody in the clerks office stacking the deck? You'd be the very first person I would know to have "served on many juries". Can you get a degree on that from the local community college? I take my hat off to your extensive and selfless record of public service.

David, how I love your board. I wouldn't know how to describe the education and entertainment value. As I learn more about the history of AOC, I'm realizing I knew next to nothing about it, and the real "secession" story, until now. I think the tip of the iceberg is just poking its cold little nose up.

I do believe that it is nap time for Phil, Low on Prozac? Perhaps an Ativan or 2.........
Bill Out

[PhilOhio]

...I do believe that it is nap time for Phil, Low on Prozac? Perhaps an Ativan or 2.........
Bill Out

C'mon, Cleveland Bill; out from behind that fall-back position, implying that the person who doesn't accept your line is mentally incapacitated and don't know nuttin', so don't listen to him. You have a board history going back some years, being able to cut right through the irrelevant goo to get to these core facts of yours.

I want to hear a LOT more about this AOC "secession" issue, that you have only been willing to hint about so far. Why? Because I honestly don't know a thing about it, which I'm sure you can understand, having such a grasp of my mental handicap. Have you got some more of this apparently secret documentation, or is it another one of those unverifiable tidbits from The Voices? We Ativan-popping defectives are at a real disadvantage here.

Isn't honest, open debate a lot of fun, Bill? I mean, where we stick to logic and facts, not adolescent personal insults? You get to explain to us what you know and we don't. And you get to tell us how you learned about it, came to accept it as fact, and maybe suggest why we should do the same. That shouldn't take too long. Go ahead. The board is waiting to be enlightened, in a respectful, scholarly, student mode.

Or maybe we do need Prozac.

I don't know. I'm just waiting to hear precisely why this "secession" or "unbroken succession" thing is fact. Either one. ...because there is an equal lack of evidence to support either one; not necessarily tomorrow, or next month, or next year, but right now.

Maybe the formation of AOC goes back a lot further than we have heretofor even suspected; maybe to the 1860s and the Gatling gun. I'd like to see Kahr bring back a repro of that. "...from the original Korean Unification Church manufacturer of the historic Gatling Gun, but built to the finest modern quality standards on space age CNC equipment programmed by the Reverend Sun Myong Moon himself..."

Try to out-compete a marketing campaign like that, Philly Bob. And I hear they may sell them for $399.95. I wonder if Kahr could make a crank that wouldn't break?

Hang in there, Bill. We love ya'. Who else would have known about all this historical "secession" stuff?

[ClevelandShooter]

...I do believe that it is nap time for Phil, Low on Prozac? Perhaps an Ativan or 2.........
Bill Out

C'mon, Cleveland Bill; out from behind that fall-back position, implying that the person who doesn't accept your line is mentally incapacitated and don't know nuttin', so don't listen to him. You have a board history going back some years, being able to cut right through the irrelevant goo to get to these core facts of yours.

I want to hear a LOT more about this AOC "secession" issue, that you have only been willing to hint about so far. Why? Because I honestly don't know a thing about it, which I'm sure you can understand, having such a grasp of my mental handicap. Have you got some more of this apparently secret documentation, or is it another one of those unverifiable tidbits from The Voices? We Ativan-popping defectives are at a real disadvantage here.

Isn't honest, open debate a lot of fun, Bill? I mean, where we stick to logic and facts, not adolescent personal insults? You get to explain to us what you know and we don't. And you get to tell us how you learned about it, came to accept it as fact, and maybe suggest why we should do the same. That shouldn't take too long. Go ahead. The board is waiting to be enlightened, in a respectful, scholarly, student mode.

Or maybe we do need Prozac.

I don't know. I'm just waiting to hear precisely why this "secession" or "unbroken succession" thing is fact. Either one. ...because there is an equal lack of evidence to support either one; not necessarily tomorrow, or next month, or next year, but right now.

Maybe the formation of AOC goes back a lot further than we have heretofor even suspected; maybe to the 1860s and the Gatling gun. I'd like to see Kahr bring back a repro of that. "...from the original Korean Unification Church manufacturer of the historic Gatling Gun, but built to the finest modern quality standards on space age CNC equipment programmed by the Reverend Sun Myong Moon himself..."

Try to out-compete a marketing campaign like that, Philly Bob. And I hear they may sell them for $399.95. I wonder if Kahr could make a crank that wouldn't break?

Hang in there, Bill. We love ya'. Who else would have known about all this historical "secession" stuff?

Hi Phil hope you are better today,
Let's review, You have attacked me for having an opinion, one that is contrary to yours. I thought that this is America not Philsland?
My opinion is based on the Article published in SAR by TD, I have a right to that opinion.
As for Jury duty, here in Cuyahoga county I have served a total of 16 weeks of jury duty in my lifetime, Averaging 2.5 cases per 2 week service = 20 cases, Yep that is a lot. Bet more than you!!!!!!!. No Phil, it is not taught at the Community College, Another Institution that you belittle, What are you a Harvard Grad??????? If so Really do not care. Phil when someone pushes your button, you lose all the respect and credibility that you have built on this board. Go back and reread my post IT WAS JUST MY OPINION.. As for my spelling errors that you so proudly pointed out, once again very childish Phil. In the future please act like someone that this board should be proud of.

[dalbert]

Guys, I'm putting my board owner/moderator hat on for the moment. Let's tone down the personal stuff. As I stated in the board rules, topical, spirited discussion is fine, but let's not make it personal. Everyone has their opinion on the issue, and that's all I'll say about that...

Thanks!

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com