Leave it to old Greg to come up with something that has no basis in fact.
In this case, he claims that his hat is the same as Wild Bill Hickock's
Here are some pics of Wild Bill.
Nope, this doesn't look like Greg's hat.
Then we have this hat, which looks more like something an Orthodox Jew would wear:
We couldn't omit the picture Greg provided:
In fact, most of them look like something an orthodox Jew would wear.But, none of these pics look like Greg's hat.
In fact, Greg's hat looks more like something an aussie would wear with corks on it to keep the flies away.
Of course, the Aussies have loads of terms for Greg, such as galah, drongo, and such. I'm sure they could come up with some seriously funny expressions for how much of an oik Greg makes of himself.
Come on, Greg, back up at least one thing you've said so far with some FACTS!
It's hard to find good authentic haberdashery; but there are sources.
ReplyDeleteI was rather thinking the coat looks more London Fog than authentic duster as well.
But he's having fun, a perfect illustration of boys with toys.
"The only difference between men and boys, is the cost of their pleasures and the size of their toys."
Greg had requested his photo be removed, and I have complied with that request, as a courtesy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, he also appears to be operating - not for the first time - under the delusion that we were required to oblige his request.
His photo appeared on a publicly accessible site, which links from his name. It was used under fair use law per the Berne convention of 1989, and at no time was there any attempt to mislead anyone as to the source of the image. It was a small portion of a larger source, properly used to illustrate a larger point which was documented by other sources and critical commentary.
Someone who claims the credentials to teach others would be wise to do his own homework a whole lot better than he has done so far.
I prefer not to respond to temper tantrums.
ReplyDeleteThat photo was placed in the public domain, but I defer to Dog Gone in this matter.
I will probably replace the picture of a rodeo clown.
Unless fuckwit can produce the requested documentation and demonstrate and understanding of said, he can continue to hold his breath until he turns blue.
Since apparently I'm allowed to make comments again (thank you Mikeb), I will say that the photograph is used without permission and in no way does it convey the message that Dog Gone or Laci the Dog wish to imply.
ReplyDeleteOne of the leaders of my writers' group suggested that I needed a Facebook page (gag!) and a weblog to promote my work. That picture goes with such. I also have it appear with comments that I make on discussion boards that use Disqus. It is not a big deal, and it certainly does not reflect my typical carry practice.
"It is not a big deal, and it certainly does not reflect my typical carry practice."
ReplyDeleteReally? And it took you four or five days and a slew of OTHER comments to arrive at this point. You bet.
Greg writes:Since apparently I'm allowed to make comments again (thank you Mikeb),
ReplyDeleteWrongo Greg, this decision did not come from MikeB. If you believe that whining to him is effective, think again.
The argument that was effective was MikeB pointing out that we'd already run MikeW pics a few times. He'd made the same threats you had, and the photo was NOT taken down despite those threats of complaints.
It's fair and properly in the realm of fair use. YUU don't HAVE a valid basis for a complaint.
After discussing it briefly with Laci, the pic was reposted.
It was MY idea to contact you to tell you about the change in decision, so as not to be underhanded or misleading, and it was my decision to include in that notification an invitation to let you back to commenting.
You're thanking the wrong person, and I believe that a majority of my co-bloggers - democommie, Laci and I believe you are adding quantity but not substance here. I don't know Jadegold's opinion - maybe he will share it here with all of us in a comment. Maybe not.
But while MikeB does own the blog, we co-bloggers are equals here. MikeB does not order us to do or not do things, so long as we comply with legal requirements and with the terms of service of blogger. We are careful to do both.
I pointed out to MikeB what I had observed increased readership and increased a diversity of comments. (It isn't you, or even just being nice to you.)
I will say that the photograph is used without permission
So what? I don't need your permission. Laci doesn't need your permission. Your permission or lack of it is unimportant to us, so stop whining.
and in no way does it convey the message that Dog Gone or Laci the Dog wish to imply.
It conveys EXACTLY the message we wish it to convey - that you have absolutely NO fucking idea what the factual history of the period and place was, you have no idea whatsoever about Wild Bill, and his relationship to firearms, and you don't have a damned clue what a shootist really was - or is. It's a mocking term, a teasing term; it was not a compliment and it is NOT something one should aspire to be.
Most of all, at no time other than the John Wayne Hollywood bastardization, did it mean a gun fighter.
And YOU Greg cannot produce a single GOOD reliable historical source to support any other contention on your part.
Chiclet whooever was a good ad man who promoted himself in competitive shooting. He was no historian.
Give me an historical source. The photos of Hickock DO NOT support your claims about guns in belts. Nor to other photos of men of that era (or women either).
OUR POINT, SINCE YOU WILLFULLY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IT, IS THAT YOU ARE A SILLY ILL INFORMED POSEUR WHO IS NOT AS SAFE AS YOU WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE, AND THAT YOU ADHERE TO A FICTIONAL IDEA OF GUNS, IN MODERN AND HISTORIC USE, NOT A REALITY-BASED FACTUAL AND OBJECTIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF FIREARMS.
If this photo, which demonstrates your ignorance, is to aid your writing in some promotional way - get a different picture, and prove you actually know something, instead of proving that you don't.
Maybe you should carry limes in your belt instead. Idiot pro-gun heroes like John Lott apparently find it plausible they;re weapons, so you might impress the same ignorant and ill educated, poorly researched demographic that admire him.
Greg, personally, I would have banned you for your whining and lack of ability to back up your statements with facts.
ReplyDeleteI would also not respond to you, butI know that with you--may failure to respond would make you believe that you have "won" the argument.
Instead, I can continue to point out that you have no idea of legal method, you do not understand the current state of US weapons law.
And that you are generally a buffoon who has no idea of what he is talking about, yet is quite willing to tell someone who obviously has more knowledge on a topic that you have a better understanding than he has.
Greg, you are deluded.
I seriously hope you don't harm yourself.
I like the pic, Greg. I think you must have a good sense of humor. I realize we don't give you much chance to show it around here. Thanks for being a good sport.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mikeb. Can you see that the hats are the same?
ReplyDeleteNo, greg, not everybody is as blind as you are.
ReplyDeleteLaci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI didn't ask you. You clearly can't see that the two are the same. This despite the hat being made to the same design as Hickok's. Or should I sue River Junction Trading Co. for false advertising? Perhaps you'd like to be my attorney for that suit?
"Thanks, Mikeb. Can you see that the hats are the same?
ReplyDeleteDecember 12, 2011 4:47 PM"
The M-16 is a CARBINE, DAMNIT, NOT A BATTLE RIFLE. IT FIRES A .22 CAL BULLET AND SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP!