Basing a blatant hit piece on an unverified forum thread started by someone hiding behind a code name is not remotely responsible, let alone respectful. It's a cheap shot. [More]
Oh, I don't know. In case you didn't know,
that's how Fast and Furious initially got exposed, along with plenty more threads to be pulled. What I will admit to -- and apologize for up front -- is
my title should have ended with a question mark. I regret now that I did not think of that at the time I posted.
Still, you know for a fact '
Gunwritr,' with over 10,000 posts to check for consistency, and who is
apparently well-known enough, is lying in this one? Especially when he indicates there were witnesses? Does anyone have proof he's making it up? If so, I'd be happy to find out the allegations are false and issue a retraction and apology, because proving one writer is lying about another might actually be a bigger scoop. If it is a lie, I'd think Mr. Amsell
e's lawyer would be demanding one from 'Gunwritr,' because that his livelihood that's being impacted.
And just to be clear: You're saying if
something of interest to gun owner rights advocates comes across the transom, I can't
call the link to reader attention with a disclaimer that your post and thread are conveniently ignoring?
With the caveat that I have not personally verified this, if true, I can't think of any reason why gun owners would continue to associate with someone betraying them so completely and profoundly.
If it's true, can you?
And it's not like
this and
this don't strongly suggest corroboration. Let's see -- a gun writer makes claims of interest to gun owners -- which I present under a caveat, and I provide further links that strongly suggest there's something to those claims ... so what exactly did I write that you can prove is false?
