Goodyear Tires and legal concealed carry

[Robert Hairless]

Beaucoup Ammo -- Thanks, 106RR

for providing the information I've been waiting for. Now that we know it's a fact, we can act accordingly. ... Definitive information makes a huge difference to me. Thanks.

Nonsense. Your logic is scrambled. You don't even seem to know the difference between "fact" and "hearsay." All of your decisions are based on what other people reported, not anything you know yourself. Your decision now is no better than the decisions made by others of us based on similar information.

What 106RR has posted is not "defnitive information" and "we" still don't "know it's a fact." All "we" know is that someone with the screen name "106RR" has posted roughly the same information on October 5, 2005, that someone with the screen name "aquapong" posted on September 29, 2005.

You and Guyon criticized the rest of us for acting on hearsay without direct knowledge about Goodyear's action. You still haven't done your independent investigation of the facts and you don't know anything more about what Goodyear did: you've simply decided to accept what one anonymous poster has said instead of what another anonymous poster has said. But you've chosen to characterize the previous anonymous person's post as rumor and the next anonymous person's post as "fact" and "definitive information." Silliness.

My own responses to you and to Guyon are solely with respect to the criticisms both of you directed at the other people in this thread who did not behave the way either of you thought proper. It would not have occurred to me that you both were silly, illogical, arrogant people if you had simply said that you chose some different course of action without delivering the judgment that yours was the only and only right course because that's what you decided. I understand the common Internet principle that everyone else is wrong. But it's a silly, illogical, and arrogant principle.

People are entitled to make their own decisions without being condemned for making decisions other than yours. Americans don't have some inherent right to condemn other people for choosing their own ways. From blissnannies to Internet tyrants, the medium differs but the message is the same. I smoke, you think that smoking is bad, therefore I must not smoke. You like guns, I think that guns are bad, therefore you must not have guns. I respond one way, you think that another way is better, therefore I am wrong to respond my way.

But now it's okay in your mind for the rest of us to respond critically to Goodyear because you've decided that a message by one Internet poster is "fact" and "definitive information" but that the message by a previous Internet poster was only rumor. Do you now grant absolution to the rest of us because maybe we did the right thing in expressing disapproval to Goodyear even if we did so on the basis of what you considered rumor now that you have what you consider "fact" and "definitive information"? Or do we still have to carry the heavy spiritual burden of your criticism? Or don't you know the difference between "rumor" and "definitive information"?

I don't expect you or Guyon to understand any of thse points, because of course they're not anything that has occurred to either of you. As I and others have explained, Goodyear has the ability to respond to our e-mails and to correct any wrong information. We did something. You and Guyon criticized us all personally for doing what we believed right. That's all you and Guyon did. It's not for me to comment on your decisions not to contact Goodyear. It is proper for me to comment on your criticisms of those of us who made other decisions.

 

[Lupinus]

I have alway's liked goodyear's. I will no longer be buying their product's or getting my tire's done at their store's.

And I will be making use of that email address

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Best Form Of Protest

..Not buying their product. Requires NO effort on your part. As I told the worker-bee and the manager at the Goodyear Store I called..just as it's his option to not allow fire arms at that location...so it's mine not to shop there.

Is this a Great Country or what?!

Take Care

 

[Double Maduro]

Hairless,

Why don't you listen to what you have been typing, on one hand you tell him to say anything he wants to and then you attack him for doing that.

On one hand you attack him for not believing and on the other for believing. I guess he can't win with you.

Why are you attacking him? Is it because he chose not to blindly follow what you see as the true course? Or is it just an inferiority complex on your part? Do you feel it necessary to attack people who disagree with you, but only if they and you are anonymous? What's next, are you going to attack his grammar?

Try keeping it to the subject, I didn't notice you posting any proof either.

I believe that we sometimes react too fast to supposed wrongs, and that a little time to make sure we get our facts straight is a good thing. Someone earlier said, and I paraphrase,

"So what if we have it wrong, they can issue a statement and put it right, no harm no foul".

Well bubba, there is a foul. The foul is that it makes us look like reactionary idiots. We look like people who don't care about the truth, only our own agenda. This makes it all too easy for people to lump us together into one big redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies, who drive around the country side shooting at street signs.

Much better to get the facts straight in the first place.

Not going to get into a verbal jousting match with you either. Just wanted to point out that this thread is not about you and him, it is about something someone said they saw at a Goodyear store, and the supposed reply from Goodyear.

DM

 

[Robert Hairless]

Hairless,

Why don't you listen to what you have been typing, on one hand you tell him to say anything he wants to and then you attack him for doing that.

On one hand you attack him for not believing and on the other for believing. I guess he can't win with you.

Why are you attacking him? Is it because he chose not to blindly follow what you see as the true course? Or is it just an inferiority complex on your part? Do you feel it necessary to attack people who disagree with you, but only if they and you are anonymous? What's next, are you going to attack his grammar?

Try keeping it to the subject, I didn't notice you posting any proof either.

I believe that we sometimes react too fast to supposed wrongs, and that a little time to make sure we get our facts straight is a good thing. Someone earlier said, and I paraphrase,

"So what if we have it wrong, they can issue a statement and put it right, no harm no foul".

Well bubba, there is a foul. The foul is that it makes us look like reactionary idiots. We look like people who don't care about the truth, only our own agenda. This makes it all too easy for people to lump us together into one big redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies, who drive around the country side shooting at street signs.

Much better to get the facts straight in the first place.

Not going to get into a verbal jousting match with you either. Just wanted to point out that this thread is not about you and him, it is about something someone said they saw at a Goodyear store, and the supposed reply from Goodyear.

DM

I can't listen to what I've been typing. I can read it, though, and I've read it carefully. I've read what you wrote too but don't find much sense in it.

For example your comment about "Try keeping it to the subject, I didn't notice you posting any proof either" indicates a belief that I've not kept to "the subject" when in fact I've responded to Guyon and Beaucoup Ammo because they dropped the subject of "Goodyear Tires and legal concealed carry" and attacked the people who e-mailed Goodyear about that subject. If you want "proof" that they did make the attack read the messages they posted. I've included abstracts of their statements in my responses as "proof" they wrote those statements. Neither of them has denied they wrote what I've said they wrote.

Your point that I didn't provide proof "either" has no meaning. My response was to their criticism of the rest of us. Neither they nor I were disputing issues that required "proof" other than evidence that they said what I responded to and I said what they responded to. They didn't deny saying what I responded to and I don't deny saying what they're responding to.

You're not seeing reality, or perhaps you have reading problems. I didn't attack "him"--or, actually, them. I'm responding to their gratuitous attacks on those who chose not to blindly follow what they see as the true course. If you read what I've written I've said clearly that I object to their criticism of other people for following what they believe to be the proper course of action for them.

Where did you get the idea that I have "an inferiority complex" or "feel it necessary to attack people who disagree with [me], but only if they and are anonymous"? Do you have a great many other delusions about your ability to see into other people's minds and hearts over the Internet or are these phenomena isolated examples? Is "Double Maduro" your real name or have you adopted the name of a cigar so you can deliver anonymous attacks on other people? What makes you think that a disagreement is an "attack," and why would you think that anyone would disagree unless there was disagreement? No, I don't disagree with statements I agree with, not even if those statements are posted anonymously. Why would you think I express disagreement only to people who post anonymously?

Do you call everyone "Bubba" or only the people you want to degrade, such as those of us who are a "redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies, who drive around the country side shooting at street signs"? How do you know that I'm a redneck, or that I drink beer, or that rednecks who drink beer are "loonies"? What makes you think that we redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies drive around the country side shooting at street signs? Isn't it possible that when we redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies drive around the country side we only shoot back at street signs that have shot at us first?

I suppose at this point I should thank you for demonstrating so clearly the kinds of offensive attitudes and assumptions to which I've been responding. They're deplorable prejudices that are no less vicious because they masquerade as virtue.

Leave people alone. Other people here are entitled to make their own decisions without interference or personal attacks from you, Guyon, or Beaucoup Ammo. You might also want to take some time to reflect on your demonstrated tendencies to put other people into groups you don't like or respect.

Not all Southerners, for example, are redneck, beer drinking loonies. Not all rednecks are loonies. Not all people who defend themselves are attacking. And not everyone who chooses a path different from yours, Guyon's, or Beaucoup Ammo's is a legitimate target for attacks from any of you.

They don't get the point. You don't either. You don't even seem to recognize that you've attacked me despite the vitriolic language you've used, the imaginary motives you've attempted to impose on me, and the fact that you've voluntarily decided to launch the attack even though I hadn't addressed you or known of your existence until you launched your attack.

 

[Double Maduro]

Hairless,

Thank goodness for the "TWIT FILTER".

I usually hate to use it because there may be a chance that the person may post something worthwhile, sometime. In your case I will chance it.

DM

 

[cxm]

Emailed Goodyear

Emailed Goodyear last week.

Markey must be getting lots of mail... he didn't answer mine...

I ordered a new set of tires from a Goodyear store... then cancelled them after giving the Manager a copy of Markeys statement.

Ordering stuff and then cancelling and providing a copy of Markey's statement will get Goodyears attention if a sufficient number of people do so... business (and money) talks.

FWIW

Chuck

 

[Model520Fan]

Emailed Goodyear last week.

Markey must be getting lots of mail... he didn't answer mine...

Same here.

Robert Hairless,

Many thanks for your well-thought-out but tedious-to-type responses. I barely have the energy to read the whole thread, much less type out responses like yours, but, believe me, they are appreciated. What you are saying has been needed to be posted for a long time, on more than one thread.

Job well done.

520

 

[aguyindallas]

I just voiced my opinion via email. Thanks for pointing this out. My Ford Exploder needs rubber, but I guess it will be another brand. Too bad I just bought a set of Goodyear Eagle RS-A's for my Crown Vic.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Model520Fan --

Robert Hairless,

Many thanks for your well-thought-out but tedious-to-type responses. I barely have the energy to read the whole thread, much less type out responses like yours, but, believe me, they are appreciated. What you are saying has been needed to be posted for a long time, on more than one thread.

Job well done.

520

Thank you. I'm troubled when I see bullies in action. It's good to know that at least someone else feels the same.

 

[106rr]

Robert Hairless:
I think you are confused about A) the facts, and B) your role in the discussion. The fact is that I did contact Mr. Markey and did verify the Goodyear anti gun stance. Your role in the discussion should not be to criticize others, it should be to seek the truth. Please re read my posts, I didn't criticize any other poster. Please do not reply unless you have facts.

 

[Robert Hairless]

106rr -- Robert Hairless:
I think you are confused about A) the facts, and B) your role in the discussion. The fact is that I did contact Mr. Markey and did verify the Goodyear anti gun stance. Your role in the discussion should not be to criticize others, it should be to seek the truth. Please re read my posts, I didn't criticize any other poster. Please do not reply unless you have facts.

I did not criticize you, 1066rr. I am aware that you did contact Mr. Markey and that he replied to your e-mail. I read your message.

My criticism was addressed to the person who calls himself "Beaucoup Ammo." Earlier he and Guyon had criticized other people for e-mailing Mr. Markey because they acted upon information posted by the person who started this thread. Beaucoup Ammo and Guyon's point was that the message posted here did not justify e-mailing Goodyear, that they were going to do what they called "independent investigation" before e-mailing Goodyear, and that the rest of us "amazed" them by e-mailing Goodyear.

I think it was good for you to e-mail Goodyear. I did the same thing: I e-mailed Goodyear too. I would not criticize you for doing what I myself did, and what most people who posted messages to this thread have done too.

I did not say that you criticized others in your previous message. My reference to you in my criticism of "Beaucoup Ammo" was directed at showing the stupidity and arrogance of the thinking on which he and Guyon based their criticism of everyone else.

As for you deciding what my role should and should not be in discussions, and for your forbidding me to reply unless I meet your conditions, what right have you to do such things? Why do you think that I don't I have a right to offer my opinions even if you disagree with them? Is it so unsettling to see someone here object to self-righteous bullies?

 

[Robert Hairless]

Double Maduro -- Hairless,

Thank goodness for the "TWIT FILTER".

I usually hate to use it because there may be a chance that the person may post something worthwhile, sometime. In your case I will chance it.

DM

You would have been a nicer person if you had used the twit filter before attacking me and the rest of "the redneck, beer drinking, bunch of loonies, who drive around the country side shooting at street signs" with your psychobabble because you feel superior to other people. But you won't see this message because the twit filter will block it from your vision.