"It's pick and shovel work finding this stuff and time consuming to spit it out to those few who trive on such minutia. For one who announces that his main accomplishment in reading is to spill his chocolate milk on books, my advice is to stop reading. Meanwhile, I'd like to know the factual basis for your opinions if you don't read much or not at all. "
I dunno Ed - the book I read the most of all is yours - is that why I am so dumb? I can unnerstand the big pictures real easy.
Let's see...first you posted the strong position that Remington did not acquire the Bros name to avoid product liability. I doubted that. Then, you mentioned lots of chocolate milk-stained books but never actually gave an answer. They call that the Texas Two-Step. I asked for evidence, Your Honor. Finally, you back-pedal and say that Remington really didn't buy the name because it had no real value to them - which is at least closer to what I suggested in the first place (non-legal reasons).
My opinions (and they are opinions, not fact, unlike your opinions which are fact) are based on common sense. The idea that Remington in he 1930's avoided the Bros name for liability reasons just didn't pass the sniff test. No further research needed as even an expert has ceded. I have a good nose and I am glad your years of research have lead you to the same place.
Go back and read my original post - the whole purpose was to point out there's nothing more foolish than a bunch of experts running around 70 years after the fact squawking "Never say never!" One can easily say 'never' when it comes to Parkers. You failed to see the satire in that and felt the need to spout off. Like most 'experts' you don't seem able to say "I think" instead of "I know".
The Parker gun is a success - but does it really need any more fathers....? I'm going to get some chocolate milk.
