doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com gunsmith comments

Time to time i read comments here about gunsmith mr. x who did excellent job on someone's gun. best ever done, mucho praise. but like jack o'connor wrote, first time someone is on safari in africa and they know all there is to know about safaris and africa. similar with guy who gets a gun back from gunsmith all praise most of the time. just keep in mind negative comments rarely are written up here, why? substantial person doesn't want to stir up a hornets nest or get sued. yes you can get sued even if what you write is correct. then you have to defend yourself. you will probably win but too much hassle and sweat. better to let it ride and suck it up. just something to keep in mind when you read high praise from someone that may not know what a good job is or have tools to verify mr. x's work like choking or barrel wall that remains after back bore or hone. ignorance is bliss.

At least you read about the ones that are satisfied with the work they had done.

People talk a lot about getting sued - it very seldom ever happens.

Who was that jamoke who screwed a bunch of people recently? Andy Wojohowicz? Fine.

Andy: Sir, I am here to bring suit against LongDong31 from W. Knei for criticizing me on the internet.

Lawyer: Very well, Wojo, you have no chance of winning but I'll take all the money you have in the pursuit of that miscreant.

Andy's wife: You stupid jamoke, you're not suing anyone especially when what they said is true.

I have read any number of times, on this forum comments about shoddy work etc. Recent comments on a stockfixer come to mind. Most of the time people want to be contacted directly. I can understand that. Works both ways seems to me...

Yes, people sue for the darndest things, even for saying things demonstratively true. I have not seen anything here---or I can't recall anything---that would stand up in court, to make one liable for damages.

Granted the US is ridiculously litigious compared to many other countries---O.K. start a class-action against me!---but a successful action depends less on truth than maliciously holding a person up to ridicule. Malicious intent.

It's one thing to criticize service or craftsmanship. That's considered fair comment, encouraged in open, transparent and accountable societies. It's another thing to say Joe mangled the screws, and he's a wifebeater with STDs.

The US is succumbing to a peculiar self-censorship, in my opinion, failing for whatever reasons to provide news, information and opinion that better educated publics there have grown to expect.

Turn on British and Canadian television with their lack of deference and savage satire of companies and commerce; the poobahs of industry, finance, politics, entertainment and majestic houses do not escape.

As long as it is not malicious or seen as serving a narrow selfish interest, anything goes. As it should. As it is here.

King, You are correct about the difference between US and other advanced countries reporting of news. But, I do not think that is attributable in any way to lawyers and lawsuits. It is something else.

News in America has become competitive for viewers. This is a function of the many 24 hour a day news channels. The bigger the audience share, the more revenue. Many people tend to view news from an ideological perspective. They like to watch "news" which they agree with or which is reported from a perspective that condemns what they dislike and which glorifies what they like. If the news source hits a demographic then that boosts the viewers and, viola, more revenue. Unfortunately, this exists not only in the "talking heads" news bunch, but also in the "hard" news group. In truth, they all report what they think will get the most viewers.

Lawsuits for slander and liable are very difficult and rarely successful in the US. And, if it boosted viewers by any significant amount, it would be worth it. The "dumbing down" of the news is all business.

By the way, what is happening with the Prime Minister and Parliament in Canada now that the Prorogue is about over? I see no news on that here.

Regards, Jake

King, you must not have watched Saturday Night Live in the runup to the election if you don't think our politicians are held up to significant ridicule. And you probably haven't heard of The Capitol Steps either.

One difference between this country and others, where the media is concerned, is that historically at least--we can debate whether it continues to be true--media outlets were considered to be politically neutral. That is, one election they might endorse the Republican candidate for president; the next one, the Democrat. In many foreign countries, on the other hand, media outlets--newspapers in particular--are known by their readers to be the semiofficial mouthpiece of such and such a political party. This was obviously carried to an extreme in the Communist countries back when there was only one political party, but it's also true in Western democracies. And obviously, the paper that's in the hip pocket of the Liberal Party is going to savage the candidates from the Conservative Party--and vice versa.

And speaking of self-censorship, does Canada have the equivalent of Great Britain's Official Secrets Act? Some of the material that's come out in the American media since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, had it happened in England, likely would have brought about action by the government which, under the Official Secrets Act, can prosecute reporters who knowingly reveal classified information, as well as editors, publishers, and owners of those media outlets. Here in this country, a reporter can knowingly reveal classified information and a newspaper can publish it, and there's not a darned thing the government can do about it other than stomp their feet and fume.

Nitro no doubt you used same gunsmither I have in mind, name X seen often on the inter net. Some times he does good work, other times not so good. Guy does his own thing and doesn't checks with customer when unforseen matter comes up. I am not giving name for reason you wrote.

US networks are getting there. I think the difference between here and there is because of prominence of public broadcasting in the UK and Canadian systems, both responsible to parliament instead of commercial or partisan political interests. I was involved directly in two separate incidents where the Conservative party in power and the military tried to impose their will on the public CBC.

The military first, since you mentioned the Official Secrets Act. Our military is as stupid as everywhere at times. In a one-hour documentary on integration of the armed forces, I reported with graphic animation how our underwater anti-submarine listening was linked to US missile systems. The admirals wanted me charged with sedition, the firing squad, the whole damned thing because they said Washington would blame Canada for spilling military secrets.

Our Chief of Staff, AVM Sharp, agreed that was ignorance supreme and was pleased I didn't make an issue of it. The "secret" information was obtained by me personally at the Pentagon in the Chief of Staff's war room and---get ready for it---it had been published in an American electronics magazine. Little wonder reporters everywhere are taught never to defer to the military. As for UK, Mark Danner's reporting of the "secret" Downing Street papers on Iraq was untouchable.

Our prime minister Diefenbaker didn't like JFK and feelings were reciprocated. During the Cuban missile crisis, my newsroom ordered clearance of normal programming to carry JFK's speech to the nation. Ottawa brass demurred, said for all it knew JFK might be announcing "a bond drive," and its persistence over our objections raised concern over CBC sacrosanct insulation from partisan politics.

Orders are orders, however, but CBC management was told it would "read about it in the (Toronto) Star bulldog (9p edition)." That stopped the nonsense. The point here is responsible news organizations take guff from no one. The Pentagon once tried to get CBS to fire Morley Safer---my colleague in the same documentary unit here---for his reporting of Marines firing up hooches in their hearts and minds program in Vietnam.

The Pentagon sleuths---actually they were sent off to Toronto, Morley's hometown, from the Under Secretary's office---reported to CBS vice-president Fred Friendly that they suspected from their investigation Morley was a Viet Cong sympathizer and a Communist Jew. (The military has prevaricated under oath with worse results here.) Friendly, with greater sense of responsibility to his country than the military in this instance, told the creeps to get lost.

As for US fuming and impotent to charge reporters in these matters, no, no: there's publication by the New York Times and Washington Post of Daniel Ellsberg's celebrated then-classified Pentagon Papers which the United States (Nixon) tried to stop by taking it to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the First Amendment came first, freedom of the press trumped executive authority, that the United States would suffer from no irreparable damage or danger from their publication.

And so it goes, said Vonnegut, who was a POW with my Dad in Stalag Luft III.