Dick's Sporting Goods....WHAT?!?!?!

[MNMGoneShooting]

I don't care if they stopped selling all firearms, it is their liberty to do so. They still allow open carry and concealed carry.

WW, you woke me up on this statement and I'm with you. I was also jumping on the boycott truck for DSG, but you changed my mind. I've always been a strong supporter of ANY business that supports my ability to exercise my 2A right while in their establishment, which includes many that do not sell guns

So while I'm unhappy that they chose to pull their inventory, it really doesn't matter because I haven't bought one from there anyway.

 

[SFCRetired]

From what I read of the various news articles and Troy Industries' letter concerning Dick's, there are several connected issues here:

1. Troy Industries gave Dick's an exclusive contract based on projected sales.
2. Dick's then underpriced and far oversold Troy Industries' product.
3. Rather than meet their obligations in the face of rising prices, they cancelled the orders and refunded the customers' money.

While it is certainly Dick's prerogative to determine what they will and will not sell, their actions in this particular case are of a nature to call into question their corporate integrity. That is, to me, more than sufficient reason for me to never darken their doors.

They were dishonest with both the customers who pre-ordered and paid a published price and with Troy Industries.

 

[ncwabbit]

eye95: quote Are you deliberately being contentious? unquote

excuse me but isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

jack house quote WalkingWolf is old, possibly senile. Please forgive his eccentric mannerisms. J/K, WW unquote.

i am disappointed you feel you have to resort to casting aspersions on someone and lowered yourself in an attempt to discrediting someone because?? sorry, the initials behind your post are meaningless in the scheme of things...especially if you are not tech shortcut knowledgeable...

come on mates, he brought up valid points and again as in the spirit and intent of this forum...you do not like it...move on

replying w/insults just reinforces the thought some village is missing their favorite son

wabbit

 

[Aknazer]

I didn't tell anybody how to act, I disputed a claim made towards Dick's. I have yet once to tell anybody how to act in this thread, and any claims that I did is a outright LIE.

BTW I will come into any thread I chose as long as I follow the rules. Get over it.

And here you are projecting yourself onto others again. I have nothing to "get over" but you obviously do as you've been the one who has basically been hostile and angry this whole time. Let's take a look at a few things...

You are basing this on a BLOG? Sheeesh! :banghead:

...They cater to a yuppie market, and their decision was most likely based on that, get over it. Don't do business with them, I don't care. They are not my cup of tea, and never have been, they will not affect the 2A in any way shape or form. The 2A says nothing that people HAVE to sell firearms, or specific weapons. You have a choice, they have a choice, I have a choice. We lose our choices because of stupidity, not because a business stops selling firearms, there will always be firearm dealers as long as it is still legal to sell them, why don't you concentrate on that for a change...

So here you are banging your head and emphasizing "blog" and making thus making the inferance that a blog stating what is going on isn't good enough and thus that people shouldn't believe blogs. That in itself telling people what to do (that they shouldn't base something off of a blog). You are also in the second post telling people to "Don't do business with them" and "get over it" which is more telling people how to act. So nope, no lie with saying that you have told people how to act.

Dick's only stopped selling certain firearms in the Newton, CT area. I have not been in there recently, but last I checked they were still selling "certain firearms". Right now they are probably out of stock like many dealers. I don't care what has been reported in traditional media, unless it is relevant, and it is not relevant to this claim. Making such a claim from what is written in a blog is irresponsible.

Except that it was relevant to the claim as it very much showed that they weren't filling orders. Sending someone only part of what they ordered is NOT filling their orders.

As for telling me to "get over it" in reference to you going into any thread you want, you again are projecting yourself. I have nothing to "get over" as I don't really care. You again are the one who has something to "get over" as you apparently don't like other people disagreeing with your view and act like a ****** when telling people how/why you think they are wrong. Which is fine, though given your attitude and general lack of adding anything useful when you stick your head in you're about to be the second person on my ignore, just behind 92FS (and yes I know you don't care, though your attitude/usefulness is right up there with hers which is saying a lot).

 

[WalkingWolf]

And here you are projecting yourself onto others again. I have nothing to "get over" but you obviously do as you've been the one who has basically been hostile and angry this whole time. Let's take a look at a few things...



So here you are banging your head and emphasizing "blog" and making thus making the inferance that a blog stating what is going on isn't good enough and thus that people shouldn't believe blogs. That in itself telling people what to do (that they shouldn't base something off of a blog). You are also in the second post telling people to "Don't do business with them" and "get over it" which is more telling people how to act. So nope, no lie with saying that you have told people how to act.



Except that it was relevant to the claim as it very much showed that they weren't filling orders. Sending someone only part of what they ordered is NOT filling their orders.

As for telling me to "get over it" in reference to you going into any thread you want, you again are projecting yourself. I have nothing to "get over" as I don't really care. You again are the one who has something to "get over" as you apparently don't like other people disagreeing with your view and act like a ****** when telling people how/why you think they are wrong. Which is fine, though given your attitude and general lack of adding anything useful when you stick your head in you're about to be the second person on my ignore, just behind 92FS (and yes I know you don't care, though your attitude/usefulness is right up there with hers which is saying a lot).

Delusional!

 

[WalkingWolf]

WW, you woke me up on this statement and I'm with you. I was also jumping on the boycott truck for DSG, but you changed my mind. I've always been a strong supporter of ANY business that supports my ability to exercise my 2A right while in their establishment, which includes many that do not sell guns

So while I'm unhappy that they chose to pull their inventory, it really doesn't matter because I haven't bought one from there anyway.

Thanks for seeing the big picture, wish others were capable, instead of emotional responses. What Dick's is or has done may be tasteless to some, it is not against the constitution, Open Carry, or Right to Bear Arms. It was a business decision they based on their reasons. The people directly involved can attempt to sue, as they have seen no physical, monetary, emotional damages that meet the legal standard I doubt it would have legs. This thread/subject is not about the 2nd, nor is it about Open Carry I find it silly for all the emotions. Of course everybody has a right to not shop at Dick's or any other establishment for any reason.

Hey Wabbit, I don't concern myself with name callers. They have bigger problems then I.

 

[Keylock]

I can see myself going to a business named Hooters (even though it's posted), but not Dicks. I just don't roll that way. :monkey:lol:

 

[WalkingWolf]

I can see myself going to a business named Hooters (even though it's posted), but not Dicks. I just don't roll that way. :monkey:lol:

There used to be a business in the Florida Keys called "Melons" it was just like "Hooters". I did find Dick's adds funny at times when they would play off on their name. Same goes for "Dirty Dicks" here in NC. But of course we cannot carry in any place in NC that sells alcohol for consumption.

 

[Aknazer]

...
Hey Wabbit, I don't concern myself with name callers. They have bigger problems then I.

Delusional!

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Pot, meet kettle.

Where did I call a name? I simply said "Delusional", that is not name calling, it was a reference to the post. But if you think that fits the person behind the rabid postings hey why should I argue.

PS don't dish it out if you can't take it...

 

[Aknazer]

Where did I call a name? I simply said "Delusional", that is not name calling, it was a reference to the post. But if you think that fits the person behind the rabid postings hey why should I argue.

PS don't dish it out if you can't take it...

"Delusional!" is name calling as you are saying that the poster is delusional. To then turn around after being called out on it and say "oh, I was simply referring to the post..." is the same type of deliberate open ended comments that my MIL would make to try and deny something after being called out on it. And then we can see it again in the quoted post when you say "rabid postings" as if that doesn't infer things about the poster. To regularly make such statements makes it quite obvious that you're simply choosing your words in a way that lets you "claim" otherwise when called out.

And just what do you mean by "don't dish it out if you can't take it..." What, just because at this rate I'm likely to put you on ignore? That has nothing to do with not being able to take it, and everything to do with the majority of your posts being about as useful as the majority of 92FS' posts. Which is to say a waste of time reading.

 

[WalkingWolf]

"Delusional!" is name calling as you are saying that the poster is delusional. To then turn around after being called out on it and say "oh, I was simply referring to the post..." is the same type of deliberate open ended comments that my MIL would make to try and deny something after being called out on it. And then we can see it again in the quoted post when you say "rabid postings" as if that doesn't infer things about the poster. To regularly make such statements makes it quite obvious that you're simply choosing your words in a way that lets you "claim" otherwise when called out.

And just what do you mean by "don't dish it out if you can't take it..." What, just because at this rate I'm likely to put you on ignore? That has nothing to do with not being able to take it, and everything to do with the majority of your posts being about as useful as the majority of 92FS' posts. Which is to say a waste of time reading.

Name calling is calling someone senile. If you can't take words on the internet or people disagreeing with you IMO you have no business on the internet. Stop assuming and trying to bully, one makes a blank out a person the other is downright foolish. Only weak willed people can be bullied on a computer screen, if you can't take what you dish out you find another hobby.

 

[Aknazer]

Name calling is calling someone senile. If you can't take words on the internet or people disagreeing with you IMO you have no business on the internet. Stop assuming and trying to bully, one makes a blank out a person the other is downright foolish. Only weak willed people can be bullied on a computer screen, if you can't take what you dish out you find another hobby.

Calling someone delusional is also name calling. Only you then tried to twist it to be that the "post" was delusional. You are now also going back to name calling by calling me a bully, when I haven't tried to bully you or anyone else. And here you are again saying that I can't take what I dish out but with no explination of what you mean by this.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Calling someone delusional is also name calling. Only you then tried to twist it to be that the "post" was delusional. You are now also going back to name calling by calling me a bully, when I haven't tried to bully you or anyone else. And here you are again saying that I can't take what I dish out but with no explination of what you mean by this.

I didn't call anyone one delusional though~you need to stop assuming. I thought you were going to ignore me? What happened to that? I think the take what dish out is obvious.

 

[Aknazer]

I didn't call anyone one delusional though~you need to stop assuming. I thought you were going to ignore me? What happened to that? I think the take what dish out is obvious.

Well it's apparently not "obvious" by what you mean since to me quoting someone and saying "Delusional!" would be pretty obvious that you're calling them delusional and yet here you sit claiming that wasn't what you were saying. So lets have you actually spell out that which I can dish out but apparently can't take. Then no one can "assume" you meant one thing while you "claim" you mean another. And while you're at it be sure to spell out how I've tried to bully people as well. In fact lets just have you spell out everything that you "meant" so that we're not playing this passive aggressive BS game where you say something that can quite obviously be taken one way (and is basically infered to be that way), but then "claiming" that you meant some other meaning for it.

As for ignoring you, I said that you were on the way there. If/when I ignore you I won't say "ha you're on ignore now" I'll simply do it.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Well it's apparently not "obvious" by what you mean since to me quoting someone and saying "Delusional!" would be pretty obvious that you're calling them delusional and yet here you sit claiming that wasn't what you were saying. So lets have you actually spell out that which I can dish out but apparently can't take. Then no one can "assume" you meant one thing while you "claim" you mean another. And while you're at it be sure to spell out how I've tried to bully people as well. In fact lets just have you spell out everything that you "meant" so that we're not playing this passive aggressive BS game where you say something that can quite obviously be taken one way (and is basically infered to be that way), but then "claiming" that you meant some other meaning for it.

As for ignoring you, I said that you were on the way there. If/when I ignore you I won't say "ha you're on ignore now" I'll simply do it.

I don't have to claim anything, I posted one word, that word was a response to the post. Everything you seem to post is based purely on assumptions. Just like you assumed and insulted me by claiming I was angry. That claim was delusional as there is no evidence anybody is angry on a internet social site unless they say they are angry. Actually it is beyond delusional, it is ignorant.

 

[Jack House]

jack house quote WalkingWolf is old, possibly senile. Please forgive his eccentric mannerisms. J/K, WW unquote.

i am disappointed you feel you have to resort to casting aspersions on someone and lowered yourself in an attempt to discrediting someone because?? sorry, the initials behind your post are meaningless in the scheme of things...especially if you are not tech shortcut knowledgeable...

J/K is a very common acronym,I thought everyone knew that it means just kidding. =/


Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

 

[MNMGoneShooting]

I don't have to claim anything, I posted one word, that word was a response to the post. Everything you seem to post is based purely on assumptions. Just like you assumed and insulted me by claiming I was angry. That claim was delusional as there is no evidence anybody is angry on a internet social site unless they say they are angry. Actually it is beyond delusional, it is ignorant.

What does this convo have to do with Dicks? Do you two need your own thread to work through this?

Trying to get back on topic, I may try an open carry session through Dicks today to test out WW's statements.

 

[WalkingWolf]

What does this convo have to do with Dicks? Do you two need your own thread to work through this?

Trying to get back on topic, I may try an open carry session through Dicks today to test out WW's statements.

You are right, it has gotten beyond ridicules. Good luck, last time I was in Dick's not a word was said. In fact the staff was very polite to both my wife and myself. We were both OCing. Actually she was the one that wanted to go in to window shop clothing, though we walked through all the departments in Dick's. We were the only ones OCing, but I did see a couple patrons that were printing what appeared to be firearms. IMO if a person is going to CC, and clearly print, they might as well OC.

 

[OC for ME]

twitchy.com is not a "blog" in the truest sense. twitchy.com is more like a Drudge Report, a twitter feed aggregater, vs. a news aggregater. The "article" provides links to news stories so that the context of the twitter posts can be placed properly. The OP provides a link not to a "news site" but a "public sentiment tracking" site. Think of "who is trending on twitter" for a understanding a public sentiment tracking provider. nothing scientific, though a large amount of anecdotal data can not be ignored. http://twitchy.com/about/

The only charge Dick's is guilty of is the treatment of their customers post sales contract "signing." Dock's has clearly demonstrated that they can not be trusted to fulfill their end of the bargain. Boycott Dick's for their unethical treatment of their possibly former customers.