JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
If Patagucci actually cared as much about the environment as they say they do, the would immediately stop using all petroleum based materials in the making of their products. Of course, they would then have almost NO products to offer, but if they're going to talk the talk, they should walk the walk.
would be pretty hard for a lightweight waterproof techwear company to not use synthetics. To their credit, they actually do walk their talk- more than any of their competitors, anyway. They use recycled material, donate to conservation and environmental causes, have even filed lawsuits to prevent environmental damage and infringement on american indian rights.. etc. i dont see north face or mountain hardwear or any of those guys doing much. Whether you agree with their position or not, they actually do stuff.

as to the thing in jackson hole... i doubt anyone in this thread would do business with an organization that was diametrically opposed to their beliefs.. so not like this is a shock, or like any of us wouldnt do the same

all of this said, i dont really care for their stuff.. little overpriced, and not exactly superior to the other high end techwear brands.
 
Have to read this stuff carefully... "The three have parroted the former president's false claims of election fraud..."

They are not false claims, as they have not been proven false. They can (and should) be reported as "unproven" claims. But this is the tactic of the Fourth Estate in our time. Gaslight you and hope you don't notice.
Well.. pretty much every case thats gone before a judge has been angrily thrown out, chased by threats of prosecution for fraud from the judge. I think that ones pretty much in the bag, dude.
 
A very long time ago Patagonia made good stuff at a reasonable price and backed it with a lifetime guarantee that they stood behind. I still have some of their older gear and it;s a far cry from the crap they sell today at high end prices.

They remind me of Eddie Bauer, who at one time was a real outdoor company that made the best sleeping bags and expedition gear. Somewhere along the line Eddie Bauer changed to become a luxury yuppie brand and finally nothing more than a marketing name.

Patagonia is following suit and will soon become completely worthless to serious outdoor usage. They aren't cancelling the resort nearly as quickly as they are cancelling themselves. Good riddance, somebody else whose head is in the real game will fill the void.
Yep. Nobody at Jackson Hole will miss that Chinese-made overpriced crap. Virtue-signal activated...
 
Well.. pretty much every case thats gone before a judge has been angrily thrown out, chased by threats of prosecution for fraud from the judge. I think that ones pretty much in the bag, dude.
Fallacy, argumentum ad vericundiam. "Pretty much" being the operative phrase: Maricopa County, AZ is still under audit, for example. And shockingly the county election officials are doing everything they can to avoid cooperating with the court orders, to the point of now being in contempt. Makes one wonder what they are hiding. Regardless, whether Trump's claims are proven false or not, they have not yet been proven false, therefore using such adjectives is nothing but the typical yellow journalism we've come to expect from the Fourth Estate. It is, frankly, an outright lie.

More frankly, no adjective is required at all: An objective reporter would have simply written "The three have parroted the former president's claims of election fraud..." No adjective needed to modify the word 'claims,' but inserting the word 'false' gives the appearance that the claims have been factually proven false, which they have not. This is the subtle -- and not so subtle -- manipulation of the facts practiced by today's "journalists" who view their role less as objective reporters of fact and more as purveyors of their chosen narrative. This applies to "both sides" by the way.

To review: No adjective would be the optimal standard of professional objective reporting; 'unproven' is factually correct yet superfluous; 'false' is a flat lie.
 
Last Edited:
Straw man fallacy.
Incorrect. Both are cases of unsupported claims being made and lacking a clear method of absolute disproval.


In both cases one would look for and settle on a lack of evidence that either happened, despite all wishful thinking to the contrary.

There is no factual source for the claims of voter fraud. The people who made them had no factual reason to.
 
Incorrect. Both are cases of unsupported claims being made and lacking a clear method of absolute disproval.


In both cases one would look for and settle on a lack of evidence that either happened, despite all wishful thinking to the contrary.

There is no factual source for the claims of voter fraud. The people who made them had no factual reason to.
Disagree. On both counts.

1. Your contention that my argument regarding certain media's false characterization of the veracity of Trump's (and others) claims regarding election fraud is analagous to the veracity of your flight ability as a homo sapiens is a straw man, prima facie: the two are not rationally-related.

Given that there has never been a documented case of a human being able to fly under its own power or without special equipment, it is reasonable to state as a fact that humans cannot fly. Conversely, It is not reasonable to state Trump's claims are "false" by the same standard. Assuming you are human, I do not need to gather evidence to prove that you cannot fly. And if you claimed you could fly, it would be factual to characterize your claim as false. There is no evidence to suggest further investigation into human flight ability is warranted as it has been demonstrated multifariously throughout human history -- and as late as last week as we watched in horror Afghans dropping from the sky trying desperatelty to escape the nightmare President Biden created in the region -- that humans cannot fly. You have tried, unsuccessfully, to create this false nexus to substantiate your position, hence your straw man fallacy.

2. Credible reports of election irregularities (not evidence of fraud in themselves), along with extralegal changes in voting laws in various jurisdictions by unauthorozed individuals constitute at least enough circumstantial evidence to warrant investigation. Rather, these claims were rejected out of hand by partisans in robes who demonstrated no interest in discovering the truth, the motivation for which I will not speculate. The truth would constitute affirming or disproving the claims of election fraud in open investigations in the light of day and by objective bipartisan measure.

As this has not happened, the claims of Trump, et al remain unproven. Until such time they are disproved (or proved) by the objective investigation outlined above, calling them anything else is disingenous at best, if not an outright lie. Misfeasance, malfeasance, or some combination thereof, unethical to say the least.
 
Disagree. On both counts.

1. Your contention that my argument regarding certain media's false characterization of the veracity of Trump's (and others) claims regarding election fraud is analagous to the veracity of your flight ability as a homo sapiens is a straw man, prima facie: the two are not rationally-related.

Given that there has never been a documented case of a human being able to fly under its own power or without special equipment, it is reasonable to state as a fact that humans cannot fly. Conversely, It is not reasonable to state Trump's claims are "false" by the same standard. Assuming you are human, I do not need to gather evidence to prove that you cannot fly. And if you claimed you could fly, it would be factual to characterize your claim as false. There is no evidence to suggest further investigation into human flight ability is warranted as it has been demonstrated multifariously throughout human history -- and as late as last week as we watched in horror Afghans dropping from the sky trying desperatelty to escape the nightmare President Biden created in the region -- that humans cannot fly. You have tried, unsuccessfully, to create this false nexus to substantiate your position, hence your straw man fallacy.

2. Credible reports of election irregularities (not evidence of fraud in themselves), along with extralegal changes in voting laws in various jurisdictions by unauthorozed individuals constitute at least enough circumstantial evidence to warrant investigation. Rather, these claims were rejected out of hand by partisans in robes who demonstrated no interest in discovering the truth, the motivation for which I will not speculate. The truth would constitute affirming or disproving the claims of election fraud in open investigations in the light of day and by objective bipartisan measure.

As this has not happened, the claims of Trump, et al remain unproven. Until such time they are disproved (or proved) by the objective investigation outlined above, calling them anything else is disingenous at best, if not an outright lie. Misfeasance, malfeasance, or some combination thereof, unethical to say the least.
But the media reported..





Lol, good job.
 
Incorrect. Both are cases of unsupported claims being made and lacking a clear method of absolute disproval.


In both cases one would look for and settle on a lack of evidence that either happened, despite all wishful thinking to the contrary.

There is no factual source for the claims of voter fraud. The people who made them had no factual reason to.
Not true. The evidence was never heard in court. Cases were dismissed due to lack of standing or other technicalities.. None ever went to trial. If you know of any case which actually went to court and in which evidence was presented, please enlighten me.
 
2. Credible reports of election irregularities (not evidence of fraud in themselves), along with extralegal changes in voting laws in various jurisdictions by unauthorozed individuals constitute at least enough circumstantial evidence to warrant investigation.
But you were talking about vote audits, which have nothing to do with this. Are you confusing an election lost without voter fraud with an election lost without illegalities?

We believe people can't fly because there is no reason to or evidence they do. We believe our national elections are secure because there is no reason or evidence they aren't. We can imagine both, which is also little evidence worth considering.

But judges did consider the evidence presented to them by people with strong emotional attachment, and that evidence was laughed off by even conservative judges; as if it wasn't evidence at all.
 
Not true. The evidence was never heard in court. Cases were dismissed due to lack of standing or other technicalities.. None ever went to trial. If you know of any case which actually went to court and in which evidence was presented, please enlighten me.
This article lists many with their specifics that you can look up yourself:
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top