Jimislash has a new Competition Chopper

tess_lawrie_fan said:
I understand that not everyone have read all the posts like I did, but a search (in this thread) with the words "legal action" will find the text I'm referring to.

I think it was a well crafted text and should perhaps be analyzed and interpreted with a hundred mirrors, but... who cares?
Click to expand...
Why not just quote what you are talking about?
 
tess_lawrie_fan said:
Because I could not quote the post without replying and/or analyzing its content.

It may take a little while because I'm busy right now.
Click to expand...
Hmm....you did analyze it and why not reply? You are laying out some accusations here, why not give the member notice so they can address the issues you raise. You aren't too busy to call them out without quoting and have enough time to answer my questions. Seems kind of odd, no?
 
craytab said:
Hmm....you did analyze it and why not reply? You are laying out some accusations here, why not give the member notice so they can address the issues you raise. You aren't too busy to call them out without quoting and have enough time to answer my questions. Seems kind of odd, no?
Click to expand...

Can you quote a single accusation from the messages I wrote?

Can you show where I said that my analysis is done already?

Are you making the least effort to understand what I'm saying or are you just trying to disqualify me at any cost?
 
tess_lawrie_fan said:
Can you quote a single accusation from the messages I wrote?

Can you show where I said that my analysis is done already?

Are you making the least effort to understand what I'm saying or are you just trying to disqualify me at any cost?
Click to expand...

Here you go:
tess_lawrie_fan said:
Why I'm not surprised?

Anyway... Those who, in the last few years, have not learned what Corporations are capable to do (with the help of many, of course), probably never will.

I even detected a (hidden?) legal action threat against the OP a few posts ago... Amazing. Really amazing.



But this? This does not make any sense. Not for a westerner of the "original Cold Steel team". After all, here, in the West, we have our share of left handed people: about 10 percent. It's not a negligible portion of the market. Obviously, the new owners had the right to feel and think (and do business) differently.



Tell me about damage control... A million left handed clips giveaway could not undo the self-inflicted damage done here. But please keep them flowing anyway, it's the bare minimum you can do.
Click to expand...

tess_lawrie_fan said:
Well, I read again the concerned post and actually it's not a threat; it's a warning about a possible legal action. Scary stuff anyway.
Click to expand...

tess_lawrie_fan said:
I understand that not everyone have read all the posts like I did, but a search (in this thread) with the words "legal action" will find the text I'm referring to.

I think it was a well crafted text and should perhaps be analyzed and interpreted with a hundred mirrors, but... who cares?
Click to expand...

So now that I've quoted your accusations of another poster, perhaps you could do the same rather than just telling us to search for it. Thanks!
 
ricklikesknives said:
Random thoughts from some guy on the internet who has read most of the last 13 pages..

Mike Wallace acknowledges that he was employed by GSM and his designs while employed by GSM are the intellectual property of GSM (this is really the be-all-end-all here.. right or wrong, by signing an employment agreement with GSM, Wallace has given up any personal stake in this design, or any other of "his" designs while employed by GSM). Mike Wallace acknowledges that Jimislash reached out to him, interested in the design, offering to buy it. Wallace acknowledges that he informed Jimislash that the knife design was GSM IP and advised him that any deal must go through GSM. Jimislash and GSM arrive at a mutually beneficial agreement which gives agency over the design to Jimislash. Design tweaks are made with input from Jimislash.

Regardless of Wallace’s sour grapes and the personal opinions of random folks on this forum.. right, wrong, or indifferent.. the sequence of events listed above, which appear to be generally agreed upon by Wallace and GSM, all seem above-board to me. Sometimes that’s just how business works. When you’re employed by a company like GSM you give up any agency over your designs. My advice to Wallace (not that I expect he'll take it) would be to move on.. for sure, to stop talking about this nonsense on the internet.. and maybe re-read any employment agreement that was signed while employed by GSM. At a certain point, sharing so much propriety information about the company may be flirting with legal action..

It's nice to see a GSM rep participating in the fray, I understand it’s not something that has been consistent around here.. I imagine the warm response he has received here will endear him to stick around.. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Here's a brief analysis of the post above.

The second paragraph only describes a "sequence of events". The YouTube events, however, were not mentioned.

The third paragraph, which is the most complex, is the most important one. Let's see its contents.

(1) It states that "the sequence of events listed above... all seem above-board to me. Sometimes that’s just how business works."
(2) It gives to Mr. Wallace an advice: "move on", "stop talking about this nonsense on the internet".
(3) It gives to Mr. Wallace an additional advice: to "re-read any employment agreement that was signed while employed by GSM".
(4) It warns Mr. Wallace that "sharing so much propriety information about the company may be flirting with legal action".

But what about the first paragraph? In a certain way, it's the most revealing piece of the text. It describes the author as just "some guy" and the post itself as just "random thoughts". However, the post shows quite the opposite: a well crafted text containing a well crafted logical sequence written by a clever author. Let's resume it again:

(a) [This is the] "sequence of events";
(b) "That’s just how business works";
(c) "Stop talking about this nonsense on the internet";
(d) [You are] "sharing so much information about the company";
(e) [You are] "flirting with legal action".

The fourth and last paragraph works as an anti-climax that pleases and relaxes the reader. It praises the presence of the GSM representative and even make use of a bit of irony talking about the "warm response" by the forum users.

I have very little to add to my own analysis. I personally don't like the idea to ask someone to stop talking about a subject on the internet when he was already censored in a social media channel. I also think that if that's "just how business works", there would be no reason to censor someone. Everything could be explained and made clear in the open — and that could be even educative to the audience.

Last but not least, I haven't seen any proprietary information being leaked by Mr. Wallace. Therefore, why would him be "flirting with legal action"? What was that, just a friendly warning, a bit scary perhaps? But based on what? And what for? No wonder that, at a first sight, it could have seemed to me a veiled menace. It's because, at least for me, the whole thing does not make any sense.

Although I have had to quote the post in order to analyze it, this is not a “reply” and I don’t expect a reply. I understand that many people here have different ways of judge this kind of issues and I have no problem with that; and I certainly would not bother to point out every fallacy I read in this thread. But when I came across what could be considered an attempt of censoring and intimidation, I felt compelled to speak. In a first moment, I thought that the whole thing was so transparent to anyone that I wouldn't even had to explain myself; but I was obviously wrong about that.
 
tess_lawrie_fan said:
Here's a brief analysis of the post above.

The second paragraph only describes a "sequence of events". The YouTube events, however, were not mentioned.

The third paragraph, which is the most complex, is the most important one. Let's see its contents.

(1) It states that "the sequence of events listed above... all seem above-board to me. Sometimes that’s just how business works."
(2) It gives to Mr. Wallace an advice: "move on", "stop talking about this nonsense on the internet".
(3) It gives to Mr. Wallace an additional advice: to "re-read any employment agreement that was signed while employed by GSM".
(4) It warns Mr. Wallace that "sharing so much propriety information about the company may be flirting with legal action".

But what about the first paragraph? In a certain way, it's the most revealing piece of the text. It describes the author as just "some guy" and the post itself as just "random thoughts". However, the post shows quite the opposite: a well crafted text containing a well crafted logical sequence written by a clever author. Let's resume it again:

(a) [This is the] "sequence of events";
(b) "That’s just how business works";
(c) "Stop talking about this nonsense on the internet";
(d) [You are] "sharing so much information about the company";
(e) [You are] "flirting with legal action".

The fourth and last paragraph works as an anti-climax that pleases and relaxes the reader. It praises the presence of the GSM representative and even make use of a bit of irony talking about the "warm response" by the forum users.

I have very little to add to my own analysis. I personally don't like the idea to ask someone to stop talking about a subject on the internet when he was already censored in a social media channel. I also think that if that's "just how business works", there would be no reason to censor someone. Everything could be explained and made clear in the open — and that could be even educative to the audience.

Last but not least, I haven't seen any proprietary information being leaked by Mr. Wallace. Therefore, why would him be "flirting with legal action"? What was that, just a friendly warning, a bit scary perhaps? But based on what? And what for? No wonder that, at a first sight, it could have seemed to me a veiled menace. It's because, at least for me, the whole thing does not make any sense.

Although I have had to quote the post in order to analyze it, this is not a “reply” and I don’t expect a reply. I understand that many people here have different ways of judge this kind of issues and I have no problem with that; and I certainly would not bother to point out every fallacy I read in this thread. But when I came across what could be considered an attempt of censoring and intimidation, I felt compelled to speak. In a first moment, I thought that the whole thing was so transparent to anyone that I wouldn't even had to explain myself; but I was obviously wrong about that.
Click to expand...
Okay. Thanks!
 
tess_lawrie_fan said:
Here's a brief analysis of the post above.

The second paragraph only describes a "sequence of events". The YouTube events, however, were not mentioned.

The third paragraph, which is the most complex, is the most important one. Let's see its contents.

(1) It states that "the sequence of events listed above... all seem above-board to me. Sometimes that’s just how business works."
(2) It gives to Mr. Wallace an advice: "move on", "stop talking about this nonsense on the internet".
(3) It gives to Mr. Wallace an additional advice: to "re-read any employment agreement that was signed while employed by GSM".
(4) It warns Mr. Wallace that "sharing so much propriety information about the company may be flirting with legal action".

But what about the first paragraph? In a certain way, it's the most revealing piece of the text. It describes the author as just "some guy" and the post itself as just "random thoughts". However, the post shows quite the opposite: a well crafted text containing a well crafted logical sequence written by a clever author. Let's resume it again:

(a) [This is the] "sequence of events";
(b) "That’s just how business works";
(c) "Stop talking about this nonsense on the internet";
(d) [You are] "sharing so much information about the company";
(e) [You are] "flirting with legal action".

The fourth and last paragraph works as an anti-climax that pleases and relaxes the reader. It praises the presence of the GSM representative and even make use of a bit of irony talking about the "warm response" by the forum users.

I have very little to add to my own analysis. I personally don't like the idea to ask someone to stop talking about a subject on the internet when he was already censored in a social media channel. I also think that if that's "just how business works", there would be no reason to censor someone. Everything could be explained and made clear in the open — and that could be even educative to the audience.

Last but not least, I haven't seen any proprietary information being leaked by Mr. Wallace. Therefore, why would him be "flirting with legal action"? What was that, just a friendly warning, a bit scary perhaps? But based on what? And what for? No wonder that, at a first sight, it could have seemed to me a veiled menace. It's because, at least for me, the whole thing does not make any sense.

Although I have had to quote the post in order to analyze it, this is not a “reply” and I don’t expect a reply. I understand that many people here have different ways of judge this kind of issues and I have no problem with that; and I certainly would not bother to point out every fallacy I read in this thread. But when I came across what could be considered an attempt of censoring and intimidation, I felt compelled to speak. In a first moment, I thought that the whole thing was so transparent to anyone that I wouldn't even had to explain myself; but I was obviously wrong about that.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that answers whether or not anyone reads my posts.. I don't think even college professors have taken such a deep dive into my ramblings.. thanks, I think? 😜

You say you aren't expecting a reply and, honestly, I have little interest in elaborating much on my initial post.. except to respond to your point "I haven't seen any proprietary information being leaked by Mr. Wallace".. the design itself IS proprietary information because Wallace was under contract with GSM when it was created. His discussion here in an open forum touched on the design elements of the knife in various pre-release stages, GSM employee/designer organization & processes, R&D methodolgies, marketing strategies, etc.. that is all information that is generally protected under the "proprietary" umbrella.

I tend to write in the sarcastic tone in which I speak.. it doesn't always translate well on paper (or screen). None of my commentary was intended as any sort of attempt at censorship or threat, veiled or otherwise. Mike Wallace is free to say whatever he wants. The reality of living in a litigious society though is that saying whatever one wants, especially as it relates to proprietary information & employment agreements, can have legal consequences. That was my only intended meaning..
 
ricklikesknives said:
Well, I guess that answers whether or not anyone reads my posts.. I don't think even college professors have taken such a deep dive into my ramblings.. thanks, I think? 😜

You say you aren't expecting a reply and, honestly, I have little interest in elaborating much on my initial post.. except to respond to your point "I haven't seen any proprietary information being leaked by Mr. Wallace".. the design itself IS proprietary information because Wallace was under contract with GSM when it was created. His discussion here in an open forum touched on the design elements of the knife in various pre-release stages, GSM employee/designer organization & processes, R&D methodolgies, marketing strategies, etc.. that is all information that is generally protected under the "proprietary" umbrella.

I tend to write in the sarcastic tone in which I speak.. it doesn't always translate well on paper (or screen). None of my commentary was intended as any sort of attempt at censorship or threat, veiled or otherwise. Mike Wallace is free to say whatever he wants. The reality of living in a litigious society though is that saying whatever one wants, especially as it relates to proprietary information & employment agreements, can have legal consequences. That was my only intended meaning..
Click to expand...
And that is why we quote people! Give them a chance to defend/explain/whatever for themselves.
 
ricklikesknives said:
Well, I guess that answers whether or not anyone reads my posts.. I don't think even college professors have taken such a deep dive into my ramblings.. thanks, I think? 😜

You say you aren't expecting a reply and, honestly, I have little interest in elaborating much on my initial post.. except to respond to your point "I haven't seen any proprietary information being leaked by Mr. Wallace".. the design itself IS proprietary information because Wallace was under contract with GSM when it was created. His discussion here in an open forum touched on the design elements of the knife in various pre-release stages, GSM employee/designer organization & processes, R&D methodolgies, marketing strategies, etc.. that is all information that is generally protected under the "proprietary" umbrella.

I tend to write in the sarcastic tone in which I speak.. it doesn't always translate well on paper (or screen). None of my commentary was intended as any sort of attempt at censorship or threat, veiled or otherwise. Mike Wallace is free to say whatever he wants. The reality of living in a litigious society though is that saying whatever one wants, especially as it relates to proprietary information & employment agreements, can have legal consequences. That was my only intended meaning..
Click to expand...

Your "ramblings" are very well crafted, and your nonchalance about them only makes the whole thing more interesting.

It's amazing how a message can communicate quite the opposite of our intentions. Having said that, I'm glad to know that your intentions were the best possible. Now people will be able to realize that you was only being protective, friendly and helpful. There's nothing like fresh air.

I still doubt that Mr. Wallace has leaked any protected information whatsoever, but I haven't read his contract and can't tell how hairsplitting it was. However, I wonder how could him possibly talk about what happened without showing any evidence. Have you heard the story about the lady that was forbidden to hand her dress to the police because it was full of genetic information pertaining to another person?

To end this with a positive note: after all, the worse the knife industry can do (apart from lying, eating clips, hiding real talents, promoting clowns, paying a lot of wumaos and selling doubtful products) is to let down the customers. It only gets dangerous to the customer if he/she makes choices knowing absolutely nothing... It's almost innocuous. That's only when you think about what the food or the pharmaceutical industries can do that you begin to sense how big the problem can be.
 
Last edited:
Well.... all I can say is I've lost any respect for that Jimislash dude on youtube.
Although i wonder if he even had any input on whether his name was put on the knife. Could it be that his wishes in that respect were treated with the same indifference that Mike's have been? Could he have said, "Hey, this is Mike's design, I'm just making suggestions that will make it better," and GSM said, BAM! Your name is going on it?
Although I guess that wouldn't tie in with what Jimislash posted on his youtube video.

Too bad he was prohibited from posting in this thread. He might have done a better job than Cazin.
 
Im surprised he wasnt at the shot show chopping up those folding tv dinner tables.Probably cause Cold Steel didnt even have a booth just a pegboard wall with all the knives hanging in clam packs in the middle of a walkway 🤣Knives being shown were taken off the tops of the clam packs,too.They were the Bob Cratchit of the shot show this year....
 
goldie said:
Im surprised he wasnt at the shot show chopping up those folding tv dinner tables.Probably cause Cold Steel didnt even have a booth just a pegboard wall with all the knives hanging in clam packs in the middle of a walkway 🤣Knives being shown were taken off the tops of the clam packs,too.They were the Bob Cratchit of the shot show this year....
Click to expand...
You know how tough clam packs are, how would it look if the Jimislash Competition Chopper failed on those? I demand CS post a video of the chopper going through 5 rubberbanded together clam packs with one swing.
 
SimplyMinded said:
You know how tough clam packs are, how would it look if the Jimislash Competition Chopper failed on those? I demand CS post a video of the chopper going through 5 rubberbanded together clam packs with one swing.
Click to expand...

What should be inside the clam packs to chop through?

A Walkman? Headphones? Knives?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top