Paul C. Buff, Inc. Technical Forum

Paul, yes I see now what I did. Please accept my apologies. I will edit that. Please let me know if I messed anything else up and I will edit it. Again, please accept my apologies.

I did correct the problem, and now I ask you to address my concerns in that post. Please cite any of your assertions because I'm not really interested in opinions, but facts that form one's belief system. Everyone has an opinion, but few have the facts.

Looks like a law student vs a private business . . . you should move to DC where you'll have plenty of company. I'm not going to waste my valuable time arguing law.

I believe you are incorrect about the founding fathers all being highly educated . . . I believe some were and some were not. Lincoln, as I understand it, self educated in law and passed the bar after a rather short period - months as I recall.

As for secession, if states choose to leave the union they leave the supreme court, it's decisions and all federal laws behind so it becomes academic. Much like what will happen to CA when they default and cease to be a state through their own governmental stupidity.

Finally, this is not a court of law and you have no status here and no right to demand proof of assertions or even to address the host with words like "Look here". You are a guest and I am the judge. If I find you out of order you will be removed. You have already committed libel and defamation against my name on your first day and first post, then apologized. How well does committing libel, then arguing "I apologize" work in the courts you are so familiar with? The plaintiff accepts the apology, then the judge passes a verdict for the damages caused. If you're "not interested in my opinions" and think you can make demands regarding what I choose to say I might suggest you are in the wrong place

As for the judge of my actions . . . that would by my customers and my higher power. A quick scan of my orders looks like about 7% come from CA. That in a business that has grown 20% per year for more years than I can count, and has accelerated that growth dramatically during the past two years of deep recession.

I have always valued all my customers and have already stated I will think long and hard before I commit to anything I feel would be unfair to any of them. My customers have known how much I care about them for 28 years. I am currently looking a several methods to settle this issue on a Golden Rule basis.

All the talk about racial profiling at this point is just hypothetical. It's scare tactics, and it allows the politicians and left-wing media to change the subject away from more important issues.

However, for those who are so outraged over profiling, suppose you're putting your son or daughter on a plane. And suppose there's a 20-something male checking in for the same flight. He's dressed in typical Arab attire, he has dark skin, jet black hair and a scruffy beard. Ten minutes earlier, you saw him and several other young men kneeling on prayer rugs. Do you think he should be treated exactly like your 80 year old grandmother as he goes through security? He's probably peaceful & harmless like most Arab's, but do you want to take that risk? Is this racial profiling, or is it just a pragmatic way to manage the risk? When you're the one that has everything to lose, do you care?

When it comes to identification, I believe that "resident aliens" are required to carry an ID at all times, and some form of ID is already required for many everyday transactions. I don't get the concern being expressed by so many people.

I got stopped at a roadblock a few months ago. It was around 10:30PM, and my wife and I were on our way to Perpetual Adoration. The police should have just waved us through because we came nowhere close to fitting the description of the person(s) they were hoping to find. But waving us through would have essentially amounted to "profiling", so they asked for a drivers license, registration and proof of insurance, and then asked why we were out so late. Routine stuff that was no big deal, but IMO they should have applied reasonable profiling and just waved us thrugh.

btw/Regarding muslims, I spent 3 years in Kuwait and nearly 5 years in Indonesia. The overwhelming majority of the muslims I met were extremely peaceful, and it's really sad to see how the radicals are hijacking and trashing their religion.

Agreed. The Muslim leaders, particularly in the US, could calm and rectify the situation by standing up as good Americans and denouncing the actions of radical members of their religion and supporting the country that has welcomed them, and honor our traditions, culture and dress if they want to live here. Do you think an American could go into Iran and demand American rights and culture? Look at what happened to three young hikers who crossed into Iran by accident.

Same with African American society. Instead of constantly stirring the racial pot and accusing whites of being bigots and racists (read Sharpton, Farrikan, Obama, Wright, J Jackson ad infinitum) they should be inspirational to African Americans and call on them to truly integrate into the majority American values and culture in recognition of MLKs dream, but they are constantly steered in the other direction by "leaders" who insist on keeping them in bondage for political purposes. Quite few do this on there own and I applaud them and hire them when we have openings. But they are often chastised by their own people as traitors.

This is not what Ben Franklin had in mind.

Now we have a new group to instill political hatred in for political advantage - Latinos, and illegals in particular. Say anything about criminal illegals and you are branded a racist. A country divided by politics simply cannot stand and grow as a union.

Paul, like I have said, I really respect your engineering prowess and I love the way you are a very fair person in how you run your business. I mean, you would be considered by me to be a good friend because you're honest and concerned about doing the right thing. That much is obvious. But you really have been misled here about who wrote and formed the Constitution, and their level of education: President Lincoln wasn't born until 1809. How could have he been one of the "Founding Fathers" who helped write the Constitution? The U.S. Constitution was drafted on September 17, 1787. It was officially ratified and became effective March 4, 1789. The first ten amendments (the "Bill of Rights") were ratified December 15, 1791.

You said:
"Looks like a law student vs a private business . . . you should move to DC where you'll have plenty of company. I'm not going to waste my valuable time arguing law."

Then you mock the entire system of the Rule of Law that the United States is built upon. Everything is an argument pertaining to law. That's how we govern ourselves.

You said:
" If you're "not interested in my opinions" and think you can make demands regarding what I choose to say I might suggest you are in the wrong place."

What I am trying to make clear is that I'm interested in your beleifs, which is why I am asking for you to support them.

You said:
"As for secession, if states choose to leave the union they leave the supreme court, it's decisions and all federal laws behind so it becomes academic."

That secession could never happen because it would be prevented by acts of military intervention, if necessary. In other words, it would be States National Guards against the United States military, and no state would ever try that..

You said:
"Finally, this is not a court of law and you have no status here and no right to demand proof of assertions or even to address the host with words like "Look here". You are a guest and I am the judge. If I find you out of order you will be removed. You have already committed libel and defamation against my name on your first day and first post, then apologized. How well does committing libel, then arguing "I apologize" work in the courts you are so familiar with? The plaintiff accepts the apology, then the judge passes a verdict for the damages caused. If you're "not interested in my opinions" and think you can make demands regarding what I choose to say I might suggest you are in the wrong place."

If I said "look here" or any other patronizing verbiage, then I was out of line. But I don't recall saying that. Starting a sentence with, "Look," is not patronizing.

Second, you should look up "libel" and "defamation." Like the rest of your opinions, you seem to have an idea, and then form your belief system around that understanding, right or wrong. Neither Libel nor Defamation can be made from a mistake. It has to be proven to be malicious and knowingly committed in order to hurt some person or entity.

Third, if you are unwilling to discuss your positions in a rational manner, with support, that doesn't strengthen your positions. Telling people that you're the judge and you'll remove them for disagreeing with you makes your positions look extremely weak.

You said:
"A quick scan of my orders looks like about 7% come from CA. That in a business that has grown 20% per year for more years than I can count, and has accelerated that growth dramatically during the past two years of deep recession."

Are you kidding? 7%? I don't understand that except to say that if you have more marketing maybe you could gain a huge increase in California share of the market. You are definitely undersold in California. And the reason you have grown so much is because you have your facts together regarding photography hardware and the engineering behind them. Why no apply that commitment to excellence and facts to your political positions?

You said:
" I am currently looking a several methods to settle this issue on a Golden Rule basis."

That's a great place to start. I would think that you would like people to base their opinion about your products using facts, not feelings. I have defended the Alien Bees line MANY times where people have unfairly bad mouthed them for one reason or another--because they didn't have their facts right about your products. If it's crap for them to do that to you, then it's the same crap for you to do it to others--for any reason. That's why facts are so important. It's hard work, yes, but what is the alternative--disrespect for the Golden Rule.

Paul, you have turned your business into a political soapbox. If you are going to preach your own biased opinions to push a political agenda, then you are going to lose customers. Someone has already started quite a thread on the soapbox forum of Modelmayhem that has gone more pages than your little forum here. We are talking about you!

Along with a few others, I have decided to take my business to a "business" that does not care to pry into the privacy of their customers, nor threaten to boycott an entire State in which you will lose not only money, but creditability with those who may have actually been in support of you. It is the wrong move to boycott a State. Move to Arizona if you care so much for the people there. I'm out of here and will delete my profile.

If you are interested in what other people have to say who do not allow you to preach to your own choir, then here you go ... http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=588462&page=1 Good bye and best wishes!

Edit by Paul: Good decision. Hasta LaVista Amigo.

dwdallamm . . . Hey, you're good with those bold letters and advice to me as to how I ought to run my business. Tell me about yours and I'll give you some tips how to improve it.

OK - you asked for documentation to back up my opinions, I can search the web as well as you can. See below:

I am about to lock this forum because of the deep political content and the previously non members who have joined in the last two day for the express purpose of making this a purely partisan thread. Hey, it wasn't me that started this boycott stuff . . . it was government officials in the sad state of California.

I have concocted a plan to deal with the irrational CA politicians without hurting my loyal customers, and will announce my decisions next week. As for our sales in CA - I lived there for 35 years and know all too well the attitude and "Gee we're so much smarter than those stupid southerners and midwesterners".

Virginia has already taken some of the actions described in the below and I haven't seen it overturned. The article is probably correct with regard to Texas and other states . . . there is more than one way to thwart a federal government gone amuck.

Regarding California's stubborn notion they are superior to middle America, try this on for size. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

"According to estimates from 2008, California has the largest minority population in the United States by numbers, making up 57 percent of the state population.[27] Non-Hispanic whites decreased from 80% of the state's population in 1970 to 42% in 2008.[27][29] While the population of minorities account for 102 million of 301 million U.S. residents, 20% of the national total live in California."

So to explain the why CA has 13% of the US population and only 7-8% of our sales, consider this: Your 57% minority population doesn't have the purchasing power you like to think they do, as compared to middle America. Half of your middle class and affluent population has left the state since 1970, as I did in 1971. Got any clue why my former state is rapidly approaching the status of Greece?

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/200 ... to-secede/
States have historical right to secede
WALTAR WILLIAMS
Saturday, April 25, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT

Texas Gov. Rick Perry rattled cages when he suggested that Texans might at some point become so disgusted with Washington’s gross violation of the U.S. Constitution that they would want to secede from the union. Political hustlers, their media allies and others, who have little understanding, are calling his remarks treasonous. Let’s look at it.

When New York delegates met on July 26, 1788, their ratification document read, “That the Powers of Government may be resumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”

On May 29, 1790, the Rhode Island delegates made a similar claim in their ratification document. “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness: That the rights of the States respectively to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same.”

On June 26, 1788, Virginia’s elected delegates met to ratify the Constitution. In their ratification document, they said, “The People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.”

As demonstrated by the ratification documents of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, they made it explicit that if the federal government perverted the delegated rights, they had the right to resume those rights. In fact, when the Union was being formed, where the states created the federal government, every state thought they had a right to secede, otherwise there would not have been a Union.

Perry is right when he says that there is no reason for Texas to secede. There are indeed intermediate actions short of secession that states can take. Thomas Jefferson said, “Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” This suggests that one response to federal encroachment is for state governments to declare federal laws that have no constitutional authority null and void and refuse to enforce them.

While the U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific provision for nullification, the case for nullification is found in the nature of compacts and agreements. Our Constitution represents a compact between the states and the federal government. As with any compact, one party does not have a monopoly over its interpretation, nor can one party change it without the consent of the other. Additionally, no one has a moral obligation to obey unconstitutional laws. This is not to say there is not a compelling case for obedience of unconstitutional laws. That compelling case is the brute force of the federal government to coerce obedience, possibly going as far as using its military might to lay waste to a disobedient state and its peoples.

Finally, here’s my secession question for you.

Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?

You said:
"OK - you asked for documentation to back up my opinions, I can search the web as well as you can."

It's not about simply searching the web for something you agree with and then stating it as truth. That's a fine essay you've provided. It's a good opinion paper, but the Supreme Court already ruled on this subject. I'm not saying that perhaps the Supreme Court is wrong, but only that you stated it as fact that states have the right of secession, which they do not by way of decision of the United States Supreme Court. The guy who wrote this isn't even a Constitutional scholar. He's an economist. It's his opinion, and he's backed it up with some reasonable and interesting primary sources. Still, it's his opinion because he doesn't interpret Constitutional Law, the Supreme Court does. I would have had no problem if you had stated that you think, from what you have read, that states should have the right to secession. As it stand today, they do not.

You Posted:
"Some Americans accept and have respect for the Tenth Amendment, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I have no problem with that. Time will tell if Arizona is breaking Federal law or not. On the other hand, if Arizona is breaking Federal law, then they must come into compliance. It's the Rule of Law. The opposite of that is to make up your own laws and we have anarchy.

You said:
"So to explain the why CA has 13% of the US population and only 7-8% of our sales, consider this: Your 57% minority population doesn't have the purchasing power you like to think they do, as compared to middle America. Half of your middle class and affluent population has left the state since 1970, as I did in 1971. Got any clue why my former state is rapidly approaching the status of Greece?"

I've never seen any information on that so I cannot comment. I'd like to see the information that formed your idea because if true, it would be some seriously good information that would have implications far greater than this thread. I'm interested. Where is it?


You said:
"I am about to lock this forum because of the deep political content and the previously non members who have joined in the last two day for the express purpose of making this a purely partisan thread. Hey, it wasn't me that started this boycott stuff . . . it was government officials in the sad state of California."

All we're asking is that you validly defend yuor positions with primary sources and facts, and you refuse to do that, or you do not know how. And then you blame others for the reason it goes the way it goes, and you blame a few CA cities and generalize to all of CA. In fact, our Governor said he will not support a ban or boycott. It seems your problem with California is more personal than factual.

Please let me take this space to reply to your question to me:
"Finally, here’s my secession question for you. . .Other Americans, the majority I fear, say to hell with the Tenth Amendment limits on the federal government. Which is a more peaceful solution: one group of Americans seeking to impose their vision on others or simply parting company?”

Well, I would think you have a false dichotomy going. There is yet at least one other option I think is better than either of those: Continuing diplomacy and coming to a conclusion that makes America stronger and more unified.

And, I will continue to patronize your products, even though I have no idea why you believe what you do, especially in the face of contradictory evidence, because your opinions are far less important to me than your primary game--your products. I have to have my ABs. Why? Because they just SO ROCK!

The one thing I have noticed from many who have posted is that they just don't get.

Paul C. Buff is one of the first.

But I will guarantee you, he will not be the last.

He is an easy target because...

1) He's small compared to other corporations

2) He has a small target customer base

3) Well, you can at least talk to the head cheese of the company via the forum. How many CEO's do you know would expose themselves thus.

If I read him correctly, his intent is not to send the California lawmakers a message. The intent is that if you do not agree with him then you, the people, need to send thos efolks the mesage.

If you are that pissed off at this, then YOU need to tell those lawmakers to cease and dissist. He's one man, you are many. And no, they will not listen to him, he's just one person. But you are many.

As I mentioned, he's but the first of many to come.

What are you all going to do when say, Proctor and Gamble tells California to go "F" themselves. When you stop getting the soaps, shampoos and all the other good stuff, then what?

What if Wal-Mart suddenly decides to close up shop?

Do you think the CEO's of those companies are going to set up a forum to take your abuse?

The Tea Party movement started small. Inconsiquential to many. They were laughed off. Then it grew. And grew. And grew to the point that many who are posting on this forum are scared shitless of them.

Well, Paul C. Buff is now small, inconsequential to many. But it will grow and grow and when it does, your going to be scared shitless with that movement as well.

Keep laughing. The Tea party movement was laughed at as well.

And when that business movement takes hold, you can then blame Paul C. Buff.

And as for the thread at Model Mayhem.

Here's what I have noticed.

More people actually support Paul than don't.

What make sit seem the opposite is that the same people keep posting over and over again.

And this is how you folks work.

One of those same posters over trhere, who posted here, was later corrected and came back on this forum to apologize.

Some apology. They turned right back around, went back th MM and started talking trash about the company. That person even copied and pasted some of the stuff Paul wrote here and put it over there. Yeah, that's a true apology. And that's the type of people he's dealing with.

They are calle dbackstabbers. Then again, this person in particular seems to be a backstabber and a drama queen by constantly stoking the fire. Talk about manifested hatred.

The message here is, if you live in California, start stocking up on lighting equipment, toiletries and canned goods because the pushback has only just began.

All the best.

-Koa-