Aero Leather Clothing trial update

[rocketeer]

I hope that you people who are done with this thread but continue to return and you supporters of said people know that you are helping to keep this thread at the top of the list.

Just wait till the Trial jackets go on sale, that will revive it if the thread goes dead

 

[Superfluous]

In what way are you affected then?

First, you completely missed the point of Ben Franklin’s quote. Franklin stated that those who are not affected should be as outraged as those who are affected. Thus, I need not be affected in order to express outrage over the injustice perpetrated against others.

Second, as an active patron of the leather jacket industry, I am indirectly affected in several ways, including:

• A company that I have and continue to patronize – Aero – was the victim of an egregious theft;
• The perpetrator of the theft against Aero attempted to undermine and destroy Aero – a company that I patronize – from within;
• The theft and wrongdoing perpetrated against Aero adversely impacted Aero’s operations and finances, and nearly bankrupt Aero – a company that I patronize;
• The theft perpetrated against Aero, and the resulting adverse consequences incurred by Aero, affects (and/or has the potential to affect) competition and pricing in the leather jacket industry that I actively patronize;
• The perpetrator of the theft against Aero subsequently helped to create a new company in the same leather jacket industry;
• The competing company that the thief help to create has promulgated suspicious, disingenuous and/or inaccurate statements in an effort to persuade consumers, including me, to purchase its products;
• I have recently become friends with KC and empathize with the pain that the foregoing has caused him and his family.

How do you know any of that?

Have you been reading the Trial Narrative Thread. The facts are spelled out there.

 

[Sloan1874]

One of the things I found interesting about the trial were the people who didn't appear for the defence: neither Steven Toohey or Sandy Alexander turned up, despite being referred to in evidence, even just as character witnesses. Why were they not called to defend their man? After all, one was a long time friend, a guy who WL allowed into the factory to make jacket even though he wasn't an employee, 'to keep his hand in'; while the other, by AL's own blurb (now deleted), had got together with Will to set up AL in the first place. Odd. [huh]

 

[tropicalbob]

I think it's all part of the "Will who?" program at AL.

 

[pawineguy]

One of the things I found interesting about the trial were the people who didn't appear for the defence: neither Steven Toohey or Sandy Alexander turned up, despite being referred to in evidence, even just as character witnesses. Why were they not called to defend their man? After all, one was a long time friend, a guy who WL allowed into the factory to make jacket even though he wasn't an employee, 'to keep his hand in'; while the other, by AL's own blurb (now deleted), had got together with Will to set up AL in the first place. Odd. [huh]

I've been wondering how that first "meeting" went: Did Sandy say "hey I've been wanting to get into leather jackets" or did Will say "I've got a great business opportunity for you"?

Certainly Sandy now has a vested interest in anything further that Will chooses to say or not to say.

 

[Sloan1874]

But they still have Johnny Minto, don't they? The man who was part of the storse ****. Hardly clean hands.

 

[pawineguy]

But they still have Johnny Minto, don't they? The man who was part of the storse ****. Hardly clean hands.

Yes, and in a purely hypothetical scenario, Sandy is best served by keeping close and happy all of those who originally came over to AL from Aero.

 

[Fanch]

Certainly Sandy now has a vested interest in anything further that Will chooses to say or not to say.

An important point that bears repeating.

 

[Sloan1874]

Yes, and in a purely hypothetical scenario, Sandy is best served by keeping close and happy all of those who originally came over to AL from Aero.

Might be difficult if orders begin to dry up as a result of the case. I've heard they may already prepping to go down to one factory unit. I'm guessing that'll be the Selkirk one, even though the Moffat one was preferable, otherwise that's a lot of rebranding...

 

[Capesofwrath]

First, you completely missed the point of Ben Franklin’s quote. Franklin stated that those who are not affected should be as outraged as those who are affected. Thus, I need not be affected in order to express outrage over the injustice perpetrated against others.

Second, as an active patron of the leather jacket industry, I am indirectly affected in several ways, including:

• A company that I have and continue to patronize – Aero – was the victim of an egregious theft;
• The perpetrator of the theft against Aero attempted to undermine and destroy Aero – a company that I patronize – from within;
• The theft and wrongdoing perpetrated against Aero adversely impacted Aero’s operations and finances, and nearly bankrupt Aero – a company that I patronize;
• The theft perpetrated against Aero, and the resulting adverse consequences incurred by Aero, affects (and/or has the potential to affect) competition and pricing in the leather jacket industry that I actively patronize;
• The perpetrator of the theft against Aero subsequently helped to create a new company in the same leather jacket industry;
• The competing company that the thief help to create has promulgated suspicious, disingenuous and/or inaccurate statements in an effort to persuade consumers, including me, to purchase its products;
• I have recently become friends with KC and empathize with the pain that the foregoing has caused him and his family.



Have you been reading the Trial Narrative Thread. The facts are spelled out there.

In her evidence Mrs Lauder said that her husband had always collected leather jackets and had a large collection when she married him. Nowhere is it stated that she benefited from them or any other activities he may or may not have been involved in.

All you have written is supposition based of your own prejudice and a twisted idea of guilt by association. You seem in your posts to take satisfaction in his wife and family’s problems and want them to suffer as much as possible. Is that what your new friend Mr Calder wants too? Is he so vindictive that he wants the family of his enemy to suffer as well as him?

Or is it just you who is being vindictive?

 

[pawineguy]

In her evidence Mrs Lauder said that her husband had always collected leather jackets and had a large collection when she married him. Nowhere is it stated that she benefited from them or any other activities he may or may not have been involved in.

All you have written is supposition based of your own prejudice and a twisted idea of guilt by association. You seem in your posts to take satisfaction in his wife and family’s problems and want them to suffer as much as possible. Is that what your new friend Mr Calder wants too? Is he so vindictive that he wants the family of his enemy to suffer as well as him?

Or is it just you who is being vindictive?

Nice try. No one is being vindictive and your attempt to drag Ken into it is a non-starter.

There is a big difference between not having sympathy for someone because of extenuating circumstances (or because your sympathies lay with the real victims) and vindictiveness.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

Perhaps a few posters should consider that many members here are so outraged because they too despised someone stinking up Aero (like the cigarette smoke example)...and then getting away with much of it even to this day. Otherwise rules were not enforced from someone who considered himself the top dawg. In fact it was he who was blowing smoke infecting all others around him and even world wide in total disregard of any who might dare disagree. I think that is why many commenting within this thread are so upset and passionate about someone who was placed in a position of confidence and proved only to regularly abuse that authority. He propped up Aero USA and allowed moneys to be stolen..and who knows..influenced that fiasco?
..and we could go over the whole Storse...AL entangled web,etc..etc. How much betrayal do you want..?? I'm not sure it would be much worse if he just gave the whole store away. (Ooops..looks like he got caught before he could 100% accomplish that). Yet we are the bad guys because some suggest we might be acting out of character in this thread over a traitor to many. Maybe it's because we do value decency that it is so upsetting to most of us.
HD

 

[Superfluous]

In her evidence Mrs Lauder said that her husband had always collected leather jackets and had a large collection when she married him. Nowhere is it stated that she benefited from them or any other activities he may or may not have been involved in.

All you have written is supposition based of your own prejudice and a twisted idea of guilt by association. You seem in your posts to take satisfaction in his wife and family’s problems and want them to suffer as much as possible. Is that what your new friend Mr Calder wants too? Is he so vindictive that he wants the family of his enemy to suffer as well as him?

Or is it just you who is being vindictive?

Cape,

Ironically, you have accused others of posting unnecessarily harsh statements; yet, your posts are far more raucous, aggressive and derogatory than those you inappropriately assail.

I know what Mrs. Lauder stated. However, given the totality of the evidence, I find her testimony difficult to believe. The volume of clothing seized from her home far exceeds any legitimate notion of a “personal collection.” As to the financial benefit, Mr. Lauder received considerable sums of money from his sales of stolen products. Some portion of those illicit receipts likely made its way into the Lauders’ disposable income, either directly or indirectly (for example, anything that Mr. Lauder purchased using the illicit receipts did not have to be purchased using legitimate earnings). As I made clear, I have no firsthand knowledge of this; nevertheless, I strongly suspect that it occurred.

You have grossly mischaracterized my statements. I have never suggested that Mrs. Lauder is “guilty by associations,” nor called for any action against her. Rather, based on the circumstances, I merely stated that I am less sympathetic to her situation following her husband’s incarceration. I have never “taken satisfaction in his wife’ and family’s problems,” nor expressed a desire for “them to suffer as much as possible.” To the contrary, I openly sympathized with the adverse and "tragic" consequences inflicted by Mr. Lauder upon his child, and I never expressed any desire for either Mrs. Lauder or her child to “suffer.”

Mr. Calder has never said anything to me about Mrs. Lauder or her child. Your reference to Mr. Calder plainly reflects you palpable bias and ulterior agenda.

Circling back to the irony of your post: In harsh and disparaging terms, you inaccurately accused me of being “vindictive” and inappropriately denigrated my character. Yet, your false accusation and disparaging remarks are far more “vindictive” and nasty than anything I posted. Conversely, when responding to your false accusations and derogatory statements, I remained civil and respectful.

If you feel compelled to further attack me, please do so by private message so that we may avoid any further distraction within this important thread.

 

[Sloan1874]

Hmm, let's work this one out. Imagine the scene...

Wife: "Dearest husband, can I talk to you about something?"
Husband: "Surely, how can I help you, light of my life?"
W: "It's your collection"
H: "My collection?"
W: "Yes, all those jackets and jeans in the room on the top floor."
H: "Oh, yes. My collection."
W: "Yes, well, I was wondering."
H: "Wondering what?"
W: "What you're going to do with it."
H: "Well... it's a collection. It is of itself."
W: "But they're all new jackets. And they're not in your size."
H: "Yes. And?"
W: "And the jeans. Again, all new, with their tags on. And hardly any in your size."
H: "They're modern collectors items!"
W: "Yeahhh. Also, all those cubby holes and clothes racks. It's just, erm. It a bit like a shop, y'know. It's a bit.. odd."
H: "What? I don't understand. You've never mentioned this before. Or even looked in that room for that matter."
W: "That's neither here nor there. Though you're right, it is a bit odd that in all our years of marriage that I've never discussed this with you or even bothered to ask how you paid for all this. Actually, that is a good quest-
H: "Look, I don't see the problem!"
W: "I had hoped to turn the room into a soft play area."
H: "What do you want me to do? Put it all on eBay? Is that what you want me to do? Sell my... collection?"
W: "Well, it's a solution."
H: "Tell you what, let go and play a few games of pool. If you beat me, all the jackets go up for auction."
W: "What about the jeans?"
H: "Best of three..."

Just to be clear: this never happened.

 

[Girl on a Motorcycle]

Props to the last four posts.
Fine writing in the face of a stubbornly tedious poster who keeps promising to leave this thread, but has managed more farewell performances than Sinatra
Bravo!


GoaM

 

[ButteMT61]

On the rare occasion - not so rare the last couple of days - I've wanted to chime in, HD and Superfluous school the guys that:
1) Want the thread locked!
2) Want to tell others how to post!
3) Promise to post, clam up, them never return!
4) Previously called many here in TFL "Aero Fanboys"!
5) Claim being "offended" by the posts of others here!

Keep it going guys. I just feel at this point like I owe Sloan, HD and Superfluous some cash for the most excellent retorts posted here in this thread. I've printed it to PDF for posterity.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

..And the purpose of posting Sloan's post again in post #1502 is for what purpose..?? Or do you plan on editing it with a later response..?

 

[Sloan1874]

Hidetanner has failed to get to grips with the Lounge's hugely complex posting system, and persists in writing within the

section, so apparently my little skit 'wasn't nice'.

 

[jacketjunkie]

He's right. It wasn't nice. That's exactly the kind of thing Stand By is refering to, unnecessary polemic.

Same thing with you making fun of Hidetanners mistake with the quote. It is unnecessary and not in line with the code of conduct and manners which one would expect on this board.

 

[hidetanner]

Thank you