FACT: Canadaka.net's T-Shirt merchandise: MADE IN AMERICA
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:27 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Nope. Nice try. I attacked his hypocrisy, his erroneous suppositions, his argumentative limitations and his cowardly tactics. You? You are merely his cheerleader.
Cheerleader? PUH-LEEZ. You consistantly misrepresent his arguments as being something else entirely than what they actually are. These are strawman tactics.
$1:
And I noticed you conveniently dodged this,
Duthers: “Where did I assume it only referred to economic matters?”
Mustang1: “What about, “The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time.”
And when you responded to Derby’s specific comments regarding U.S. economic matters, you curiously countered with, “Is it clarified somewhere on this forum on what exactly the slogan means? If not I don't see how my interpretation of it is any less valid than yours.”
If you didn’t assume it meant “economic” matters, why argue that your interpretation was valid in light of the official ambiguity? You weren’t trying to find out what it meant, you were trying save your presumptuous understanding that was proving overly simplistic and overly exclusive”
That’s Dodge #1
Duthers: “Where did I assume it only referred to economic matters?”
Mustang1: “What about, “The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time.”
And when you responded to Derby’s specific comments regarding U.S. economic matters, you curiously countered with, “Is it clarified somewhere on this forum on what exactly the slogan means? If not I don't see how my interpretation of it is any less valid than yours.”
If you didn’t assume it meant “economic” matters, why argue that your interpretation was valid in light of the official ambiguity? You weren’t trying to find out what it meant, you were trying save your presumptuous understanding that was proving overly simplistic and overly exclusive”
That’s Dodge #1
Dodge? Stop pretending like this has anything to do with what I am saying. I never said it was exclusive to economic matters.
That's strawman #1
$1:
Then why promote and continue your current line of reasoning? Besides, I’ve already demonstrated where you’ve been wrong before and you just gloss over it a pitiful attempt ignore its veracity.
Because you have portrayed my arguments as being something else than what they actually are and go on a huge long rant about how they are wrong. Classic strawman.
$1:
I won’t play this game as long as you suck off when your mistakes are brought to the forefront.
What about some of your mistakes, strawman?
$1:
Again, if you don’t know what it means, perhaps you shouldn’t assume anything. You are the one that made the narrow interpretation and now you spinning your wheels trying to rationalize your mistake. I never made a specific construal nor did I hinge an argument’s thrust off a subjective interpretation.
Oh looky here! He has failed to address MY points. Why don't you practice what YOU preach?
$1:
You demonstrate exactly where I said that I was the only “allowed to define deep intergration”. You made the claim, now you back it up. You’ll dodge this, but you’ll only appear shifty and cowardly in the process.
You are the one determining what is "narrow" about a certain interpretation of a banner without knowing it's correct meaning yourself.
$1:
Ok, you think it means economic. Prove it.
Strawman #2
$1:
You demonstrate how it can’t be construed as cultural or political integration. Go ahead, my goal is easy as all I have to do is establish the ambiguity and you, my moronic chum, must establish the specific reading is blatant, objective and conclusive. Have fun with that challenge, dullard.
This site needs Americans in order to promote Canada, how is this not cultural or political?.
$1:
Who cares? Piss off and intellectually masturbate your little buddy in private then.
My "little buddy"? Proof?
$1:
Dodge! You didn’t address my salient points. I initially wrote, “! You’ve narrowly construed “liberal-leaning” as merely the entire ideological left of the spectrum? Is it Lockian or democratic socialist or is it moderate and centrist? Is it a reference to the Canadian Liberal Political Party or the unique Canadian political flavour associated with our brand of Leftism? The fact is that the diction is ambiguous as to the specific ideological tenets associated with its philosophical doctrines. You’ve gone and not only declared exactly what it means, but also assigned specific meaning – specific policy, no less – to its declaration. It’s presumptuous, unfounded and factually erroneous.” Y
ou responded with that nonsensical prattle. Keep trying.
ou responded with that nonsensical prattle. Keep trying.
Another strawman.
$1:
Don’t include me in your little world of ignorance, logical fallacies and dullardy.
You have enough of that on your own.
$1:
Now that is just plain lazy. Pathetic. It was exclusively about economic matters. See your quotes, halfwit, as I’ve provided the text evidence. Next!
And none of them state that it is exlusive to economic matters. Nice try, strawman.
$1:
What’s my definition? Come on, you keep playing this pitifully repetitive tune, now let’s see the post evidence where I specifically outline a definition for CKA’s Banner and Mission Statement. You made the accusation, now let’s see you back it up.
Well you seem to have your own little definition since you are able to determine what is "narrow" and what is not, so lets hear it.
$1:
Firstly, I challenged you show me where it “SAYS” CKA directly supports sweatshops? Where is it? Where is the official endorsement of sweatshops?
Why would it have to say that they officially endorse sweatshops? If Gildan is using sweatshops, then by association CKA would be supporting them, intentionaly or not.
$1:
Besides, show me the irrefutable evidence that not only demonstrates each and every piece of clothing on this site is made in a sweatshop, but that CKA was consciously aware of this fact at the time of ordering as well. Let’s see what you got on this one.
I never made any of those claims. Not every piece of clothing has to be made in a sweatshop in order for CKA to be supporting sweatshops, all that it takes is supporting a company that uses sweatshops by doing business with them. Yet another strawman argument.
$1:
Didn’t you endorse it when you justified for rabblewatch? Didn’t you write the following, “It's not about chastising "others for the acts he can’t abstain from himself," It's about chastising others for committing acts that they claim to be against. This is along the same lines of: Do As I Say, Not As I do.”?
Besides, you still failed to challenge its core legitimacy. If rabblewatch can use, why can’t CKA? Dodge away!
Besides, you still failed to challenge its core legitimacy. If rabblewatch can use, why can’t CKA? Dodge away!
I don't know what you are talking about but it seems like you missed what I was meaning in that statement. I meant the "Do As I Say, Not As I do" statement to apply to what the "others [...] committing acts that they claim to be against" bit, I wasn't endorsing the defence.
$1:
Good one, hypocrite! Didn’t you just post that I am a “mindless buffoon”? It’s right in this rebuttal post! You can’t even manage to practice what you preach in ONE post! Damn, you really are a dumb, pitiful animal. Hey, look another ad hominem! Damn, this is too easy
An insult backed with a rebuttal is not an ad hominem. Your insults stood alone.
$1:
Besides, you have only 1 post left to fix your infantile attempt at obfuscating your blatant argumentative fallacy with pitiful self-congratulatory declarations of victory. You’ll dodge, but when you do, I predicted it.
Keep trying…
Keep trying…
And you'll just continue to misrepresent what I am saying, as usual. I predict it.
Jaime_Souviens @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:53 pm
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Firstly, I challenged you show me where it “SAYS” CKA directly supports sweatshops? Where is it? Where is the official endorsement of sweatshops?
Why would it have to say that they officially endorse sweatshops? If Gildan is using sweatshops, then by association CKA would be supporting them, intentionaly or not.
A nice moment in a debate. The first asks for "official endorsement". And the second comes back with... official endorsement? No. He comes back with "support" and not even "support", but "intentional or unintentional support".
So how much support is unintentional support? How close is that to official endorsement?
For all practical purposes, PM_Dithers should have written "There is no official endoorsement whatsoever, but their may be some slight traces of unintentional support." Or, even better, "I concede".
Mustang1 @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:14 pm
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Cheerleader? PUH-LEEZ. You consistantly misrepresent his arguments as being something else entirely than what they actually are. These are strawman tactics.
Nope. Nice try. Keep up the cheerleading though, it suits you.
$1:
“Dodge? Stop pretending like this has anything to do with what I am saying. I never said it was exclusive to economic matters.”
Dodge again! You can blabber whatever you want, but you thought it was about economic matters (I noticed you still can’t refute the text). Suck away!
$1:
“That's strawman #1”
Ok, I’ll play – demonstrate exactly how the above objective evidence is an exaggeration of your position. Let’s see if you can apply knowledge as well as you ape it.
$1:
“Because you have portrayed my arguments as being something else than what they actually are and go on a huge long rant about how they are wrong. Classic strawman.”
Eww…dummy learned a new word and he’s gonna’ use it tell it’ his. Demonstrate exactly how I am guilty of employing a strawman fallacy. Come on, it’s your new word, so it should be fun, but be careful as you don’t want to be found guilty of using it yourself.
$1:
“What about some of your mistakes, strawman?”
How is that a fallacy of extension? If you are going to use a term, please try to apply it in the proper context. This is what happens when dummies play with big boy ideas.
$1:
“Oh looky here! He has failed to address MY points. Why don't you practice what YOU preach?”
Nope. Where have I failed? Demonstrate it. And while you are at it, hypocrite, try going back and fixing the litany of suck outs that you’ve committed. Next!
$1:
“You are the one determining what is "narrow" about a certain interpretation of a banner without knowing it's correct meaning yourself.”
Nice try! I specifically challenged you to “You demonstrate exactly where I said that I was the only “allowed to define deep intergration”. You made the claim, now you back it up. You’ll dodge this, but you’ll only appear shifty and cowardly in the process.” Where is the evidence? Come on suck, you made the claim and now you are running from your inability to substantiate your intellectual shortcomings. Oh well, this was predicted.
$1:
“Strawman #2”
Actually, that’s the alleged fourth “strawman” (and the fifth time it has been incorrectly applied) my numerically challenged chum. Fuck, you really are a dumb creature, aren’t you? Don’t answer that, it was rhetorical.
$1:
“This site needs Americans in order to promote Canada, how is this not cultural or political?.”
Huh? What kind of garbled, mangled piece of mush was that? How is that demonstrating this site’s use of “deep integration” can’t be construed as political or cultural in nature? Fuck, was that some sort of intellectual seizure? Did you get a nosebleed from that? Damn, give it up before you do permanent damage
$1:
“My "little buddy"? Proof?”
Proof? Of what? That’s he’s your buddy? Who cares? Fine, he’s not your buddy, if you say so. You intellectually masturbate and cheerlead complete strangers then. You are forum whore. And a dirty one too.
$1:
“Another strawman.”
Demonstrate exactly how this is a caricatured version of your position. Go ahead; let’s see you apply those argumentative skills you think you’ve acquired. I apologize for the nosebleed ahead of time.
$1:
“You have enough of that on your own.”
Good one. The classic “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” defence – that’s translated as, “you’ve got squat in the comeback department.” Piss off and get some new material.
$1:
“And none of them state that it is exlusive to economic matters. Nice try, strawman.”
Again with the strawman? Is that it? <Sigh> How is that statement indicative of a strawman fallacy? In fact, by incorrectly trying to incorporate this one and only argumentative fallacy into every rebuttal, aren’t you ironically guilty of committing several argumentative fallacies yourself? Let’s see you figure out which ones.
$1:
“Well you seem to have your own little definition since you are able to determine what is "narraw" and what is not, so lets hear it.”
Nope. My definition is immaterial. You claimed I had one and I challenged you to produce it. You couldn’t. Ask CKA what it is and stop assuming that your piss poor intellect matters in these affairs. You failed another challenge.
$1:
“Why would it have to say that they officially endorse sweatshops? If Gildan is using sweatshops, then by association CKA would be supporting them, intentionaly or not”
Then CKA doesn’t endorse sweatshops. Good. You seem to grasping some basics. Moreover, if CKA doesn’t formally endorse sweatshops and you can’t prove that their merchandise is manufactured in said sweatshops nor can you establish a conscious awareness that the merchandise might be from sweatshops on the part of CKA, your point is moot. Night.
$1:
“I never made any of those claims. Not every piece of clothing has to be made in a sweatshop in order for CKA to be supporting sweatshops, all that it takes is supporting a company that uses sweatshops by doing business with them. Yet another strawman argument”
Translation: “he/she can’t substantiate their assertion, so they’ll fall back on an incorrect use of terminology in a pitiful attempt to mask their debating impotency.” Either demonstrate with irrefutable evidence that not only demonstrates each and every piece of clothing on this site is made in a sweatshop, but that CKA was consciously aware of this fact at the time of ordering as well or piss off. Either way, all you’ve got is unfounded speculation. Next!
$1:
“I don't know what you are talking about but it seems like you missed what I was meaning in that statement. I meant the "Do As I Say, Not As I do" statement to apply to what the "others [...] committing acts that they claim to be against" bit, I wasn't endorsing the defence.”
Then don’t use it as justification. Damn.
$1:
“An insult backed with a rebuttal is not an ad hominem. Your insults stood alone.”
Then mine certainly doesn’t qualify as an ad hominem as it was a legitimate component of a rebuttal. Fuck.
$1:
“And you'll just continue to misrepresent what I am saying, as usual. I predict it.”
And you couldn’t address your own pitiful shortcomings – I gave you two posts to address your infantile analogy and you fell flat on your face. Oh well, that’s certainly par for the course with you, fucktard.
You got anything else?
Mustang1 @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:21 pm
Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:
PM_Dithers PM_Dithers:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Firstly, I challenged you show me where it “SAYS” CKA directly supports sweatshops? Where is it? Where is the official endorsement of sweatshops?
Why would it have to say that they officially endorse sweatshops? If Gildan is using sweatshops, then by association CKA would be supporting them, intentionaly or not.
A nice moment in a debate. The first asks for "official endorsement". And the second comes back with... official endorsement? No. He comes back with "support" and not even "support", but "intentional or unintentional support".
So how much support is unintentional support? How close is that to official endorsement?
For all practical purposes, PM_Dithers should have written "There is no official endoorsement whatsoever, but their may be some slight traces of unintentional support." Or, even better, "I concede".
All he/she needed to do is say that we all indirectly contribute to the sweatshop problem by not being vigilant enough in our economic decisions or using more discretion in our purchase choices. CKA may (although it has yet to be independently confirmed) have indverntly ordered apparel that may have been manufactured in third-world sweatshops, but what does that have to with the thread’s title or theme? He/she tried to establish a link between ideology and actions and it has yet to be established.
Besides, I’d wager that she/he’s guilty of indirectly supporting these very elements of globalization him/herself.
ShepherdsDog @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:25 pm
Quit slamming the Lord Regent of Oz, or the Munchkin Special Forces are going make you a permanent part of the Yellow Brick Road.
Mustang1 @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:27 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
Quit slamming the Lord Regent of Oz, or the Munchkin Special Forces are going make you a permanent part of the Yellow Brick Road.
Hey, I love the Strawman!
Tman1 @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:30 pm
"If he only had a brain"
ShepherdsDog @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:30 pm
As to the 'sweat shops'. often times these are the only forms of employment that are available to people in their areas. The wages they earn there, though a pittance to us, stand between them and starvation and whether or not their kids get an eduvcation or not. Shutting them down puts people out of work and on the street. it is far from an ideal system, but it's the only game in town foe them.
SprCForr @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:06 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
Rabblewatch and his alter-ego/bitch "PM_Dithers" are awesome! Does anyone remember the neo-nazi revisionists that came onto HT just before it went belly-up? These guys are like them! They're like a radio controlled Mr. Potatohead style Slinky!
JJG? Willyboy? Darth Vader??*
*Inside joke
JJG? Willyboy? Darth Vader??*
*Inside joke
Yeek! You almost named "That which should not be named"!
Canadaka @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:33 pm
rabblewatch FUCK YOU!
I am so close to banned you, cuz i can, you are just too stupid and are not here to for any positive reason.
If you knew anything about the shirts or the site you would know this thread is pointless.
HERE IS THE TRUTH!
and i encourage cka members to spread it on his stupid blog.
That specific picture you took out of context is a shirt made in America yes. But is not a shirt by CKA. It is a cafepress shirt. This summer when the site had major finnacial problems i opened a cafepress shop to maybe get some extra sales, and anyone can make cafepress shops so there were already people stealing the Canada Kicks Ass name on there, so i needed to represent.
Cafepress is a service you subscribe too, you upload the images and they do all the t-shirts. So its an easy way for anyone to make shirts and stuff.
NOW!!! for 3 years I have been seling "Canada Kicks Ass" shirts, which i decied 3 years ago i didnt want to do through Cafepress, because there quality is low and they take most the profit. They are also American and I wanted the shirts sold on CKA to be Canadian.
So I found a Canadian manufactuering out shirts, and a local printer in BC. So all the shirts for sale directly on CKA and the CKA shop site are these shirts. I ahve them all right here in my apartment, bought in Canada, printed in Canada.
MADE IN CANADA
Since i get like no sales from the cafepress site,because people rather buy the real thing rather than the fake low quality cafepress ones. But in order to grow its exposure a bit i places a link to them on the CKA shop. But there is a message at the top that clearly states this!!!!
something rabblewatch obviosuly left out on purpose.
http://shop.canadaka.net
rabblewatch, also STOP using CKA logos and graphcis, they are copyright of Canadaka.net you don't have permission to use these on your site. And are the ONLY person ever! i have had to say this too.
Well congrats you now have the entire site against you.
QBC @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:39 pm
I knew I should have banned his ass a couple of days ago. I thought something like this was going to happen with this bed wetter. Well, next time I'll go with my gut.
Arctic_Menace @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:45 pm
We can sooo get his ass in shit for copyright infringement.
PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:53 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Nope. Nice try. Keep up the cheerleading though, it suits you.
This is not a retort.
$1:
“Dodge? Stop pretending like this has anything to do with what I am saying. I never said it was exclusive to economic matters.”
$1:
Dodge again! You can blabber whatever you want, but you thought it was about economic matters (I noticed you still can’t refute the text). Suck away!
Ok, I’ll play – demonstrate exactly how the above objective evidence is an exaggeration of your position. Let’s see if you can apply knowledge as well as you ape it.
Ok, I’ll play – demonstrate exactly how the above objective evidence is an exaggeration of your position. Let’s see if you can apply knowledge as well as you ape it.
Your entire point revolves around your flawed assertion that I said the banner was exclusive to economic matters. Yet my statement has no mention of the exclusiveness of economic matters.
Here is what I said: "The point is that websites like CKA tote around the "no deep integration with the USA" banner all the while supporting the USA with their business at the same time."
True, I used an economic matter as an example to support my claim, but no where did I say that it was exlusive to economic matters.
$1:
Eww…dummy learned a new word and he’s gonna’ use it tell it’ his. Demonstrate exactly how I am guilty of employing a strawman fallacy. Come on, it’s your new word, so it should be fun, but be careful as you don’t want to be found guilty of using it yourself.
New word? You are the one that started throwing around buzzwords in this debate, I thought it only fair to do the same.
$1:
How is that a fallacy of extension? If you are going to use a term, please try to apply it in the proper context. This is what happens when dummies play with big boy ideas.
I was referring to your previous fallacies.
$1:
“Oh looky here! He has failed to address MY points. Why don't you practice what YOU preach?”
$1:
Nope. Where have I failed? Demonstrate it. And while you are at it, hypocrite, try going back and fixing the litany of suck outs that you’ve committed. Next!
You did not address any one of my points, you glossed over it. You failed to demonstrate how selling merchandise made in the USA in order to promote Canadian patriotism is not "deep integration."
$1:
Nice try! I specifically challenged you to “You demonstrate exactly where I said that I was the only “allowed to define deep intergration”. You made the claim, now you back it up. You’ll dodge this, but you’ll only appear shifty and cowardly in the process.” Where is the evidence? Come on suck, you made the claim and now you are running from your inability to substantiate your intellectual shortcomings. Oh well, this was predicted.
You and I both know that on a number of occasions in this thread you have reffered our interpretations of the banner as being "narrow." On what basis can you make such a claim since you yourself are unaware as to it's meaning?
$1:
Actually, that’s the alleged fourth “strawman” (and the fifth time it has been incorrectly applied) my numerically challenged chum. Fuck, you really are a dumb creature, aren’t you? Don’t answer that, it was rhetorical.
Actually that WAS the second strawman (that is strawmans arguments in that particular post), the two before that were referring to previous strawmans.
$1:
Huh? What kind of garbled, mangled piece of mush was that? How is that demonstrating this site’s use of “deep integration” can’t be construed as political or cultural in nature? Fuck, was that some sort of intellectual seizure? Did you get a nosebleed from that? Damn, give it up before you do permanent damage
It can be construed as political and cultural, as I explained before (which you glossed over), it has little to do with economic matters. It says a lot when a Canadian website has to rely on an AMERICAN idea (cafepress) in order to further Canadian patriotism does it not?
$1:
Demonstrate exactly how this is a caricatured version of your position. Go ahead; let’s see you apply those argumentative skills you think you’ve acquired. I apologize for the nosebleed ahead of time.
You ignored my clarification on what I originaly meant, and took what I meant to mean a strict definition of the words "liberal-leaning," where I only meant that a website that describes itself as being "liberal-leaning" would naturally have many of those that are opposed to third world sweatshops. That was my intent.
$1:
Good one. The classic “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” defence – that’s translated as, “you’ve got squat in the comeback department.” Piss off and get some new material.
Oh stop with the theatrics, it doesn't lend any intellectual merrit to your position.
$1:
Again with the strawman? Is that it? <Sigh> How is that statement indicative of a strawman fallacy?
Because you keep insisting that my statement involved exclusively "economic matters," even after I keep telling you that it doesn't.
Maybe I wasn't careful enough in the wording of my statement, because I certainly didn't mean what you think I meant. Happy?
$1:
Nope. My definition is immaterial. You claimed I had one and I challenged you to produce it. You couldn’t. Ask CKA what it is and stop assuming that your piss poor intellect matters in these affairs. You failed another challenge.
I cannot provide you with your definition because you haven't stated it. By your own admission you do in fact have one, all I am trying to say is that you have little justification for saying what is "narrow" or what isn't.
$1:
Translation: “he/she can’t substantiate their assertion, so they’ll fall back on an incorrect use of terminology in a pitiful attempt to mask their debating impotency.” Either demonstrate with irrefutable evidence that not only demonstrates each and every piece of clothing on this site is made in a sweatshop,
Not every piece of clothing has to be made in a sweatshop. How many times do I have to repeat this? If Gildan is operating sweatshops, than by doing business with them they would be supporting (note: supporting does not = endorsing) sweatshops.
$1:
but that CKA was consciously aware of this fact at the time of ordering as well or piss off. Either way, all you’ve got is unfounded speculation. Next!
Given that Gildan is well known in the leftist camp for operating sweatshops, I would be surprised if those on CKA would be oblivious to this fact. But...if it's true that CKA was unaware to it, then fine. Now that they know, they would have to do something about it wouldn't they?
$1:
Then don’t use it as justification. Damn.
How did I use it for justification? IT'S THE DEFENCE OTHER PEOPLE USE NOT ME.
Canadaka @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:03 pm
$1:
It can be construed as political and cultural, as I explained before (which you glossed over), it has little to do with economic matters. It says a lot when a Canadian website has to rely on an AMERICAN idea (cafepress) in order to further Canadian patriotism does it not?
lol, I have made only 1 sale in 6 months on Cafepress, ypu I sure am relying on them! its not there to make sales, its there to have expose on that site. There are other selling Canada Kicks Ass and many other patriotic canadian shirts on cafepress. There are thousands of shirts there, your grandma could make a cafepress store.
Its just there in case someone searches on Cafepress for Canada kicks ass, the CKA shirts come up with the others.
The real CKA shirts are on http://shop.canadaka.net
I looked into Guilden before getting there shirts, because i wanted to make sure they were made in Canada. They and the printers said they were. If there is a sweatshop along the line.. then i was mislead. But evena company that says they don't use such labour cold be lyingh or finding some legal loophole.
Anyway its rabbles blessed America that made the asian sweatshop a reality.
I don't trust anything or beleive anything this rabblewatch says anyway.
PM_Dithers @ Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:04 pm
Canadaka Canadaka:
rabblewatch FUCK YOU!
I am so close to banned you, cuz i can, you are just too stupid and are not here to for any positive reason.
If you knew anything about the shirts or the site you would know this thread is pointless.
HERE IS THE TRUTH!
and i encourage cka members to spread it on his stupid blog.
That specific picture you took out of context is a shirt made in America yes. But is not a shirt by CKA. It is a cafepress shirt. This summer when the site had major finnacial problems i opened a cafepress shop to maybe get some extra sales, and anyone can make cafepress shops so there were already people stealing the Canada Kicks Ass name on there, so i needed to represent.
Cafepress is a service you subscribe too, you upload the images and they do all the t-shirts. So its an easy way for anyone to make shirts and stuff.
NOW!!! for 3 years I have been seling "Canada Kicks Ass" shirts, which i decied 3 years ago i didnt want to do through Cafepress, because there quality is low and they take most the profit. They are also American and I wanted the shirts sold on CKA to be Canadian.
So I found a Canadian manufactuering out shirts, and a local printer in BC. So all the shirts for sale directly on CKA and the CKA shop site are these shirts. I ahve them all right here in my apartment, bought in Canada, printed in Canada.
MADE IN CANADA
Since i get like no sales from the cafepress site,because people rather buy the real thing rather than the fake low quality cafepress ones. But in order to grow its exposure a bit i places a link to them on the CKA shop. But there is a message at the top that clearly states this!!!!
something rabblewatch obviosuly left out on purpose.
http://shop.canadaka.net
rabblewatch, also STOP using CKA logos and graphcis, they are copyright of Canadaka.net you don't have permission to use these on your site. And are the ONLY person ever! i have had to say this too.
Well congrats you now have the entire site against you.
I am so close to banned you, cuz i can, you are just too stupid and are not here to for any positive reason.
If you knew anything about the shirts or the site you would know this thread is pointless.
HERE IS THE TRUTH!
and i encourage cka members to spread it on his stupid blog.
That specific picture you took out of context is a shirt made in America yes. But is not a shirt by CKA. It is a cafepress shirt. This summer when the site had major finnacial problems i opened a cafepress shop to maybe get some extra sales, and anyone can make cafepress shops so there were already people stealing the Canada Kicks Ass name on there, so i needed to represent.
Cafepress is a service you subscribe too, you upload the images and they do all the t-shirts. So its an easy way for anyone to make shirts and stuff.
NOW!!! for 3 years I have been seling "Canada Kicks Ass" shirts, which i decied 3 years ago i didnt want to do through Cafepress, because there quality is low and they take most the profit. They are also American and I wanted the shirts sold on CKA to be Canadian.
So I found a Canadian manufactuering out shirts, and a local printer in BC. So all the shirts for sale directly on CKA and the CKA shop site are these shirts. I ahve them all right here in my apartment, bought in Canada, printed in Canada.
MADE IN CANADA
Since i get like no sales from the cafepress site,because people rather buy the real thing rather than the fake low quality cafepress ones. But in order to grow its exposure a bit i places a link to them on the CKA shop. But there is a message at the top that clearly states this!!!!
something rabblewatch obviosuly left out on purpose.
http://shop.canadaka.net
rabblewatch, also STOP using CKA logos and graphcis, they are copyright of Canadaka.net you don't have permission to use these on your site. And are the ONLY person ever! i have had to say this too.
Well congrats you now have the entire site against you.
So no connections with Gildan?
Previous 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next