And they become more believable. I need to set up a serious goal list for 2015. Really crack down on getting more of the Wiki pages online and fleshed out so there's some concrete info recorded and less is left to speculation. - Dann
This reminds me of something i've been wondering, Dann ... I have noticed there is almost no Oakley info of any kind on Wikipedia which seems a bit out of place considering what else is cataloged there. I was really impressed with, for example, how the Army embraced Wikipedia with detailed pages on unit history, lineage, heraldry, etc. I was wondering if there was a reason for Oakley not appearing there. Is it something related to copyright, as if there were Wiki pages at one time and they were taken down? Or is it just more about the legwork making the pages?
And im only asking this out of curiosity, not to suggest there is something lacking here at OR. In fact, considering what Oakley has become, I am a bit surprised that Oakley didn't take time to make a database like this of there own.
I think that if Oakley is so concerned with counterfits then they would embrace a publicly accessible catalogue to remove ambiguity and set the record straight rather than leaving it up to the fans who, despite our genuine intentions and best efforts, don't always have all the pieces to the puzzle.