Derogatory postings

[Rich Z]

OK, we've been getting some flak about what constitutes a derogatory posting on this site. Basically my take on it is someone's unnecesarily rude, targeted commentary that is directed towards someone in an unflattering, scathing, or intentionally belittling manner. This can sometimes be subtle, and can also be subject to the discretion of the person engaged in the moderator duties. The moderators' reactions and resulting treatment of such postings will likely be greatly influenced by their particular frame of mind at the moment.

So, here is an example of one post I just recently spotted in a thread:

Full auto comes in handy when you need to cross a street that is a kill zone. Full auto is handy when you need to interupt a conference and total the confers (as Jeff Cooper would say.) Full auto comes in REAL handy at night when the enemy is in the wire near your foxhole.

There is a time and place for all kinds of fire. The only morale that needs raised will by gunkid when he is starving after having to hide in the wilderness being so afraid of those who hunt him.

So, this was a relatively innocent post providing some useful information, but the very last sentence may or may not be considered as derogatory.

What do you think?

[RIKA]

Okay, I assume you want an honest answer.

"The only morale that needs raised will by gunkid when he is starving after having to hide in the wilderness being so afraid of those who hunt him."

This statement IMO is only as derogatory as him calling us FOS, clowns, lames, dvmmys, stvpes, inept etc. (edited for the PC speech monitor :D )

I honestly can't see the diff Rich but this may be influenced by my state of mind at the moment.

Darn it. Derogatory, like beauty, is only in the eye of the beholder.

RIKA

[Rich Z]

This statement IMO is only as derogatory as him calling us FOS, clowns, lames, dvmmys, stvpes, inept etc. (edited for the PC speech monitor :D )

I honestly can't see the diff Rich but this may be influenced by my state of mind at the moment.

Darn it. Derogatory, like beauty, is only in the eye of the beholder.

RIKA

Yes, you are right. But bear in mind that "him" making such statements will have his posts deleted as well. Following suit in a like fashion in response to "his" statements is not an excuse. The fact that it has NOT been deleted when you read it will very probably be because neither myself nor the mods have seen it before you got to it. Your posting may very well be deleted as well, if the entire thread gets the deep six treatment.

Does this clarify things somewhat better?

[RIKA]

Yes, thank you. You will never hear me complain about this policy as long as it is applied fairly (which I believe it will).

RIKA

[Magnum88C]

Only the last sentence was derogatory.
Nuking an entire post because of it? Do it if you want, but it'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The difference, as I see it is the [Edited for content] posts responses/threads that are nothing but derogatory, not to mention completely hijacking threads, versus a snipe in the midst of a good post.

[Rich Z]

Only the last sentence was derogatory.
Nuking an entire post because of it? Do it if you want, but it'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The difference, as I see it is the [Edited for content] posts responses/threads that are nothing but derogatory, not to mention completely hijacking threads, versus a snipe in the midst of a good post.

Sometimes I edit the post to remove an offending statement, sometimes I delete the entire thing. Depends on how tired I am of putting up with such things in here. Plus there is a bit more incentive for the poster to resist such derogatory statements if they see there is a risk of ALL their posting being deleted because of it. I think it is much more of a penalty that they would rather avoid rather than blathering away knowing that the mods and I will clean up after them in what they type.

The mods are free to handle this as they deem necessary when viewing posts. They will not catch flak from me either way.

[SatCong]

The answer to the poll is " none of the above" but somewhere in-between.
While the context may be derogatory, consider towards whom it is directed. I have come to expect whatever kernel of useful info posted by he who posts under the schizm of at least two names, here, to be more than negated by the needy, insulting, false-pride ridden verbosity than constitutes the bulk of his efforts.
In any exchange I have read between or among any other members of this forum (excluding he -- the one who derogates all) there may be heat but there is growth. The only growth propagated by andy is a festering of attitude which he sews, then reaps. Call it for what it is, a seed he has planted and this forums leaders have allowed to propagate. The only way to get any sort of satisfying result from communication with andy is to belittle as he does, and boldly call him on his blathering lies and boasts of nigardly behaviour. If he wants attention, any kind of attention, he will surely get it as he dispenses it. If he wants to engage in civilized social intercourse, he will also receive same.
When I first started to read his posts, I thougfht he was a 12-14 year old boy who was just trolling because he knew no better. Now I understand he is a man who is over 50 and my response to that is completely different than the former, which I believed to be the case. So, if it is also OUR responsibility to set the tone for this forum, as Rich has stated before, then that tone has been set as a manifest to give zero quarter and zero tolerance to andy whose only way of relating to the folks here is to be abusive, belittling, and to marginalize any experience that is different from his own. Andy believes that his way is the only way, and you know what? As this forum stands today, he is correct, if only when dealing with his particular brand of vitriol.
SatCong

[Glenn Bartley]

I don't think it is necessarily derogatory but pretty close. I probably would not delete or edit it, but that might depend upon the other posts in that same thread or just my mood at the moment. I don't like it being there, but it certainly is not the same as: 'Hey all you morons you are all FOS because you are ignorant lame arses because you don't know anything about how to take apart a Colt and you all are POS wannabes', or something to the effect that: You are nothing but an inexperienced dirtbag scumsucking convicted felon who only has an underrated POS gun and who doesn't know jack<font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font> about tactitical stuff because you are an ignoramus and a friggin liar. I am not attributing those kinds of statements to anyone in particular, because more than one person here makes them just as bad as that.

The statement in question is a statement of fact or opinion because it is what some believes will happen to someone else in a certain situation. Just because the writer believes that the other person will perform miserably does not necessarily make it derogatory, even though it is not framed in a seemingly nice manner. When I post that I believe Andy has little if any tactical experience despite his claims to apparently know it all, am I being derogatory? (Now was that just derogatory, the know it all part - I was stating what I believe he acts like - and no it was not nice but not meant to be derogatory either). If it is true, and if it shows the person in not that great a light, or if it is opinion and also shows the person in not that great a light so be it. This of course, as long as it is not just a nasty post or simply an attack camouflaged as opinion or camouflaged as a nicely worded attack.. Well let me rephrase myself, it may actually be mildly derogatory in that it gives a low opinion of someone, but it is not derogatory in regards of the main entry for that word in Merriam-Webster's which says : 1 : detracting from the character or standing of something — often used with to, of, or from 2 : expressive of a low opinion. I don't think that that statement necessarily detracted from anyone's character, but rather that it showed what someone else believed that character to be.

I guess when it comes down to it, we should strive to keep the blatantly and even the simply fairly obvious derogatory stuff off of the site, get rid of some of the questionable or borderline stuff as we choose, and let the some borderline stuff ride also as we choose all with regard to part one of the above definition. With regard to part two of that same definition, well if we start taking away everything that people may think is derogatory, well there will be no dissenting opinions here, because anyone could legitimately say that hey I was belittled by so and so's opinion of me as expressed in this forum - remove it as per your policy. Now we don't have to put up with opinions that are blatantly derogatory either such as someone saying: In my opinion, I think the other guy is a j-erk. Yet when someone posts something like the above it seems more to me like it is an opinion about another person's survival skills be less than sufficient for the job of facing SHTF. If we are not allowed to say stuff like that, does that mean we all have to be in agreement? I will again grant that it is borderline as I see it but I don't think really derogatory.

Remember those two examples of derogatory statements I gave up above, let's look at them again in another light, and now tell me if they are derogatory or not: 'Hey all you people don't know what you are talking about because you are ignorant of the facts on this issue as apparent by your previous posts reflecting to me that you have never fully disassembled and reassembled a Colt AR15. So I think all you do is talk about it and want to make believe you are experienced like me.' Is that derogatory - maybe and maybe not. It sure would be an acceptable post from what I have seen around here, and on most other boards; and it surely says, in essence, the same thing as the nasty example I gave above but in much nicer terms. Or what about: 'You have often reported to us that you are an ex-convict, and have never mentioned an law enforcement experience on your part; yet you claim to have massive amounts of knowledge of tactical law enforcement type situations but give poor examples of tactics to be used in real life. I find it difficult to believe you when you say you have such tactical experience and I believe that you are probably not telling the truth about your knowledge but rather that you are ignorant of many modern tactical techniques and also that you lack any experience with even those of which you have book knowledge.' Is that derogatory? Sure someone could probably argue that it is especially by the second definition of the word, but would you disallow it? If we start editing stuff like this, there will be no, or few, really useful discussions on these boards because everyone will be afraid of disagreeing with anyone else or of calling them to task; and when someone makes obviously outrageous claims of his/her prowess, well then he or she should either be brought to task to defend those claims or be shown as a charlatan - but in decent and somewhat respectful terms. Therein that one word, I guess lies the key - respectful. Yes you can show someone in disparaging or derogatory terms and still be respectful in voicing it as either opinion or fact (so long as you can back it up), and then I think most times the post should remain.

[TODD 3465]

Well the last sentence while looking at it by itself is derogatory. But given Melvin's well stated post-SHTF plans is it?

If someone's stated SHTF plans involve killing others and stealing their supplies don't you think they stand a good chance of having people out hunting for them?

Looked at as a whole it is merely describing a highly likely outcome of a flawed survival theory; if that theory is ever put to use.

[TODD 3465]

BTW-And I'll try my best just to report any nasty post of Melvin's instead of slamming him back.

[Hard Rock]

I don't see that as derogatory. I consider derogatory as something demeaning about a person due to heritage or background. I view anything concerning something a person can change as constructive criticism on a harsh level.

Mike

[Garand]

Rich, please define "constructive criticism"

[Aslan]

In many instances, I find it hard to figure out what to keep and what to wipe out. Lately I've probably been more of the keep mindset than the wipe it out.

However, I have and will continue to edit out the purely derrogatory bits.

It's probably harder than you realize to be fair and consistent.

:devil:

[Rich Z]

Aslan, most people have no idea about moderation and the skill set it requires to do it fairly. Matter of fact, maybe I should rotate the job out to other people so they can get a taste of it and better understand the conflicts that arise. It's kind of like the fact that I didn't know how to be a good employee until I became an employer. Gives you a whole different perspective of things.

Garand - I never made an offer to define "constructive criticism", did I? But I will tell you plainly that when I see criticism of any member by another member, it is rarely "constructive". Usually belittling, in my opinion.

But constructive criticism is along the lines of "I believe you are wrong, and here are the reasons why I think that." Someone making a mistake does not automatically make them a liar. Someone who believes something differently then you do, does not make them a liar. Someone who states something that is false because that is what they believe, is not a liar. YOU can be wrong as well, I believe. Being wrong simply means you have an opportunity to learn something new, and is nothing to be ashamed of. Constructive criticism attempts to teach and correct something that is wrong. When it invokes derogatory rebuttals because of the manner in which the information was presented, then it no longer is constructive, and it has set the opposing viewpoint into concrete as it then becomes much more difficult to admit that the opposing view, presented in a derogatory fashion, may be the truth.

Yeah, I know andy/gunkid/223fan seems to be in the center of this, but if you all think you are helping things by flinging derogatory comments back at him, then maybe you need to step back and look at the big picture of how YOU look to a disinterested third party (me).

As I have said before, I don't know what has, is, or will go on between Gunkid (aka andy/223fan) and the rest of you outside of this site, and nor do I care. I am only judging what I see here and acting accordingly. And to be perfectly honest, in MANY cases I see very little difference in the way Andy posts and the manner in which of you follow suit. So I will treat you all as equals, like it or not.

[ASPHALT COWBOY]

Derrogatory, no. Sniping, yes.
I would likely take prior and following posts into consideration.

[krept]

Tough call...

IMO, moving off topic threads to the appropriate forum is better. Maybe use the rep system to nail people with grossly derogatory posts.

cheers

[RIKA]

Maybe use the rep system to nail people with grossly derogatory posts.


I don't think the rep goes into negative numbers.

RIKA

[Rich Z]

Since I have terminated ALL moderation on this site, I guess the point of this thread is now moot.

[Coyote]

Leave em. One of the things I like about this forum is that I am completely free to express myself. 99.9 percent of the people here are respectful so long as they get the same respect in turn.

At the risk of sticking my neck out, its pretty clear that almost all of the actual barbs and quips passed on this forum are between gunkid and various other members. Within this thread, I will remain neutral, as both parties are now guilty of trolling with offensive threads. I myself am partly responsible for this. I think it would be to everyones advantage if some basic guidelines were laid out with agreed consequences to enforce them.

I really dont like the idea of posts being deleted just because they rub someone the wrong way; Sometimes debates revolve around personal issues and its generally accepted that people get offended about such things.

Perhaps it could be a simple rule that no name calling, threats or personal attacks are to be uttered in the thread title and accompanying post? The bigger flame fests usually start off as such; perhaps by beginning threads politely or at least in a civil way we could actually get onto some good discussion.

[Teufelhund]

I will follow to the letter whatever rules Rich outs into place as long as they are equally applied to everyone. I have no problem getting my point across in a civil manner when dealing with civil folks.

I do enjoy the freedom here that allows me to respond in kind to the dickheads and assholes of the world. I have come to the personal conclusion it's simply best to keep them beat down and on the defence, lest they get out of hand and start acting up again.

Teuf,

[Stillwater]

I will follow to the letter whatever rules Rich outs into place as long as they are equally applied to everyone. I have no problem getting my point across in a civil manner when dealing with civil folks.

I do enjoy the freedom here that allows me to respond in kind to the dickheads and assholes of the world. I have come to the personal conclusion it's simply best to keep them beat down and on the defence, lest they get out of hand and start acting up again.

Teuf,

My sentiments exactly.

However, if Rich wants to lower the level of the hate and discontent on this forum, he only has to tone NUTTY JOHN down. NUTTY JOHN is always the instigator ...

Someone look at the posts for the last two weeks and tell me, if the hate and discontent, hasn't all be STARTED by NUTTY JOHN. I, and others, have answered back, in like manor -- and, why shouldn't we?

Someone should take off their rose colored glasses, and look at the real world, in the cold, hard, light of the day ...

Enough said ... on an OLD, OLD thread ...

[copycat]

I too will follow whatever rules Rich see fit to establish. But I will tell you plainly, I will find it hard to be civil to Andy for the simple reason that he doesn't show the same ability to others. When I first joined the site I thought I was being pretty neutral and was pretty well trashed by Andy.

[copycat]

"posted by Andy"
100x the gun posts U will ever make, punk.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cause i"m 100x the man you are. Simple as that, worm.


When this is the beginning of a thread how can anyone expect it to go anywhere but down.

[Truth]

The reason "ANdy" has been banned from all the other site is the same reason most of his followers do not post on the other sites, they and him are not allowed. It does not take a rocket scientist, although some here seem to try to portray, to figure this point out. It is a mule train. You have a lead mule and the rest just follow. Simple but not understandable to those who do not know the Truth. :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :roflmao1:

[Stillwater]

The reason "ANdy" has been banned from all the other site is the same reason most of his followers do not post on the other sites, they and him are not allowed.
<snip>



They and him are not allowed? What a crock of crap this is. If you believe that, you're as nutty as NUTTY JOHN is ...

JJ, thinks so too!

[Truth]

They and him are not allowed? What a crock of crap this is. If you beliece that, you're as nutty as NUTTY JOHN is ...

JJ, thinks so too!

Can you define Beliece? :nyah: :nyah: :nyah: :nyah:

[Stillwater]

Can you define Beliece? :nyah: :nyah: :nyah: :nyah:

Again another miss on your part. I guess you are as nutty as the TARD is.

DUH, Dummy Dora, the "C" and the "V" are beside each other, so obviously to every body, except people like you and NUTTY JOHN, it was a typo. I know you're behind the curve, technology wise, but that was ridiculously inept on your part.

Better luck next time ... :nyah: :nyah: :nyah: :nyah:

[Truth]

Again another miss on your part. I guess you are as nutty as the TARD is.

DUH, Dummy Dora, the "C" and the "V" are beside each other, so obviously to every body, except people like you and NUTTY JOHN, it was a typo. I know you're behind the curve, technology wise, but that was ridiculously inept on your part.

Better luck next time ... :nyah: :nyah: :nyah: :nyah:

So saying you ****ed up is out of the question? :dgrin: :dgrin: :dgrin: :dgrin:

[Stillwater]

So saying you ****ed up is out of the question? :dgrin: :dgrin: :dgrin: :dgrin:

DUMB DORA, try to read with comprehension.

Read the explaination of the typo, if, you possibly can read with at least a third graders reading comprehension.

Why do I feel like I am talking, to an idiot child?

And, I see your language, is on a level equal with NUTTY JOHN'S. You two nuts really deserve each other.

[krept]

I still stand by what I said... moving posts to the appropriate forum is pretty good stuff.

cheers

[Rich Z]

Perhaps it could be a simple rule that no name calling, threats or personal attacks are to be uttered in the thread title and accompanying post? The bigger flame fests usually start off as such; perhaps by beginning threads politely or at least in a civil way we could actually get onto some good discussion.

Been there, done that. Didn't work, If it were but the case of a SINGLE person causing all the trouble, then it would be a piece of cake to fix. But several other members on this board continued the hostilities and instigations. I would delete 10 of their posts, and 8 of andy's and they would claim I was being biased FOR andy! Figure that one out......

So you are all on your own. You have the freedom here to make yourselves look like rational sentient beings, or look like brainless gutter trash all trying to outdo yourselves with the language you use. And you know what is truly funny? Even with the undeniable proof here, many of them will still deny the truth! Completely unable to see themselves for what they are. Incredible.......

[Piemaster]

So saying you ****ed up is out of the question?

Funny, you're the next to last person from this board that should be lecturing on spelling.

Leaveing for the night

Hope you boys can make it. Realize this tho, you have been had. POS means more than you know.

Truth is found where those who wish to find it look. All too often, what we percieve as truth is nothing more than what we wish to hear. But on the other hand, the Truth is also something some will ignore even when it is their on words. Not because it is right or wrong but because is will cause a controversy and give them an exsistance other than where they are now.

And you are fine with shooting you kin?

Comeing from someone who knows the truth.


Is this the part where you'll try to again place the blame on others for your demonstrated lack of skill?

[Kent]

The reason "ANdy" has been banned from all the other site is the same reason most of his followers do not post on the other sites, they and him are not allowed. It does not take a rocket scientist, although some here seem to try to portray, to figure this point out. It is a mule train. You have a lead mule and the rest just follow. Simple but not understandable to those who do not know the Truth. :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :roflmao1:

The tard has followers? REALLY??? ROTFLMFAO!! That is TOO FUNNY!

[DaRkWoLf]

I think, in a general sense, that the statement was wrong. However, Melvin deserves every last bit of it. HIS post should be CONSOLIDATED into their general topics (uneffective illigal cans, post quantity bull**** (deletable), CAR-15 falacies, SHTF fantasies and the like) and deleted if they encourage individuals to break federal law or cause harm to others or themselves. We can always send his posts to his PO as well... but John dosent deserve that much time out of our days.

[Stillwater]

I think, in a general sense, that the statement was wrong. However, Melvin deserves every last bit of it. HIS post should be CONSOLIDATED into their general topics (uneffective illigal cans, post quantity bull**** (deletable), CAR-15 falacies, SHTF fantasies and the like) and deleted if they encourage individuals to break federal law or cause harm to others or themselves. We can always send his posts to his PO as well... but John doesn't deserve that much time out of our days.

DaRkWoLF, you seem to have a clear grasp of the situation.

Email me, if you would like NUTTY JOHN'S Parole Officers name and address.

[Glenn Bartley]

Mr. Stillwater,

You satrted the most recent rash of nasty posts, I think. Just go back and read what you have written since January 13th. You start off by calling John "Nutty John". You quickly folow that with a verbal sort of attack on another poster, before he or she ever wrote anything in the recent posts that attacked you! I thin, that just goes to show your level of immaturity and vindictiveness. Why not clean up your own act. I am not saying that JD should not clean up his own, I think many of his posts quite nasty, out of place, out of touch and or ridiculous. I am not saying he should not be banned - that just might be the best idea for this site. Yet certainly, his act is no excuse or validation of your own recent rantings.

[DaRkWoLf]

Stillwater,

Check your Email, I sent a message.

[Glenn Bartley]

Gather your evidence, and just contact the BATFE....

[Stillwater]

Stillwater,

Check your Email, I sent a message.

You have email ...

[Stillwater]

Mr. Stillwater,

You satrted the most recent rash of nasty posts, I think. Just go back and read what you have written since January 13th. You start off by calling John "Nutty John". You quickly folow that with a verbal sort of attack on another poster, before he or she ever wrote anything in the recent posts that attacked you! I thin, that just goes to show your level of immaturity and vindictiveness. Why not clean up your own act. I am not saying that JD should not clean up his own, I think many of his posts quite nasty, out of place, out of touch and or ridiculous. I am not saying he should not be banned - that just might be the best idea for this site. Yet certainly, his act is no excuse or validation of your own recent rantings.



Mr. Bartley, I have been ignoring your childishly self-rightous (self-Raunchious) attempts to tell me what to do on, two forums.

Sooo, tell you what Mr. Bartley, since you are trying to be the oracle (God) from on high high, ask yourself, if I care what you think. Is that clear enough?

It will be useless trying to communicate with me, because I won't answer you.

[DaRkWoLf]

Stillwater,

I sent an email back, the # didnt match up on the locator but a name search gave the same # ?!?! cant figure out how that works. Like 1 number has 2 names/profiles. I did find melvins eventually though. Thanks.

[Glenn Bartley]

Mr. Bartley, I have been ignoring your childishly self-rightous (self-Raunchious) attempts to tell me what to do on, two forums.

Sooo, tell you what Mr. Bartley, since you are trying to be the oracle (God) from on high high, ask yourself, if I care what you think. Is that clear enough?

It will be useless trying to communicate with me, because I won't answer you


Mr. Stillwater you sure can dish it out but do find it hard to take - don't you? I am quite pleased about that if only because I guess you will no longer be calling me names as you seem, to me, to call anyone who dares to disagree with you on the issues. When you say that my posts are childish, or are oracle like, or are self righteous - it makes me wonder how you see your own words in your own posts! To see you use a description of my posts as self-raunhcious (that was the word wasn't it) makes me wonder how anyone can take you seriously as being better than JD. You may quite well be a moral man, and one who is better than JD in that regard but, you, as I see it, do not present yourself as such when you lash out against those with whom you disagree with your type of posts.

I rather hope that you do reply to this post of mine but, that you reply in a civil, respectable manner to intelligently discuss the issues at hand. I am hopeful that all the board members will join in this discussion in a respectable and intelligent manner.

The issue that I will address to Mr. Stillwater and to everyone else, in hopes that all of you will reply, is this:


I have cleaned up my act herein, so why not you too. Maybe if enough of us really act and write civilly here, then others will follow suit. Writing civilly does not mean agreeing! It allows for even vehement disagreement on the issues, but it cuts out certain types of writing such as that which expresses: hate, condescension, vileness, nastiness and so on. Can you take a challenge Mr. Stillwater? I challenge you to clean up your act and your posts; I challenge you to do away with the apparent, as I see it: hatred and nastiness. I challenge you to stop answering the posts of Andy, 223fan, John Davis or whatever posts contain hatred, flaming, trolling and plain out and out stupid stuff from those and other posters. I challenge you to ignore him (JD), really ignore him and, my bet is that sooner or later he will go away of his own accord. (of course if you have evidence of criminal wrong doing I suggest you turn such over to the authorities.)

I think, he (JD) craves to be the center of attention even if the attention he receives is negative feedback. Posts like yours about him may only go to reinforce his feeling of self-importance, they may make him feel good just because you respond to him! He, by my guess, feels good regardless of any negative feelings you place in your posts toward him and, I think the more feedback he gets the more he likes it. If you cannot see and understand that, then maybe you need to reexamine the whole situation because it seems, at least to me, to be pretty darned obvious. Or, is it you do not want to see the point I just made because you like dishing out the nasty stuff as much as does he? I sought of don't think you started out that way, but to me it seems as if this is where you have ended up. If that is the case, then I am wasting my words. I think you see it though, and just ignore the point.

People like Andy, in my opinion, are like parasites feeding off of blood and, it does not matter if it is a filthy pig's blood or the blood of a decent person. Whatever they can get nourishes them, and whatever disease they can transmit back to the host then turns the host's blood bad. The thing about guys like Andy (aka JD) is that you don't have to stay out of the water, or pick them off, to prevent them from sucking your blood and turning it bad. You just have to totally ignore them since the blood they turn bad is your mind as expressed through your words (in your posts) and they get it by getting you upset enough to get to reply to them. Ignore him on this site, really ignore him on these forums. Sooner or later he will go away. Heck it may take months, but if we for the most part ignore him, it will sink in and he will self deflate at least on this forum. If all others are willing to do likewise I too will do the same. If you really hate him so much, or at least really hate his posts so much, then why not do what will hurt him the most and absolutely ignore what is, in my opinion, his ranting and nasty posts.

Are you all a bunch of bs’ers who really like the stuff that Andy spouts out because it gives you the opportunity to give back the same or; do you really not like that stuff and want to truly put an end to it or at least minimize it? Will the rest of you accept the challenge and really ignore him and his posts? If anyone cares to do so, I think I'll join in too and; it sure would be nice to see everyone ignore him. Maybe we can even start a pool of how long it will take before he stops posting what I see as his trash?

Best regards, yes even to you Bill,
GB

[krept]

Even though I disagree with some of Glenn's points, it's that kind of thinking and attitude that I can appreciate. It makes discussions so much better.

All the rhetoric is like trying to put out a fire by sticking a lit torch in a furnace... everything becomes consumed in the process. I for one love fires, but I have zero doubt that GK will continue posting as long as he can, regardless of what is said. If the intent is to crank up the heat, it's fine but a funeral pyre it will not make.

Again, all the tit for tat stuff is entertaining in it's own right... I'm not saying STOP by any means. I'm just saying I appreciate well thought out posts like that. It's easy to reply to them with hollow insults and weak insinuations, but using logic takes a little more work. Sometimes it's funny hearing well lubricated defense mechanisms groaning. ;)

and this comment wasn't directed at anyone in particular, just a discussion on the merits of what I consider a good non-firearms post.

cheers

[Magnum88C]

Hey man, civil posts get civil responses.
I don't always agree with Glenn either, but his posts are at least well thought out and high quality.

[Glenn Bartley]

Please bear in mind all of the following is based upon my opinion of all that I am writing about:

Thanks for the nice comments. I know not everyone agrees with me and, I do not expect or want everyone to do so. That would make for pretty boring discussions. The thing is though, we can have really interesting discussions without being boneheads toward one another. We can disagree, we can make it look like the other guy to whom we are replying is a no nothing or a genius, we can give our own point of view, and yet we can remain respectful. Sometimes others may not think we are being respectful because our ideas may clash so much with their own, and they may get riled up and fire back a nasty reply. That disagreement was not (or at least certainly does not have to be) lack of respect; it is simply lack of agreement and there is usually no reason to get fired up if all is kept civil. Sure every now and then someone will blow off too much steam in a reply, heck I have done it all too often on this site and on another that Rich Z runs. Others do likewise but, it is no reason to turn a site into a mud slinging fest. Just because one guy, or a few, want(s) to be a pig does not mean we have to pay attention to the squealing.

I'll pay attention to posts by everyone here at Arms Locker so long as they are pretty much respectable. That should just about cut out about 95% of one person's posts. I would like to have a way not only to ignore his posts, but also to completely ignore any thread he has started. Correct me if I am wrong but, I believe if you place a person on the ignore list (is it still available?) it blanks out any posts they made, but if they started the thread then the remainder of the posts by other people in the thread will show up. I'd rather not view any of that if I have the thread starter on ignore, mostly because the replies are just as bad as are his posts. I don't know if that can be worked out, but it would make the whole ignore feature so much more effective, at least as I see it.

As for posting civilly, you do not need to have a civil post to reply civilly. Sure it can be hard, but if you reply with intelligence instead of raw fired up emotions, you will make the guy who fired you up look all the more so like a jerk, and at the same time maybe help to defeat his purpose of firing you up in the first place so he can get super charged attention. This is not directed at anyone in particular, it goes for everyone myself included and works both ways. I would love to see everyone post intelligently yet, as opposed to so many posting nasty stuff. Just think of how much better the site would be if we all posted respectfully even when answering a certain, as I see him, dunce on this site. Yes I do mean someone quite specifically, and no I do not mean Mr. Stillwater. I don't like, what are in my opinion, the asinine posts, the nastiness, the vileness, the incessant foul language directed at others character (although I am often quite guilty of this myself but at least not in the forums anymore), the bravado, the sense of his being the all knowing guru of gundom (at least in his own mind) kind of posts that I believe Andy makes. Yet I do think that if Andy (aka whomever) posted in a respectful manner we could all have some darned good gun talk happening on this site -even if you think his information is not correct or just totally off of the wall and whacko.

No matter how much this is said though, it appears as if Andy will not do what is needed to make his posts more acceptable to the rest of us, he will not, I think, keep it respectable. So where does that leave us. Well either we can drop down to what I believe is his level, somewhere in the gutters where the **** freely flows down hill and we right along with it or; we can remain at a higher level and not bring ourselves down into the filth. So far, I think in general, we have pretty much stooped to his level. I do not like bathing in ****, not Andy's or anyone else's!

On the other hand, some people seem to like getting right into the pig sty and flinging it around while they bathe in it. I think some of the people who do it, do it because they are pissed off and don't notice they have dived right in too. Others probably do it because they like doing it as much as I believe Andy likes to do it, but, they do not want to admit this, so they use Andy's posts as an excuse for their own bad taste. They are attention seekers as is he. Now don't get me wrong; I like attention too, I think we all like it to some extent. I like to write, and leave posts, and get some good feedback even if in disagreement with me, and some times even if it makes me look like a jerk. Just ask Rich Z about that. He can attest to the fact that I do not always say things as tactfully as I can say them. In other words, I like to discuss the full issue as I see it, sling it about out in the open when I think there is something there to grab hold of and sling, but I don't like to do it with ****, not even with mud! There is a way to say what you mean with respect, even when it makes the other guy look wrong, or bad, or when you pose a really tough question. This goes whether or not you are right in what you are saying. This goes no matter how much you believe what you are saying is right, and no matter how much you believe the other guy maybe wrong or no matter how much you question the other guy or how much he questioned you. Remember too that respect does not necessarily have to be for the guy you are responding to either, but your answer at least should be respectfully worded for the other folks using the board if not for the guy with whom you disagree. You remaining respectful keeps you on high ground, and not at the bottom of that hill buried in ****.

Of course I also believe being respectful would help end the problem, help end the flow.
I truly believe that if we just ignored the problem, in this case it would go away because the problem is in great part, I think, his incessantly seeking attention, especially when your attention is fueled by fire. So if we ignore him, or even if we answer him but do so with the greatest of respect, he will either see the light or just fade away. I see no blaze of glory for him as I believe he hopes, just a fizzled out soggy ash pit. So if you really want to end the crap, why give him what he is seeking in the first place - a **** flinging match??????

[Magnum88C]

Unfortunately, Glenn, the ignoring of Gunkid has been tried several times on other boards, by people who thought what you are suggesting is reasonable (and it is). But, he never does stop, he keeps up the death threats, he keeps up the spamming, etc until he's banned.

If Rich doesn't want to ban him, that's fine.
As for posting civilly, you do not need to have a civil post to reply civilly.Quite true. It's not a need, it's a policy. You get what you give. Others don't agree, and that's fine.

[Stillwater]

AN INSULT, NOT ANSWERED, IS THE PARENT OF INSULTS TO COME.

Sir Winston Churchill

Why are two people, here, so blind, that they cannot see the answer to the problem? If you clean up the PROGENITOR of the HATE and DISCONTENT, and ALL others will gladly fall into line, or leave.

In fact the two main whiners remind me of a biblical passage, to wit; THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND, AS THOSE THAT WON'T SEE!

End of comments ...

[krept]

I'm confused about where the "whining" part comes in, but nonetheless...

The above post seems to infer that getting rid of GK will solve the problem. To my knowledge, Rich isn't going to ban him, so apparently there are other ways to get rid of him by non-administrators.

Let's just openly hypothesize on some:

1) Glen feels that the answer to the problem is ignoring GK's posts.

2) Contact local/federal authorities (ATF/IRS/his P.O.) etc. Some here have publicly said they are doing this or have done it. Fine, I guess that end will take care of itself.

3) Convince GK to leave. This is being done by what can be considered psyops stuff. Insults, twisting words, pointing out apparent lies, etc.

Both 2 and 3 have been going on for a while it seems. Is it working? Apparently not. So what about 1? Think that's worth a shot? Of course it isn't because nobody can agree to a) put him on ignore and b) not open up his posts (which adds to the 'view counter').

Anyways, if I'm FOS, as usual, let me know. I'm open.

Since we are using quotations, I'll add this in...

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he doesn't become a monster. - Friedrich Nietzsche

And I couldn't agree more, with "THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND, AS THOSE THAT WON'T SEE!"

What are some clues that one is blind? What are some clues that one is becoming a monster?

[Stillwater]

I'm confused about where the "whining" part comes in, but nonetheless...

The above post seems to infer that getting rid of GK will solve the problem. To my knowledge, Rich isn't going to ban him, so apparently there are other ways to get rid of him by non-administrators.

<snip>



Entirely, a pre-supposition on your part Mr. Krept. And erronous as well. Just another, erronous Pre-supposition, in a long string of pre-suppositions on your part.

Ask Rich ... we have had a phone conversation about just that.

I want NUTTY JOHN to stay here, and convict himself, with his mouth. He is well on the way of doing that.

[Glenn Bartley]

Man oh man Stillwater, first you quote Krept say that Krept makes an erroneous suppostion when he says:The above post seems to infer that getting rid of GK will solve the problem. To my knowledge, Rich isn't going to ban him, so apparently there are other ways to get rid of him by non-administrators.

Then you say: I want NUTTY JOHN to stay here, and convict himself, with his mouth. He is well on the way of doing that.

Now am I going nuts or has John become an administrator here at ArmsLocker? I do not think he is one, so the so called erroneous supposition by Krept must instead actually be a correct supposition by your own logic Mr. Stillwater. Are you not, in essence, saying that you want to see him continue here so he can hang himself? Well he is not an administrator, therefor if his own words get him screwed and out of here, isn't what Krept said right on the money when he speaks of non-administrators getting rid of John?

LOL that is a truly good one, gotta love how you guys agreed on something without even trying to or realizing that that is what you had done.

As for wha I see as the continued insults in your posts, you really are, at least in my opinion, getting as bad as John. Aren't you? When you write things like you have in your last few posts - are you proud of yourself? You claim there are two main whiners, I wonder if you include yourself among them? You have the unmitigated audacity to start quoting the bible yet, called me the oracle of God (which I certainly do not pretend to be) and, you rant with hatred against John Davis incessantly. You also quote Sir Winston Churchill as if you were some sort of reprentation of his being, you are nowhere near him and you do not face the problems he faced when he said that. If you want to make it appear that Churchill was talking about some tit for tat spat that you are having with some guy on the Internet, then all I have to say is, in my opinion, you need to reasses your self-importance. Oh man, to quote the bible and to quote Churchill to make yourself and your fight look righteous is unbelievable. As for referring to JD as the PROGENITOR of hate, and I assume you meant him, are you kidding. His hate is not responsible for the hate that comes out of you. Only you are responsible for that. If you can not see that then who is the blind one here. Think about that as you look at yourself in the mirror and congratulate yourself for bashing anyone whom would disagree with you. You are one hell of a manner of man, that is for certain from my viewpoint.

As I said though, if you believe this bs from Andy, or JD, or whomever he claims to be today, to be more than sick childish fantasy ranting by some loony on the Internet, then why not report it to the authorities. I have not seen you post the info that you have done so with proof, all I have heard you do is bitch and moan. Why not show that you are more than just a whiner and post some evidence of the steps you have taken to have this person investigated by his parole officer or by other authorities for the crimes you suppose he has commited?

[Coyote]

In the future, I will try to be civil with andy; Ive got nothing to lose, so why the hell not. But I wish Rich would just ban John; EVERY post he makes is insulting. Whether he is the root of the problem or not, he IS the center of it, and it would be nice to have one freakin day where I can post here without seeing one :-) or being called a punk.

[Glenn Bartley]

It may yet have to be what needs to be done. I suggested the same a few times way back when. Rich did not go for it then or now, but I thinkk it is really ruining this site to allow him to contnue with what I believe are his trashy fantasy posts. I kind of hope ignoring him will help, but that will jot likely work unless each and every member of this site does likewise. I guess from the feedback, that idea is doomed already.

[krept]

Bill, I had no idea Rich was considering banning him, but I also didn't assert I was certain he wouldn't, hence my caveat "to my knowledge," so it's all good.

I'm dropping the "how does one know when they're blind?" tangent because there is a good discussion going. I don't want JD to leave because he has (what maybe I alone) consider good info. That said, we would be much nicer without the insults, etc.

It's a lot easier to understand on Pal Talk, IMO.

cheers

[Stillwater]

Bill, I had no idea Rich was considering banning him, but I also didn't assert I was certain he wouldn't, hence my caveat "to my knowledge," so it's all good.

I'm dropping the "how does one know when they're blind?" tangent.

cheers

Rich is not going to Ban anybody. In fact I spoke with Rich on the phone today.

I made it quiet clear that I felt NUTTY JOHN shouldn't be banned. If you don't believe that -- ask him.

The only person who should be banned, is the person who makes long, boring, self-raunchous posts, while trying to engage me in a dialogue. Which isn't going to happen. LOL ...

[krept]

Well, see, now I'm all ****ed up. I don't know which of my pre-suppositions or presumptions I screwed up on, but I thought that was it. My bad. The word "raunchous" I don't even know. I'm all screwed up. We should all get on Pal Talk and discuss.

cheers

[Rich Z]

What I said to you, Bill, was that if there were only one problem person on this site, ONLY one who was posting in a derogatory and inflammatory manner, then I could deal with that problem as appropriate. I could "excise" the problem. End of virtual quote.

But since there are a large number of people who act in like kind on this site, I can only assume that this is what the people who are members here want out of this site, and how they prefer to act as well as how they prefer others to act in response. Who am I to force them to take otherwise here?

All I am doing is allowing everyone to make this site what they want. If some people prefer to crap in the easy chair they sit in, then so be it.

So if I had 400 members and only one of them was posting garbage, yes, I would ban that person. But until the other 399 of you begin to act like adults, and in a professional and generally socially acceptable manner, then you reap the seeds you sow.

I can do what needs to be done, but you all have to do your part. YOU go first.

[Stillwater]

Well, see, now I'm all ****ed up. I don't know which of my pre-suppositions or presumptions I screwed up on, but I thought that was it. My bad. The word "raunchous" I don't even know. I'm all screwed up. We should all get on Pal Talk and discuss.

cheers

Raunchy, a word for a slovenly person.

Self-Rightous, a term for a people who think the world revolves around their way of acting.

Self-Raunchous, a term derived from raunchy, and self-rightous.

Can you figure out the corolation?

[Stillwater]

What I said to you, Bill, was that if there were only one problem person on this site, ONLY one who was posting in a derogatory and inflammatory manner, then I could deal with that problem as appropriate. I could "excise" the problem. End of virtual quote.

But since there are a large number of people who act in like kind on this site, I can only assume that this is what the people who are members here want out of this site, and how they prefer to act as well as how they prefer others to act in response. Who am I to force them to take otherwise here?

All I am doing is allowing everyone to make this site what they want. If some people prefer to crap in the easy chair they sit in, then so be it.

So if I had 400 members and only one of them was posting garbage, yes, I would ban that person. But until the other 399 of you begin to act like adults, and in a professional and generally socially acceptable manner, then you reap the seeds you sow.

I can do what needs to be done, but you all have to do your part. YOU go first.

Yes, that is what you did say.

I said, that since I, or WE, which ever way you want to use the term, didn't start the problem. Then I, or WE, shouldn't be asked, or required to put on our party manners first.

When JOHN MELVIN DAVIS, the primary offender, cleans up his act, then the secondaries should change their modus operandi, and become socially civil.

There in, is where the difference of opinion lies. That is how it will stay, until JOHN MELVIN DAVIS cleans up his act. Which I doubt, will ever happen.

Does anyone remember my Winston Churchill quote? The quote was: AN UNANSWERED INSULT, IS THE PARENT, OF OTHER INSULTS TO COME.

Is there anybody here smarter, or more intellectually gifted, than Winston Churchill? NO! I think Churchill was dead right, and that is how I look at JOHN MELVIN DAVIS.

However, If anyone thinks they know more than Winston Churchill, the wrong piece of their anatomy, is on their shoulders.

For everybodys edification, I am not the leader of the pack. Ask any one. This bunch of fractious individualists, probably could not be found in any other place. God Bless them, except for NUTTY JOHN ...

[krept]

Self-Raunchous, a term derived from raunchy, and self-rightous.

nice man :D

you know that combing words like that is a sign of schizophrenia? Of course, they say there is a fine line between genius and insanity and I fall a little off the mark myself... just a bit... :D

thanks, I DO appreciate that kind of thinking

cheers

[Coyote]

Churchill may have been smart, and I respect him for it, but he was still a prick.

We have absolutely nothing to lose by shooting down melvins posts without calling him names. Nothing at all. Indeed, I have been calling him names for quite a while, and thought up a new one yesterday, but Mr. Bartley has a point. If people are willing to act in a civilised manner, even around GK, then Rich can ban him. He's a troll and he needs to go, but we post our fair share of insulting threads too.

"AN UNANSWERED INSULT, IS THE PARENT, OF OTHER INSULTS TO COME."

Isnt that just a wordier way of saying "well HE STARTED IT!"

Comon, we're adults.

[Magnum88C]

Churchill may have been smart, and I respect him for it, but he was still a prick.

Couln't have been said better.

"AN UNANSWERED INSULT, IS THE PARENT, OF OTHER INSULTS TO COME."

Isnt that just a wordier way of saying "well HE STARTED IT!"

Comon, we're adults.

Let me be clear about my feelings. If someone starts ****, then THEY STARTED IT, THEY are responsible, alone, for it. The people who respond, even if they respond in kind, are not at fault, and not part of the problem, as they would not respond in that manner unprovoked.

I think this "blame the second guy" attitude comes from the liberal political indoctrination carried out in schools. Since it is considered "discrimination" to single out a troublemaker for punishment (as well as in society), they have to blame everyone involved, and claim that everyone is the problem. It's a politically-correctness-induced myopia that has infected our society.

However, how about this proposal? To prove who the real men are, we just keep stomping his posts into little puddles of gooey paste, but do so without name calling? Hmmm? It's not hard, there's plenty of facts with which to bury him, although some facts will have to be left out as they would be considered name-calling by the genteel among us.

[Coyote]

+1 to magnum, right there. You hit the nail on the head.

[Rich Z]

However, how about this proposal? To prove who the real men are, we just keep stomping his posts into little puddles of gooey paste, but do so without name calling? Hmmm? It's not hard, there's plenty of facts with which to bury him, although some facts will have to be left out as they would be considered name-calling by the genteel among us.

OK, let's see who are the "real men" then. Let's see who has the personal control of their emotions to be able to respond without using derogatory terms and name calling.

And no, the argument that "Johnnie started it!" doesn't cut it with me.

[Wylycoyte]

We have absolutely nothing to lose by shooting down melvins posts without calling him names. Nothing at all.

Tried that for a while. I think it'd make for a good website, a sort of Mythbusters for the most common ravings.


::snip::


"AN UNANSWERED INSULT, IS THE PARENT, OF OTHER INSULTS TO COME."

Isnt that just a wordier way of saying "well HE STARTED IT!"

No. It's about not being a doormat. Sometimes its the right strategy, sometimes it isn't.

The drive to seek revenge, sometimes at a cost beyond rationality, is an evolutionary tactic to ensure that people think twice before messing with you and yours, plain and simple. Its interesting to examine the theories that uphold the so-called baser emotional impulses as being necessary for life, or at least life before modern civilization. If you have not read Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene by now, I suggest that you should.

[Stillwater]

OK, let's see who are the "real men" then. Let's see who has the personal control of their emotions to be able to respond without using derogatory terms and name calling.

And no, the argument that "Johnnie started it!" doesn't cut it with me.


You can be in AALL THE DENIAL about NUTTY JOHN, you want to be, but, shut NUTTY JOHN up, and the rest of us will fall into line.

Who's definition of "REAL MEN," are we going to use? Certainly not your's RICH.

Take it or leave it.

[Stillwater]

Tried that for a while.

::snip::

No. It's about not being a doormat.

<snip>

The drive to seek revenge, sometimes at a cost beyond rationality, is an evolutionary tactic to ensure that people think twice before messing with you and yours, plain and simple.

<snip>



My point exactly. It is all about not being a doormat, to a reprehensible social outcast, like NUTTY JOHN.

Your talking differently today, than you did yesterday, Rich ...

[John in AR]

…sometimes at a cost beyond rationality…

Irrational is just that, irrational. How can engaging in “irrational” behavior be the rational, reasonable, or adult thing to do…? And if it’s not ‘rational, reasonable, and adult’, it’s by definition ‘irrational, unreasonable, and childish’. That’s inescapable.

Not taking sides, and not saying andy hasn’t invited it. As you said (or someone above said), it’s like wrestling with a pig. As a man, I prefer to stay out of the pigpen.

Although I admit I do enjoy watching some occasional mud-wrestling…

[Stillwater]

OK, let's see who are the "real men" then. Let's see who has the personal control of their emotions to be able to respond without using derogatory terms and name calling.

And no, the argument that "Johnnie started it!" doesn't cut it with me.

Lets see you control the social outcast, the perpetrator of the foul mouthed posts. Either control him, or accept what happens.

Lets see you control the death threats, that NUTTY JOHN has threatened people with.

But, don't believe me RICH, ask, ASLAN -- what the TARD has said to him, as well as me.

So, don't ask us to get all huggy poo, kissy faced with the TARD. You don't have the right to ... You can kiss the TARD'S butt, if you want to. Don't ask the rest of us too.

Westerners stick up for themselves. We don't need other people, like you, to solve our problems ...

But, NUTTY JOHN, is your problem to solve, if you want civility. You don't see anybody being uncivil, to anyone else do you? Curious people want to know ...

So, Rich, how about you being a REAL MAN, and reigning the TARD in?

[Wylycoyte]

…sometimes at a cost beyond rationality…

Irrational is just that, irrational. How can engaging in “irrational” behavior be the rational, reasonable, or adult thing to do…? And if it’s not ‘rational, reasonable, and adult’, it’s by definition ‘irrational, unreasonable, and childish’. That’s inescapable.

Honor codes are based heavily on slights and the avenging of same. What might seem incredibly foolhardy in the short run, i.e. attacking someone who will almost surely mopping the floor with you in revenge for him stealing your chickens, wil mark you as a Loose Cannon. Loose Cannons tend not to be messed with. They're like Joe Pesci in any given mob flick. He might be short and kind of scrawny, but noone ****s with him for fear of an "irrational" response that is actually quite rational from another point of view. Evolutionarily speaking, though, being such a Loose Cannon also makes it more likely that someone will die. The crap shoot of life means that that strategy probably won't be widespread due to simple attrition of genetic lines. The population will eventually reach a dynamic stability with a roughly constant percentage of loonies vs. a larger percentage of "rational people" and this percentage breakdown probably won't change unless the environmental conditions change.

As for arguing on the internet, well, as I mentioned...sometimes a strategy that works in one situation doesn't work so well in others. Occasionally makes for good entertainment, though.

[Rich Z]

My point exactly. It is all about not being a doormat, to a reprehensible social outcast, like NUTTY JOHN.

Your talking differently today, than you did yesterday, Rich ...

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you, Bill. Sorry you wasted a long distance phone call. I haven't changed my position one bit. And I do believe everything I have said here was what was said in our phone conversation. I specifically stated that I was not going to do anything about andy/gunkid/John Davis until I saw that everyone else was going to stop behaving in a like manner. Remember? I told you that was why I STOPPED the moderation on the site, because so many other people were acting the same way.

So yes, I WAS editing and deleting posts by andy. Just as I was doing the same thing to other members' posts as well. When it continued, unabated from EVERYONE, not just andy, then I decided to quit the moderation and let you all have what you all apparently wanted. Granted, you were on a self imposed exile at this time, Bill, so I can't blame that on you. But regardless, that is what happened.

So since this is my site, I lay down the ground rules. Take it or leave it.

[krept]

1) Wyly has brought two large servings of The Correct.

2)


http://s04.imagehost.org/1573/duro2k5_tweeden02b.jpg


gentlemen, continue the discussion

[Magnum88C]

I like 2 better.

[Wylycoyte]

Krept,

In rebuttal:

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwhayek.html

[Stillwater]

<snip>

Let me be clear about my feelings. If someone starts ****, then THEY STARTED IT, THEY are responsible, alone, for it. The people who respond, even if they respond in kind, are not at fault, and not part of the problem, as they would not respond in that manner unprovoked.

Absolutely, but a foreign concept to two people on this forum.


I think this "blame the second guy" attitude comes from the liberal political indoctrination carried out in schools.

Are the two of you listening?


Since it is considered "discrimination" to single out a troublemaker for punishment (as well as in society), they have to blame everyone involved, and claim that everyone is the problem. It's a politically-correctness-induced myopia that has infected our society.

I would probably never have expressed this thought, this good, in a year of trying. Excellent ...

Is anybody listening?


However, how about this proposal? To prove who the real men are, we just keep stomping his posts into little puddles of gooey paste, but do so without name calling? Hmmm? It's not hard, there's plenty of facts with which to bury him, although some facts will have to be left out as they would be considered name-calling by the genteel among us.

Some names have been attached to Davis, such as; GunTard, The TARD, NUTTY JOHN etc, for many years. Those should stay.

However, the name calling, using the same terms as NUTTY JOHN puts out, could be eliminated without compromising anyones. feelings

The IGNORE feature should be turned off. Then, the TARD would be confronted with the opposition, to his posts, every time he went to a thread.

[neolithic hunter]

butt who am i rich you run this forum and you have the tools a your finger tips to stop all the abuse it's called a filter. you can filter out all out the bad language and do it easlie. i for one have not found a thing of worth in any of his threads, they are somewhat critical of the upper end of the gene pool. i'm not saying the gk is all bad but i don't think his mommy would be proud of him. you have the final word on how this form is viewed by the rest of the internet world. if common sense and logic doesn't rule then anarchie will.

[Rich Z]

I had filters in place. People simply bypassed them by typing in Sh!t and Phuck, a$$hole, c0cksucker, and the like. So why bother? I just gave all of the kiddies the toys they apparently wanted and left the front door open so maybe their playing will carry them into oncoming traffic on the street outside.

I am NOT the daddy here. If a bunch of adults NEED a daddy in order to look like respectable, well mannered, and professional human beings, then I fail to see how the fault of allowing them to be seen how they truly are lies with me.

So we get into that "freedom" thing again. No one apparently wants freedom if it means that the other guy can do something they don't like.

[KJUN]

[QUOTE=Rich Z]I had filters in place. People simply bypassed them by typing in Sh!t and Phuck, a$$hole, c0cksucker, and the like. So why bother? QUOTE]


Was it Robert Heinlein that said that profanity is the last resort of a weak mind? Granted, almost nobody uses no profanity, but I think the fact that you have to cheat the system to make it look like you are using profanity shows that your only point is to use profanity. Period.

This goes for Andy and thrice as much for the "better" people that seem to have no armslocker life except to argue with him or fight over who he ignores/calls name more.

KJ

[KJUN]

only as derogatory as him calling us FOS, clowns, lames, dvmmys, stvpes, inept etc.

"Mommy! Tommy hit me back first. Make him stop!" LOL.

[BigEd63]

"Mommy! Tommy hit me back first. Make him stop!" LOL.

Oh big deal, this site is for goofing off as far as I'm concerned.

You even have new members falling into the Melvin slapping group.

The majority here belong to that group if it's seen as bad either ban Melvin or Melvin and all if us and start clean over.

Since it's never happened anywhere esle I'd be interested to see what would happen if the later were done.

I'm registered on close to 50 other forums ranging from general to specific on firearms and SHTF topics. It's to those I go to for serious talk and info.

Odd that Melvin's been banned from most of them and yet they are doing well except for 2-3 that tried to cut him slack over the long haul and they are either gone or on their last leg after waiting to long to ban him.

I'm not going to get into that anymore here, it seems like a wate of time. :alien:

[Magnum88C]

I'm registered on close to 50 other forums ranging from general to specific on firearms and SHTF topics. It's to those I go to for serious talk and info.

Odd that Melvin's been banned from most of them and yet they are doing well except for 2-3 that tried to cut him slack over the long haul and they are either gone or on their last leg after waiting to long to ban him.

And that's exactly what would happen here. The original posters that complained about Melvin before the **** really started to fly left because of him. Even if Rich bans Melvin at this point (For the record, I don't think he should), the forum would die, simply because just about everyone here posts on several (some of us dozens) of other boards on a regular basis, and this one is just a kick-the-tard club, with some real conversation thrown in with other posters we don't see elsewhere. And a lot of them are posting at Teuf's now.

I think the only option at this point is to basically do what Rich has done -- hands off and what happens happens. Which is kind of sad, because at least in the beginning, this was a place where you could talk about all kinds of guns, everything didn't have to be tactical, end-of-the-world stuff, which quite frankly, gets boring real quick.

[copycat]

Well we all know why it a joke here.

[Rich Z]

Well we all know why it a joke here.

Maybe. But this site is exactly what YOU all made it.

[T. Daves]

new guy here but people will view the aforementioned statement as they wish. in your on mind you have to reason out why a statement was said and then administer out the actions deemed right

[andy]

SOME of us know why this site is still HERE, and Rich is one of them, dumbasses.

[Coyote]

Maybe. But this site is exactly what YOU all made it.
Man, why the hell do you even care what we think? The ban button is right there, the site is yours and you pay the bill. For my sake, before I send you $1.50 in the mail to cover my "portion" of the site. I'm starting to feel guilty.

Find somebody you dont like and press the button!:smash:

[Wylycoyte]

Find somebody you dont like and press the button!

That's what I've said all along!

[Coyote]

Its only any goot if you tell ze vorld... VY DIDNT YOU TELL ZE VORLD!!!!!!!

[arebindixie]

Maybe. But this site is exactly what YOU all made it.

I'm new to this forum so my opinion is of limited value to the regulars. Nevertheless, I'd like to establish the following points:

1. Firearms and tactics initiate passionate opinions; what works well for one may not work well for another. Both topics are quite subjective as well (e.g. a good deer rifle may be a Winchester Model 94 in .30-30 or a Winchester Model 70 in .270 depending upon where you hunt and the conditions thereof).
2. Skill and experience vary greatly.
3. Sharing opinions, information, and experience provides a wealth of learning potential.
4. People who can no longer learn have reached the end of their intellectual development.
5. Name calling is childish but most do it when provoked.
6. When in someone else's home, his rules and behavior are the accepted standard.
7. Irrational and unenlightened conversation leads to nothing but needless conflict.
8. Experienced shooters often alienate those who are new to the sport/hobby due to unbridled opinions, condescending attitudes towards modest resources and equipment, inflated skills and experience, etc.
9. Reasonable moderation, like reasonable government, is necessary to ensure that resonable standards are maintained; failure to execute authority is no worse than a failure to honor it.
10. Inappropriate moderation, like leviathan regimes, ultimately devolve to chaos.

My $.02 for what it is worth.

[lucille]

I think that is WELL SAID and agree with all except one item.
Perhaps on other boards experienced shooters may be condescending, this has not happened here. I have been honest about my lack of experience (and honest about everything else, too) and y'all have gone out of your way to provide good solid information. I actually admire the way some of you, who I know are EXTREMELY advanced gun afficionados, have taken your time to provide me with your opinions, with definitions of gun terms, etc.
I really appreciate y'all.

[Rich Z]

9. Reasonable moderation, like reasonable government, is necessary to ensure that resonable standards are maintained; failure to execute authority is no worse than a failure to honor it.
10. Inappropriate moderation, like leviathan regimes, ultimately devolve to chaos.


Ah, but this is the key!

I did try moderation a while back. Little did I realize then that the call for moderation was actually a call to ban one particular person on this forum. When I did moderate fairly and evenly, those other people got indignant about it. I wasn't supposed to do it THAT way! I was supposed to allow their attacks but only apply moderation against one particular individual.

So eventually I found that my time was being spent fruitlessly editing and deleting uncounted numbers of posts. For a site, which at the time had maybe 30 actively posting members, that was absolutely ridiculous. With myself and two other moderators, we could not keep up with the workload! And when one post would slip by because we were not religiously reading every blasted post made, we would get slammed for being biased by one person or another.

So I just said "to hell with it", relieved the two moderators of their duties, and dropped all moderation at all on this site completely.

My opinion is that the people here WANT this site to be unmoderated by the manner in which they have been posting and purposely contributing to an atmosphere that promotes antagonism between parties.

So as I said earlier, you all HAVE exactly what you asked for.

[copycat]

If you make your living on a hog farm, its hard to complain about the smell.

[Rich Z]

Yes, that is true. And it gets especially tiresome listening to all of the hogs complaining about their living conditions as well. Especially when the hogs are the ones creating the living conditions there.....

[ballistic_ken]

It's your forum, and therefore it is a reflection on you.

[arebindixie]

My opinion is that the people here WANT this site to be unmoderated by the manner in which they have been posting and purposely contributing to an atmosphere that promotes antagonism between parties.

So as I said earlier, you all HAVE exactly what you asked for.

Rich,

I respect your frustration. You cannot be driven by the members of your board. You can set the rules and rules are rules, enforce them! Allow it to be more than a pissing contest.

[Rich Z]

Rich,

I respect your frustration. You cannot be driven by the members of your board. You can set the rules and rules are rules, enforce them! Allow it to be more than a pissing contest.

You are neglecting to consider the work load involved. The question arises as to WHY I should want to, much less have to, put in so much effort keeping adults in line on my site.

[Rich Z]

It's your forum, and therefore it is a reflection on you.

So be it. I am not, have never been, and will not EVER be in this type of business. So who cares?

[copycat]

Yes, that is true. And it gets especially tiresome listening to all of the hogs complaining about their living conditions as well. Especially when the hogs are the ones creating the living conditions there.....

It's no big deal to me, I've been called worse things than a hog, but only by the resident troll on this board.

[arebindixie]

You are neglecting to consider the work load involved. The question arises as to WHY I should want to, much less have to, put in so much effort keeping adults in line on my site.

No. I do the same thing for my church. It is a labor of love. Adults misbehave as do children.

[KJUN]

If you make your living on a hog farm, its hard to complain about the smell.

But if you build a home that gets wrecked by vandals who claim they are only doing it because you didn't evict one person they didn't like living in YOUR home, can you complain about the damage then? How about when those vandals are given "free residence" in your home, too, if they want it?

Face it: Andy really hurt this board (in MY OPINION), but he is only one person. The umpteen others multiplied his damage umpteen times and did much worse damage (again in MY OPINION) to this board.

To go back to your analogy: if you put the hogs on your neighbors property, you have no reason to complain when he raises them up and makes his place into a hog farm, do you?

KJ

[Magnum88C]

KJUN, interesting opinion, here's mine:
To use a different analogy, when you let someone some into your house, where you tell all incoming people that basic decency, at least, is expected, and then this "guest" starts throwing **** at everyone who comes in, you really dopn't have much to complain about when the other guests start throwing it back. If you tolerate one guest that throws **** at all comers, because that means more guests come by to watch the circus you're running in your house, it's a bit hypocritical to say the least to come down on the other guests for doing what your pet guest is doing.

Oh ****in well, just don't expect me to become all warm and fuzzy to the pet sociopath.

[KJUN]

I understand your point, but this is why analogies are so bad. You can throw them around (like I'm about to continue to do....lol) without ever saying much meaningful.

To complete your analogy, let's assume that I am in someones house. I'm a guest and I must behave accordingly. (I'm a southerner, and there is not much worse than be4ing offensive while a guest in someone's home.) If one other guest starts pelting me with feces, I only see 3 options assuming I do NOT enjoy feces hitting me or being thrown at me: (1) ask the person to step out of the house where it wouldn't be rude to the owner to take whatever actions i feel is necessary, (2) pretend I like being hit with feces to be polite until I leave (e.g., ignoring it would fit in this category since nobody is forcing me to acknowledge the thrown feces), and (3) leave immediately since I am not forced to stay there.

All of these options are available to us. Defecating into my open palm and chunking it back in someone else's house is not appropriate, adult, behavior. ...and yes, I have occasionally behaved inappropriately in the past, too. I just TRY not to make it a habit or the norm.

BUT, there is also the fact that if invited to someone's house based on how I am, the owner must expect me to behave like I do. Don't expect me to behave differently. The difference is in dragging the guy outside to whoop his butt (rude, but the owner who invited me must know I'd do that to someone throwing feces at me or whatever) and throwing feces back. One is a response and the other is a tantrum.

KJ

[copycat]

Analogies aside I don't know many people here who didn't give Andy a chance to be civil when they first began posting (I know I did) I admit some gave more time than others, but eventually being called names and challenged to death ending fights becomes tiresome, yes I and other could just leave, but why should we be the ones who leave. Andy is just like the fellow at work who always has a better or different way to do things, and is smarter than anyone, most people give him a chance and when his ideas turn out to be bull**** he's gone. But here there's no boss to fire his worthless butt.
After listening to Andy's posts and going back and reading a great many of his past postings, I believe that he deserves everything that gets said to him. I've never seen a more worthless, drain on society in my life.

[Magnum88C]

To complete your analogy, let's assume that I am in someones house. I'm a guest and I must behave accordingly. (I'm a southerner, and there is not much worse than be4ing offensive while a guest in someone's home.) If one other guest starts pelting me with feces, I only see 3 options assuming I do NOT enjoy feces hitting me or being thrown at me: (1) ask the person to step out of the house where it wouldn't be rude to the owner to take whatever actions i feel is necessary, (2) pretend I like being hit with feces to be polite until I leave (e.g., ignoring it would fit in this category since nobody is forcing me to acknowledge the thrown feces), and (3) leave immediately since I am not forced to stay there.

But see, that's where I see the fallacy.
The OTHER guest is in violation of the agreed to rules.
So:
1.) the host (if you want to get into the "standards of the guest/host relationship", remember that the host has as much requirement to be a gracious host as you have of being a good guest. people like to forget that part when it's convienent) is holding you to his rules, and not the other person, and is a hypocrite.
OR
2.) There's no actual requirement to follow the rules, and the host has no bitch with the other people either.
OR
3.) The host blames the initial behavior of the guest that started the problems on those reacting to it. Meaning the host is both a hypocrite and is actively approving of the first guest's troublemaking.

[KJUN]

remember that the host has as much requirement to be a gracious host as you have of being a good guest.

That is where you are wrong. When in a hosts house, the host makes the rules. Like them or hate them, you have 2 options: stay or leave. You have NO right to place judgement on a host in his own home based on his morality. I always tell people that if I want to walk around naked in my house in the middle of supper with an open umbrella hanging out of my butt, I will. If they don't like that, don't come over. Conversly, I don't go to anyone's house as a guest if I am not prepared to eat supper seeing an umbrella hanging out of someone else's butt.

The fact that I've never done anything similar like that during an event in my home is because I don't believe it is a proper way for a southern gentleman to behave, but not because I feel that it is not within my rights (which is also probably due to my southern upbringing) to do so. Nobody - and I do mean nobody - has the right to judge my behavior in my own home as long as it doesn't actively, directly, harm another person.
KJ

[Magnum88C]

You just aren't going back far enough with your concept of the hospitality responsibilities of host/guest. You're using the modern interpretation.
You know, if you really delve into the issue you find there used to actually be laws regarding such, and they were stricter for the host than the guest if you can believe that.
But then again, this is another point where the analogies fall short.
Let's see if I can make you see by turning the roles around.

You are the host.
You let everyone know the rules of your house before they enter.
One of your guests flaunts your rules by throwing his drink (think grape juice, on wife's white shag carpet) in the other guest's faces. You decide this is just fine, because you want to see where it will lead.
It leads where expected, the other guests throw their drinks in his face.
Now, against all logic, you bitch about the other guests' reaction, not the original troublemaker's.
Then, you go on to blame their throwing drinks in his face for him instigating the whole thing.
You then further insult your guests by accusing them of trying to run your house when they suggest that you place this person in a room with vinyl flooring instead of the shag carpet, as it will be easier to clean. You seem to think this abridges his rights to throw his drinks, which you forbade everyone to do upon entering, but this person now seems to have special rights.
So, your guests, incensed by your attitude decide not to visit you for a week.
Lo and behold when they return, there are still fresh stains on the carpet from where this guest was throwing his drinks even with no one around.
But you still don't think it's a problem, it's fine with you that he throws his drinks, even though it's against YOUR rules, because you still think everyone else's REACTION was the CAUSE.

That's precisely what happened here.

Now, the ownser of the house can always ask others if these people act this way when they are at others' houses. The answer would be "No. but I had to kick that other feller out because he was doing the same thing."
Same thing here, you can look at any other gun board. None of us cause any problems or react this way on them. Of course they also don't let a raving sociopath free access to their board. Even if one protests they don't have the time or are otherwise too lazy to do a few quick searches, they can see it right here. No one, and I mean no one gets reacted to like GoonKid does. Maybe that should tell you something

Like I said the first time this whole argument came up, is that anyone who can't see this is because they don't WANT to see it.

[KJUN]

> You decide this is just fine, because you want to see where it will lead.

For the record, I think he should have been banned, too. That isn't what I disagree with. What I disagree with is the number of p[eople (not many, really) that have formed a clique that has the sole purpose (almost) of behaving almost as bad as Andy towards Andy while putting him down for that behavior. It really is a "Mommy, Tommy hit me back first. Punish HIM!" type of thing.

> Now, against all logic, you bitch about the other guests' reaction, not the original troublemaker's.

I don't see Rich doing that. I see it as him complaining about everyone doing exactly what they are complaining about Andy doing. If we (all of us) behaved like adults, then Andy would be the only one doing the childish stuff. It would be different than the cesspool it has evolved into.

> they suggest that you place this person in a room with vinyl flooring instead of the shag carpet, as it will be easier to clean.

What business is it of the guests to try and force (y'all have done more than just "tell") him to move the party to another room in his home?

> So, your guests, incensed by your attitude decide not to visit you for a week. Lo and behold when they return, there are still fresh stains on the carpet from where this guest was throwing his drinks even with no one around.

So, you know they have drink-throwing at his parties, yet you return and get mad when a drink gets thrown? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me! Heck, I don't want any of y'all to leave either. I've read very interesting stuff from most of y'all at least once (more in many cases). If your main reason (or at least a LARGE reason) for being here isn't to bash Andy, why not just put him on ignore and forget about him? Heck, if you did that, it would be worse that banning him. If banned, he thinks he won! If ignores, he loses his powers over you. Ha-ha. Take out all these childish signatures (especially those ones I've seen latley with extreme vulgarity in them) taunting him, put a comment saying you are ignoring him so his posts are going unanswered by CHOICE and not because you couldn't IF YOU THINK THAT IS NECESSARY (I don't, but I'm not anyone else, either), and move one.

Heck, I've still got one person on ignore (the only person I have EVER put on ignore in a forum, and I'm a more relaxed person because of it. I also eat more Jello, but I think those two facts are coincidence and not correlation.

> Like I said the first time this whole argument came up, is that anyone who can't see this is because they don't WANT to see it.

So, if I don'ty agree with you, it is because I am ignorant, stupid, or blind. I know, I know. You just reply to Andy's post because "if it saves just one child." I should think of the children.

KJ

[Rich Z]

KJUN, actually I think you are wasting your breath on this argument. I've tried it myself several times and it just falls on deaf ears. Truth of the matter is that there are a few people whose only goal on this site is to try to frustrate me into submitting to their demands to ban John Davis. In order to reach that goal, they are quite willing to wallow in the swill along with him, in effect, becoming the person that say they hate so much because of what he posts. I guess this makes some sense to these people, but truly it does escape me.

I have said time and time again that if everyone else would stop acting and posting like andy, then the problem would be easy to deal with because I would have ONLY one person I would have to moderate. But no, they won't go along with this scenario. Invariably, the argument I get is that I MUST do something about andy FIRST, and then they will calm down. Which is completely assinine, but nonetheless, that is their argument. To which I tell them to forget it and I just let things run along as they are.

So to use the scenario you guys have been playing with, if one of the guests constantly craps on the floor, I can deal with that mess and will do what is necessary to either train him to stop, or will escort him out the door. But if everyone is crapping on the floor to get even with that one other person, then heck, I just walk out the door and only peek in every now and again to look at all of the pigs wallowing in their own filth. I have other houses I can live in, and honestly find ALL of them quite humorous to watch. But of course, I suppose that one or more might be quite especially full of particularly nasty crap that I do have to isolate and contain every now and again. Which is humorous to the extreme in that in getting into a crap contest with the original person, their form of cure got to be worse then the disease.

Actually, I think this all has become a rather interesting observation post for people who want to see how gun owners act when given full freedom. Pretty interesting, no? And we wonder why a MINORITY of anti-gun people can make us dance to their tunes? Well it's easy to see why now, isn't it? Looks like some of us are the slope headed neanderthals that they portray us to be..........

[Kent]

Looks like some of us are the slope headed neanderthals that they portray us to be..........

Hey, I resemble that remark!!!!!!!! Woo woooo wooooo

Actually, you are deleting things as I type. More power to you. Thanks.