Smoking357 Has Been Banned

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

PrayingForWar wrote:

He was nothing more than a bigot.

Click to expand...

He was an egomaniacal troll, an agent provocateur or both.

Click to expand...

I don't think smoking357 is the only bigot on OCDO. Plenty of them around, actually. Bigotry runs with extremism. On the left....on the right. And we, uhm, enjoy the wisdom of some extremists here--same as on any gun/rights site.

Egomaniacal? Sure.

Troll? Not really. Way more like an high-power argumentalist. Few could engage him in toe-to-toe exchanges of logic, knowledge or opinions. Too often, people call people "troll" simply because they disagree with them and don't have the rhetorical ability to effectively point out the "troll's" errors. It's a catch-all term for: I don't like him and I'm not capable enough to argue with him.

Agent provocateur? C'mon. Nobody could be that bubba-ish in some kind of FBI entrapment effort.

As I said before in two recent threads, S357 was making OCDO look bad. Clearly so. That's why John bounced him. S357's cheeky exhortation to start attacking LEOs because"It's time!" done him in.

Any goofball revolutionary/get the cops/are you with me boys? rabble rouser would make OCDO look bad. Extremism always makes your organization look bad. Heck, I think that some of the shoot-first folks we have here also make OCDO and the gun/rights communities look bad--because they are extremist.

I support OCDO. I support John andMike.I support 2A and a right to self-defense.

Still, and I realize that it's not a perfect world and will never be thus, I'm reminded of this quote:




[align=left]If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
[/align]

[align=left]Justice Louis D. Brandeis[/align]

imported post

"Awwwwk!" -

Child actor Johnathan Brandeis just after kicking out the chair and hanging himself.

imported post

HankT wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

PrayingForWar wrote:

He was nothing more than a bigot.

Click to expand...

He was an egomaniacal troll, an agent provocateur or both.

Click to expand...

... Few could engage him in toe-to-toe exchanges of logic, knowledge or opinions...

Click to expand...

Oh puleeze! Logic?!?!?:what: My nephew has a Gerbil that had the ability to employ more LOGIC than that guy!

Honestly, if he had offered up LOGICAL ideas and viewpoints, I could live with that. Heck, I love nothing more than a good heated LOGICAL debate. The problem with smokingsomething is that when ever anyone replied with a LOGICAL rebuttal or comment regarding his rhetoric, he failed to engage with the same. In fact, he routinely only degraded to name calling, insults, outright lies, or just ignoring it all together. I'm not lying here. The facts are black and white. It only takes a few moments to scan ANY thread he posted. Each and every time he was ever challenged, he resorted to his normal M. O. of duck, dodge, or distract. :quirky

If he were to ever actually reply to a direct challenge with logical, unemotional dialect. I'd say there may be some truth to your statement. However, his methods are clear. Say something totally stupid, irrelevant, or offensive, then RUN! He NEVER ONCE backed up any statement against challenge without resorting to insults. A sign of a truly uneducated, unintelligent person who is devoid of anything to truly back up anything they say. No one of any academic trainingwould stoop to such adolescent, even, childish "I know you are, but what am I" tactics. I have forsome time,seriously doubted the educational or maturity level he pretended to portray here.

imported post

Of course you guys realize he is probably reading all this and is boiling with frustration at not being able to respond......:celebrate

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Of course you guys realize he is probably reading all this and is boiling with frustration at not being able to respond......:celebrate

Click to expand...

You're probably right, AC.

It would be interesting to read what he would say. Maybe he could post somewhere else and we could read him there?



Send me a link, S357-- [email redacted]

imported post

HankT wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

Of course you guys realize he is probably reading all this and is boiling with frustration at not being able to respond......:celebrate

Click to expand...

You're probably right, AC.

It would be interesting to read what he would say.

Click to expand...

Uh, NO. That's precisely the point. He'd have NOTHING "interesting" to say, just juvenile name calling and megalomaniacal, pseudoreligious demands to be believed without evidence.

So what you're saying is that he wouldn't say anything intelligent or inciteful until AFTER he was banned?

In the words of Al Borland, "I don't think so, Tim."

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

Of course you guys realize he is probably reading all this and is boiling with frustration at not being able to respond......:celebrate

Click to expand...

Or he could just make another account...

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

Of course you guys realize he is probably reading all this and is boiling with frustration at not being able to respond......:celebrate

Click to expand...

Or he could just make another account...

Click to expand...

And get banned again.

What's your point? That he's as big a dolt as Linda Thompson? Ok, I'll buy that one.

imported post

Wow, two wholw pages of people gloating over some guy getting banned.

imported post

My thoughts exactly..:lol:

imported post

HankT wrote:

... Maybe he could post somewhere else and we could read him there?...

Click to expand...

Oh, you can COUNT on that! As I say, this isn't the first time I've seen him bounced for his trolling. He almost IMMEDIATELY jumped into this forumand in a rabid, frothy, rage...started flaming the last place that drop-kicked him out the door

You can be certain, that at this very moment, somewhere else out there in cyberspace,it's a pretty safe bet he'ssaying some awful things about this forum and EVERYONE here, ....:quirky

imported post

Right, just open my ignore script for Greasemonkey, and add his name.

imported post

Smoking357 consistently said what many, including the site owners, have said on occasion. He used more extreme language, he used it quicker, he applied it more generally, and he spoke more eloquently than most. I understand there may be valid political reasons for his being banned.

His core message of the dangers of police as a standing army is something many reject. Corrupt LEO are a deeply disturbing and powerful symbol.

We like to think we're not the ostriches that many are, denying danger in their lives. If we're paying attention our training and arms can serve us well in many situations.

Where we're utterly at the mercy of others is the justice system. An ignorant or corrupt LEO, prosecutor, or judge and we can lose everything. Listen to the lectures OCers receive for having a LEO encounter without being equipped with audio, DVR, witnesses, and an attorney on speed dial. Why do so many think we need all of that if the system is made up of honest brokers of justice?

Nearly everyone in this thread has expressed outrage at some instance of official injustice. The very few that haven't are reviled as outrageous apologists.

There are many here who's ideas do not serve the freedoms necessary to support and spread OC. It's our loss that a member with that powerful a voice was banned.

I think the day will come when we need the broadest possible coalition of supporters.

I do not think we've made ourselves proud by this celebration. Support independent thought while you support OC. Supporting freedom means nothing if you don't support the freedom of those you disagree with.

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

Smoking357 consistently said what many, including the site owners, have said on occasion. He used more extreme language, he used it quicker, he applied it more generally, and he spoke more eloquently than most. I understand there may be valid political reasons for his being banned.

His core message of the dangers of police as a standing army is something many reject. Corrupt LEO are a deeply disturbing and powerful symbol.

We like to think we're not the ostriches that many are, denying danger in their lives. If we're paying attention our training and arms can serve us well in many situations.

Where we're utterly at the mercy of others is the justice system. An ignorant or corrupt LEO, prosecutor, or judge and we can lose everything. Listen to the lectures OCers receive for having a LEO encounter without being equipped with audio, DVR, witnesses, and an attorney on speed dial. Why do so many think we need all of that if the system is made up of honest brokers of justice?

Nearly everyone in this thread has expressed outrage at some instance of official injustice. The very few that haven't are reviled as outrageous apologists.

There are many here who's ideas do not serve the freedoms necessary to support and spread OC. It's our loss that a member with that powerful a voice was banned.

I think the day will come when we need the broadest possible coalition of supporters.

I do not think we've made ourselves proud by this celebration. Support independent thought while you support OC. Supporting freedom means nothing if you don't support the freedom of those you disagree with.

Click to expand...

He had a curious way of persuading others.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Jim675 wrote:

...stuff...

Click to expand...

He had a curious way of persuading others.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Other thoughts, irrelevant really.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Wow, two wholw pages of people gloating over some guy getting banned.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Styles must feel like a piker.:celebrate

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

That's just the point. If smokingsomething's motives had truly been to educate or enlighten, then, as I've said, I could ALMOST tolerate him. If his platform had been just to simply take a stand on a subject, I can respect that, even if I disagree.

However, the evidence proves beyond a doubt that the way he operates isno where near as noble. His history here and other forums show conclusively that his interests are fare more silly and even sinister. He's got a well proven, well documented history of joining forums and usenet groups and casting out comments, insults, and viewpoints that are objectionable and irrelevant to the group's intent in a transparantcry forattention. Again, it's not hard to find this evidence. Heck, it really doesn't take long to find it here. Just search the threads in whichhe's posted. There are a NUMBER of threads that were moving along swimmingly, then, he'd jump in, toss out some silly, stupid, and offensive type remark and that thread would take an immediate downhill spiral. There's threads that had NOTHING to do with LEO's . NOTHING at all!! And he'djump in and make a completely irrelevant, unsolicited remark for no other logical reason than to start S^^T!!

There's nothing wrong with getting behind an activist if you agree with their doctrine, but, it's best to leave THAT one alone, because, eventually, he's his own enemy. Even those whoagree with him ultimately see him for his true light and makefollowing him look very foolish in the end.

Edit: That's pretty much all I'll say on this subject. As far as I'm concerened, this group just took a very BIG step in getting back to doing what it does best, and that's promote open carry and related 2A subjects. NOW it can do it without all that the crap getting in the way due to one simple minded member.

He's certainly not worthy of getting into a jousting match over...that's for sure. Some agreed with him..most didn't. The admins finally spoke the final word on the subject, and so should we.

imported post

JeepSeller wrote:

Jim675 wrote:
That's just the point. If smokingsomething's motives had truly been to educate or enlighten, then, as I've said, I could ALMOST tolerate him. If his platform had been just to simply take a stand on a subject, I can respect that, even if I disagree.

However, the evidence proves beyond a doubt that the way he operates isno where near as noble. His history here and other forums show conclusively that his interests are fare more silly and even sinister. He's got a well proven, well documented history of joining forums and usenet groups and casting out comments, insults, and viewpoints that are objectionable and irrelevant to the group's intent in a transparantcry forattention. Again, it's not hard to find this evidence. Heck, it really doesn't take long to find it here. Just search the threads in whichhe's posted. There are a NUMBER of threads that were moving along swimmingly, then, he'd jump in, toss out some silly, stupid, and offensive type remark and that thread would take an immediate downhill spiral. There's threads that had NOTHING to do with LEO's . NOTHING at all!! And he'djump in and make a completely irrelevant, unsolicited remark for no other logical reason than to start S^^T!!

There's nothing wrong with getting behind an activist if you agree with their doctrine, but, it's best to leave THAT one alone, because, eventually, he's his own enemy. Even those whoagree with him ultimately see him for his true light and makefollowing him look very foolish in the end.

Click to expand...

I do wonder, frankly, why such folk do as they do? Are they looking for attention for whatever reason? The man is more to be pitid than mourned. Which is indeed good, as I for one do not mourn his (involuntary) departure.

imported post

I'm certainly not disputing his ability to focus on his message. There are others here who have similar focus on the same subject from a different angle. Some of our most distinguished posters are consistently trying to swing the power pendulum back to the individual citizen (that was lower case Virginia).

In that tug of war between private citizens and government agencies, for one side to gain ground the other must lose. And seldom do true power shifts go smoothly. Our hallowed history of peaceful transfers of political power is only possible because power is so diffused in our society. Most institutions retain their power right through the government's changes making the small percentage of losers in the game tolerable and "powerless" to resist it.

I won't tattle on them, but several of my favorite posters here have explored the idea that the massive police presence compares closely to the standing army feared by the founders. Not a new idea, by the way. And that's not to say that police are corrupt, merely that the institution supports corruption and defends it.

I'm not saying he wasn't distracting and I certainly understand why OCDO felt he was too likely to attract lightning to want to stand next to him.

Impassioned speech pursuing a single goal is often tiresome to more moderate listeners, or even those with more diverse interests.

imported post

Jim675 wrote:

I'm certainly not disputing his ability to focus on his message. There are others here who have similar focus on the same subject from a different angle. Some of our most distinguished posters are consistently trying to swing the power pendulum back to the individual citizen (that was lower case Virginia).

In that tug of war between private citizens and government agencies, for one side to gain ground the other must lose. And seldom do true power shifts go smoothly. Our hallowed history of peaceful transfers of political power is only possible because power is so diffused in our society. Most institutions retain their power right through the government's changes making the small percentage of losers in the game tolerable and "powerless" to resist it.

I won't tattle on them, but several of my favorite posters here have explored the idea that the massive police presence compares closely to the standing army feared by the founders. Not a new idea, by the way. And that's not to say that police are corrupt, merely that the institution supports corruption and defends it.

I'm not saying he wasn't distracting and I certainly understand why OCDO felt he was too likely to attract lightning to want to stand next to him.

Impassioned speech pursuing a single goal is often tiresome to more moderate listeners, or even those with more diverse interests.

Click to expand...

Really I don't think anybody ran out from under him. This organization is not a collection of pussycats. The vast majority of us are afraid of very little. Rather, the banned party showed little interest in promoting the agenda of OCDO and much interest inpromoting his Imperial Self as a Voice of Sanity in a sea of OC nutbars. The exact reversewas true and; seing how OCDO has no authority to commit a nut for observation the second best step was taken and now he will pester OCDO no more. Neither we "regular members" nor the rank-and-file felt (corect me if I am wrong) threatened by him. In the final analysis Smokin' was simply boring. That is probably not the reason the site founders banned him but if it is it is good enough for me.