Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Why Are Threads Being Locked?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Can someone explain why perfectly good threads are being locked? For example, a thread I started about Chicago's plan to do away with a qualification exam for its police officers was locked.

    One would think that the subject is something that should be discussed since it follows that open carriers may very well have contact with an unqualified police officer incapable of passing a simple entrance exam. The implications of minority applicants being unable to pass a standardized exam yet being allowed to carry a gun and patrol the streets is of paramount importance.

    I realize that the domain owner has the right to do anything he wants with this domain and that I am free to post elsewhere. However, if we aren't allowed to contemplate and discuss the issues on a website that is alleged to support all of the Bill of Rights, to perceive patterns and devised solutions, then such issues and our approach to them have to be altered, by emotion into good things. Smiling and lighting candles seem to be only approved reactions in our nation. Here and in the real world.

    Would it be to much to ask that when a thread is locked that a reason be given as to why it was locked? This will provide me with a better idea as to what is approved speech here and what topics are off limits. I and others can then modify our written thoughts to comply with the approved 'newspeak' that we are being conditioned to use here and in real life.

    Thanks in advance.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    ColMustard wrote:
    Can someone explain why perfectly good threads are being locked? For example, a thread I started about Chicago's plan to do away with a qualification exam for its police officers was locked.

    One would think that the subject is something that should be discussed since it follows that open carriers may very well have contact with an unqualified police officer incapable of passing a simple entrance exam. The implications of minority applicants being unable to pass a standardized exam yet being allowed to carry a gun and patrol the streets is of paramount importance.

    I realize that the domain owner has the right to do anything he wants with this domain and that I am free to post elsewhere. However, if we aren't allowed to contemplate and discuss the issues on a website that is alleged to support all of the Bill of Rights, to perceive patterns and devised solutions, then such issues and our approach to them have to be altered, by emotion into good things. Smiling and lighting candles seem to be only approved reactions in our nation. Here and in the real world.

    Would it be to much to ask that when a thread is locked that a reason be given as to why it was locked? This will provide me with a better idea as to what is approved speech here and what topics are off limits. I and others can then modify our written thoughts to comply with the approved 'newspeak' that we are being conditioned to use here and in real life.

    Thanks in advance.
    While perhaps stated over vehemently, I agree with your basic position that in some cases rather harmless topic that seem to be on topic for discussion surrounding OC have been locked. But the owners/mods here usually do not do this unless the discussion has spiraled into the smoking hole of personal attacks, or is unnecessarily unfriendly to Law Enforcement. I think the thread you started may have been perceived in this later light.

    I do agree that when a thread is locked a simply post at the end stating why would be useful. I know I find it very irritating to have a contribution I wish to post only to discover there is no reply button available. A reason for the closing would be helpful and professional.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    While perhaps stated over vehemently, I agree with your basic position that in some cases rather harmless topic that seem to be on topic for discussion surrounding OC have been locked. But the owners/mods here usually do not do this unless the discussion has spiraled into the smoking hole of personal attacks, or is unnecessarily unfriendly to Law Enforcement. I think the thread you started may have been perceived in this later light.

    I do agree that when a thread is locked a simply post at the end stating why would be useful. I know I find it very irritating to have a contribution I wish to post only to discover there is no reply button available. A reason for the closing would be helpful and professional.

    Regards
    It's only natural that threads will stray from the original topic since a discussion or debate brings in other tangential aspects of the issue in question. Locking threads because a post doesn't stay within the strict confines of the OP is a bit anal retentive. Notwithstanding any other known or unknown agenda.

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    While perhaps stated over vehemently...
    Did you really mean to use the phrase "over vehemently?" I see a pattern, where anytime I make a post that seems to cut straight to the heart of a matter, someone here will mis-characterize it as you did above.

    vehement One entry found.

    Main Entry: ve·he·ment
    Pronunciation: ˈvē-ə-məntFunction: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin vehement-, vehemens, vement-, vemens
    Date: 15th century
    : marked by forceful energy : powerful <a vehement wind>: as a : intensely emotional : impassioned, fervid <vehement patriotism> b
    (1) : deeply felt <a vehement suspicion>
    (2) : forcibly expressed <vehement denunciations> c : bitterly antagonistic <a vehement debate>
    ve·he·ment·ly adverb


  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    ColMustard wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    While perhaps stated over vehemently, I agree with your basic position that in some cases rather harmless topic that seem to be on topic for discussion surrounding OC have been locked. But the owners/mods here usually do not do this unless the discussion has spiraled into the smoking hole of personal attacks, or is unnecessarily unfriendly to Law Enforcement. I think the thread you started may have been perceived in this later light.

    I do agree that when a thread is locked a simply post at the end stating why would be useful. I know I find it very irritating to have a contribution I wish to post only to discover there is no reply button available. A reason for the closing would be helpful and professional.

    Regards
    It's only natural that threads will stray from the original topic since a discussion or debate brings in other tangential aspects of the issue in question. Locking threads because a post doesn't stay within the strict confines of the OP is a bit anal retentive. Notwithstanding any other known or unknown agenda.

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    While perhaps stated over vehemently...
    Did you really mean to use the phrase "over vehemently?" I see a pattern, where anytime I make a post that seems to cut straight to the heart of a matter, someone here will mis-characterize it as you did above.

    vehement One entry found.

    Main Entry: ve·he·ment
    Pronunciation: ˈvē-ə-məntFunction: adjective
    Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin vehement-, vehemens, vement-, vemens
    Date: 15th century
    : marked by forceful energy : powerful <a vehement wind>: as a : intensely emotional : impassioned, fervid <vehement patriotism> b
    (1) : deeply felt <a vehement suspicion>
    (2) : forcibly expressed <vehement denunciations> c : bitterly antagonistic <a vehement debate>
    ve·he·ment·ly adverb
    Yes I meant to use that term with the most common meaning of "Forcefully stated". You have highlights one of the far less common meanings and that is why it is not listed first. It was intended to modify the level of MY support for your statement not to offend or criticize YOU. As I said I agree with your premise, I just would not have stated it as strongly and I obviously did not feel strongly enough on the issue to start a thread about it.

    I hope I did not offend you by agreeing with your basic premise.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    Yes I meant to use that term with the most common meaning of "Forcefully stated". You have highlights one of the far less common meanings and that is why it is not listed first. It was intended to modify the level of MY support for your statement not to offend or criticize YOU. As I said I agree with your premise, I just would not have stated it as strongly and I obviously did not feel strongly enough on the issue to start a thread about it.
    The practice seems a bit childish and I don't have time to waste on childish websites. Just a simple clarification as to why a thread is being locked will give me an idea as to whether this website is merely controlled opposition, a place to let keyboard warriors vent in hopes they take no action in the real world, or an intelligence and data collection operation.

    In any case, I don't have time to waste on 'girly men' to afraid of their own shadow to state a true, scientifically supported opinion or statement because it may offend certain groups of people. Never mind that those people likely offended work in opposition to the stated cause of OCDO or can't distinguish between free speech and an ad hominem attack. This fact can't be lost on everyone here can it?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Many of your posts seem directed toward sparking up a controversy about whether the US government -- or some other institution -- is controlled by some kind of jewish comspiracy.

    Your threads jump from issue to issue so fast that it isimpossible to refute what you say about-- for example --Leo Frank, before breaking out intoa discussion about the federal reserve or Ezekiel's imperitive that"money changers" must die.

    Although Idon't mind hijacking threads occassionally, the purposes of OCDOwould beillserved were it to encourage too much latitude in these areas.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Many of your posts seem directed toward sparking up a controversy about whether the US government -- or some other institution -- is controlled by some kind of jewish comspiracy.

    Your threads jump from issue to issue so fast that it isimpossible to refute what you say about-- for example --Leo Frank, before breaking out intoa discussion about the federal reserve or Ezekiel's imperitive that"money changers" must die.

    Although Idon't mind hijacking threads occassionally, the purposes of OCDOwould beillserved were it to encourage too much latitude in these areas.
    In some of my posts I have cited statutes, quotes, articles, etc. to support my positions. Such would be considered evidence and admissible at trial if related to the subject matter at issue.

    If a fact is documented and out in the open it isn't a conspiracy. If it's not true then why so quick to shut down the debate on such subjects? Painting someone with the label 'conspiracy theorist' even if done in the subtle way you attempted shows your true colors.

    Yes, each thread I post here addresses a different topic. That's the way it works on most forums. Since you seem to have firsthand knowledge of my posts, I'll take that as evidence that you're bright enough to keep up, and if you had anything to say that would refute my statements you would have posted such.

    The ADL thread contained the information about Leo Frank and it was deleted. The post containing the Ezekiel quote was made several days after the aforementioned deleted post. You're conclusion above is a fallacy and is illogical.

    I don't understand your last paragraph above where you state "OCDOwould beillserved were it to encourage too much latitude in these areas." Could you direct me to the post that describes what thoughts I should have and how I should perceive the issues discussed here? Such information will make it easier for me to parrot the pre-approved party line, ensure that I write nothing that provokes thought or offends the sensibilities of those who would like to see people like me dead and buried.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    ColMustard wrote:
    Hawkflyer wrote:
    Yes I meant to use that term with the most common meaning of "Forcefully stated". You have highlights one of the far less common meanings and that is why it is not listed first. It was intended to modify the level of MY support for your statement not to offend or criticize YOU. As I said I agree with your premise, I just would not have stated it as strongly and I obviously did not feel strongly enough on the issue to start a thread about it.
    The practice seems a bit childish and I don't have time to waste on childish websites. Just a simple clarification as to why a thread is being locked will give me an idea as to whether this website is merely controlled opposition, a place to let keyboard warriors vent in hopes they take no action in the real world, or an intelligence and data collection operation.

    In any case, I don't have time to waste on 'girly men' to afraid of their own shadow to state a true, scientifically supported opinion or statement because it may offend certain groups of people. Never mind that those people likely offended work in opposition to the stated cause of OCDO or can't distinguish between free speech and an ad hominem attack. This fact can't be lost on everyone here can it?
    Hum... I am really trying not to jump to any conclusions here, but you are making it very hard to avoid the possibility that you are unreasonably angered by conditional support for your basic premise and that you are actually TRYING to pick a fight.

    We can agree on a point and state it differently and at different levels of strength. I would not demand that you choose the precise words I might choose to state your opinions, and it is unreasonable of you to expect unqualified support from me for your choice of words. I am beginning to think that you have misjudged this forum and that may be because you are new.

    Personal attacks common on other forums are viewed as unnecessary and counter productive here. Certainly that is true at the beginning of a discussion. Statements of "Fact" not support by specific citations and or links to supporting information are often challenged and dismissed as opinion and the general tone of conversation is higher as a result. Threads are closed if they become volleys of personal attacks, racist, overly anti LEO, or generally off of the topic of open carry. In fact, I would expect that this thread will be closed as off topic at some point.

    If it is your desire that this forum be more like other forums with a more "wild west" atmosphere, then you are correct you would be better served someplace else. If you are interested in engaging in reasoned discussions with research factual basis where facts are supported and shown to be true, then stick around.

    But I would suggest that when people agree with you, you might want to accept it rather the LOOKING for things to fight over.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    ColMustard wrote:
    The Donkey wrote:
    Many of your posts seem directed toward sparking up a controversy about whether the US government -- or some other institution -- is controlled by some kind of jewish comspiracy.

    Your threads jump from issue to issue so fast that it isimpossible to refute what you say about-- for example --Leo Frank, before breaking out intoa discussion about the federal reserve or Ezekiel's imperitive that"money changers" must die.

    Although Idon't mind hijacking threads occassionally, the purposes of OCDOwould beillserved were it to encourage too much latitude in these areas.
    In some of my posts I have cited statutes, quotes, articles, etc. to support my positions. Such would be considered evidence and admissible at trial if related to the subject matter at issue.

    If a fact is documented and out in the open it isn't a conspiracy. If it's not true then why so quick to shut down the debate on such subjects? Painting someone with the label 'conspiracy theorist' even if done in the subtle way you attempted shows your true colors.

    Yes, each thread I post here addresses a different topic. That's the way it works on most forums. Since you seem to have firsthand knowledge of my posts, I'll take that as evidence that you're bright enough to keep up, and if you had anything to say that would refute my statements you would have posted such.

    The ADL thread contained the information about Leo Frank and it was deleted. The post containing the Ezekiel quote was made several days after the aforementioned deleted post. You're conclusion above is a fallacy and is illogical.

    I don't understand your last paragraph above where you state "OCDOwould beillserved were it to encourage too much latitude in these areas." Could you direct me to the post that describes what thoughts I should have and how I should perceive the issues discussed here? Such information will make it easier for me to parrot the pre-approved party line, ensure that I write nothing that provokes thought or offends the sensibilities of those who would like to see people like me dead and buried.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the post that started with the ADL and the question of who judges who is an extremist for the purposes of confiscating guns devolve into a discussion of whether --in essence --Hitler was right because the Communists were a jewish movement?

    I think that is what psychologists refer to as a "loosening of associations."


  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    Personal attacks common on other forums are viewed as unnecessary and counter productive here. Certainly that is true at the beginning of a discussion. Statements of "Fact" not support by specific citations and or links to supporting information are often challenged and dismissed as opinion and the general tone of conversation is higher as a result. Threads are closed if they become volleys of personal attacks, racist, overly anti LEO, or generally off of the topic of open carry. In fact, I would expect that this thread will be closed as off topic at some point.
    I do not resort to ad hominem attacks and my posts are well documented to support any pattern of behavior I see in the real world that would have a bearing on my Inalienable Rights, and as it concerns posting here, the Second Amendment.

    It appears that any discussion of subjects that are deemed politically incorrect by those who would stifle free speech in the real world are verboten here as well. Responses to my posts rarely address any issue I raise but are filled with vague generalities, innuendo, and name calling.

    No one has yet to refute anything I've posted, shown my posts to be untruthful, and none have contained ad hominem attacks.

    I don't understand why would this thread be locked? The original question hasn't been answered yet.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the post that started with the ADL and the question of who judges who is an extremist for the purposes of confiscating guns devolve into a discussion of whether --in essence --Hitler was right because the Communists were a jewish movement?

    I think that is what psychologists refer to as a "loosening of associations.
    No, not by me. Another poster brought up jews in the Warsaw ghetto.

    I merely pointed out, with verifiable documented evidence from leading jewish authorities, that those jews were ardent communists. It was their communist leanings and the support they provided the Soviet Union at that time that was responsible for their being targeted by the German military. They were in their day what are called 'extremists' and 'insurgents' in our time.

    Why not instead delete his post and make it clear that discussion of verfiable, historical facts are not allowed on OCDO? No need to give a reason, just make that clear if it's the case.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    I would also refer you to the post entitled "Basic Rules" which clarifies that this is not a "general discussion" type forum and prohibits discussions of other people's religions, etc.





  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    I would also refer you to the post entitled "Basic Rules" which clarifies that this is not a "general discussion" type forum and prohibits discussions of other people's religions, etc.
    I have never brought up the subject of judaism which is a religion. You fail to understand that jews are a race, judaism is a religion. The two are wholly separate from each other.

    For example, Sammy Davis, Jr. practiced judaism but he was not racially a jew. The majority of racial jews are atheists anyway so judaism is of little import as relates to them.

    You are doing what you and others accuse me of doing. If you can't stay on topic and answer the question in the original post why not refrain from posting?



  14. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post

    Last try:

    "Welcome to OpenCarry.org'sdiscussion forum, and intrgral part of our Internet Community dedicated to helping people understand the shifting landscape of open carry laws in the US, and providing a networking base for the open carry movement which has become a major force now in the gun rights revolution. All are welcome but we do have a few rules.

    - - -
    2) Since we are a site dedicated to open carry,firearms and gun rights, all posts should relate substantially to one of these topics, even if your comments pertain mainly to freedom andliberty. OCDO is not a general discussion forum on polticis, religion, the current President, etc. Take that somewhere else!

    - - -

    5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer).



  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    67

    Post imported post

    The Donkey wrote:
    Last try:
    I hope you're a man of your word.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    ColMustard wrote:
    ...SNIP
    I don't understand why would this thread be locked? The original question hasn't been answered yet.
    Your original question was -
    Can someone explain why perfectly good threads are being locked? For example, a thread I started about Chicago's plan to do away with a qualification exam for its police officers was locked.
    Well if you read the forum rules here

    You will see that this topic has no relationship to Open carry or firearms and as such it is off topic for the forum. That is why it will eventually be closed and or deleted.

    Now you can protest that all you like but the fact is that the rule predates your membership here and it was a recognized and well know condition of membership and posting. So in part that is why I do not agree with the strength of your argument because frankly you really do not have much of a leg to stand on in objecting to the closure of off topic threads.

    I also note that no matter how friendly and patient I try to be in discussing this with you, you seem to want to attribute ideas and concepts to me that I have never had in part in projecting. I have stayed very specifically on the topic of your original question in this thread. You on the other hand want to drag in other concepts from other threads that are not relevant.

    I have tried to explain to you why threads get locked here (your topic), and the kinds of topics that leads to closures of threads (your topic). and you seem to want to argue with ME like I was the one closing your threads. I am NOT. If you follow the guidelines on the link above you will not have any problems. I am not the only one that has tried to tell you this. You keep saying that someone should put the rules out so you can find them. Well they are there if you take the time to read them. If you disagree with those guidelines then please, feel free to go.

    Perhaps you will have a better reception on an open political forum, or a less topically specific forum. But frankly reviewing many of the threads you have opened I find that most are not related to Open carry of firearms and the remainder can only very loosely be connected back to firearms in general.

    That is why your threads are being closed (your original question)
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  17. #17
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    THREAD LOCKED?
    Probably cause someone used loc-tite, or ass-hattery was abound.

    BTW if there is a pool started yet on how long till ColMustard gets banned PM me I want in on the action.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  18. #18
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    ColMustard wrote:
    ...SNIP
    I don't understand why would this thread be locked? The original question hasn't been answered yet.
    Your original question was -
    Can someone explain why perfectly good threads are being locked? For example, a thread I started about Chicago's plan to do away with a qualification exam for its police officers was locked.
    Well if you read the forum rules here

    You will see that this topic has no relationship to Open carry or firearms and as such it is off topic for the forum. That is why it will eventually be closed and or deleted.

    Now you can protest that all you like but the fact is that the rule predates your membership here and it was a recognized and well know condition of membership and posting. So in part that is why I do not agree with the strength of your argument because frankly you really do not have much of a leg to stand on in objecting to the closure of off topic threads.

    I also note that no matter how friendly and patient I try to be in discussing this with you, you seem to want to attribute ideas and concepts to me that I have never had in part in projecting. I have stayed very specifically on the topic of your original question in this thread. You on the other hand want to drag in other concepts from other threads that are not relevant.

    I have tried to explain to you why threads get locked here (your topic), and the kinds of topics that leads to closures of threads (your topic). and you seem to want to argue with ME like I was the one closing your threads. I am NOT. If you follow the guidelines on the link above you will not have any problems. I am not the only one that has tried to tell you this. You keep saying that someone should put the rules out so you can find them. Well they are there if you take the time to read them. If you disagree with those guidelines then please, feel free to go.

    Perhaps you will have a better reception on an open political forum, or a less topically specific forum. But frankly reviewing many of the threads you have opened I find that most are not related to Open carry of firearms and the remainder can only very loosely be connected back to firearms in general.

    That is why your threads are being closed (your original question)
    Your making reasonable observations and presenting them in a manner no less than cordial. I feel that you are lending your intelligence at a time when it might serve better to refrain from doing so. Certain personalities require a time to deflate before productive conversation can begin.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    simmonsjoe wrote:
    ...SNIP
    Your making reasonable observations and presenting them in a manner no less than cordial.* I feel that you are lending your intelligence at a time when it might serve better to refrain from doing so.* Certain personalities require a time to deflate before productive conversation can begin.
    ROTF, LMFAO

    Joe, you exceed the sum of your parts.

    The only excuse I can offer is that I was bored.
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  20. #20
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    lock the thread, already...

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    2,615

    Post imported post

    This thread is a perfect example of a discfussion.



    No.... that is not a typo.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Winchester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    66

    Post imported post

    Why isn't THIS thread being locked? :?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •