View Poll Results: Should threads be locked on a site dedicated to defending individual liberty?

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 33.33%
  • No

    10 30.30%
  • I'm offended by the question

    12 36.36%
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 86

Thread: Locked Threads and Freedom

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southgate, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    I was about to post in the Ponderosa thread when I realized that it was locked. I'm curious as to how an organization dedicated to defending individual liberty reconciles the locking of threads and the advocacy of freedom of firearms? WaltherP99 had clearly just proven, Q.E.D., his point and after that the thread was immediately locked. I think there is a lot of apologizing that needs to be done after all the insults that were hurled at him. He proved his point and his freedom was denied.

    Either you support freedom or you do not. Either you support civility and mutual respect, or you do not.

  2. #2
    Guest

    Post imported post

    From what I read, walterp99 misquoted what was very clearly stated in the video. How does that prove his point? I didn't see any insults leveled at him, but he did make a personal attack on one of the posters. Maybe that is why the thread got locked. I doubt it was to deny him some sort of freedom, but rather to preclude any further violation of the posting rules.

  3. #3
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    Nobody in MOC, Inc. nor any of the posters on this forum have the ability to lock a thread. Only the owners of the site (Mkie and John) can do so. I imagine that they finally saw the thread get out of hand, so they locked it.
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    Just wanted to vote, and post before this one gets locked too.

    You cant be taken as seriously supporting 2A if you cant also support the rest. ie. 1A

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    The site is loosing membership because of the aggressive hostility of a few members. I would suggest that if a member is acting in a way that is causing the site to be hurt, only that member should be locked out of a thread instead of stopping the conversation for everyone.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    But it's gaining membership because some people create a new account and post under a different user name.

  7. #7
    Guest

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    The site is loosing membership because of the aggressive hostility of a few members. I would suggest that if a member is acting in a way that is causing the site to be hurt, only that member should be locked out of a thread instead of stopping the conversation for everyone.
    You need to keep track of which name you're posting under and the font size you use for your different user names.

    Amateur troll.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    The site is loosing membership because of the aggressive hostility of a few members. I would suggest that if a member is acting in a way that is causing the site to be hurt, only that member should be locked out of a thread instead of stopping the conversation for everyone.
    Then stop spreading that misinformation that is hurting things. Then again, Maybe you should be locked out for some of the falsehoods and misrepresentations that you've been spreading here.

  9. #9
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    This site is privately owned and has a code of conduct. You don't follow the COC you can expect to have threads locked.

    Baiting by not reading the whole thread and posting false statements is just as bad as flaming as it incites flaming.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote
    You need to keep track of which name you're posting under and the font size you use for your different user names.

    Amateur troll.
    This is exactly what I am talking about.

    Michigan_Man was at the OC Bowling event with me and many other members.

    You are insulting for no reason.

  11. #11
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Michigan_Man wrote:
    I was about to post in the Ponderosa thread when I realized that it was locked. I'm curious as to how an organization dedicated to defending individual liberty reconciles the locking of threads and the advocacy of freedom of firearms? WaltherP99 had clearly just proven, Q.E.D., his point and after that the thread was immediately locked. I think there is a lot of apologizing that needs to be done after all the insults that were hurled at him. He proved his point and his freedom was denied.

    Either you support freedom or you do not. Either you support civility and mutual respect, or you do not.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2j...layer_embedded

    [line]ETA: Illogical and improper use of Q.E.D.

  12. #12
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    OT: this is a private message board, NOT public property.

    1st amendment applies to the government restricting your freedom of speech.

    Standing on a street corner you can say whatever you like, even cussing.

    Come to my house, PRIVATE PROPERTY, and cuss-I'll tell you to shut up or leave.

    Why can't some here understand this?

    OFF TOPIC:

    As to the video. The owner was not there at the time. The owner did not kick them out.

    The manager WAS THERE and did tell the cops that the OCer's were no longer welcome. He said this on camera.

    Small difference but different nonetheless. Can we move on now?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    The manager WAS THERE and did tell the cops that the OCer's were no longer welcome. He said this on camera.
    Thank you for admitting that. Finally someone agrees with the only point that I made.

    They were kicked out by Ponderosa because of the rifle.


  14. #14
    Guest

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    The manager WAS THERE and did tell the cops that the OCer's were no longer welcome. He said this on camera.
    Thank you for admitting that. Finally someone agrees with the only point that I made.

    They were kicked out by Ponderosa because of the rifle.

    No you kept harping that it was the owner, the owner, the owner. And you were repeatedly called on it by several people.

    Now you want to twist it around to suit you needs.

    That is rather disingenuous of you.

    Now I smell the pungent odor of smoldering fabric.



  15. #15
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    The manager WAS THERE and did tell the cops that the OCer's were no longer welcome. He said this on camera.
    Thank you for admitting that. Finally someone agrees with the only point that I made.

    They were kicked out by Ponderosa because of the rifle.

    We've been saying this all along.

    YOU are the one stating it was the OWNER which was FALSE!

    Understand now?

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Management is the representation of the owner. From the video, the owner clearly supported the decision. Why would you insult me for pages and pages when my point that they were thrown out by Ponderosa (not the police) because of the rifle was accurate?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southgate, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    Michigan_Man wrote:
    I was about to post in the Ponderosa thread when I realized that it was locked. I'm curious as to how an organization dedicated to defending individual liberty reconciles the locking of threads and the advocacy of freedom of firearms? WaltherP99 had clearly just proven, Q.E.D., his point and after that the thread was immediately locked. I think there is a lot of apologizing that needs to be done after all the insults that were hurled at him. He proved his point and his freedom was denied.

    Either you support freedom or you do not. Either you support civility and mutual respect, or you do not.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2j...layer_embedded

    [line]ETA: Illogical and improper use of Q.E.D.
    Q.E.D., my point is made.

    Here is the video which proves WaltherP99 correct:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDw_UxnIpXk

    The point WaltherP99 made was that permission was requested for open carry under the impression that handguns would be brought in. The management was therefore misled. This type of tactic is dishonest. Dishonesty is wrong. This was the point being made.

    My post on the freedom of speech is turning out much different than I anticipated. I now see that the Yes votes outnumber the No votes. The issue was clearly not the right of private individuals to control their property (as they did at Ponderosa) but the virtue and value of freedom of opinion. It is certainly the prerogative of the owner of the site to shut down speech, but the question was whether or not this should be the case.

    Another question in my original post was about civility and mutual respect. I have begun this post by quoting an example of incivility and mindless insult. I hope it serves as an example of what I am talking about when I say that there is no need or place for such posts among people advocating for the same cause; individual liberty (in the case of firearms at least, even if not in freedom of speech).

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:
    But it's gaining membership because some people create a new account and post under a different user name.
    Heh.. Kinda like how the unemployment has decreased but the number of people without work has increased.

  19. #19
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Michigan_Man wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote:
    Michigan_Man wrote:
    I was about to post in the Ponderosa thread when I realized that it was locked. I'm curious as to how an organization dedicated to defending individual liberty reconciles the locking of threads and the advocacy of freedom of firearms? WaltherP99 had clearly just proven, Q.E.D., his point and after that the thread was immediately locked. I think there is a lot of apologizing that needs to be done after all the insults that were hurled at him. He proved his point and his freedom was denied.

    Either you support freedom or you do not. Either you support civility and mutual respect, or you do not.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9q2j...layer_embedded

    [line]ETA: Illogical and improper use of Q.E.D.
    Q.E.D., my point is made.

    Here is the video which proves WaltherP99 correct:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDw_UxnIpXk

    The point WaltherP99 made was that permission was requested for open carry under the impression that handguns would be brought in. The management was therefore misled. This type of tactic is dishonest. Dishonesty is wrong. This was the point being made.

    My post on the freedom of speech is turning out much different than I anticipated. I now see that the Yes votes outnumber the No votes. The issue was clearly not the right of private individuals to control their property (as they did at Ponderosa) but the virtue and value of freedom of opinion. It is certainly the prerogative of the owner of the site to shut down speech, but the question was whether or not this should be the case.

    Another question in my original post was about civility and mutual respect. I have begun this post by quoting an example of incivility and mindless insult. I hope it serves as an example of what I am talking about when I say that there is no need or place for such posts among people advocating for the same cause; individual liberty (in the case of firearms at least, even if not in freedom of speech).
    Your post proves only that you and your pseudonym are too narrow minded to be reasoned with in a logical manner. You have manipulated your statements to rationalize your unfounded accusations of insult.

    I doubt that the site owners are attempting to suppress speech. Only improper speech that is in violation of the coc.

  20. #20
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    " (SNIP) The point WaltherP99 made was that permission was requested for open carry under the impression that handguns would be brought in. The management was therefore misled. This type of tactic is dishonest. Dishonesty is wrong. This was the point being made."

    Unfortunately since this had never happened before at a private property event (OC of a long gun) and the event was organized by a first timer to organizing events I am sure mistakes were made. BUT no one ever deliberately mislead anyone as the young fellow that organized the event could not have foreseen that anyone would OC a rifle at his event.

    Finally no one was Dishonest inexperienced yes but not Dishonest.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Southgate, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote
    Your post proves only that you and your pseudonym are too narrow minded to be reasoned with in a logical manner. You have manipulated your statements to rationalize your unfounded accusations of insult.

    I doubt that the site owners are attempting to suppress speech. Only improper speech that is in violation of the coc.
    This is not an argument. Please re-submit another response which either asserts or contests a given proposition.

    As for "unfounded accusations of insult" I refer to you as evidence the video you posted regarding proper methods of posting involving a fictional character named Billy. While I certainly understand the impulse to double down on your incorrect assertions and just insult more, deny facts, and conjure conspiracy theories about pseudonyms, no hard feelings will exist should you choose to end this belligerence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    autosurgeon wrote:
    " (SNIP) The point WaltherP99 made was that permission was requested for open carry under the impression that handguns would be brought in. The management was therefore misled. This type of tactic is dishonest. Dishonesty is wrong. This was the point being made."

    Unfortunately since this had never happened before at a private property event (OC of a long gun) and the event was organized by a first timer to organizing events I am sure mistakes were made. BUT no one ever deliberately mislead anyone as the young fellow that organized the event could not have foreseen that anyone would OC a rifle at his event.

    Finally no one was Dishonest inexperienced yes but not Dishonest.
    I agree. I didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong, only that the member who brought the rifle had ill intentions. After my conversation kimberguy, I feel as if my suspicion of his intentions is accurate.



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    I agree. I didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong, only that the member who brought the rifle had ill intentions. After my conversation kimberguy, I feel as if my suspicion of his intentions is accurate.
    Have you talked to Kimberguy personally about his "intentions"?

  24. #24
    Guest

    Post imported post

    Michigan_Man wrote:
    CV67PAT wrote
    Your post proves only that you and your pseudonym are too narrow minded to be reasoned with in a logical manner. You have manipulated your statements to rationalize your unfounded accusations of insult.

    I doubt that the site owners are attempting to suppress speech. Only improper speech that is in violation of the coc.
    This is not an argument. Please re-submit another response which either asserts or contests a given proposition.

    As for "unfounded accusations of insult" I refer to you as evidence the video you posted regarding proper methods of posting involving a fictional character named Billy. While I certainly understand the impulse to double down on your incorrect assertions and just insult more, deny facts, and conjure conspiracy theories about pseudonyms, no hard feelings will exist should you choose to end this belligerence.
    Ahhh. Did the little cartoon hurt your tender feelings?

    I'm sorry for hurting your feelings.

    Your speculations with respect to assertations of insult, denied facts, and conjured theories are bsed soley on conjecture and speculation with no factual basis whatsoever.

    I suggest you set down the thesaurus and draft your responses based upon your knowledge of the language, albeit limited, and refrain from trying to engage in a battle of wits unarmed.

    For your edification, and to avoid any confusion, that is an insult.

  25. #25
    Guest

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    autosurgeon wrote:
    " (SNIP) The point WaltherP99 made was that permission was requested for open carry under the impression that handguns would be brought in. The management was therefore misled. This type of tactic is dishonest. Dishonesty is wrong. This was the point being made."

    Unfortunately since this had never happened before at a private property event (OC of a long gun) and the event was organized by a first timer to organizing events I am sure mistakes were made. BUT no one ever deliberately mislead anyone as the young fellow that organized the event could not have foreseen that anyone would OC a rifle at his event.

    Finally no one was Dishonest inexperienced yes but not Dishonest.
    I agree. I didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong, only that the member who brought the rifle had ill intentions. After my conversation kimberguy, I feel as if my suspicion of his intentions is accurate.

    Keep twisting in the wind. Eventually someone will believe you.

    If you didn't mean to imply that the person who set up the event did anything wrong...

    Then what does this post by you mean???



    [line]
    WaltherP99C
    Regular Member
    [img]images/avatars/45513.jpg[/img]

    Joined:Wed Dec 30th, 2009 Location:Taylor, Michigan USA Posts:60 Status: Online Posted: Wed Feb 10th, 2010 11:18 am The business owner agreed to be on our side and allow us to open carry in his business. By bringing in the assault rifle we lost that ally. We lost him because we lied to him. He was clearly expecting pistols in holsters, that is why he agreed.
    In my opinion, this was a cheep dishonest move that was meant only to get media coverage.
    This is a very respectable organization, and I am disappointed to see this type of dishonesty, epically from someone who is such an influential member.

    To be clear, there's nothing wrong with OC of a rifle, but lying by omission to a helpful business owner is the type of tactic I would expect from the "other side."



Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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