• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Locked Threads and Freedom

Should threads be locked on a site dedicated to defending individual liberty?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm offended by the question

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Michigan_Man

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
12
Location
Southgate, Michigan, USA
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

EM87

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
986
Location
Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
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.
 

Franktroplis

New member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
77
Location
Taylor, Michigan, USA
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
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.
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
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.
 

Franktroplis

New member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
77
Location
Taylor, Michigan, USA
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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=B9q2jNjOPdk&feature=player_embedded

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

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
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?
 

Franktroplis

New member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
77
Location
Taylor, Michigan, USA
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.

 
G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

dougwg

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
2,443
Location
MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
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?
 

Franktroplis

New member
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
77
Location
Taylor, Michigan, USA
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?
 

Michigan_Man

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2009
Messages
12
Location
Southgate, Michigan, USA
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=B9q2jNjOPdk&feature=player_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).
 
G

Guest

Guest
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=B9q2jNjOPdk&feature=player_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.
 

autosurgeon

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
3,831
Location
Lawrence, Michigan, United States
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.
 
Top