-
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.
-
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.
Another soon-to-be-deleted thread.
- Thread starter ixtow
- Start date
- Status
I did not intend "attack you", as you put it. I simply made an irresistible and well humored joke. Why did I "attack" you might ask?
Simple, you made a highly dramatic....and what could interpreted by some as whiny... post with very little explanation to warrant it besides your rants and ravings about the "elites of the southeast", who, from the response of your letter, haven't the foggiest idea what your talking about either. Where I come from, we call that being a drama queen...well that's not actually what we call it...but I can't say it on the forum.
But instead of just being willing to a poke a little fun at yourself for doing so (i make fun of myself all the time), you just respond as if someone stole your candy bar. In doing so, the only message your sending to people is that you have some insecurities to deal with.
Also, another friendly suggestion. If your going to write a letter to a LE agency or for other business, I highly suggest doing so in a more professional tone. Nobody likes reading a letter that is preemptively hostile in tone and whining about oppression without at least citing an example of when you've been oppressed by this particular department. In this inquiry, you go way beyond just asking a question. You are already implying that they engage in a number of illegal actions. This may even be true. But if your going get anywhere with these people, I suggest engaging them in a intelligent dialog that gives them at least some benefit of the doubt in the initial contact. Whining tone will not get you anywhere with the LEOs anymore than it will with me or other posters.
John, if it's necessary to delete this post. Please at least leave the part about writing the letter. It's a serious piece of advice meant for his own good.
Simple, you made a highly dramatic....and what could interpreted by some as whiny... post with very little explanation to warrant it besides your rants and ravings about the "elites of the southeast", who, from the response of your letter, haven't the foggiest idea what your talking about either. Where I come from, we call that being a drama queen...well that's not actually what we call it...but I can't say it on the forum.
But instead of just being willing to a poke a little fun at yourself for doing so (i make fun of myself all the time), you just respond as if someone stole your candy bar. In doing so, the only message your sending to people is that you have some insecurities to deal with.
Also, another friendly suggestion. If your going to write a letter to a LE agency or for other business, I highly suggest doing so in a more professional tone. Nobody likes reading a letter that is preemptively hostile in tone and whining about oppression without at least citing an example of when you've been oppressed by this particular department. In this inquiry, you go way beyond just asking a question. You are already implying that they engage in a number of illegal actions. This may even be true. But if your going get anywhere with these people, I suggest engaging them in a intelligent dialog that gives them at least some benefit of the doubt in the initial contact. Whining tone will not get you anywhere with the LEOs anymore than it will with me or other posters.
John, if it's necessary to delete this post. Please at least leave the part about writing the letter. It's a serious piece of advice meant for his own good.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
No, it was set up to show that the primary content will be that of people harassing me and trolling me and accusing me of their own actions... I'll just keep giving them rope to prove it with, while trying to keep a little continuity to the Original Post.
How dare I not be like them! How dare I not comply with their disagreement!
The rules are applied to those who are not imitating the staff. Those who commit the crime of "Failure to Flatter."
Those who are similar in lifestyle, beliefs, dress, money, etc., may do as they please with no consequence. Censorship by proxy of quagmire. Same tactic as the revolving prison system. If you let them go, they head back out there and give you excuses to seize more power. You don't have to do it, you use the willing criminals as pawns. If you've got buddies who are willing to go screw up every thread or comment written by 'the unclean,' you don't have to censor it yourself. That's too obvious... Simply apply 'the rules' unequally to suit your interests.
No progress will be made in OC by anyone that The Staff doesn't like. Period. Don't ever do something that has the potential to steal the spotlight, even if you don't want it, unless you meet their so-called 'standards' of wealth, elitism, etc.
Only 1 response has been posted in this thread that had anything to do with the OP. Almost all of the rest are personal attacks the severity of which I have been routinely censored for, yet these are not.
It's a private forum. The owners can do as they like. But presenting themselves as balanced or even civil is a farce. Only their compatriots in elitism will be allowed to be useful in the cause. It makes me wonder if the architects' true motive is merely to create a new special interest niche to be the kings of. Another NRA that doesn't promote a Right for ALL, but for their selected 'only ones.' No intent to win, but to keep the fight going so the donations roll in for eternity. It is an educated speculation with a lot of evidence to suggest it.
I organized a letter with citations of law, did not lick boots or try to sleep with the enemy, and sent it off for a response. I did not inform any news crews, or organize an 'event.' (not that there is anything wrong with that, just proving that I'm not trying to steal anyone's spotlight) Just me seeing what happens.
That is not the approved MO, so look what happened... Mobbed by the usual suspects, no consequences. Told that it's my own fault! Again, isn't the foundation of this forum personal responsibility? How is it that I am responsible for what others are doing? It's only apples and oranges because I'm not an apple! The analogy is dead-on. If I misbehave, censored. If the pawns do, nothing happens. The only difference is that I'm not a wealthy elitist and make no bones about it.
How dare I not be like them! How dare I not comply with their disagreement!
The rules are applied to those who are not imitating the staff. Those who commit the crime of "Failure to Flatter."
Those who are similar in lifestyle, beliefs, dress, money, etc., may do as they please with no consequence. Censorship by proxy of quagmire. Same tactic as the revolving prison system. If you let them go, they head back out there and give you excuses to seize more power. You don't have to do it, you use the willing criminals as pawns. If you've got buddies who are willing to go screw up every thread or comment written by 'the unclean,' you don't have to censor it yourself. That's too obvious... Simply apply 'the rules' unequally to suit your interests.
No progress will be made in OC by anyone that The Staff doesn't like. Period. Don't ever do something that has the potential to steal the spotlight, even if you don't want it, unless you meet their so-called 'standards' of wealth, elitism, etc.
Only 1 response has been posted in this thread that had anything to do with the OP. Almost all of the rest are personal attacks the severity of which I have been routinely censored for, yet these are not.
It's a private forum. The owners can do as they like. But presenting themselves as balanced or even civil is a farce. Only their compatriots in elitism will be allowed to be useful in the cause. It makes me wonder if the architects' true motive is merely to create a new special interest niche to be the kings of. Another NRA that doesn't promote a Right for ALL, but for their selected 'only ones.' No intent to win, but to keep the fight going so the donations roll in for eternity. It is an educated speculation with a lot of evidence to suggest it.
I organized a letter with citations of law, did not lick boots or try to sleep with the enemy, and sent it off for a response. I did not inform any news crews, or organize an 'event.' (not that there is anything wrong with that, just proving that I'm not trying to steal anyone's spotlight) Just me seeing what happens.
That is not the approved MO, so look what happened... Mobbed by the usual suspects, no consequences. Told that it's my own fault! Again, isn't the foundation of this forum personal responsibility? How is it that I am responsible for what others are doing? It's only apples and oranges because I'm not an apple! The analogy is dead-on. If I misbehave, censored. If the pawns do, nothing happens. The only difference is that I'm not a wealthy elitist and make no bones about it.
To quote the butch in Gangs of New York .....what in god's name are you talking about?
I simply made a joke and explained why while at the same time trying to help you. I'm not a pawn of the admin (thus my previous post was deleted). I'm a 23 year old soldier who makes less than 20,000 a year at the moment. So I'm not exactly wealthy either.
By the way that whole "sleeping with the enemy" comment really pissed me off. LE...misguided and even asinine as they may be at times....are not "enemies". They are our neighbors and friends most of whom BELIEVE in justice and the constitution. We simply need to educate the good officers and get the bad officers disciplined properly. They are NOT enemies.
Referring to them as such......only proves and concludes the fact that you sir.....are a complete certifiable lunatic.
That may be a personal attack, but this guy just referred to LE...some of whom are supporters of this org...as enemies. I'm sorry, but that is the same rhetoric of the revolutionary extremists and secessionist whom the admin have already stated is not welcome here.
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
Given the title of the thread, and your opening comments,
it appears that the only topical posts are those about your troll for attacks, and your quoted content in the OP was just fluff. Had you really wanted to discuss the topic in your quoted text, a relevant thread title, and removal of the "elite southeast" lead-in would have left you on high ground. As it stands, you aren't there.
By the way, as you specifically mentioned "giving them rope to prove it with" shows that this thread IS just a troll, and it SHOULD be locked and deleted.
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: LEO Bashing
wrightme
Regular Member
"6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: 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). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!"
Looks like you are working yourself into a ban. Why?
Last edited:
wrightme
Regular Member
Then you should not be surprised to see this one deleted too.
If you feel the post is against the rules, report it. Responding to it with a personal attack brings reaction from the admins, in addition to reaction from the one you attack. And rightfully so in the case of reaction from the admins. Disagree with him if you must, but when you attack him, you ARE posting against the rules of this forum property.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Officer.com
Did you think it would disappear just because you pretend it isn't so?
And there goes the pretending a rule applies that clearly doesn't... LEOs fly the Us vs Them flag all the damn time. And again, trying to turn it around just because I recognize it does not make me 'bashing' anyone.
Officer.com
Officer.com
Go ahead and read it.
Officer.com
Really, how much rope do you need?
LEOs declare themselves to be the enemy. I just go along with it... The Taliban are not an enemy I choose either, but they still are.... Am I a Taliban basher?
That's the most transparent load of crap I've had someone try to dump on me yet. You'd have to be a lunatic to fall for it. In spite of the liberal use of ban/censor button, I give the mods enough credit to see through this one, no matter how many of their buddies pile up and demand that my words be twisted into a meaning that isn't there.
I've got all kinds of rope here, pal. Every post you make that has nothing at all to do with the OP proves me right. Just keep on bringin' it. I don't have to attack you, you're doing it for me at this point...
Officer.com, it's still there... Filled with Officers declaring their hatred and disdain for anyone who isn't an Officer. Declaring their will and intent to enforce their opinions instead of law, even after being informed. Telling the world they'll kill OCers. It's nearly endless. And you can't pretend it isn't there.
FAIL.
Did you think it would disappear just because you pretend it isn't so?
And there goes the pretending a rule applies that clearly doesn't... LEOs fly the Us vs Them flag all the damn time. And again, trying to turn it around just because I recognize it does not make me 'bashing' anyone.
Officer.com
Officer.com
Go ahead and read it.
Officer.com
Really, how much rope do you need?
LEOs declare themselves to be the enemy. I just go along with it... The Taliban are not an enemy I choose either, but they still are.... Am I a Taliban basher?
That's the most transparent load of crap I've had someone try to dump on me yet. You'd have to be a lunatic to fall for it. In spite of the liberal use of ban/censor button, I give the mods enough credit to see through this one, no matter how many of their buddies pile up and demand that my words be twisted into a meaning that isn't there.
I've got all kinds of rope here, pal. Every post you make that has nothing at all to do with the OP proves me right. Just keep on bringin' it. I don't have to attack you, you're doing it for me at this point...
Officer.com, it's still there... Filled with Officers declaring their hatred and disdain for anyone who isn't an Officer. Declaring their will and intent to enforce their opinions instead of law, even after being informed. Telling the world they'll kill OCers. It's nearly endless. And you can't pretend it isn't there.
FAIL.
I agree with you. I was simply trying to expose him for what he is and I feel that his own words have convicted him to my satisfaction.
As long people understand his true extremist views that he masks under all this whining, I'll even delete the posts for the admins if they ask me to. I'm just happy he's exposed himself as another "police and authority are the enemy" lunatic that hurts OC movement with their non-sense.
and now he's just compared LE to the Taliban......I don't think I need to say anymore about this....individual.
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Is that your professional opinion? Anyone who knows what you wish they didn't, and has the balls to say it where you wish it weren't to be heard; is a crazy person?
LEOs claimed that on their own. I just recognize it. Officer.com. I lament the Us vs Them attitude that cops have. I wish it weren't so if that weren't obnoxiously obvious at this point... I question the sanity of anyone who can read this thread and think I have another opinion. Your comment is absurd in the extreme. I would very much like for LEOs to stop seeing all citizens as an enemy they haven't had a legally plausible excuse to kill yet. I won't let down my guard just because you accuse me of 'bashing' on the re-arranged farce. That is why I appear to come out swinging in my OP. Yet even these were more civilized in their response than you. I rather liked how they diffused my apparent head of steam in their reply. Can you not tell? Sheesh.... I'm the crazy one? You either lack basic powers of observation, or pretend to as an excuse to attack... I can't even call this juvenile, even kindergartners behave more rationally.
Still laughing.
wrightme
Regular Member
I do not go to that forum.
I am going out on a limb here and state that not all LE are contributors to content at that forum.
You paint them all with the brush that few deserve, thus engage in conduct not allowed on this forum.
I am going out on a limb here and state that not all LE are contributors to content at that forum.
You paint them all with the brush that few deserve, thus engage in conduct not allowed on this forum.
Your anger at LEOs may have a place, but IMHO (an opinion in keeping with that of the owners of this forum), this isn't the place.
Last edited:
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Yes, I did. And it's damn applicable!
Officer.com. READ IT. Not even Osama bin Laden himself has that much documented hate-speech directed towards American Citizens. It's a damn fact, and they documented it themselves... READ IT.
Your blind allegiance has been made clear by what you've said about this individual. Zealot, Jihadist, same thing....
Much like yourself, I point only to their own words and actions as more than enough evidence. This is to the exclusion of my own personal experiences!
WHAT EVER!
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
It seems that the administrator has your back. He's deleted a couple personal attacks already.
wrightme
Regular Member
No, it is not applicable. It would be more accurate to compare your view of some LE compared to all LE, and your view of the Taliban to a view of all Muslims.
The microcosm you hate is not indicative of the whole. You lump them together falsely. And doing that on this forum will get you canned.
wrightme
Regular Member
Correct. That disproved his initial rant-troll in short order.
And I have little doubt that his le-bashing will also get deleted, and may get HIM deleted if he continues with his anti-le rants.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I suggest that giving people who have declared war upon you and me, the benefit of the doubt, is foolish. I'm sure not all cops are in agreement. But enough that I won't presume any cop to be one of the good guys. They all wear the same uniform, how can you tell which is which? Just close your eyes and hope for the best? Sorry, read the forum and you'll see hundreds of damn good reasons not to trust them, until, like other human beings, they EARN it as an individual.
This, also, is not bashing. It's just common-sense. When a representative collective voice of a group flat-out says they won't obey the law, and will kill you for doing nothing wrong, only a truly idiotic person would say "Nah, they don't mean it." Only a truly idiotic person would ignore that. Only a dyed-in-the-wool zealot would promote the notion that a group making such declarations should be trusted, EVER.
If I said half the crap that cops on Officer.com do, I'd be in jail or dead.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
I had a great idea, how about a 'jump to conclusions' mat. Where it has these conclusions written on it, that you can jump to...
I present only that a significant, and representative, quantity of a group has made statements and performed actions that make it foolish to trust them. I would be foolish NOT to presume them all to agree, until they prove, as individual, otherwise.
Why would I even bother writing a letter if I 'knew' they were all the same? Personally, I do believe that. But I take the suggestions of people whom I can't even have a civilized conversation with as being possibly valid. That alone may make me the most sane person in this thread. At least I question myself and am willing to test the theory.
And look what it got me.... HA!
wrightme
Regular Member
Your words give lie to your supposed "not all cops are in agreement" comment. Which is it, they are all bad as you previously mentioned, or they are not all in agreement? Both statements cannot be correct. One of them is rational, the other breaks a site rule here.
- Status