• 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.

WCSH6 News - Portland Maine councilor Dan Skolnik has problem managing anger

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=128034&catid=2

SNIP

PORTLAND, Maine (NEWS CENTER) -- A Portland City Councilor is hoping to spur the Maine Legislature towards creating more limits on where people can carry firearms in the state.
. . .

Not surprisingly, gun enthusiasts are not pleased with Skolnik's plan. Shane Belanger, the founder of Maine Open Carry, says creating more gun-free zones only prevents law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves and doesn't prevent crime.

Skolnik . . . has been in a spat with many of his fellow councilors, accusing them of ignoring his calls and emails and not taking their jobs seriously. Some of them have said he may have a problem with managing his anger

. . .
 

crdonov

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
463
Location
south portland, Maine, USA

ep0k

Regular Member
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
273
Location
Wiscasset, Maine, USA
Just remember, folks, it can be fun to have a good laugh at Skolnik's personal failings but when we engage him and the public in a debate personal attacks don't do us any good. We attack his position for its logical failings and we support our argument with the FACTS.

A hypothetical example: I publish a paper on a new method of magnetic-resonance protein imaging in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If someone then attacks me as a researcher because I was the leading male in a hardcore porno when I was 19, have they actually said anything about my research? No. The objective truth of my research data is not impacted one way or another by my youthful indiscretions.

Similarly, Skolnik may have an amusing myspace page and bad taste in books. He may be overweight and have numerous other personal failings. But if we point this out at a city council meeting were are making an ad-hominem attack which is irrelevant to the legislation he has proposed.

Many great minds have had horrible personal lives. Einstein couldn't hold a relationship together. Martin Luther King Jr. was a sexual triathlete. Winston Churchill was a drunk. Conversely, Hitler was a decorated war veteran and a vegetarian.

Skolnik is wrong because he is a lawyer, (and a lawyer should know how to read the law) who is ignoring a clear, existing state legal statute prohibiting exactly the kind of measure he is trying to enact. All the data shows that the worst mass-murders occur in so-called "gun free zones". The city council exists to SERVE the people. They absolutely do not get any say what happens inside their hallowed halls. Those buildings are the property of the people, bought with our tax money, and exist as a forum for us to petition the government for redress of grievances. If we accede the 2nd amendment to his whims, what's to prevent his followers from deciding our other basic natural rights don't apply on government property?

Anyone remember "free speech zones?"

Regrettably I've never starred in a porno but I still think it's a good example.
 

shanebelanger

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
667
Location
Freeport, Maine, United States
Just remember, folks, it can be fun to have a good laugh at Skolnik's personal failings but when we engage him and the public in a debate personal attacks don't do us any good. We attack his position for its logical failings and we support our argument with the FACTS.

A hypothetical example: I publish a paper on a new method of magnetic-resonance protein imaging in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. If someone then attacks me as a researcher because I was the leading male in a hardcore porno when I was 19, have they actually said anything about my research? No. The objective truth of my research data is not impacted one way or another by my youthful indiscretions.

Similarly, Skolnik may have an amusing myspace page and bad taste in books. He may be overweight and have numerous other personal failings. But if we point this out at a city council meeting were are making an ad-hominem attack which is irrelevant to the legislation he has proposed.

Many great minds have had horrible personal lives. Einstein couldn't hold a relationship together. Martin Luther King Jr. was a sexual triathlete. Winston Churchill was a drunk. Conversely, Hitler was a decorated war veteran and a vegetarian.

Skolnik is wrong because he is a lawyer, (and a lawyer should know how to read the law) who is ignoring a clear, existing state legal statute prohibiting exactly the kind of measure he is trying to enact. All the data shows that the worst mass-murders occur in so-called "gun free zones". The city council exists to SERVE the people. They absolutely do not get any say what happens inside their hallowed halls. Those buildings are the property of the people, bought with our tax money, and exist as a forum for us to petition the government for redress of grievances. If we accede the 2nd amendment to his whims, what's to prevent his followers from deciding our other basic natural rights don't apply on government property?

Anyone remember "free speech zones?"

Regrettably I've never starred in a porno but I still think it's a good example.

Where do you guys keep getting that he's a lawyer? His myspace says he didn't graduate from college?
 
Top