Gunslinger... Whats with you and Nazis?

ChiangShih · Apr 2, 2011

Here you go with the Nazi comments in another thread!

Gunslinger said:
Lighten up. When I'm serious about comparing neo-fascists to the original product and you don't like it, feel free to jump in. When I'm kidding around to get the Administrator's goat, I'm joking. As to "Die Horst Wessel Lied," I've always thought it had good lyrics, but you couldn't dance to it.

Gunslinger said:
The media salivates at the opportunity of kissing the cops ***. Of course, the police are your friends, so you should learn the lyrics to sing along with them:

Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen!
SA marschiert mit ruhig-festem Schritt.

Oh wow, and in another thread!

Gunslinger said:
Or could it be they're truly nothing more than thugs whose compensatory complex of superiority they think makes up for serious, psycho-sexual shortcomings? Just asking...

Zum letzten Mal wird schon Appell geblasen!
Zum Kampfe steh'n wir alle schon bereit!

And another!

Gunslinger said:
The Peoples Demokratic Republik of Kalifornia investigating illegal activity by the SA. Novel idea. Kind of like the KGB investigating the SS. Gov Moonbeam in the same room with Ubergruppenfuhrer holder. Kind of makes me want to heave...

And another

Gunslinger said:
Take the guns away from the cops and the problem will solve itself. The trouble is the mentality of a**holes like Lopez and his UberGruppenfuhrer superiors.

"We must take the guns from the people to make the streets safe for the SS."

A. Hitler

Obergruppenführer was a Nazi Party paramilitary rank that was first created in 1932 as a rank of the SA and until 1942 it was the highest SS rank inferior only to Reichsführer-SS (Heinrich Himmler).

I'm a little off put by this recurrence, particularly because there exists a stereotype of right wing extremism amongst anti-2A folks directed at pro-2A folks and this sort of conduct doesn't help.

Thomas Masse · Apr 2, 2011

ChiangShih said:
I'm a little off put by this recurrence, particularly because there exists a stereotype of right wing extremism amongst 2A folks and this isn't helping.

We as OCer's have had a hard time in the media lately regarding current run-ins with LEO's. I hardly think it is appropriate to be flinging around comparisons and metaphors that compare LEO's/the media to the Nazi party. I see this as some vain attempt at humor that is very inappropriate to say the least and should not enter this forum even in a humorous context.

Most importantly, as we have seen in the media in recent events, context is a matter of perspective. Seen in the wrong light, even a joke can be damning.

Citizen · Apr 2, 2011

ChiangShih said:
Here you go with the Nazi comments in another thread!
And the same song at that.
Remember what you said about "anyone can google it", you seem to be the only one googling it....and requoting it throughout the forum..
I'm starting to worry about you buddy.

Oh wow, and in another thread!

And another!

And another

Obergruppenführer was a Nazi Party paramilitary rank that was first created in 1932 as a rank of the SA and until 1942 it was the highest SS rank inferior only to Reichsführer-SS (Heinrich Himmler).

Gunslinger, Warum bist do so interessiert an den Nationalsozialismus?
Sie verstehen die Bedeutung der Zahl 1488?
I've got a suspicion about you.

I'm a little off put by this recurrence, particularly because there exists a stereotype of right wing extremism amongst anti-2A folks directed at pro-2A folks and this isn't helping.

QFT

Forum rules violation. Personal attack--starting a thread solely to criticize another forum member.

From the forum rules:

(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, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

Moderator alerted.

ChiangShih · Apr 2, 2011

Citizen said:
QFT

Forum rules violation. Personal attack--starting a thread solely to criticize another forum member.

From the forum rules:

(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, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

Moderator alerted.

This is not a personal attack based on, race, sex or occupation, nor is this bashing opinion. This is a simply question of conduct. A directed question of intent and reasoning. I'm not bashing or attacking. I'm making an inquisitive observation.

Or is pointing out aspects of forum conduct in the general discussion board against the rules?

As I see those quite often. Questioning or discussing the motives, posts, and actions of other members, including a current thread pointing out the actions of a mod.

Hmm.

ChiangShih · Apr 2, 2011

In fact, just to give an example, during the 2qwik4u...tooquick...however he spelled it.. drama.. Multiple threads existed observing and questioning his conduct. I don't see how this is any different.

ChiangShih · Apr 2, 2011

Citizen said:
QFT

Forum rules violation. Personal attack--starting a thread solely to criticize another forum member.

From the forum rules:

(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, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM POSTS!!!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

Moderator alerted.

In fact, didn't you start a thread directly commenting on the actions of grapeshot?!

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?88708-Grapeshot-is-a-4-1-Trixter

Joke or not it is not much different from mine.

Citizen · Apr 2, 2011

Chiang,

I read your comments in the thread fight with Gunslinger and Marshaul. You've already discredited yourself with anybody who's paying much attention.

Then you seemingly followed Gunslinger's post history and posted your counter-attacks in other threads.

That you feel compelled to make three replies in a row here stands it in unmistakable stark relief.

You've made it personal. You are so personally wrapped up in "winning" your fight with Gunslinger, it is laughable. You're no longer arguing the case. You're fighting personally just to fight. This thread proves it. (As if the other stuff didn't on its own.)

The sad part is that you feel so invested into this, you cannot emotionally afford to lose or be wrong. You're not fighting Gunslinger to win. You're fighting to avoid feeling like you lost--to avoid being wrong.

Wouldn't it be better to let it go? Begin rebuilding your credibility and reputation?

mohawk001 · Apr 2, 2011

Citizen said:
Chiang,

I read your comments in the thread fight with Gunslinger and Marshaul. You've already discredited yourself with anybody who's paying much attention.

Then you seemingly followed Gunslinger's post history and posted your counter-attacks in other threads.

That you feel compelled to make three replies in a row here stands it in unmistakable stark relief.

You've made it personal. You are so personally wrapped up in "winning" your fight with Gunslinger, it is laughable. You're no longer arguing the case. You're fighting personally just to fight. This thread proves it. (As if the other stuff didn't on its own.)

The sad part is that you feel so invested into this, you cannot emotionally afford to lose or be wrong. You're not fighting Gunslinger to win. You're fighting to avoid feeling like you lost--to avoid being wrong.

Wouldn't it be better to let it go? Begin rebuilding your credibility and reputation?

But he is correct with that first post if nothing else. The OP did not break the rule that you said he did. So now you are discredited I guess. Start rebuilding your credibility and reputation perhaps? Or can you give a specific example as outlined in the rule you referenced?

I wonder if you need to be reported for being so disruptive on the MB. Let me do some looking at the rules again and perhaps I'll report you to the mods.

Citizen · Apr 2, 2011

mohawk001 said:
SNIP But he is correct with that first post if nothing else. The OP did not break the rule that you said he did.

Yes, he did. I will explain.

First, let me be clear that I am not going to argue with him (nor you). I will explain it this once exactly and precisely only for your own personal understanding and any other readers regarding this rule.

One could ask why I did not explain this to Chiang rather than render the my preceding post. It would not be an illegitimate question. The answer is because Chiang is interested in arguing. Any reply along the lines of demonstrating a violation to him would beget nothing but more argument from him. Just read the last of his three-in-a-row posts and evaluate it thoroughly. Thus, I am not about to waste time arguing the point. I am willing to assist your understanding. However, anybody wants to argue it can take it up with the mods.

Here is the explanation:

This forum has a long history of not allowing threads as personal attacks on individual forum members. For a few years now, every single one I've seen was locked or deleted. The rationale given by Mike (forum owner and Supermoderator) is that it gets nowhere and only serves to perpetuate acrimony. Such threads are about the person, not the 2A issue.

The rule can be read to mean only politically incorrect personal attacks are prohibited. However, this would be a self-servingly narrow reading. The history of this forum is such that the Admin and mods delete all kinds of personal attacks, not just politically incorrect personal attacks. This has developed over time becoming more and more strict.

Now, is my understanding guaranteed correct? Perhaps not. Am I willing to be wrong? Yes. However, until a mod intervenes permit to suggest something as a supportive clue. I have been here for years. I have a post count that shows I have spent a lot of time following threads during those years.

Claytron · Apr 2, 2011

Citizen said:
Chiang,

I read your comments in the thread fight with Gunslinger and Marshaul. You've already discredited yourself with anybody who's paying much attention.

Then you seemingly followed Gunslinger's post history and posted your counter-attacks in other threads.

That you feel compelled to make three replies in a row here stands it in unmistakable stark relief.

You've made it personal. You are so personally wrapped up in "winning" your fight with Gunslinger, it is laughable. You're no longer arguing the case. You're fighting personally just to fight. This thread proves it. (As if the other stuff didn't on its own.)

The sad part is that you feel so invested into this, you cannot emotionally afford to lose or be wrong. You're not fighting Gunslinger to win. You're fighting to avoid feeling like you lost--to avoid being wrong.

Wouldn't it be better to let it go? Begin rebuilding your credibility and reputation?

He had asked you a question regarding a thread YOU created specifically about another forum poster, I think its a good question and am interested in your answer.

This guy didnt ATTACK anyone, he brought up someones use/misuse of nazi talk..... he never insulted him, he was simply questioning it.

Sorry but for now i have to count you down as being discredited.

Claytron · Apr 2, 2011

Citizen said:
Yes, he did. I will explain.

First, let me be clear that I am not going to argue with him (nor you). I will explain it this once exactly and precisely only for your own personal understanding and any other readers regarding this rule.

One could ask why I did not explain this to Chiang rather than render the my preceding post. It would not be an illegitimate question. The answer is because Chiang is interested in arguing. Any reply along the lines of demonstrating a violation to him would beget nothing but more argument from him. Just read the last of his three-in-a-row posts and evaluate it thoroughly. Thus, I am not about to waste time arguing the point. I am willing to assist your understanding. However, anybody wants to argue it can take it up with the mods.

Here is the explanation:

This forum has a long history of not allowing threads as personal attacks on individual forum members. For a few years now, every single one I've seen was locked or deleted. The rationale given by Mike (forum owner and Supermoderator) is that it gets nowhere and only serves to perpetuate acrimony. Such threads are about the person, not the 2A issue.

The rule can be read to mean only politically incorrect personal attacks are prohibited. However, this would be a self-servingly narrow reading. The history of this forum is such that the Admin and mods delete all kinds of personal attacks, not just politically incorrect personal attacks. This has developed over time becoming more and more strict.

Now, is my understanding guaranteed correct? Perhaps not. Am I willing to be wrong? Yes. However, until a mod intervenes permit to suggest something as a supportive clue. I have been here for years. I have a post count that shows I have spent a lot of time following threads during those years.

No offense but all those years and posts spent here didnt help you fully understand the rules in this case. Hes not personally attacking anyone. In the end it probably comes down to the personal opinion of the owner on exactly what is considered a personal attack. This guy wasnt mean or nasty, he wasnt exactly praising the guy but come on.... have we really gotten to the point where you cant even give your opinion on someone?

I saw your thread about grapeshot which was pretty obviously done in good fun but whos to say he couldnt take offense that you shut down his april fools gimmick?

You guys are grown men and women, if you cannot handle a little criticism on the INTERNET then maybe carrying a firearm isnt the best course of action for you.

Guido · Apr 2, 2011

Just speaking for me, but if I were to start a thread of this nature it would be to start a fight, as I know that the person I just tried to call out in a thread would get pissed and reply in kind. and I know that other people would pile on to both sides to help out.

Sometimes you just got to ask yourself "Is it really worth it?"

Have a great night everybody !

mohawk001 · Apr 2, 2011

Citizen said:
Yes, he did. I will explain.

First, let me be clear that I am not going to argue with him (nor you). I will explain it this once exactly and precisely only for your own personal understanding and any other readers regarding this rule.

One could ask why I did not explain this to Chiang rather than render the my preceding post. It would not be an illegitimate question. The answer is because Chiang is interested in arguing. Any reply along the lines of demonstrating a violation to him would beget nothing but more argument from him. Just read the last of his three-in-a-row posts and evaluate it thoroughly. Thus, I am not about to waste time arguing the point. I am willing to assist your understanding. However, anybody wants to argue it can take it up with the mods.

Here is the explanation:

This forum has a long history of not allowing threads as personal attacks on individual forum members. For a few years now, every single one I've seen was locked or deleted. The rationale given by Mike (forum owner and Supermoderator) is that it gets nowhere and only serves to perpetuate acrimony. Such threads are about the person, not the 2A issue.

The rule can be read to mean only politically incorrect personal attacks are prohibited. However, this would be a self-servingly narrow reading. The history of this forum is such that the Admin and mods delete all kinds of personal attacks, not just politically incorrect personal attacks. This has developed over time becoming more and more strict.

Now, is my understanding guaranteed correct? Perhaps not. Am I willing to be wrong? Yes. However, until a mod intervenes permit to suggest something as a supportive clue. I have been here for years. I have a post count that shows I have spent a lot of time following threads during those years.

So you are going to claim that you can twist the rules as stated to mean what you want them to mean? Classic. I also find classic that you have blasted him for following someone on the board. By the way you stated it and how you covered how his many posts are, I am wondering if it is you who are the stalker instead of him.

I also find that you are trying to twist the rules because you claim it's a bad post because it's not related to the 2A. Well, the rules do state that there can be post not relating to the 2A, and that those posts must be in the General Discussion section. Is this thread not in that section?

Oh, and your post count means jack to me. People such as myself read this board without even registering for a long time, if at all. Many of us also read here and don't feel the need to post a whole lot. After all, I could find a ton of posts that don't have anything to contribute. So by your thinking, those posts shouldn't count in the post count in the way you want them to. I also see why others say that this board isn't worth going to any longer since you are showing yourself to be one of those elitist that they talk about as they leave. I guess you are judging me not worthy of posting here because my post count doesn't match yours. All that means is that you are willing to see your words online and that makes you feel important. It doesn't mean you are actually worth anything at all.

DevinWKuska · Apr 2, 2011

Me myself personally I would like to see a response from gunslinger. As I understand this forum is to promote a learned and law abiding group of individuals, as well as promoting OC to the general public. I feel if someone in this forum is part of the Nazi party that puts a rather dim light on pro-2A movement. Furthermore the Nazi movement as far as I can recall has been involved in lots of illegal/brutal/shocking crimes. Thus if the OP has discovered someone who is possibly counter-productive to this forums ideas and concepts... adjustments should be made.

I dont care if your protestant, jewish, muslim, black, white, latino, asian, ect.... none of these affect the 2A movement or OCing. BUT, if your part of the Nazi movement your ideals lead to illegal and imoraly beliefs and actions. You should not be allowed to even be associated with the 2a, and your firearms should be taken from you.

DevinWKuska · Apr 2, 2011

Thomas Masse said:
We as OCer's have had a hard time in the media lately regarding current run-ins with LEO's. I hardly think it is appropriate to be flinging around comparisons and metaphors that compare LEO's/the media to the Nazi party. I see this as some vain attempt at humor that is very inappropriate to say the least and should not enter this forum even in a humorous context.

Most importantly, as we have seen in the media in recent events, context is a matter of perspective. Seen in the wrong light, even a joke can be damning.

+1

MikeTheGreek · Apr 2, 2011

DevinWKuska said:
BUT, if your part of the Nazi movement your ideals lead to illegal and imoraly beliefs and actions. You should not be allowed to even be associated with the 2a, and your firearms should be taken from you.

As far as I know..Nazis support open carrying! Plus we all know they support the right to bear arms..

I'm just kidding, we shouldn't have Nazis here, I would also like to see a reply by Gunslinger.

........--Moderator Comments--

1) Paraphrasing what I said on another thread: Constant/repeat reference to Nazi (in a manner and context frequently seen) is beyond the tolerance level of OCDO. It ends here.

2) I find this thread most distasteful. We do NOT hang our personal disputes out in public. If you perceive a serious problem or an infraction of the rules, try to moderate it via a simple reminder/request. If that doesn't work after a reasonable attempt, report it.

This thread violates rules and courtesy equally - repeat at your peril.

Gunslinger... Whats with you and Nazis?

ChiangShih

Regular Member

Thomas Masse

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

ChiangShih

Regular Member

ChiangShih

Regular Member

ChiangShih

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

mohawk001

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

Claytron

Regular Member

Claytron

Regular Member

Guido

Regular Member

mohawk001

Regular Member

DevinWKuska

Regular Member

DevinWKuska

Regular Member

MikeTheGreek

Regular Member