I'm glad to hear you say this; I expected it to be the case, but its good to hear.
-
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.
ALOC Forum Update
- Thread starter Dianosis
- Start date
I'm glad to hear you say this; I expected it to be the case, but its good to hear.
I was also kicked off several months ago for merely citing Department of Justice and FBI crimes statistics. Some very low IQ bipeds think quoting crime stats is 'racist,' whatever that term means to those people. It's meaningless as far as I'm concerned and is thrown at any White man or woman that says anything a protected minority doesn't like.
That said, those stats are valuable in keeping one free from violent crime in that they clearly identify the majority of violent assailants and the areas in which they inhabit.
I'm not interested in posting on a forum or associating with cowards to fearful to state the truth because they fear being called names by the very people that are out to kill them and their families. I'm sure eye95's being banned is entirely different than my own.
Doesn't really matter anyway as each of us are essentially on our own when it comes to every day life. Just a shame most men are so feminized to the point they are afraid to speak their minds. Tells you who's really in charge when you can't criticize certain groups who are behind every anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-family agenda we fight against.
That said, those stats are valuable in keeping one free from violent crime in that they clearly identify the majority of violent assailants and the areas in which they inhabit.
I'm not interested in posting on a forum or associating with cowards to fearful to state the truth because they fear being called names by the very people that are out to kill them and their families. I'm sure eye95's being banned is entirely different than my own.
Doesn't really matter anyway as each of us are essentially on our own when it comes to every day life. Just a shame most men are so feminized to the point they are afraid to speak their minds. Tells you who's really in charge when you can't criticize certain groups who are behind every anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-family agenda we fight against.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Considering the racist tirade that was sent to my inbox by the only person I know of who was banned from ALOC for racism, I have zero doubt that that decision was theabsolute correct one, and I supported that decision 100%. Unless the admin has deleted my account completely, that PM still exists, and (regardless of our disagreement) he has my permission to quote it here.
The things that were said in that PM should turn the stomach of any person who truly loves Liberty for ALL!
The things that were said in that PM should turn the stomach of any person who truly loves Liberty for ALL!
How about we stay away from even indirect personal attacks?
I remember someone being banned 6 months or so ago for violating forum rules and part of the violation was thinly veiled bigotry far beyond merely quoting FBI crime stats.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Why don't you post it?
eye95
Well-known member
Because I no longer have access to it. I hesitate to try to repeat my recollection of the precise epithets because, if I get them wrong, that error alone will be used to accuse me of lying and as a distraction from the racist behavior exhibited by the PM. Suffice it to say (until and unless the PM can be quoted directly and completely) that I concluded that the author harbored intense hatred towards Jews and blacks--and was willing to express that hatred in quite unequivocal terms.
Dianosis
Regular Member
There was also some very inappropriate pics posted, I won't bother to describe them, that accompanied the posts. I still have access to all the items in question but I will not post them here or anywhere.
Last edited:
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Roger
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Good decision. This forum doesn't need to be contaminated in that manner. A shame it happened in the first place.
Dianosis
Regular Member
Never said you did, I said: Feedback and input and a vote from several of our Regional Coordinators. Didn't say all.
eye95
Well-known member
When one backpedals that fast, he ought to make a beeping sound.
The fact remains that I posted a thread that was harshly and bluntly critical of the management of the site. I pointed out that the site was the movement and was being run by one person in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Veiled threats of a banning were issue. I persisted. The owner rightly pointed out that the site was "his" and that he would "control" it. (He was technically right, not morally right.) I kept pressing for him to make the site more grassroots. The thinly veiled threats continued, and I was called a "liar" for having pointed out that he was working against the formation of a non-profit. Eventually, he deleted my last post in that thread and banned me.
Despite efforts on his part to make it seem like it was a move generally accepted by the rest of the membership, or one that had the approval of the regional coordinators, or (now) one that had not been disputed by a few (or one) regional coordinators, there is only one reasonable conclusion: He exercised his right (immorally, IMO) to "control" "his" site and ban me because his behavior was bluntly and sharply criticized by me, and he didn't like it.
The irony of all of this is that his actions demonstrate precisely why the OC movement in AL should not be controlled by one person. If it took my banning to restart the discussion on a non-profit, then my banning was worthwhile. But don't buy the ever-changing spin that is being put on events so the site "owner" can make his actions look more reasonable, less arbitrary, and less capricious.
The fact remains that I posted a thread that was harshly and bluntly critical of the management of the site. I pointed out that the site was the movement and was being run by one person in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Veiled threats of a banning were issue. I persisted. The owner rightly pointed out that the site was "his" and that he would "control" it. (He was technically right, not morally right.) I kept pressing for him to make the site more grassroots. The thinly veiled threats continued, and I was called a "liar" for having pointed out that he was working against the formation of a non-profit. Eventually, he deleted my last post in that thread and banned me.
Despite efforts on his part to make it seem like it was a move generally accepted by the rest of the membership, or one that had the approval of the regional coordinators, or (now) one that had not been disputed by a few (or one) regional coordinators, there is only one reasonable conclusion: He exercised his right (immorally, IMO) to "control" "his" site and ban me because his behavior was bluntly and sharply criticized by me, and he didn't like it.
The irony of all of this is that his actions demonstrate precisely why the OC movement in AL should not be controlled by one person. If it took my banning to restart the discussion on a non-profit, then my banning was worthwhile. But don't buy the ever-changing spin that is being put on events so the site "owner" can make his actions look more reasonable, less arbitrary, and less capricious.
Last edited:
macgulley
Regular Member
eye95
Well-known member
Yeah, that's a genius I listen to for advice! 
It is not a matter of not getting along. I have remained rational, but blunt, throughout. The admin does not want "his" site to be grassroots. He wishes to remain in "control." No problem. That is his right. That he no longer wishes me to participate in his site is also not a problem and his right. However, this attitude represents the precise reason I don't care if I am not allowed to participate in ALOC.
We need an official grassroots OC advocacy group in Alabama. ALOC can be that group, be part of that group, or be independent of that group. If the latter is the choice of its "owner," then he remains free to remain in control of his independent site. If ALOC is to be that group or be part of that group, he will have to relinquish control to a leadership defined by the group's charter and beholding to the grassroots membership (which would surely include him). However, the owner has made it clear that, at least as of now, he has no interest in relinquishing the slightest bit of control.
So, "getting along" is not the issue.
It is not a matter of not getting along. I have remained rational, but blunt, throughout. The admin does not want "his" site to be grassroots. He wishes to remain in "control." No problem. That is his right. That he no longer wishes me to participate in his site is also not a problem and his right. However, this attitude represents the precise reason I don't care if I am not allowed to participate in ALOC.
We need an official grassroots OC advocacy group in Alabama. ALOC can be that group, be part of that group, or be independent of that group. If the latter is the choice of its "owner," then he remains free to remain in control of his independent site. If ALOC is to be that group or be part of that group, he will have to relinquish control to a leadership defined by the group's charter and beholding to the grassroots membership (which would surely include him). However, the owner has made it clear that, at least as of now, he has no interest in relinquishing the slightest bit of control.
So, "getting along" is not the issue.