stuckinchico
Regular Member
imported post
yeah mine was a joke personally I dont care
yeah mine was a joke personally I dont care
Let me quote exactly the post that you deleted (in addition to the Franklin comic):I will post this here since it becoming a public matter.
Yes, I deleted two of your posts, much the same as I deleted posts from oaklander and others.
Of the two posts of your that were deleted one was not addressing the topic but instead attacking the individual.
This is the same rules violation that has lead to deleted posts on both sides of the current conflict.
As you can see, I was responding to Bill's comments, and his continued insults cast at me and fellow UOC advocates. You didn't delete his posts, only my calling him out on it. Now I know Bill is a great guy and a true RKBA activist who's done more than most, but that does not mean I won't call him out when he is being an ass. (He in fact called us drama queens and many other childish insults.)Originally Posted by MudCamper:
Here is more vague references to insider political bs that can't possibly be proved one way or the other, or even that it will have any ramifications at all. Or am I just supposed to take your word for it. The word of a man who stoops to using personal insults as debating tactics. And you call us drama queens. Proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
I was not aware that Oaklander was banned, nor was I aware of other post deletions, therefore I did not speak about these things. If you'd lay off the censorship on all sides of the discussions, and just let people hang themselves, maybe you would have less trouble.I do not recall you presenting this outrage when I deleted the posts denigrating PNS and other UOC'ers.
Nope, not a word then.
Or was that 'censorship' acceptable as it fell in line with your personal beliefs?
Neither did I receive anything from you protesting oaklander's ban for trolling and antagonizing the UOC proponents.
Again, no outrage over censorship or bias then, perhaps there is a touch of bias in your outrage?
You have deleted my posts on many occasions. You always claim the same reasons. Perhaps sometimes you are justified. But from my perspective there have been many times where you are blatantly biased and censor beliefs and opinions you do not like. It's your sandbox. You can do what you want. But I don't have to like it. Nor do I have to shut up about it outside your sandbox.The second post was perhaps a bit overly PC in it's deletion but both sides of this debate are becoming VERY antagonistic and defensive and the 'join or die' concept at this point is very 'ultimatumish'.
When you draw a line in the sand the other guy isn't the only one bound by it, so are you.
If my intent was to censor your views why are there ten other posts of yours in that same thread, still there and untouched? Perhaps it is because they were posts that presented you points and views and nothing more.
I think you are full of it, and I think you know it. As I have told you on many of these occasions, I don't think any posts should be deleted. Close threads if you want. Ban users if you want. But when you selectively delete posts (and worse, when you delete/edit a user's post and then ban him) to misrepresent views that you don't like (particularly around religious discussions where your bias is the most blatant) it's the worst kind of censorship.You accuse me of bias and censorship yet you don't complain about the deletion and banning of those you disagree with.
You make no comment nor acknowledgment of the punitive actions taken on those other than you and act as though everyone else has gotten a pass but you.
While I am far from perfect, I try to NEVER ban or delete capriciously, only when I feel not doing so will result in larger problems in the future.
"On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions,
who at the dawn of victory rested, and resting died"{Omar the tent maker}
DEFENSOR FORTIS
Apt metaphor. Nice. Very nice.SNIPOperation Overlord...North Africa and Italy...have not beenconcluded.
Had you called him out on what was said it would be one thing, to imply lying is another.Let me quote exactly the post that you deleted (in addition to the Franklin comic):
"Originally Posted by MudCamper: Here is more vague references to insider political bs that can't possibly be proved one way or the other, or even that it will have any ramifications at all. Or am I just supposed to take your word for it. The word of a man who stoops to using personal insults as debating tactics. And you call us drama queens. Proverbial pot calling the kettle black."
As you can see, I was responding to Bill's comments, and his continued insults cast at me and fellow UOC advocates. You didn't delete his posts, only my calling him out on it. Now I know Bill is a great guy and a true RKBA activist who's done more than most, but that does not mean I won't call him out when he is being an ass. (He in fact called us drama queens and many other childish insults.)
Yes, he did get a bit snarky but the post itself actually addresses the issue at hand.I now know that UOC worries specifically played into Orange County drama. Gunnies have quite a few friends in OC for CCW, but fear of (U)OC caused significant worry at higher Friendly Political Levels. Rightly or wrongly, UOCers were seen as absolute loons in contrast to CCWers. And people UOCing in the future simply will not help change that image in California. Bringing southwest sensibilities to suburban CA ain't gonna happen. Going on, it will be sad if Drama Queens for Impractical Purity screw up CCW for others or increased required litigation or litigation costs. Gene's very good point about UOC being restricted to minority/women/LGBT folks reflects strategic practicality regardless of desirability.
Ahh.. so you make accusations without having all the information and then the blame becomes mine because I am enforcing rules that have existed for years and have been enforced in that same manner for all of those same years.I was not aware that Oaklander was banned, nor was I aware of other post deletions, therefore I did not speak about these things. If you'd lay off the censorship on all sides of the discussions, and just let people hang themselves, maybe you would have less trouble.
Yup! I have deleted posts of yours and of hundreds of others.You have deleted my posts on many occasions. You always claim the same reasons. Perhaps sometimes you are justified. But from my perspective there have been many times where you are blatantly biased and censor beliefs and opinions you do not like. It's your sandbox. You can do what you want. But I don't have to like it. Nor do I have to shut up about it outside your sandbox.
Of course you think I'm full of it, we do not agree on how things should be run and because I disagree I'm wrong.I think you are full of it, and I think you know it. As I have told you on many of these occasions, I don't think any posts should be deleted. Close threads if you want. Ban users if you want. But when you selectively delete posts (and worse, when you delete/edit a user's post and then ban him) to misrepresent views that you don't like (particularly around religious discussions where your bias is the most blatant) it's the worst kind of censorship.
It (open carry)is nicer and easier than CCW. Personally I want to walk down Market Street in San Francisco with an AR on my back and a Sig on my hip and a s**t eating grin on my face.
I absolutely support this statement. One thing I've always found very inspiring about the California forum on OCDO is the ability for everything to self-regulate. I can't think of a single instance where there was ever any need for a ban (other than spammers) or for censorship. The members who have been around the longest always step up and will say what's up and calm people down for the most part.If you'd lay off the censorship on all sides of the discussions, and just let people hang themselves, maybe you would have less trouble.
DEFENSOR wrote:
"On the plains of hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions,
who at the dawn of victory rested, and resting died"{Omar the tent maker}
DEFENSOR FORTIS
Ok was June 6th, 1944the right time forOperation Overlordor should it have happened in 1942?
Planning Planning and Planning to strike at the right time with the right tools brings success. I don't see any hesitation on our side. Things are progressing at a legal blitzkrieg pace for civil right issues.
Hesitating is UOCing as civil obedience (something I support generally by the way with occasional reservations). Not hesitating would be to LOC inviolationof 12031 at a press conference. Any takers? I hope not yet because North Africa and Italy (the low hanging fruit / soft under belly)have not beenconcluded.
witness planning :
I amnot forUOC as civil disobediencestrictly by virtue of the fact that exercising these rights at any time does not constitute said disobedience This is notTehran square where one sign held up willearn you a baton
strike or worse. I am for all2A rights, Ive earned them more than once. If your refererences to low hanging fruit and soft underbelly are metaphoric for LOC and eventual CCW then we should still be conducting operation O'Lord. though apress conference is not a battlefield to force a tactical agenda but to develop a strategic advantage "no takers on LOC with reporters and LEO's I will dispense with any further metaphores.
MudCamper wroteI will post this here since it becoming a public matter.When I posted my RKBA version of the Franklin "Join or Die" image the other day in an OC bash thread, it was deleted by Kestryl. It's OK to insult and belittle us, but it's not OK to point out that we all should stick together.
Yes. CalGuns.net is owned by Kestryl, and it is his personal sandbox. He censors views he does not like and members he does not like.
Yes, I deleted two of your posts, much the same as I deleted posts from oaklander and others.
Of the two posts of your that were deleted one was not addressing the topic but instead attacking the individual.
This is the same rules violation that has lead to deleted posts on both sides of the current conflict.
I do not recall you presenting this outrage when I deleted the posts denigrating PNS and other UOC'ers.
Nope, not a word then.
Or was that 'censorship' acceptable as it fell in line with your personal beliefs?
Neither did I receive anything from you protesting oaklander's ban for trolling and antagonizing the UOC proponents.
Again, no outrage over censorship or bias then, perhaps there is a touch of bias in your outrage?
The second post was perhaps a bit overly PC in it's deletion but both sides of this debate are becoming VERY antagonistic and defensive and the 'join or die' concept at this point is very 'ultimatumish'.
When you draw a line in the sand the other guy isn't the only one bound by it, so are you.
If my intent was to censor your views why are there ten other posts of yours in that same thread, still there and untouched? Perhaps it is because they were posts that presented you points and views and nothing more.
You accuse me of bias and censorship yet you don't complain about the deletion and banning of those you disagree with.
You make no comment nor acknowledgment of the punitive actions taken on those other than you and act as though everyone else has gotten a pass but you.
While I am far from perfect, I try to NEVER ban or delete capriciously, only when I feel not doing so will result in larger problems in the future.
no I cant see that post because I am still banned
I've explained before that there is a reason for the order of operations here.
We can get shall issue CCW if we attack that first (and say some things in that attack that OC proponents will not like - I'm warning you.) Once we secure shall issue CCW there is a specific way in which we can likely decriminalize LOC as well. I too don't want to be in the Texas situation of being cited for OC when I have a CCW too. That will also mean we'll head after GFSZ's too but those are certainly not the first cases you want to bring.
If we went in the other order, then I worry simply that LOC will end up being prohibited by every mall and restaurant in California. Just look at what is happening in Arizona and Tenessee for goodness sake. Bars are posting "no guns" signs even after both states started allowing CCW carriers in. Don't for a moment think that if LOC is our only choice, that we will not suffer the effect of having gun haters outnumber us 3:2 and have that make the private sector make it virtually impossible to carry.
LCAV and Brady would enjoy us attempting to get the equivalent ruling to Pruneyard on guns. Here's a hint - it will not happen. We'll have a mooted right to LOC - basically useless...
I've open carried before in places where it is legal and the public support ratio is more like 1:1. It is nicer and easier than CCW. Personally I want to walk down Market Street in San Francisco with an AR on my back and a Sig on my hip and a s**t eating grin on my face.
Do this in reverse, and we'll all hang separately. Remember that it took 100 years after the end of slavery for black people to stop being lynched. The patience we're asking for is very, very short in comparison. Also note that I'm certainly not saying no UOC. I'm saying no lone UOC and that it would be far, far better politically if the group UOC wasn't a bunch of normal white males.
-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation - Member, CRPA Board of Directors
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
[align=center]"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Ultima Ratio Liberarum[/align]