Newt shows his "true colors"...

[georg jetson]

Well… I took some time before I replied to this because, for the life of me, I can’t figure our what it is Grapeshot is actually intending to say here. I’m replying because for some reason, I was the one used to make some sort of example. I’ve read and re-read several times just to make sure that I wasn’t missing something… What am I missing?

First…

Somebody gets it! A spot on observation. The target and focus of OCDO is open carry and only open carry.

Somebody gets it??!! Somebody gets that they should only post things related to OC in a place designated for things NOT related to OC. If the post WAS related to OC then it wouldn’t need to be posted in the SOCIAL LOUNGE. Well… whatever… I don’t make the rules.

Second…

A little history is in order here regarding the Social Lounge. The Social Lounge was not created to expand the scope of OCDO, but rather to isolate otherwise errant postings/threads that were off topic for this forum. In so doing an opportunity was created for poster/members to talk about movies, family life, their favorite vehicle, etc. within this additional/new sub-forum. While there has been wide latitude in what has been left unmoderated/edited/deleted, there have been occasions when threads, postings and the authors thereof have chosen to push or test the limits - limits are not solely found within the black letter rules, which some have insisted that they should be. Let me assure you they are not.

Errant postings? Ok… whatever… Like I said, I don’t make the rules. Perhaps we should add “errant postings” in the description… I don’t really care. If you’re gonna give “wide latitude” that’s fine… but give a fellow ocer a heads up before reigning things in… I know limits are not “solely found within the black letter rules”, but what exactly in my post was outside the limits? All I did was describe the SL for what many of us have come to know it.

Argument as a means of education is an inefficient means of sharing thoughts, opinions, ideas. It solicits base remarks/responses from some people as passions are inflamed. The original purpose for the Social Forum is, I fear, being pushed and pulled beyond what was intended.

C’mon Grapeshot… Argument may not be “efficient”, but it is motivational. I’ve learned a great many things reading posts of those more educated than myself on many topics. Every time somebody posts something of “fact” the first thing I’m doing (and I’m sure many others) is checking those “facts” and posting any discrepancy.

As far as soliciting “base remarks/responses from some people”… well as I’ve pointed out many times, it’s no secret that this is a site dedicated to promoting the open carry of a firearm. Should not our good members at least be aware of their oversensitive tendencies to certain topics/situations? Control of emotion should be paramount to the ocer. Better lose their cool here than on the street.

Keep in mind that the intent and purpose of OCDO is to promote and protect the right to carry normal, properly holstered handguns as we go about our everyday lives. The further we stray from that principal value, the further OT we find ourselves.

Out of context perhaps, but to quote John, "Help keep OCDO strong and focused."

How far we are off topic is most certainly subjective. I just can’t understand what it is you’re trying to say… Maybe you’re telling me that the SL is off limits for me??? I don’t know… As far as I can tell, what I posted was correct. Please tell how one can post something “errant” and yet still be OT??

It appears that perhaps the individual who’s post I was commenting on got his/her feelings hurt and went whining to the moderators. Well if that’s the case… um… I’d better not finish that “errant” thought. Let’s just say that maybe some people’s post signatures might seem a bit too “errant”… hmmmm???

 

[Aknazer]

Here's my issue with allowing gays to "marry." As far as I'm aware, the term "marriage" has always been between a man and a woman (I'm not going to get into the love vs agreement of two families to join together thing). So in order for gays to "marry" you have to change the meaning of "marriage" and that is what I'm against. That said, I have no problem with them having a "civil union" or w/e term they use so long as they don't require one to change the definition of w/e word they choose. And I agree that the government should get its nose out of the subject. The only thing the government should care about is if a couple are "joined" or in a "union" together. I don't even think polygamy should be illegal for consenting adults as people can already effectively do this anyways by having an open marriage between all parties involved, but that's a different thread.

EDIT: And I just saw grapeshot's post so that is all I'll say on this subject.

 

[Grapeshot]

Open response to Georg Jetson and anyone else who might be missing the points.

This may be the Social Lounge, but the "need I say more", "get over it" and sarcasm obvious in "recently appointed administrator" is totally unnecessary for doing what any poster/user is entitled to do - report another poster or problems within a thread.
Point of fact: this thread has strayed far beyond the parameters of the title and OP and is subject to moderation on those grounds alone.

Discussing the facts of an element is what we do here, not making things personal. That is what distinguishes a discussion from an argument. There is also the image projected to the public: media, politicians, antis, and a host of non-registered readers, who BTW out view the members here at any given time by from 5 to 1, to 10 to 1. What is written here becomes public fodder and to that end there is an awareness and need that we remain focused and conduct ourselves with decorum.

The comment that "one may voice any non-OC opinions here in the SOCIAL LOUNGE is not correct. That is why I offered some background information of the history of the Social Lounge. My intent was and still is to inform so as to keep this forum functioning in a manner conducive to all who wish to come here to contribute with a reasonable voice.

You may feel free to disagree with me at any time, but such disagreement in itself will not change my function. I do try to explain myself adequately when questioned in any event. Take the high road, avoid personal attacks as they will be dealt with in accordance with policy, and be aware that guidance given is better than sanctions imposed. It is guidance that I prefer to use whenever possible.

This makes sense I trust. Let's get back on topic.

 

[georg jetson]

SNIP

The comment that "one may voice any non-OC opinions here in the SOCIAL LOUNGE is not correct. That is why I offered some background information of the history of the Social Lounge. SNIP

Fair enough. For the record I didn't intend to convey "any". However, I did. My bad.

 

[Grapeshot]

Fair enough. For the record I didn't intend to convey "any". However, I did. My bad.

Also I should add, nothing was intended to personally insult anyone nor limit thoughts - how those thoughts are expressed does come into play though.

Keep up the good work in Louisiana.

 

[georg jetson]

Also I should add, nothing was intended to personally insult anyone nor limit thoughts - how those thoughts are expressed does come into play though.

Keep up the good work in Louisiana.

Keep up the good work everywhere else. Your job here's gotta be a real PITA. I appreciate it.

 

[Tawnos]

Here's my issue with allowing gays to "marry." As far as I'm aware, the term "marriage" has always been between a man and a woman (I'm not going to get into the love vs agreement of two families to join together thing).
So in order for gays to "marry" you have to change the meaning of "marriage" and that is what I'm against. That said, I have no problem with them having a "civil union" or w/e term they use so long as they don't require one to change the definition of w/e word they choose. And I agree that the government should get its nose out of the subject. The only thing the government should care about is if a couple are "joined" or in a "union" together. I don't even think polygamy should be illegal for consenting adults as people can already effectively do this anyways by having an open marriage between all parties involved, but that's a different thread.

EDIT: And I just saw grapeshot's post so that is all I'll say on this subject.

This fails on a few fronts. One, I am unaware of evidence that "the term 'marriage' has always been between a man and a woman." Two, let's say that I'm wrong and it was defined as such. Does or should that matter in the legal sense? Up until 1967, marriage was banned between couples of different races under many states' anti miscegenation laws. The fact that happened does not make the action right. Three, your argument occupies the same ground that others tread when they say "the second amendment only allows for muskets" or "free speech doesn't include the internet" or similar. The fact that a particular legal protection or right only extended to one group or item in the past does not mean that action should not be extended in the present.

The fact is, homosexual couples can already go to many churches and get "married". The only thing you're fighting to deny them is the legal protection and release of the social stigma of being "only domestic partners." Unless you're going to systematically modify the entirety of US law, opinions, legal code, precedent, and history to make all references to "marriage" in the legal sense be the same as "civil unions", you have to admit that a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" is an inferior, second-class act for any couple who wants to get married.

 

[jbone]

It appears the VPOTUS was thinking of the very subject last night, he was seen digging deep in the research, his nose, for the answer. Priceless.