A 2010 CHALLENGE to all that post in the guns forum.

[rd_kent]

I challenge ALL of the hit and run, emotional hyperbole, one post posters, to stop being cowardly and stay and DEFEND your position or statement rationally.




I challenge ALL the rest, regardless of which side of the issue you are on, to pressure the hit and run posters to stay and defend their positions rationally.



I challenge EVERYONE to alert the mods when blatant violations of the DU rules happens, ESPECIALLY when it may endanger the lives of people, such as posting personal info.


Anyone up to the challenge to clean up the guns forum and move in a new direction this year or shall we support the status quo and continue to wallow in the muck?

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Not only that, but I'll go you one better.

And drop the use of terms like 'gun grabber', 'hit and run poster', 'driveby posting' and the rest.

Civility ++

[AlinPA]

3. I second that. nt

[rd_kent]

9. Agreed. I accept my own challenge.

[doc03]

15. What about "gun nuts" or saying someone is

less of a man because they own a gun.

[spin]

51. The gun grabbers think that insulting gun owners is fine ...

but then, to be fair, I think they realize that their arguments suck and that's the best they can do.

[Wickerman]

2. Agreed

and I challenge all posters to observe the rules. For instance, there has been a very recent trend towards calling those posters that are disagreed with cowards and mentally ill. Err, doesn't take much of a stretch to see that statements as those are personal attacks.

We do appreciate the increase in alerts; but look forward to the day when folks can discuss things civilly and there are no alerts needed sent.

thanks,

Happy New Year.

[rd_kent]

10. Thanks Wickerman, I will endeavor to curtail my own poor posting habits.

[Mugweed]

4. Yes, people should NEVER be allowed to express opinion

Forums like this site were never intended for people to express opinions and I want it to stop immediately. Moderators, get on that ASAP.

[sharp_stick]

5. You are obviously a

mentally ill gun grabbing psycho damnit!!!! ;-) }( :evilgrin:

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

16. I have several .50 cal hunting rifles

Also a 36cal and a 62cal rifle. Along with several 75cal and 69cal muskets. All are rock locks. The reason I use a 50 to hunt deer is that a 180gr PRB at 1800-2100fps (depends on barrel length) is a sure deer dropper at ranges out to 125yds.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[sharp_stick]

19. For me it's the damned turkeys

crapping in my back yard.

[east texas lib]

32. Cool! I like my drumsticks pre-perforated...(nt)

:D

[rd_kent]

11. Wow, you totally missed the point, huh?

[Mugweed]

13. I didn't miss the point at all.

You and Old Coger can start your own gun page that is by invitation only. Maybe you can make it a Facebook group or something. That way, you can keep people with opinions from messing up your utopian post-reading pleasure. Meawhile, as long as you're on DU there will always be people who see a post on the Latest page, respond with an opinion, and move on not actually giving a shit if it pleases you or not. I get it quite well: It's time for you to move to your own gun discussion site where you have absolute control over the content of the posts.

You see, people on DU are allowed to express an opinion without supplying a page full of links to supporting documentation. What I or anyone else expesses is not up for your approval. That's why there's a difference between opinions and facts. It appears to me you want all discussion limited to facts, with all supporting documentation ready for your clinical review as the final word on thumbs up or thumbs down. My response to your challenge is this: I challenge you to make and run your own gun site, then stop posting to or reading from the Gun forum here on DU. Otherwise, all I hear is WAAHHHH.

[rd_kent]

14. Is anyone advocating NOT ALLOWING OPINIONS?

Nope, just a call to try and keep it civil and FACTUAL!

But, you go right ahead and see past that. Happy New Year.

[Mugweed]

17. Keep it civil and factual?

1) Your original post accuses anyone who doesn't stay tuned for a long-winded debate with you of being cowardly, yet you want to keep it civil.

2) From Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Opinion - 1. a view, judgement, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular subject. 2. a belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Based on the two points above, I would say that my opinion of your post is 100% correct. Keeping it factual would not allow any opinion, and portraying anybody who doesn't wait around for your approval as a coward is not exactly civil.

By the way, as this drops farther on the Latest page, I will not be paying attention after I would have to go to page 2 to read it. I hope that's not too cowardly for you. I'm just too lazy to read past the contents of page 1 amd dom't actually go into each individual forum. You have a happy new year, too. And while you ask for others to use logic, reasoning, and civility, maybe next time you can act as an example while making that request.

[rd_kent]

21. Lets see....

1) Your original post accuses anyone who doesn't stay tuned for a long-winded debate with you of being cowardly, yet you want to keep it civil.

My OP said "I challenge ALL of the hit and run, emotional hyperbole, one post posters, to stop being cowardly and stay and DEFEND your position or statement rationally."

followed by

"I challenge ALL the rest, regardless of which side of the issue you are on, to pressure the hit and run posters to stay and defend their positions rationally."

Your posts and our subsequent discussion seem as far away from that description as one can get.

Posting things like "gun-love kills people", "penis extentions for all", etc., and not returning to face the backlash from posting such obvious inflammatory hyperbole IS cowardly. I never asked for long winded debate, just to keep the discussion on a FACTUAL level. Surly you are not opposed to facts, right?

Keeping it factual would not allow any opinion Really? How? We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. Opinions are always welcome, and encouraged. The facts still remain.



By the way, as this drops farther on the Latest page, I will not be paying attention after I would have to go to page 2 to read it. I hope that's not too cowardly for you.

That about as disingenuous as one can be. You have engaged me in civil and rational discussion and I have also replied to you in the same manner. We can still disagree, but your ad hominem attack is not appreciated or needed and only serves to devalue your position.

I wish you a happy new year as well and perhaps if you come back to the guns forum, you will notice a change in the tone of the discussions.

I leave you with a question: Will you be part of the problem or part of the solution?

[scheuvrontk]

69. interesting

So you are saying you dont believe in free speech? Was this suppose to be a forum where all bow down and kiss your ass and worship your views?

[Old Codger]

6. Amen

I get to where I do not even want to read a good part of the posts in the gun forum because I know a portion are going to be the anti gun rights group spouting their hatred of guns and all gun owners as all being out to kill someone and using dis proven "facts" as a basis for these attacks. If anyone cares to discuss guns and gun facts regardless of which side of the argument they stand I am more than willing to discuss it, but bring true facts and data to the discussion not brady group propaganda or attempts to state personal opinions and feelings as factual data.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

12. Thanks. You stay classy now, ok?

[Better Today]

18. Let the above deleted post be a notice for

those on the site that say no one should unrec without a comment. Often a click of the unrec, which I notice this has a few, is often in lieu of a more cranky response.

[rd_kent]

20. Posts will not get deleted if they arent inflammatory like the deleted one above was, but you knew

that already.

[Better Today]

44. Well, I thought it mild, but I don't deny was beyond snarky.

And I don't normally "say" anything, I'll just unrec. But lately a ton of folks have started unrec'ing OPs and complaining that one shouldn't unrec without comment. When I read your OP, those two words expressed my reason for unrec'ing perfectly. So, I commented and unrec'd.

I think the comment should have been deleted, but that doesn't change the point I was making about the "above" post, it was that silent unrec'ing could/should be a option. Yes?

[MichaelHarris]

22. have you

ever read your own posts? You aren't the epitome of good manners.

[rd_kent]

24. I agree, and as stated above, I accept my own challenge... Do You?

[MichaelHarris]

29. sure

I never do drive-bys. You know that.

[rd_kent]

34. True.

But what about the rest?

[Tejas]

27. hahahahahahahaha.

:rofl:

[MichaelHarris]

60. have you ever

had anything intelligent to say?

[Tejas]

62. Have you ever

read your own posts?


:rofl:

[OttavaKarhu]

23. An additional challenge

Come to the range with any one, or a group of us. In your area/town. Have lunch with us, shoot with us, go out for coffee after.

Then come back here and try to dehumanize us and misrepresent our lives, beliefs, politics, ideologies, practices, and commitments.

[MichaelHarris]

58. I already shoot

I don't worship.

[RealityInSeattle]

25. Look, rules are for others, not gun owners.

Same old gun cheerleaders vocabulary ..."challenge", "stay and defend", "coward", "violations"...everything is always talked about and framed in terms of a conflict, ego, and a confrontation.

Pay attention:

Those states or press outlets have posted those look up's for a reason.

In every single one, it is legal. Just not a gun cheerleaders kind of legal.

So in your gun cheerleader mind how did this work.... *I* personally collected those names in 4 different states myself...by hand? I was a member of every state legislature, I wrote the bill that makes gun permits public documents, got the governors to sign them into law, collected the names, and posted them? How exactly, were they then found? I built the internet and then in different states on different sites got them indexed in google?

Think. It. Through.

Just because you don't like it, sorry. Some people would very much like to know if their neighbor has guns in his house, or carries a gun with him everywhere, and there are laws that, in a state where a gun permit is still a PUBLIC DOCUMENT, require them to be available on request.

Don't like it?

Move to Florida or Virginia. The NRA has come to your rescue and blocked this information from being viewed by the public there so you can be anonymously armed. Unfortunately, Florida has one of the highest gun death rates in the country (#2 for 2007) so be careful.

Bottom line:

You do not set the rules here.

You do not define the debate or what "rational" is (meaning pro-gun, quite obviously).

You are not "the decider" for posts on the internet.

You do not dictate the gun or privacy laws in any state at all, except for the state in which you live and cast your single, individual vote.

Sorry.

[Tejas]

26. If all else fails, make sh** up.

Speaking of "how someone's mind works", desperation has set in eh? Hope you don't mind if I ignore the rest of your rubbish.




---------------------------------------

Move to Florida or Virginia. The NRA has come to your rescue and blocked this information from being viewed by the public there so you can be anonymously armed. Unfortunately, Florida has one of the highest gun death rates in the country (#2 for 2007) so be careful.

---------------------------------------

Florida rated at #24.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

(source: statehealthfacts.org )

[east texas lib]

28. So posting the personal info of law-abiding people online and exposing DU to massive legal liability

is somehow a good deed in your book? Because they exercise an inalienable right protected in our country's founding documents that you personally disagree with? Well way to go, slick.

[MichaelHarris]

30. actually

the records he/she posted were legally posted, they are a matter of public record.

[rd_kent]

33. The DU rules are pretty clear about it. Maybe you should have a look.

Do not post personal information about any other person, even if that information is publicly available. Do not "dig up" information about any other visitor to this website. You may post the public contact information for public figures, but you may not post anyone's private information without their consent.

[MichaelHarris]

47. that is probably true

but that's not what I defended the poster for. Gungion members accused him of breaking the law when he posted those links which is asinine since most CWP are public record. The information even goes out over scanners when the police pull over a CWP carrier. The officer is alerted even before he stops the car in most cases.

[rd_kent]

54. No Michael, no one accused him of breaking the law, just the DU rules.

[MichaelHarris]

59. I'll ask again

do the rules address an individual or an entire database? If one posts a link to the online yellow pages does it violate DU rules?

[rd_kent]

65. Michaoel, I will tell you, again. Listen up this time.

I already posted the rlevent section of the rules in a response to you. WHy don't you go to the rules page and read them. It is very clear on this subject.


Stop being willfully ignorant, michael.

[RealityInSeattle]

35. Exactly.

There was no more "exposure" than if you wanted to look up a cosmetology license or health department report on a restaurant.

They don't grasp that fact, however. The light of day sure is scary for people with the magic guns that protect one from everything.

Since I can find just about anyones phone number, street address, place of employment and other things just by using google, I do hope that anyone who ever links to a search engine will have their posts removed as well.

[rd_kent]

36. The DU rules are pretty clear about it. Maybe you should have a look.

Do not post personal information about any other person, even if that information is publicly available. Do not "dig up" information about any other visitor to this website. You may post the public contact information for public figures, but you may not post anyone's private information without their consent.

[MichaelHarris]

49. I answered that above

the thread is getting a bit confusing. I forget the number but I addressed what you asked. I wasn't talking about DU rules, I ws talking about the legality of the information.

[east texas lib]

37. Then by all means, feel free to post your real name and address on this board...

If you feel so strongly about free access to personal info and all.

[MichaelHarris]

46. already do

Mr East Texas Lib, if that's your real name. What are you hiding from? Bet you feel foolish right about now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. I don't think Mr. East Texas Lib was talking to you. Might help to follow the thread.

[east texas lib]

63. Very noble of you to act as council for the defense of the poster I was in fact addressing...

My real name has been on this board for several years. Now that that's settled, what other concerns of yours may I address?

[AtheistCrusader]

40. So, you're basically calling out the mods for failing to understand the rules?

Callouts are against the rules too.

It's bad enough those records are public for now, but the rules of this site forbid it, even if it's public.

[MichaelHarris]

48. there is one in

this thread asking me to post my real name, LOL. He must have not looked up. I don't hide.

[rd_kent]

31. The rules at DU are already set, and you broke them.

And your continued use of ad hominem attacks and hyperbole show that as suspected, you have no real interest in rational discussion.
As I stated before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, even you.


You can continue to make yourself look even more ignorant with every post, or you can participate in a rational discussion that is based in fact. Somehow I think you will not choose the latter.

Enjoy your stay. :hi:

[AtheistCrusader]

39. You're right. But the Mods are, and they deleted all your threads for a good reason.

Stop violating the rules, stay and chat a while. No need to be upset.

[rrneck]

45. I really don't see how

one could look on any of those state databases and attach that information to any DUer, but I'm not all that sophisticated about that sort of thing.

Your self important attempt to put gun owners in some new fangled electronic version of the stocks was laughable. The information you presented is not new to anybody who has seen Google. Did you really think you would affect the lives of anyone who owns a gun with your petty attempt at outing them on the internet? Do you think your attitude toward firearms and their owners is anything approaching relevant in this country?

Get over yourself. The last time I looked, one third of the population of this country owns a gun.

You need to get out more.

[rd_kent]

38. Looks like many are not up to the challenge. This is indicative of the ignorance on this subject

and in this country. Sad indeed.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Just one dude.

Most people here are fine if you engage in discussion. Couple people get excitable, but no worries.

You've got tools built into the site to fix it, or just ignore the poster.

[rd_kent]

42. I know, but it seems that there a some sock puppets posting inflammatory bullshit just to stir the p...

Seems like that rule gets overlooked here in this forum more than any other.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Wickerman does a good job.

We just have to use the alert button, instead of taking the bait.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. Nothing quite like a moderator that insults posters as he locks the thread.

[Katya Mullethov]

66. Sometimes it is necessary to retract the foreskin of ignorance

And apply the wire brush of knowledge . And understandably , that hurts .


I want to nominate your Raptio Reductio ad Absurdum post as
the winningest post of 2009 .

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. How very kind of you!

[MichaelHarris]

50. you already

breaking you new rule? Maybe ignorance is too strong a word? The poster may have not known the DU rules but what they did was legal, it violated no laws. The information is public. Also there is some ambiguity in the rule, he didn't actually point any one individual out. The poster pointed to link that contained a database. So does the DU rule address an individual or a research tool? Which does it ban?

[rd_kent]

56. If you had bothered to read the rules you would know.

I even posted the relevant section and you responded to it. The willful ignorance, Micheal.

[MichaelHarris]

57. well

I guess that blows your new years resolution. The nicer response would have been to post the rule. Dang you made it to almost midnight.

[rd_kent]

64. I already posted it, Michael, in another response to you, and you ignored it.

And I have been quite civil with you. Its not about being nice, Michael, its about being civil.


Willful ignorance, Michael, willful ignorance. It doesnt suit you.

[MichaelHarris]

55. So have you

had the time to read through all of today's Gungion posts and determine where the hatred lies? I have. If your honest in your reading you'll also see it. I'm taking your challenge seriously, the forum regulars are not. Take the time and read though the threads, be honest, you'll see where the hatefulness really is.

[rd_kent]

67. No, you are not, michael.

Go back and read the posts since I posted my challenge. The same yahoos and a few new ones are posting hyperbole and unfounded BS. Its the same stuff, over and over.

Even your own posts are full of it. Every single thing you have posted has been refuted by facts, yet you ignore it and post it again somewhere else.

Willful ignorance, michael.

[taurus145]

61. I'm in.

I'll try, even though I sometimes lose my cool when confronted by willful ignorance and folks who like to cherry pick the Constitution.