lockman
State Researcher
Possible violation of rule #10
-
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.
I don't understand...
- Thread starter neoinarien
- Start date
- Status
Possible violation of rule #10
paul@paul-fisher.com
Regular Member
:banana:
sultan62
Regular Member
Thank you.
neoinarien
Regular Member
5 pages later: I'm glad to see this didn't get off topic. 
oak1971
Regular Member
There was a topic?
PT111
Regular Member
The original title was "I don't understand" so has anyone understood anything yet? :banana:
Doug Huffman
Banned
Here the OP refers to another thread, "Stores who[sic] infringe upon our rights", and makes a valid point that was shortly obscured by the disruptor's petard.
Spartacus
Banned
I would have to say that your buddy was hoist with his own petard for this bit of foolishness:
lolol
Last edited:
JerryD
Regular Member
wow this thread got way off topic.
Doug Huffman
Banned
Here the OP refers to another thread, "Stores who[sic] infringe upon our rights", and makes a valid point that was shortly obscured by the disruptor's petard.
M
McX
Guest
Hey now, lets not go tossing that 'disruptor' word around, you are offending my handgun!
Brass Magnet
Founder's Club Member
Back on Topic
Infringement was probably not the best word for the title of the other thread; at least when used in a legal context. I believe that as much has been admitted already. If using the definitions:
An encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege OR To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
It seems that "infringement" is quite strong for something that the store has every legal right to do. Perhaps a better title would be "Stores who don't respect our right"?
Infringement was probably not the best word for the title of the other thread; at least when used in a legal context. I believe that as much has been admitted already. If using the definitions:
An encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege OR To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.
It seems that "infringement" is quite strong for something that the store has every legal right to do. Perhaps a better title would be "Stores who don't respect our right"?
Doug Huffman
Banned
Does it have a PETARD setting an addition to the STUNED setting (just stuned!) PETARD "pffft!"
Perhaps we should establish the hierarchy of rights.
Perhaps we should establish the hierarchy of rights.
Last edited:
M
McX
Guest
nope Doug, no special settings, just one "disrupt'.
The Don
Guest
Spartacus, first, you obviously misunderstood. I wasn't implying you thought you had great character, I was re-affirming that you do NOT have great character. It wasn't a question, it was a statement. Your first clue to that might have been the lack of a "?" at the end of the sentence.
Second, I'm not a reactor or an actor or a leader or a follower. I decide what I feel is right and I do it. Sometimes it coincides with what others are already doing, other times it doesn't. Regardless, I'm my own man. Unlike you, and like Paul, I've never been talked to by John. I dialed down my responses to your trolling because I chose to do so. There was plenty of crap you said I didn't reply to at all and chose to let go. When I tried to engage you civilly, you again turned to personal attacks immediately.
Third, in another thread, in response to some article, you commented that there aren't 'ranks' here, yet in this thread and in another thread you imply there are ranks through your comments that I've "made a name for myself" or "made my bones" by "pig-piling" (nice euphemism for a very racist term). So which is it, are there ranks, or are there not?
Fourth, in an earlier post in this thread you stated you'd "backed off" because until this "silly thread" there was no need to "ramp it up" again. That's twice now you've been better behaved, but fallen off the wagon because, by your own admission, some one or some thread drove you to do so. My wife has an aunt who's an alcoholic. Every time she starts drinking again it's someone else's fault, too.
Fifth, since you've opened it up, here's your character...you're a liar, a hypocrite, braggart and a bully.
You've been proven to be a liar with your own words...on Dec. 13th, 2009 you said you were going to start OCing, yet many times you've boasted how you have more credibility than others since you've been carrying since the 1970's, with the implication being that you were Open Carrying. When called out on that you admitted that you stopped OCing in the 70's and carried concealed until Dec 2009 when Hubert convinced you to OC again. You've been lying through implication and omission about your experience OCing to bolster your credibility, surreptitiously claiming your 3 to 4 decades of experience illegally carrying concealed somehow matters in a forum dedicated to OC. Additionally, now that more and more people are calling you out about your behavior (and this is my opinion, not fact) you're lying again to try to save face by basically saying "Hey, I'm not really a bad guy, I'm just using my rhetoric to bring a bit of drama to the forum to keep people coming back! Why are you all picking on me? Can't you see I'm trying to help?!? Don't you see how clever I am?"
You've been proven to be a hypocrite with your own words. You talked very big when Paul surrendered his ID under duress after watching two others be arrested because legally he was not required to do so, yet on Dec. 13, 2009 you freely admitted you informed your Town Supervisor (or someone along those lines) that you were going to start OCing...something you admitted you were not legally required to do, but you did so because "we didn't know the full story". Two side of the same coin, yet in your case it's okay, but in Paul's case it was not.
Anyone who reads even a small sampling of your posts can easily see you're a braggart and a bully. You engage in personal attacks at nearly every turn. New members aren't as good as you because they have a low post count or joined later than you. Members with a higher post count than you or an earlier join date aren't as good as you because they haven't been open carrying as long as you (which we now know is a lie). Members who have been carrying as long as or longer than you aren't as good because they don't do as much in the "real world" as you do. You freely admit that you intentionally bait other members. When others try to make peace, you simply attack more.
Like I said, I'm well aware of your character. What I still don't understand why you revel in it and choose to continue to do so much harm to your own credibility and/or to a cause you claim to hold so dear.
Second, I'm not a reactor or an actor or a leader or a follower. I decide what I feel is right and I do it. Sometimes it coincides with what others are already doing, other times it doesn't. Regardless, I'm my own man. Unlike you, and like Paul, I've never been talked to by John. I dialed down my responses to your trolling because I chose to do so. There was plenty of crap you said I didn't reply to at all and chose to let go. When I tried to engage you civilly, you again turned to personal attacks immediately.
Third, in another thread, in response to some article, you commented that there aren't 'ranks' here, yet in this thread and in another thread you imply there are ranks through your comments that I've "made a name for myself" or "made my bones" by "pig-piling" (nice euphemism for a very racist term). So which is it, are there ranks, or are there not?
Fourth, in an earlier post in this thread you stated you'd "backed off" because until this "silly thread" there was no need to "ramp it up" again. That's twice now you've been better behaved, but fallen off the wagon because, by your own admission, some one or some thread drove you to do so. My wife has an aunt who's an alcoholic. Every time she starts drinking again it's someone else's fault, too.
Fifth, since you've opened it up, here's your character...you're a liar, a hypocrite, braggart and a bully.
You've been proven to be a liar with your own words...on Dec. 13th, 2009 you said you were going to start OCing, yet many times you've boasted how you have more credibility than others since you've been carrying since the 1970's, with the implication being that you were Open Carrying. When called out on that you admitted that you stopped OCing in the 70's and carried concealed until Dec 2009 when Hubert convinced you to OC again. You've been lying through implication and omission about your experience OCing to bolster your credibility, surreptitiously claiming your 3 to 4 decades of experience illegally carrying concealed somehow matters in a forum dedicated to OC. Additionally, now that more and more people are calling you out about your behavior (and this is my opinion, not fact) you're lying again to try to save face by basically saying "Hey, I'm not really a bad guy, I'm just using my rhetoric to bring a bit of drama to the forum to keep people coming back! Why are you all picking on me? Can't you see I'm trying to help?!? Don't you see how clever I am?"
You've been proven to be a hypocrite with your own words. You talked very big when Paul surrendered his ID under duress after watching two others be arrested because legally he was not required to do so, yet on Dec. 13, 2009 you freely admitted you informed your Town Supervisor (or someone along those lines) that you were going to start OCing...something you admitted you were not legally required to do, but you did so because "we didn't know the full story". Two side of the same coin, yet in your case it's okay, but in Paul's case it was not.
Anyone who reads even a small sampling of your posts can easily see you're a braggart and a bully. You engage in personal attacks at nearly every turn. New members aren't as good as you because they have a low post count or joined later than you. Members with a higher post count than you or an earlier join date aren't as good as you because they haven't been open carrying as long as you (which we now know is a lie). Members who have been carrying as long as or longer than you aren't as good because they don't do as much in the "real world" as you do. You freely admit that you intentionally bait other members. When others try to make peace, you simply attack more.
Like I said, I'm well aware of your character. What I still don't understand why you revel in it and choose to continue to do so much harm to your own credibility and/or to a cause you claim to hold so dear.
Last edited:
JerryD
Regular Member
Great post Don !!
AaronS
Regular Member
M
McX
Guest
i believe you are referring to the ban on the Varion T unit.
Doug Huffman
Banned
Please be precise. A "disruptor" is a person, the suffix '-or' creates an agent noun, indicating a person who does something. A "disrupter" is the agent noun for an instrumentality, a thing, that does something.
- Status