Ron and Rand Paul

[Expat]

Some of you are making a rambone of my thread.

 

[esrice]

He get banned finally?

J_wales was banned some time back for ignoring multiple public and private warnings to stop discussing civil war.

We think this thread is pretty clear on the issue: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n/12952-posting_about_inciting_civil_war.html

Those who also enjoy walking that line here should pay attention.

 

[strahd71]

just out of curiosity is "secession" considered civil war?

jake

 

[strahd71]

Some of you are making a rambone of my thread.

you done got ramboned!

jake

 

[mydoghasfleas]

just out of curiosity is "secession" considered civil war?

jake

No. It means to "pull out of or withdraw from" Like a divorce from the "union" of marrage. The civil war part comes into play when some do not want the seperation to occur for some reason, and use force to try to prevent it.

 

[strahd71]

No. It means to "pull out of or withdraw from" Like a divorce from the "union" of marrage. The civil war part comes into play when some do not want the seperation to occur for some reason, and use force to try to prevent it.

i was just curious since that was Joseys go to word besides statist pig.

what i meant more was is that word what was considered by the mods as "civil war"

thanks anyhow tho

jake

 

[TiminMishawaka]

Again, cracking me up here that some random people on an internet forum think they understand a man better than his own son.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

just out of curiosity is "secession" considered civil war?

jake

"Secess" was a moniker for Confederate South soldiers so unfortunately in our country's history, yes. Better to just avoid it. Besides, the problems that we had 4 years ago were partially mitigated within 2 years. At the end of this year we can mitigate them further. The process works, albeit slowly. Maybe this past election will serve as a lesson to people who don't do their research before voting or think they can vote on a "principle" that ignores reality.

 

[esrice]

just out of curiosity is "secession" considered civil war?

jake

Great question. Read the link I posted above.

 

[strahd71]

Great question. Read the link I posted above.

ah i see! hmm yea ok. look i like coming here, its not my house, i'll do my best to follow the rules so that i can be here.

but i do find it ironic that the word mentioned above that we cant use is actually how we became an independent nation to begin with..............

again not rabble rousing, i'll follow the rules, but just an observation

jake

 

[rambone]

 

[Classic Liberal]

ah i see! hmm yea ok. look i like coming here, its not my house, i'll do my best to follow the rules so that i can be here.

but i do find it ironic that the word mentioned above that we cant use is actually how we became an independent nation to begin with..............

again not rabble rousing, i'll follow the rules, but just an observation

jake

Yep...it is quite amazing that a forum that is based around one of the fundamental rights of citizens, creates all of these "nanny state" like rules that limits another fundamental right. Sure, as stated, it's a privately owned blah, blah, blah... But without the exercise of those rights of our forefathers, you wouldn't have the joy and FREEDOM to exercise them now.

I find it appalling myself.

There are a lot of great members on here that have a wealth of knowledge and provide excellent forethought on such subjects, it is a shame their expressions are restricted from being shared here.

 

[esrice]

ah i see! hmm yea ok. look i like coming here, its not my house, i'll do my best to follow the rules so that i can be here.

Thanks for your understanding. I wish more people could adopt your attitude.

but i do find it ironic that the word mentioned above that we cant use is actually how we became an independent nation to begin with..............

INGunOwners.com is a gun forum-- a place to talk about guns. Its not a place to discuss an impending civil war, or secession, or acts of violence against the government. We're not saying we support or oppose those things, we're just saying we aren't going to play host to such discussions.

Yep...it is quite amazing that a forum that is based around one of the fundamental rights of citizens, creates all of these "nanny state" like rules that limits another fundamental right. Sure, as stated, it's a privately owned blah, blah, blah... But without the exercise of those rights of our forefathers, you wouldn't have the joy and FREEDOM to exercise them now.

You can have all of those things in public, or in your own house, or on your own website. But you can't have them here on Fenway's website. I don't think we can make it much clearer.

I find it appalling myself.

You could always exercise your right to vote with your participation here. You either like what INGO offers and are willing to abide by its rules, or you can visit another website that has rules more to your liking.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

With any forum - there have to be rules. Consider the difference between this forum, and forum.Saiga-12.com. Both great gun forums - each with their own specific area of expertise. One a specific type of weapon - the other geographically defined (mostly). Each forum has rules as to how "family friendly" the conversations in the forum will be. This forum runs at a PG level and the Saiga 12 forum runs at the strong end of R... Each are ok in their own right and people know what they are getting into.

I'm not that comfortable in an "R-Rated world". So I spend about three or four orders of magnitude more time over here. I only would venture there for a very specific Saiga issue. That's just my choice of where to hang out online. I hang out here. I know what I'm getting into.

In BOTH cases - there are rules, and they are enforced. It's NOT a First Amendment issue. If I post the wrong things over at S-12 - Juggernaut will pitch me out on my keister. AND rightly so. Same thing here.



Kudos to Fenway and the gang for providing a great place to hang out and discuss things.

The internet itself is a bastion of the exercise of the First Amendment. You can find just about anything out there. Anybody can grab a blog or a server and go all Gutenberg and publish just about anything they dang well please.

Asking individual forum owners to provide that function is insane. Many people consider pornography to be art, Classic Liberal... Think Maplethorpe et al. Or even some of the Larry Flynt or Hugh Hefner type of stuff. Or maybe stuff that is more hardcore than that? Should Fenway be required to host that stuff as well?

What if someone wants to go all KKK on a particular race or religion or whatever?

I think not.

That is why it is within Fenway's right (heck, his DUTY in my opinion) to simply state the rules. And enforce them. If topics outside of that area are what you are looking for, it's not like one cannot find them on the 'Net...

Whether you find it appalling, is frankly, sir, irrelevant.

 

[88GT]

J_wales was banned some time back for ignoring multiple public and private warnings to stop discussing civil war.

We think this thread is pretty clear on the issue: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...n/12952-posting_about_inciting_civil_war.html

Those who also enjoy walking that line here should pay attention.

Too ya long enough. I specifically drew attention to the relationship between his constant yammering about secession and how close it came to the prohibition for discussing civil war, etc on this forum.

No, it's not clear. Or the application is inconsistent.

 

[esrice]

No, it's not clear. Or the application is inconsistent.

There is no hard an fast line. The issue is not black and white. Therefore we attempt to give members every opportunity to understand the rule and abide by it. When they refuse to do what we ask, they're asked to leave. (and not every request is made in public)

It not an exact science, no matter how much we'd like it to be.

 

[88GT]

There is no hard an fast line. The issue is not black and white. Therefore we attempt to give members every opportunity to understand the rule and abide by it. When they refuse to do what we ask, they're asked to leave. (and not every request is made in public)

It not an exact science, no matter how much we'd like it to be.

So at what point did it become a rule violation?

When he repeatedly ignored the warnings (public or private)? Or when someone finally got fed up with it and responded inconsistently?

 

[GBuck]

So at what point did it become a rule violation?

When he repeatedly ignored the warnings (public or private)? Or when someone finally got fed up with it and responded inconsistently?

Can you explain that one?

 

[Classic Liberal]

Can you explain that one?

I would call it selective enforcement, which shows inconsistency.

 

[GBuck]

I would call it selective enforcement, which shows inconsistency.

How is it selective enforcement? I've seen others banned for it? I've seen MULTIPLE warnings? I don't get it. Unless of course you're expecting the mods to be perfect and see EVERY post in ingo, which no reasonable person would expect.