doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Attention Walt Snyder

Its being represented for what it is not. That's the rub right there.

Sorry old colonel, your initial post and subsequent response proves only that one man's perceived rant is frequently met by another man's hypocritical personal attack which he refuses to consider because he is blinded by personal animus. Because of that, I find you personally mean spirited, nasty, and offensive, but that doesn't stop you from sharing your highly selective and off-topic opinion. So why would I respect anything you've said, either here or in your PM's? Maybe you should ask Dave to banish me since you have appointed yourself as moderator and arbiter of what is acceptable. Or maybe you should go back to your prior vow to simply ignore me.

As per your request, here's one of your own personal attacks on King's motives and veracity. It didn't take much time at all to find it.

"King, you are baiting people, but I will briefly rise to it.

Castro overthrew a failed dictatorship which denied people for the benefit of itself and a rich business class, he replaced it with a tyranny of murder, imprisonment, and torture.

The billpayers were the Cuban people. The argument they are better off is specious at best. Assuming you were right, which I do not believe to be the case, it is improvement with a collar and chain attached." old colonel, post #463711 on 11/27/16 from the locked "Fidel Is Finally Good" thread

I guess, in your mind, saying that King is baiting people is so much nicer than simply calling him an anti-2nd Amendment troll, which happens to be my opinion based upon his own words that I sometimes quote just for your pleasure. And I have to admit that "specious at best" sounds a lot nicer than "dishonest" or "deceitful". I may have to use that one myself. Thanks.

This response to one of King's posts seemed a bit harsh, but it's nice to see we sometimes agree on things:



Still, it is pretty strong language to say that Liberals lie all the time, even if they do it so often it seems that way. Is calling them "illiberals" an unacceptable attack on mentally ill people... something like Libtards? Hypocrisy is such a terrible thing, especially when you are in deep denial.

By the way, did I mention how off-topic you are? Oh, sorry, I keep forgetting that going off-topic and getting personal is only permitted for some people... like you. Don't bother musing about whether you'd care to share a drink with me. You can keep your drink and your disingenuous blessings.

Your reply reveals a complete failure on your part to differentiate between debate and the personal attacks. It may, reveal that you simply do not understand the difference and perceive any difference of opinion a personal attack; a rather small and senseless position. I would explain as you appear to not understand while it may be useless.

Your position, as I seem to hear you argue holds it is better to call out names like �Troll� and �Libtard� than to address the issues. If you see my terminology as �a lot nicer,� it is because it is nicer. Gentlemen strive to argue with some civility. You attacks seek no civility as you point out in this thread with terminology of direct insult.

By the way a good example of a �troll� on the internet is to go after someone insultingly whenever they post. Would you agree with that? But I digress.

Calling someone a hypocrite is very different than indicating contradictions in their argument.

Let us use your examples of me to demonstrate. In the first case I replied to an argument put forth by King Brown and in the subject of the thread Fidel Castro. It was not an inject of animus or in any way out of character with the focus of the thread�s beginning, but a pointed counter to the position put forth by King. It was in no way a diversion of the subject.

You should go back and note the reply to my statements by King, prior to the thread being closed, with me unable to further counter. King addressed arguments as I did and though we differ significantly we were able to do so civilly and without insult.

I left the thread closed and did not jump on him in later threads rehashing old arguments. I did not seek him out on unrelated threads and attack him out of context.

Let us move to your next example which was within a specific gun control discussion on the thread titled �Do We Need More Gun Laws?� I guess I should have explained to the less perceptive that �illiberal� are not ill, but actually not liberal. If someone took that offense they choose it by choosing the position described. I find the description of the left in America as liberal offensive against the term itself and a matter of false advertising. Our founding fathers were true liberals who believed in the rights of the individual against the tyranny of an all powerful government. The greatest documents of liberalism are our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution with its first Ten Amendments.

My arguments were focused not on an individual like King, but on the quoted editorial of the New York Times he used and I quoted; those of the illiberal NYT and the left overall. But I went on and in my extensive post, which you only lightly quote, to give examples of fact on how the left�s arguments are false. It seems you don�t get that and I can only blame myself for not more simplistically and explicitly expressing that point.
Fascinatingly King appears to have understood the argument was just that an argument which he responded to in counter argument. Neither of us engaged in personally name calling. In a later post within the same thread even King admitted �It (NYT) is a liberal newspaper, and it reflects a liberal bias, true.�
You are correct that I use �strong language.� I use it for purpose.

Your accusations that I am �off topic� in my countering your off topic posts within this thread is rather ridiculous. Especially given that even prior to my post someone else called out your post for what it was a personal attack.

My purpose in going after your posting was not so much about your poor manners in name calling. It was and is about your diversions on our board. Your attacks on George and on Larry were out of place in this thread. I neither care to defend them or not which they can do if they wish.

I can live with your arguments which I long ago should have given up during our last exchange to include PMs to convert. I only argue for you to not do as you accuse me of diverting the threads. Can�t you hold back? Of course it is a stupid question on my part as I have little doubt you won�t

I rose to the bait of your diversion to call it out for what it is. If I had only signed in my normal �ignore� blocking your posts I would have missed it and gone by.

I guess every now and again I will be pulled back into laying out what I think of your actions to you as you do to me. Free speech is something I think you believe in, though attempts at good manners you may not.

Per your request I won�t say �Bless You� with all its intent, but think it just the same.

Old COL, you'll feel a sense of relief if you just consign keith to the ignore category. When it comes to ranting, he's like an alcoholic who isn't interested in giving up the bottle.

"A Gentleman is someone who only insults another Man intentionally".

-Winston Churchill.

I agree, ignore is a good tool, but only works if signed in, I simply failed that time to sign in and allowed myself to be hooked briefly

Ken, I concur with your definition and note Churchill was quite adept at turning words well.

One member believes one size fits all, old colonel. The board is doing well. One member is malicious. Count our blessings!

Cannot agree on use of malicious

Fair enough. Call it what you will. Oxford English Dictionary's first description of the meaning of malicious is "active ill will." "Cherish vindictive feelings against" is another. Both appear to meet the poor standard you mentioned above.

Hmmm. Good point. Of course, posts that profess an ideology that seeks to deprive others of their Freedom and Liberty would certainly qualify as well.

Somewhat different than merely going "Off Topic" and bringing up past, unrelated positions.