There’d be a problem with Cafe Society threads, then, particularly when we’re comparing past Superbowl Anthem singers.
Well, that is necessary to the security of a free Message Board.
Weren’t the tea baggers the ones who originally came up with that? Until they realized that it also meant balls-on-face?
But you do police for tone.
Would you please clarify the difference?
And yet they still keep calling themselves that… :dubious:
Yep, if I’m not mistaken.
A question then… (And mind you I’m not calling for anyone’s head) even if it was not insulting to any particular poster, Johnny’s thread was benign, non-political and in the polite form. Might not Rick’s post be considered threadshitting?
Do you really expect us to believe that RJ lawyered it as finely as you do? It could be read in more than one way, such as:
- people who buy it are like gradeschoolers.
- it’s a gun primarily to shoot gradeschoolers, the hidden intent of those who buy it.
Both insults. Both obvious.
Yes, they’re innocent of certain practices. Unlike other people.
Cite? Of course, blacks can use the n-word amongst themselves, but nobody else can call them that.
:rolleyes:
- People are buying it because it is in the news, and the fact that it is in the news because it was used to kill children is beside the point to them. Advertising works.
- People are buying them because they’re afraid they will be banned.
- Insert phallic reference here, just to beat Der Trihs to the punch.
I’m discussing what he wrote, not how he “lawyered it.” I understand why people objected to the post, of course, but he didn’t call any person a name. He said something about a model of gun that was used to kill a bunch of children.
It was deliberately inflammatory.
And he strongly implied that anyone that owns or is trying to buy an AR 15 condones the massacre of children.
He didn’t strongly imply anything but that an AR-15 was used in the latest massacre of children.
“Stop making fun of my guns!” Really? I never pegged **Oakminster **as a member of the offenderatti.
But not in a vacuum. I’m curious why you mods of all people continue to argue that non-valid viewpoint. So what he didn’t directly insult another poster? Not many are arguing that he did. But what he did do was make a mean spirited political jab in a MPSIMS thread that strongly contributed to the derailment of that thread.
Again, the comment itself didn’t bother me personally but you continuing to act as if is was fine and dandy is a bit silly, IMO (your comment is silly, not you).
I don’t think that’s the implication. I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.
I agree the comment contributed to the thread going off course and the mods should be careful about doing that. It was an inflammatory comment for sure. I don’t think it means much that the comment was political because the thread was bound to be political based on its subject matter. Perhaps it would’ve been a better fit in Great Debates even if the OP was making a one-off observation.
Thank you for your response.
I thought the article was fairly balanced, and helped to explain how the AR-15 became more popular than it was. And the popularity had nothing to do with people wanting the same gun a mass-murderer used (as was stated by one poster). The thread could have been a discussion about the attributes of the firearm, and could have allowed people familiar with it to explain why they like it. Instead, it was hijacked almost immediately by someone claiming, through the application of a moniker, that it is the preferred weapon of child killers; and by someone claiming that people who want one want to use it to kill people.
I’m not faulting you for doing anything wrong, but I think a gun control discussion was the likely result even though it did not have to be that particular argument.