The Future of TFL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ivan...

Nope, you are wrong. I believe everyone here believes the government is out of control, including Rich. Wildly out of control and it is frightening.
Where you and Ruger are in error is that you appear to believe that if anyone takes issue with your theories and rhetoric, then they discount your fundemental concept. You are also in error in thinking we intend to stifle opinions. We haven't yet and don't intend to. You have been here long enough to know that. Not a single one of your posts have ever been edited or deleted, to my knowledge. The only time you took serious flack was the time you made a remark that was construed to be blatantly racist by most folks here. You explained the misunderstanding and it was accepted. Disagreement is not "trashing", it does not construe "stifling"; expecting substantiation or citation of information is not stifling or trashing.



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
First: I would have trouble being more supportive of Rich, without typing his post, myself.
***

BluesMan: I personally would not want to see a seperate Safety forum, because I personally want to see safety in every aspect of what we do. Sometimes an extra forum does less to promote a topic in normal discussion, but rather relegates it to a far corner of the board that only a few visit, like Cowboy Action. While it's PERFECT to create a discrete area in which people can discuss Cowboy Action or competition shooting, it would be inappropriate, in my opinion, to remove discussions on safety, which apply to every aspect of shooting (even Legal and Political-- watch where you point that mouth! It's loaded! ;) ). George moderates a forum that I was in full support of when it was first created, but I find I hardly ever go to-- I'm in favor of Range Reports, but I go to Gen. Discussion and Art of the Rifle and Hunting first. Always will.
***

I'm so glad to see that Rich wants to keep this board evolving! The greatest danger is stagnation. Never satisfied with the end result, always striving for better, is a great philosophy for this board, as in life.

Frankly, knowing nothing of Rich beyond what I read here, I wonder at times what his motivation is for running this place... I'm afraid to ask. I know the upkeep is huge, and expense of storage and bandwidth must be considerable, and yet the only dime I've shed since joining was to buy a knife from another board not affiliated with this one (thanks for the heads-up, George!). There are blessedly NO blinking advertisements on this BBS (which would then qualify as BB-B.S!), and I can't figure it out. I'd pay dues for this site. Small ones, but, if I consider what I've saved on gun magazines in the last 7 months, it pays for itself.
***

I've gone on too long. (What else is new?)
Great direction, great board, great moderators/administrators (one day I'll know the difference), great contributors!

[This message has been edited by Long Path (edited September 17, 1999).]
 
I can say nothing more about TFL that has not already been said. The Firing Line should remain an educational tool for gun enthusiasts and nothing more.

I agree with the administrators and highly respect their judgements. Like your friend "Q", I also have a friend who has deleted TFL due to the nature of some of the topics. There are other respected members that I have not seen make postings or comments in quite sometime.

That in itself should tell us that the decisions being made to have stricter policies is in the best interest of TFL. I believe that the majority is behind Rich 100%.
 
Rich,

Got you Lima Charlie. WILCO. OUT.




------------------
Mykl
~~~~~
"If you really want to know what's going on;
then, you have to follow the money trail."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
Bluesman-
I'm sorry I overlooked your request when I responded to the others. I'm with Longpath on this. You do point up an oversight, however. I will be adding a link to Firearms Safety Rules in the next day or two.

Paul-
I don't quite know how to reply to your articulate and reasoned post. You make good points.
Picture this:

Members of your Church gather in someone's living room for a relaxed evening together. Discussions are going on around the room of church affairs, Bible studies, next week's picnic etc.

The door opens and a newcomer walks in. He identifies himself as of the same faith but different denomination and proceeds to explain to all, as a group, and each, individually, that they have missed the mark. They need to look to todays' events and recognize that the Book of Revelations is being misinterpreted by them. He has the "correct" interpretation. He insists on expounding.

They listen for a bit and then politely ask if they can get back to their gathering's main purpose. They invite him to stay but ask only that he refrain from his insistence that only he sees the "true path". They offer him use of the kitchen should anyone choose to engage. He refuses and demands a portion of the living room. They politely decline.

Now I ask you: Are they "stifling free speech"? Are they "less Christian" than he? Is his behavior appropriate?

I'm not sure what else I can do. I've offered to set up a Chat site for you. I feel no obligation to grant you a Forum on TFL. If you wish to have your own site, I'll help you set up the software. I might even be prepared to contribute that software. You can offset the server costs thru advertising revenues.

What more could you possibly ask?
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited September 17, 1999).]
 
Rich,

Your house - your rules - and pretty sensible ones at that. Works for me.

------------------
Regards - AZFred
 
Rich...

You and I are not in someone's living room discussing the scriptures of a specific religous belief, we are on the internet discussing subjects that are interesting and valuable to gun owners. Those subjects include; technical, historical, market pricing, ballistics, availability, current events, legal, political, and general discussions about firearms.

Is it your intention to dictate what is said in these forums if it doesn't meet with your personal beliefs? If so, you will undoubtedly lead some readers into believing that gunowners abide by a set of rules made by the politically correct. This ignores logic, it ignores principle, and it ignores what has made our country great.

Gun ownership has become a very complex subject. Complex because "we" (gunowners) have abandoned our principles, listened to hysterical arguments about what the 2nd Amendment REALLY says, and allowed ourselves to believe lies about this very freedom. Attacks against it cannot be written off as evolution or mere coincidence. Reducing gun ownership to a hobby by directing and censoring the content of these "general discussion" forums, ignores the fact that gun ownership is our birthright, the very substance that allows us to remain free. And all gunowners ought to share ideas regarding what we need to do to protect this freedom, not ignore them.
 
Rich,
I think you have done a great job on this forum, and always look forward to hearing your views. Mainly because I see a lot of thought and Sincere efforts to help others in thier quest for knowlege. And I for one am glad that there is someone to watch the content of this forum.

I was registered under another name here earlier, and I got so tired of getting blasted by others on TFl. I had my membership removed. I have since reregistered under a diffrent name. I try to limit my posts, and so far havent been Flamed. I do appreciate a conflicting opinion. but when the respondant to a thread does nothing but to tell someone how stupid he was for posting. I dont even see the reason they would respond in the first place. Responses here are on a voluntary basis. if you see a post on here that you dont like. dont answer it.

Sorry bout the soap box thing. I do like TFL. Most of you guys are great. But some of you are as nutty as I am.(Just Kidding)

------------------
10MM Magnum.... tried the rest, now I got the best
 
Retired General Colin Powell was an Army officer during the struggle for
racial equality in the ‘60s. He said the loud and nasty voices of
Carmichael, Brown, Malcolm X, etc. made Powell and his black
contemporaries in the military uneasy because they were working within
the system and enjoying success.

Powell states that he later began to understand that “a movement
requires many voices.” If we accept that concept, it should be
understandable that a movement, such as the RKBA movement, requires
both many voices and many forums.

If we address a church group, we do not interrupt the sermon or the
choir. Nor would we tend to achieve our goals if we stood up and began
to shout in a Luby’s cafeteria at lunchtime.

There are forums for screaming and shouting about guns and gun
control. TFL isn’t one of them.

There are forums for discussing various aspects of gun ownership and
use. I think TFL does an admirable job of providing individual forums for
specialized firearms-related interests.

But TFL is not a locker room. It is not a free-for-all with no rules. TFL is for
“education and information” according to Rich. That includes rational,
courteous debate.

Some debate is rather technical such as the relative effectiveness of
slow, heavy bullets v. fast, light bullets. Some is political such as gun
control v. gun rights or even fine points of the law, legal precedence, etc.

Even among ourselves, we (who believe in gun rights) debate how best
to regain and/or preserve our Rights. For that matter, we even debate
exactly what “gun rights” means! :D

Regardless of the debate, TFL intends to keep the debate factual and
impersonal. For REAL insults and vitriol we go to e-mail. (Been there!
Done that! Got some, too!!! ;) )

If a TFL member sees a violation of TFL etiquette, I recommend e-mailing
the moderator for that forum or one of the administrators. Let’s try to
settle our differences off TFL, by e-mail, rather than cluttering the
threads with arguments about non-firearms-related topics.

By the way, just because there is nothing on the thread correcting an
improper post, don’t think it has been ignored. The administrators try to
commend in public and reprimand in private. Their goal is correction - not
humiliation.

If we are going to attract and keep the people we want to attract and
keep, it is not cowardice to keep our manners a bit above what is found
on some other BBSs. It is a courtesy to the founder of TFL in adhering to
his intentions. It is a courtesy to the other members who debate in a
mannerly manner. It is largely unique to TFL and it is what will be expected of
us - ALL of us!
 
I haven't been a member of this board for a very long time, but I have not read anything here that would make me want to leave. I stumbled onto a board awhile back that had the most foul mouthed, racist, moronic bunch of inbred jerks I have ever experienced. (No it was not Shooters, those boys were kindergardeners compared to this site) I don't remember the board, only went there once while surfing and never went back. This is your board, I enjoy and appreciate it and plan on staying with this forum. I have found the people who post here to be reasonable, sometimes a bit passionate in their beliefs but nothing offensive. I believe profanity has no place in a public forum and expect to see it controlled. I must side with Paul Revere and the others as to when do we stop retreating when criticized by someone who's frail sensabilities are offended. Talk about the stopping capability of a certain handgun round can be used to show how bloodthirsty we are. Discussions about the long range capability of the various rifles and calibers can be percieved as our propensity to be killer snipers. Concealed carry can be characterized as a "Cowboy Mentality" shoot outs on the street killing innocent bystanders or lawless vigilantees. Already in schools, kids are being expelled for nothing more than drawing a picture of a handgun. Are we just going to keep backing off until it will be impolite and offend the gentler souls even to mention the word gun?
 
Paul-
It is not my intention to "to dictate what is said in these forums if it doesn't meet with [my] personal beliefs" Only what you say. ;) And you're quite right: this isn't my living room...except in your case.
Got it?

Nor am I "politically correct", "illogical", "unprincipled" or "unpatriotic" as your rant would suggest. (BTW...had this personal attack been made against any Member here but me, the clear violation to Forum Policy would not be recieved nearly as cordially by me.)

You are not "on the internet". You are "on" a private server.
Got it?

I've attempted to be as reasonable and generous as possible and you continue to demonstrate the reason these posts need to be limited. I find it unconscionable that someone would cry "foul" about what policies we choose to have for this site while blocking his own email and posting under a pseudonym.

Don't we all heve a right to barrage your cyberspace with whatever vitriol we choose? Isn't your email box "on the internet" and therefore fair game to all?

You want to spar with me, Paul? Fine. Email me.
Got it?
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited September 17, 1999).]
 
Rich,

As a long-time lurker and new member I applaud your position and I support it. Some recent posts and threads have really stretched the bounds of good taste.

I am a member on several different internet forums. One thing I have noticed is that people who use their real name instead of a "handle" tend to be less likely to engage in negative behavior. This doesn't mean I want Handles eliminated. I enjoy quite a few of them and I have used them myself from time to time. I do tend to give more attention and more serious thought to posts from people who use their own name.

Thank you for the opportunity to read and post here!
 
Rich,

I realize is your website, your server space, and your world. What I wanted to bring to your attention was not that I think you’re in the wrong, just that I disagree with the policy.

I try not to be to graphic, to hard-core, but some of the statements made may at some point be of much use to others on the board. DC pulled my quote about negating the use of air power against us if it ever came to a war. What that quote did was give folks an idea of how to save lives if the time came. Is that so wrong?

I realize you don’t like this type of talk, but still contend it is exactly the type of talk that is not only legal, but also necessary to insure we stay free. You have a differing opinion, that’s well and good being this is America. I’m not one of these to shout your infringing on my civil liberties, because I feel they stop at the front gate. But I ask this question of you again, I never received an answer, and I’m sure a lot of us want to know. Where would we be if newspapers and publishers had refused to print articles that dealt with these very same things you do not want published? Would we still have red coated soldiers in our homes?

Are you aware that Thomas Jefferson fought this same type of fight not over being published but being able to speak in 1776? Samuel Adams and Ben Franklin took him aside and said, “Jefferson, your much to inflammatory, you turn people away with your revolution speeches.” Hmmm whose quotes do you see the most when it comes to our right to bear arms? Jefferson didn’t propose the declaration, but it was his speeches that led to it being signed.

Rich do you not agree it’s time the government see us as we where meant to be seen? Where in America did the fighting stand-up to all wrongs mentality die? Was it perhaps when the South lost the civil war, or is it the weakening of the soul taught in our schools? Why is it everyone is suddenly afraid of offending the government? Let me say this, I’ve been posting these types of remarks all over the net, sent them to congress, and have yet to see a trailer load of ATF kick down my door. Maybe it’s coming, but I’ve said before how I will deal with it when or if it comes.

I’m not sure what folks see me as, maybe a redneck, racist, gun stockpiling, government hater. But the truth is nothing is farther from the truth. My personal ideals detest many parts of society, many lifestyles, yet my vote is always cast with the ideal of freedom to all. Maybe that’s another sliver of the reason we don’t pick-up more of the vote with our candidates, we cry for our freedom, yet we are first to line-up to vote against things we don’t like.

Hypocrites to the constitution are what one of my classmates called it last week. We stand and fight over the second, but some of our numbers actually push restrictions on the 1st, 4th, and 9th. What sort of example is that? I think if you want to ban things on your board, maybe you should consider dropping posts of that nature. Anything that speaks ill of the media, inability of police to stop people who look guilty, posts that say justice is gone, OJ is free. How can you allow those black and white attacks on this countries values and ideals, yet take speech found offensive only by those who have need to fear it and ban them? I want you to understand I’m not flaming you, I’m simply asking hard, cold, bitter questions.

I strikes me as odd that people can’t accept this speech you have asked to be gone from your board, and yet my law enforcement buddies use these same statements. Would it perhaps be better if instead of LEO’s which I haven’t used or UN soldiers, we used the words, “Tyrants helpers” would that offend those folks who don’t like these speeches? How would you like us to refer to corrupt politicians and the law enforcement who follow their orders? I’m going to say this, it sickens me that everyone is still claiming to take the high ground, when the government of this country is supposed to be the high ground and they butchered people in the mountains, and burned them alive here in Texas.

I think it’s shocked you that this speech hasn’t calmed down over the last week or so, but it just goes to show you, America is sick of the lies and deceit passed down by a corrupt government. Just how far are we going to be allowed to go? You say just as far as we like as long as it’s the high ground. I wonder if the Jewish people had this same discussion when Hitler began his march. Is this too inflammatory? Will it offend? Why do you want me to go to that railroad car? Which shower can I go in? It happened Rich because they didn’t discuss how to avoid it. Lead us on.

I’d prefer you answer this via your page, but feel free to email me, I’ve never attempted to hide. I'll stand tall and face the fire, because I was raised to do no less.




------------------
Live Free or Die Trying,

Steve
 
Ok by me.
I've had two heart surgeries, so I could use a calmer environment.
(I have a tendency to get mad...)
 
Steve-
I can't take offense or even exception to anything you've said. You've got every right to object. That's why this thread was posted. You've done so in a reasoned and impassioned manner- this is to be valued.

Your question hasn't been answered because it's rhetorical. Did Jefferson call for the "blood of tyrants" in all venues? Nope.

Was your suggestion on taking out a chopper pilot really that useful? Why? For it's novelty? For it's tactically advanced thoughtfullness? (Rhetorical questions)

And what was the cost? We took heat behind the scenes and lost two Members that I know of.

I will give you three very good reasons for our decision:
1) rec.guns
2) shooters.com
3) Tom Bowers www.subguns.com

How many converts are they making? (Rhetorical question)

I'm closing this thread as it's getting too slow to load. Anyone who chooses to fire it up in "Part Deux" is more than welcome. We're not goin' anywhere. ;)
Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top