1) I am not calling him anything.

Re-read, it says "I sometimes wonder if it is related to" talking about a behavior that he seems to be engaging in. No where in that sentence does it say "person x is schizophrenic" How you're managing to interpret the sentence the way you have is mysterious, but I am not interested in solving the mystery.

I sometimes wonder about why anyone would enjoy eating brussel sprouts and if it has anything to do with damaged taste buds. If you read that carefully, you'll note it like the other statement is not saying anything about anyone except for myself.


2) I don't preach about being civil, because I am am not civil. He continually preached about his civility, if you talk the talk, walk the walk. If he didn't make such a big deal about being a voice of reason and moderation in his posts, I wouldn't have asked.

It isn't difficult to communicate on these boards without insulting people, even a person such as myself has been able to do it on most occasions.

As for this topic. It saddens me that more and more of what makes America great is being destroyed in the name of security.

It depends whose economic interests they are protecting.

Nuclear weapons protecting American (my) interests are good. Nuclear weapons protecting other countries interests are bad, unless they coincide with our interests.

I'm just waiting for the homeroom movies where they teach the kids how to be good patriots and what they need to be looking for when they visit relatives and friends.

I would also like to note that the list of suspicious items and behaviours could very well describe a university student with a thing for Hunter S. Thompson...

Delusions of grandeur aren't schizophrenia. It's funny to me that you confuse the two.

And that's not suspicious?

It's easier than that. You wouldn't give a two-year-old a kitchen knife, would you? Ride-on lawnmower for, say, a quadraplegic uncle?

I agree with trapper insofar as guns are tools. They are also weapons, but even if they were solely a benign tool (like a level, say, or maybe a plumb bob) that wouldn't mean it was necessarily "not...dangerous." You can still raise up and brain somebody with a meter-long level. You can chuck the plumb bob at somebody's head. Considering that firearms combine tightly fitted, sliding/interlocking metal parts, gunpowder (don't go hollering "always keep 'em unloaded") and the express purpose of directing a penetrative (typically) shell with the intent of striking a target or mark, I think it's okay to say that guns are "dangerous."

Obviously it would be insane to ascribe morality to an inanimate object, even nuclear missiles. The suggestion that any side of the issue argues like that is unfair.

So I am unsure how to reconcile trapper's words on (I'm guessing) Second Amendment rights with the original topic. What is most disturbing to me is that an easy interpretation of all the gun-nut talk in this thread is "shoot firefighters," and I sincerely hope that is not what anybody is suggesting.

A question, then, comes to my mind. It is not rhetorical, but I ask in all sincerity to those posting in this thread who feel we should have unfettered (by government, at least) access to firearms: At what point are we supposed to fight back? Where's the line? Obviously, if stormtroopers might kill your kid, and are probably going to open fire anyhow, yeah, go for it if you know what you're doing. But outside of the home, the question remains: At what point is it "enough," and we actually take the fight to "them?" Again, I ask this in all seriousness to our libertarian/firearm enthusiast/etc. comrades (wink*wink*) in the thread.

I know this thread was originally about firefighters and civil rights, but I was sidetracked by the flap involving the comments made by jpaul256 which evidently got him blacklisted with whoever runs this site. Being an advocate of fairness, I just went back and read a number of his comments (including the one that got him flagged) and I have to say, singling him out for "personal attacks" is utter bullshit, especially when you consider the countless remarks made by certain SG editors are just as vitriolic (albeit more clever and sarcastic-- does that make them less vicious?).

Folks, I've seen WAY nastier posts by both editors and members, from A to Zarth. Why was jpaul256 threatened with extinction? Gee, maybe because he's a conservative. How does that sit with you? I'm on the far left of the political spectrum, and it fucking pisses me off. I'm not saying a private website like SG is required to strictly adhere to the First Ammendment, and I do think it should maintain a few universal taboos of incivility (no attacks on a person's race, sexuality, etc). However, targeting rude people who happen to be conservatives, while letting rude liberals and leftists continue to run amok (and submit editorial content) is retarded. Do you want a true diversity of views or not?

Go ahead and blacklist me too, SG. I've already downloaded enough pictures to keep my right hand happy for years.

Whoa. Dude was not blacklisted. He was simply told by a moderator to keep it civil. His response was to take his toys and run home. See the difference? Someone wants to be a VICTIM.

Or, you know, gee, maybe someone flagged his post, and not others.

Or maybe gee, other nasty posts by non-conservative members were flagged as well, and polite warning emails sent, but the members getting warned didn't throw a tantrum and claim they were being persecuted for their political viewpoints rather than just getting the mildest of wrist-slaps.

I mean, not to rain on your "conservatives are being persecuted!" parade or anything.

"Or, you know, gee, maybe someone flagged his post, and not others."

Have any of your posts ever been removed, as this guy's post was? What about you, FTR?

If you call me, or anyone else, "a fucking piece of shit" for writing a ridiculously stupid article about turkeys and Bush, you're going to get flagged. That is how the system works.

And, for the record, I drive the moderators insane. They have asked me to tone it down, but I am a very flawed man and am prone to outbursts. If anything, you all should pray for me.

Sorry, posts are removed constantly. You can keep thinking it was his politics, but there are guys here with opposing points of view, who I think are total morons, who keep it civil. I have not called them a name in the year and a half I have been here.

Paul was scorned because he started out on this site preaching about the lack of discourse and the name calling, then he went straight to name calling. He posted something about my wife and went on to call be a piece of shit.

It's called hypocrisy and it will destroy you ever time. He made his own bed. To defend him is ridiculous.

Maybe, at some point, but I really don't remember or care.

I've received emailed warnings asking me to tone down my arguments with other SG members. I didn't take that as a cue to freak the fuck out and whine about how victimized I am.

Dude, what if they were?