I am Spartacus

[bj139]

Absolutely correct.

Which is why I said I was absolutely astounded and gobsmacked to see this thread!

Am kind of semi-gobsmacked that you guys who were so vocal to see Stan banned or censored on the last thread seemed to have forgotten it ever happened!

Chalk it up to something. Not sure what yet but don't let it get in the way of Cory's thread.

Please -- stay on the topic of this thread and let the past slowly die.

Thanks!

LR55

I defended Stan's right to voice his opinion, even if I didn't like it.

[LR1955]

I defended Stan's right to voice his opinion, even if I didn't like it.

bj:

Yes, you did. Good for you. Freedom is pretty tough to deal with sometimes.

LR55

[JASmith]

bj:

Yes, you did. Good for you. Freedom is pretty tough to deal with sometimes.

LR55

I thought we were going to let this topic slowly die but it continues to percolate.

I also do not dispute Stan's right to speak to provide information and to voice his opinion.

My patience threshold is exceeded, however, when one person appears to insist his viewpoints be ours by spewing endless contrarian statements.

This pattern of behavior constitutes a form of censorship on the rest of us because the posts don't allow for a normal conversation.

[LR1955]

I thought we were going to let this topic slowly die but it continues to percolate.

I also do not dispute Stan's right to speak to provide information and to voice his opinion.

My patience threshold is exceeded, however, when one person appears to insist his viewpoints be ours by spewing endless contrarian statements.

This pattern of behavior constitutes a form of censorship on the rest of us because the posts don't allow for a normal conversation.

Joe:

Like anyone else here, you are free to read and respond as you desire. No one is demanding anyone respond to anything anyone else says or does.

There is a reason why these forums have moderators. To intervene when we think it necessary to get a thread back on topic.

So, if you think someone here is doing something wrong, tell one of us.

LR55

[bj139]

Cory,
I agree with your decision to support Alex Jones. I believe he is basically on our side in supporting individual freedom.
How much was the membership?

Edit: Found it in the second photo ($25). Does that give you unlimted access to all his wecasts? I would be interested.

[cory]

In this thread, cory rails against those in power at Apple, Google, Facebook and Spotify for acting "to censor the dissenting opinion" of Alex Jones.

In the now-locked 2A Poll thread, cory was one of those calling for moderators of the Grendel Forum to censor the dissenting opinions of a member.

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showt...l=1#post202737

That is patently false as you and Gene both missed a critical point in what I said in that conversation. I did not suggest that we censor you. So let's start over...

We here are a group of like minded people working towards common goals, protection of the 2nd Amendment. In order to reach said goals we must engage in conversation. However, simple conversation is not enough. It must be polite conversation. Conversation with some level of rules and lines in which we mutually agree to not cross.

And If rules are necessary, it is necessary that they are enforced. Unfortunately that may mean removing someone from the conversation that refuses to operate within the established rules.

This is what I was suggesting in that conversation.

Furthermore there is a vast difference in a small group of people censoring someone from their conversation versus groups with extraordinary power coming together to silence a dissenting opinion.

On an additional note as I saw it, while calling it as I saw it as true as possible I was defending you in the post on which you reference. At least that's how I saw it, I'm disappointed others didn't see it the same.

[cory]

Cory,
I agree with your decision to support Alex Jones. I believe he is basically on our side in supporting individual freedom.
How much was the membership?

Edit: Found it in the second photo ($25). Does that give you unlimted access to all his wecasts? I would be interested.

Info wars membership actually doesn't cost anything. The $25 was a donation and a big screw you to the powers that be.

[BluntForceTrauma]

I agree with Cory's plan of action.

I really think pro-2A — and for that matter pro-liberty — groups need a "Fox-Newsing" of Big Social Media. Start our own tech platforms. Some very, very small players are trying. Easier said than done, I know.

Heck, one weapons show on YouTube even has their content hosted by PornHub (cuz, apparently, PornHub will post anything). I don't think that's a real solution, but it is one effort to deal with the problem.

Coulda sworn I heard someone was setting a gun-specific YouTube equivalent, for example?

[stanc]

That is patently false as you and Gene both missed a critical point in what I said in that conversation. I did not suggest that we censor you.

Strictly speaking, that's true. You didn't say I should be censored. You said I should be banned.

So let's start over...

We here are a group of like minded people working towards common goals, protection of the 2nd Amendment. In order to reach said goals we must engage in conversation. However, simple conversation is not enough. It must be polite conversation. Conversation with some level of rules and lines in which we mutually agree to not cross.

I have always tried to comply with the forum rules.

And If rules are necessary, it is necessary that they are enforced. Unfortunately that may mean removing someone from the conversation that refuses to operate within the established rules.

This is what I was suggesting in that conversation.

1. That's not quite what you were calling for.
2. The forum has moderators who do enforce the rules.

Furthermore there is a vast difference in a small group of people censoring someone from their conversation versus groups with extraordinary power coming together to silence a dissenting opinion.

So, what you're saying is that silencing dissenting opinion in a big group is bad, but silencing dissenting opinion in a small group is okay.

[stanc]

That would be a good way to go. Perhaps the only way to go, to achieve the desired results.

[JASmith]

Gene, can anyone post and not be rebutted by Stan?

[cory]

Gene, can anyone post and not be rebutted by Stan?

Stan should be free to rebut. I fully appreciate a good rebuttal.

However, nit picking and bring argumentative just to be argumentative is an entirely different thing. His most recent response to one of my post is case and point.

His picking one sentence out of a statement to disqualify an entire argument is arguing in bad faith in my opinion.

[sneaky one]

Trash this entire thread? Boring...

[LR1955]

Cory:

Thanks for explaining your position. Appreciate it and your ideas and views. Happy to see guys like you carrying the torch.

Guys -- sorry but the thread is now locked.

Same, same.

LR55