StoneHendge Wrote:Yes, but there is no need to hijack every thread. Which is what he does. And it gets in the way of everyone interacting and debating with everyone else. And therefore sends away a lot of people who would otherwise participate. Including myself.

bj139 Wrote:I have thought for a while that Stan was training us in arguing tactics of the left.
I fully support Stan in this endeavour. It does not really matter whether he believes what he is saying or not.

cory Wrote:Fair point and I thoroughly appreciate someone sharpening my argument on the idea and intent not the trivial potato or potahto arguments.

StoneHendge Wrote:Yes, but there is no need to hijack every thread. Which is what he does. And it gets in the way of everyone interacting and debating with everyone else. And therefore sends away a lot of people who would otherwise participate. Including myself.

bj139 Wrote:Without Stan, there would be no counterpoint.

SH, I do appreciate what you say. We could discuss effective ways of promoting Constitutional rights if we were not focused on the trivia.

stanc Wrote:I had deleted my earlier posts, and intended to let all the whining continue without interruption, but I feel the need to respond to some recent comments.


It was not my intent to argue tactics of the left. My positions on matters discussed are genuine; any similarities to those of the anti-gun crowd are purely coincidental.


Not being clairvoyant, I don't know your intent. I can only go by your words. When you say "Rights [were] taken from the Individual and allocated to the government," that's not "potayto vs potahto." That's a rather substantial contradiction of the idea that Rights are unalienable, and cannot be either taken, or given away.

That being said, I will admit to often getting unduly focused on minutiae. If it's not an innate character trait, it was certainly developed by 16 years in a job which required looking for and correcting even the tiniest of errors.


What I do is respond to other posts. That I have many more posts in a thread than any other individual, is because typically three or more members address my comments, and I reply to each of them in turn. Since I consider it rude to ignore other members, I'm not going to refuse to respond just to reduce the number of my posts in a thread.

I can't imagine why the number of my posts would be so intimidating as to cause you or anyone else to be unwilling to interact and debate with those who do participate.

stanc Wrote:I had deleted my earlier posts, and intended to let all the whining continue without interruption, but I feel the need to respond to some recent comments.


It was not my intent to argue tactics of the left. My positions on matters discussed are genuine; any similarities to those of the anti-gun crowd are purely coincidental.


Not being clairvoyant, I don't know your intent. I can only go by your words. When you say "Rights [were] taken from the Individual and allocated to the government," that's not "potayto vs potahto." That's a rather substantial contradiction of the idea that Rights are unalienable, and cannot be either taken, or given away.

That being said, I will admit to often getting unduly focused on minutiae. If it's not an innate character trait, it was certainly developed by 16 years in a job which required looking for and correcting even the tiniest of errors.


What I do is respond to other posts. That I have many more posts in a thread than any other individual, is because typically three or more members address my comments, and I reply to each of them in turn. Since I consider it rude to ignore other members, I'm not going to refuse to respond just to reduce the number of my posts in a thread.

I can't imagine why the number of my posts would be so intimidating as to cause you or anyone else to be unwilling to interact and debate with those who do participate.

Brett Wrote:It staggers the imagination that this thread, and this sub-forum, has become all about one universally annoying person.

montana Wrote:The one thing I have always enjoyed about this forum was no one was allowed to get personal. I have vehemently disagreed with Stan on many occasions, but he never got nasty or personal with me. Stan has made me do a lot of research and has proven my approach wrong on more than one occasion. This in itself has benefited me. Stan may never admit defeat, a wrong or what ever, but he has always given a strong argument. Freedom works from all sides, including those we disagree or disapprove of. Nobody was forced to read or reply to Stan's opinions. What Stan may have done is frustrate, hurt some egos or feelings, but that should not be a problem for adults. This may upset some members who I consider friends, but right is right and wrong is wrong.

In view of all the above, an alternative to consider:

bj139 Wrote:I agree 200%.
I am surprised at some of the members here.
Stan has a right to his opinion and we shold listen even if we do not agree.
I wonder what happened to the American saying I heard so much in my youth, "I may not agree with what you say but I fully support your right to say it".

LR1955 Wrote:Guys:

Seems to me that the guys who have contributed the least to the 2A thread are the ones who are focusing its demise on Stan.

LR1955 Wrote:Guys:

Seems to me that the guys who have contributed the least to the 2A thread are the ones who are focusing its demise on Stan.

You guys seem to want us as moderators or John as the owner of the Grendel Forum to throw Stan off of the forum.

Ain't going to happen. Not from me.

LR55

SHORT-N-SASSY Wrote:In view of all the above, an alternative to consider:

NugginFutz Wrote:Don't you think there just might be a correlation, there? There just may be a possibility that they avoid wading into the fray because it just isn't that fun, given the tenor of these threads.