[More] As a rule, I stay away from forums. While there are some notable exceptions, I've found too many of them are simply places where the closed-minded congregate to insulate themselves from anything that challenges their preconceptions. Too much nastiness and not enough thought go into many of the posts, and it's clear that many comments are the results of hip shots based on other posted comments rather than actually considering what the original source of the discussion had to say about a subject. That's why you'll find--in some of the forums discussing the Bush administration approving the "collective rights" theory of the Second Amendment as justification for its new space flight security rules--the major premise is ignored in favor of people ridiculing guns on spacecraft--a debate topic for another day, to be sure, but only incidental to the topic I was writing about.
But then you get acts of actual sabotage, where the poster knows damned well what he's doing, and whether out of fear or hatred, lashes out with lies, ad hominem attacks, and proclamations that are simply and demonstrably wrong.
Meet NRA grassrooter Mike Haas, someone who has been vocal at attempting to derail just about every Second Amendment activism effort I can recall being part of over the past 10 years. I'm not sure if it's pathological with this guy or if he simply views any new ideas that don't come from his camp as threats, but the guy's a Fairfax worshipper of the first order. Fortunately, he's also incompetent and dishonest, so his attacks are easy to defeat simply by presenting the documented truth.
Because I've been banned for "insulting" him from CalGuns forums, (and from accessing the website itself--at least from my home computer) and because CalGuns.Net will not allow a man who's been attacked to defend himself, which is pretty telling about their mindset, I'm presenting my rebuttal to Haas' baseless attack here:
Response to Mike Haas
I note Haas has not addressed what I actually wrote, just went straight into character assassination. That's one of the oldest deflection tactics in the book. I see some of you have opted to take his side just because, which is your choice and your right. If anyone here is interested in looking a little deeper, read on.
I've never joined a forum before, because they are typically not the most effective means of using limited time if my goal is to reach a wider audience--and the only reason I'm posting here is to defend myself against an unprovoked attack. I probably won't be back, but in any case will not even be able to check for a few days because I'm heading to the mountains with no computer access. We'll see if open minds are receptive to a counter to Mr. Haas' peculiar venom. And for the record, he never contacted me first--something I've done and documented numerous times when I've had differences with NRA.
Stick to the topic I actually wrote about if you're going to "debunk" what I said, Mike. Yes or no, did the FAA cite the "collective rights" theory of the 2nd Amendment as their legal justification for imposing their rules, and yes or no, did the Sr Counsel for the FAA say that this was approved by the executive office of the president? You don't have to be a legal scholar or have some sort of special qualifications to "interpret" that, Mike. Answer those basic questions.
Where to start? How about me being "one of the most anti-NRA entities one can encounter." Note he hasn't given you an actual example of one of these "attacks" because, then you might have to look at the uncomfortable fact of whether or not what I said was true--for instance giving anti-CCW sheriff candidate Bill Brown in Santa Barbara an A rating. The fact is, I AM the NRA--life member,former members council officer, long-time volunteer and financial contributor--you can read my position on that here:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2005/08/im-nra.html
Then there are the fabricated LIES, yes, I said "lies"-- about our petition effort. It's still online on KABA. Go ahead, Mike--out of all the entries at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/petition/, please point everyone to the fundraising appeal--that's what you told them we were trying to do. Good Lord--coming from an NRA management apologist with their interminable fundraisers, that sounds kind of like a pimp calling me a slut. The point of our petition was also well explained, and we never pretended it was one of those "official" ones Mike wants to belittle us for not being--gee, kind of like those appeals and cards and things NRA management sends its members to contact our representatives--along with a plea for more money. We were pretty proud of our effort, actually, Mike--got some national press, got mentioned twice by Wm F Buckley, writtten up several times on WorldNetDaily, and got responses from every state in the union--over 30,0000 of them, which, while a number you might laugh at in your superiority, ain't bad considering IT WAS ENTIRELY SELF-FUNDED and with all work done by basically 3 people. I personally spent a couple hundred out of pocket. I do recall one or two people enclosed 5 bucks or so. And, oh, keeping names and addresses is now "illegal"? So NRA management will destroy their lists? Hey Mike, you missed again--we kept no names and addresses--we sent them all to Mr. Ashcroft. How can I prove that? Not directly, but indirectly--find ONE Ashcroft petition signatory who says we then used the petitions to send him junk mail or spam. You can't Mike, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Oh, and a "PS" I almost forgot--you know who else supported the petition--publicly--wrote me a nice letter, wrote about it in his column, and even signed up supporters at his class? The late Col. Jeff Cooper. So I'm pretty comfortable with the company I kept on that effort. Mike.
You want to talk Silveira now? How it had such a losing streak? As opposed to the winning streak on 2A Mike and his friends have achieved? Take a look at why the 9th circuit said it didn't have standing--gee--couldn't have anything to do with PRECEDENT established in prior losing efforts that those friends engineered, could it? We had a unique effort and we were right--and we had a lawyer doing the scholarly work who had actually been part of a winning Supreme Court effort, and who, unfortunately, died shortly before cert was denied. We can't rehash the whole thing in this forum--if any of you have the time, the whole thing is still over at KABA and you can see for yourself what we said and did, and again, I'm proud of that effort and the people I worked with as an unpaid volunteer, as was Angel, who Mike hates, which may explain some of this, and Brian Puckett. But here's the one thing I want those reading this to walk away with: Silveira established no new precedent, as Mike seems to indicate with the "damage" he accuses us of almost doing--and for someone who questions MY legal acumen and talent, "the defendant" who "was hardly the ideal gun owner" in the Silveira case was the state of California, Mike, via AG Lockyer and Grey Davis, and Sean Silveira et al were the PLAINTIFFS. So you again don't know what the hell you're talking about. But let's take a look at the character of these "defendants" Mr. Haas would have you doubt just based on his say-so--you know, the "less than ideal" gun owners. It's copied directly from the complaint.
33. Plaintiff JACK SAFFORD is a resident of Corning, California, husband and father, and owns substantial acreage/farm land. He owns his own insurance agency and is a model citizen. He is a graduate of California State University, Chico.
34. Plaintiff SEAN SILVEIRA is a resident of Marin County, California, husband and father of two, and owns real property in Marin. He is a civil engineer, model citizen, and a graduate of California State University, Chico.
35. Plaintiff PATRICK OVERSTREET is a resident of Marin County, California, husband, and owns real property in Marin. He is employed by the San Francisco Police Department as a S.W.A.T. officer, and a graduate of California State University, San Diego.
36. Plaintiff DAVID K. MEHL is a resident of Sacramento, California, husband, and owns real property in Sacramento. He is a chemical engineer, graduate of the University of California, Davis, and a model citizen.
37. Plaintiff SGT. STEVEN FOCHT is a resident of Placer County, husband and father, and owns real property in Placer County. He was a Marine Corp sniper who performed military functions in Desert Storm, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Thailand, in addition to Mogadishu,Somalia. He was honorably discharged, and currently a Sergeant in the California Army National Guard. He is a model citizen.
38. Plaintiff SGT. DAVID BLALOCK is a resident of Sacramento County and owns real property in Sacramento County. He was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division who is a Purple Heart recipient from combat injuries (AK 47 round through his arm) occurring in the Noriega police operation (invasion of Panama) and currently a Sergeant in the California Army National Guard. He is a model citizen.
39. Plaintiff MARCUS DAVIS is a resident of Sacramento, California, husband and expecting father, and real property owner. He is mortgage broker, graduate of the University of California, Davis, and a model citizen.
40. Plaintiff VANCE BOYCE is a resident of Colusa, California, husband and father, and real property owner. He is a of California State University, Fresno.
41. Plaintiff KEN DEWALD is a resident of Paradise, California, husband and father, and real property owner. He was honorably discharged from the Air Force, and is currently employed as a California Correctional Officer and a model citizen.
Go ahead, Mike, you ignorant fraud. Tell your admirers on this board how these "defendants" are "far from ideal gun owners".
Now we can get into my recommendations of "civil disobedience"--you know there's no tradition of that in forging freedom for this country--no, I'm sure Thoreau and others would have applauded NRA grassroots having DOJ reps come before their membership to tell them the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and then demand they fill out registration forms for property they already lawfully purchased and owned. Yep, guilty as charged, and proud of it--because we've seen through the Bill Doss example how NRA's lawyer provided the escort service to surrender that registered weapon to the state. I don't know what the hell good Mike thinks 2A is if it means we're just going to obey every order the govt issues to us--including surrendering our firearms to the state on demand. If that's your idea of skillful activism, Mike, go for it. Me, I'll defy and resist and disobey, and live with the stinging pain of having incurred your bitchy and impotent scorn.
I guess we could now get into a debate on what kind of talent I AM close to possessing, but you know what, Mike? I really don't care what you think about me. I play damned well with others--that is, with men and women whom I respect. And I don't consider us on the same "side" Mike--You publicly lie about people and their efforts, and you don't know what you're talking about. I want as far from that side as I can get.
I'll be back in a few days. Feel free to use it to your best advantage. Someone who lies and doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't worry me too much.
Just see if you can nail him down to address the specific points I made in the article he used as the catalyst for his stupid, ineffectual attack.
David Codrea
One final word to those who are members and supporters of CalGuns Forums: Do you like being fed demonstrably false information, and then having what you're allowed to see and comment on manipulated and censored? Do you think it's fair to attack a person, his efforts and his reputation, and then prohibit that attacked party from presenting the truth? Then you've found the right place. Enjoy your association with such transparent and malicious propagandists.
Me, I'm not afraid of entering the lion's den, alone and against all they can muster, but surface appearances indicate they're afraid of me--even on their own turf. And unlike those cowardly gatekeepers who manipulate what they will allow you to consider in a debate, comments here at WarOnGuns are open--I think with the exception of some spam, a few pornographic comments and some ill-advised statements that might be construed as threats, I've never interfered with anyone saying anything--including comments highly critical of me.
I'm even going to be gone for a few days without computer access, so now's the time to get your cheap shots in, boys, and I use that term deliberately. You have something to say? Go for it.
That includes you , Mike.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI am the owner of Calguns and the one who deleted your post and banned you.
Your post deletion and the subsequent banning had nothing to do with your defense or who you are. Quite frankly until this incident I had never heard of you.
Your post was deleted and you were banned because your first post on Calguns was a direct violation of the rules of the forum. We do not allow personal insults or attack posts. There are relatively few rules on Calguns and we are a bit lax but there are some unwavering requirements of the members who post there. These are summed up in four words.
Courtesy, civility, politeness and respect.
If you wish to be a part of the community on Calguns you will be asked and required to post with courtesy to your fellow members. Posts are to be made in a civil manner. Being polite includes not calling fellow board members names. And while you do not have to respect the person you are debating you will respect the rules and the rest of the community.
These are not overly burdensome rules and honestly if you can not make your point or debate and discuss without the insults then you have issues beyond being banned from a forum. I suspect you are fully capable of engaging in the manner described or we wouldn't be here would we?
These rules are to avoid what you yourself decribe as "Too much nastiness.." and yet you brought that nastiness on to the forum.
Quite frankly I don't know you.
I don't know your history or views.
I don't really care if you dislike Mike Hass or he dislikes you.
What I do know about and care about is how you act on my site.
If you wish to engage in a civil discussion or debate, or you feel the need to 'defend' yourself and are willing to accept the rules as described by all means, contact me through the 'Contact Us' at the bottom of the forum page. Even permanent bans can be reversed if the person is willing to follow the rules. We 'cowardly gatekeepers' can do things like that.
You are not locked out of viewing he forums, even on your home computer. All you hav to do is log out of the forum software, it will remove the cookie that identifies you as banned. You will then be able to see the forums from that computer.
You will note that I have not once addressed the points that either you or Mr. Haas have made.
I am not here to debate these issues and neither was that my concern with your post on the forum. Debate and discussion are welcome but insults and attacks are not.
So again, if you wish to contact me regarding your ban feel free to do so.
So you're essentially saying, Paul, that anyone can get on your forum and spread all the misinformation and outright lies that they want, as long as they are polite about it. Whereas someone who is more concerned with the truth than they are with obsequious politeness gets banned.
ReplyDeleteNice.
Rough men who are impolite are exactly the kind of men this country is dying from lack of. A few more like David and the bureaucrats, sissies, socialists and brain fart idiots who are in control will wet their pants and run. I'd take David over the politeness crew over at Calguns in a heartbeat. And I see no reason to be polite to tyranny enablers, Paul.
ReplyDeletePaul stated:
ReplyDeleteI am not here to debate these issues and neither was that my concern with your post on the forum.
Well, there's the problem! What do YOU call people who are concerned only with form, and care nothing for content?
I call them Liberals.
Was Mike Haas "Courteous, civil, polite and respectful" in his invidious attack on another pro-gun activist?
If, as I suspect, he was not, was he also banned forever?
No? Why not?
Double standards stink, Paul.
Feel free to correct any of my many misapprehensions in your "courteous, civil, polite and respectful" way.
Hey Mike, if you happen to read this - BITE ME! You traitorous scumbag.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA is nothing but a shill organization that has directly assisted in the erosion of our God-given, Natural Right;
NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934, by Angel Shamaya, March 29, 2002
JPFO's Vs. NRA's stance on our Right, Nov. 20th, 2006
Anyone who assists, or concurs, with what these perverse minions in our government(s) have been doing to our Rights. Is a TRAITOR to their fellow American citizens. ALL 'gun control' is Constitutionally REPUGNANT and against the TRUE law of the land.
"Let it be remembered finally, that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended, were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the author of these rights, on the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition..." - James Madison, April 26, 1783 Address to the States, by the United States Congress Assembled.
Simply put Paul, I don't believe you. I have known David a long time and the only times I have known him to do or say anything that could be construed as insulting is when the truth of a matter,itself, is an insult.
ReplyDeleteWhen the truth of a thing insults the man hearing it, perhaps he should have done, been or said something differently.
So Paul did you ban the man that said "....were less than ideal gun owners."? Is that not an insult, under your rules?
I can tell you it would not be under mine, if it were true. And if it were not, the man saying so being called to task for a falsehood, misrepresentation, or other sin against truth has no right to civility, courtesy or respect.
David and I have a huge and passionate disagreement in which each of us believes the other to be completely in error. This disagreement is of long standing, yet, not once has David ever committed any of the sins of which you accuse him, in this instant. I have been aware of him describing others in less than flattering ways, but never inappropriately or undeservedly. In short Paul, I reiterate, I don't believe you.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIt's great you posted a response here on War on Guns. However, THIS isn't "your" forum [nor is it mine] so feel free to post a copy of David's post that got him banned. You did keep a copy didn't you? You know, just in case any questions came up...
This would allow us to form our own opinion of the matter.
On another subject... someone's "first post on Calguns" got them banned for life? No deletion of post and a warning? It's your forum but that seems a bit harsh to me.
Then after reading the thread, I guess you don't consider someone referring to a group which David was a member as "these nits" and "these idiots" aren't "personal insults or attack[s]"?
Haas stating "Codrea doesn't have CLOSE to the kind of talent...", refering to someone as "he and his cohorts", "Codrea and his ilk", aren't attempts at personal defamation? You don't consider those to be "insults or attacks" either?
Your statement on your forum, in a response to Technical Ted, occurring in the thread in question, "Debate and discussion are welcome but insults and attacks are not" doesn't pass the smell test.
Magus
*Sigh* Obviously some are having a bit of a difficult time grtasping my response.
ReplyDeleteLet's take them in order shall we?
"AlanDP said...
So you're essentially saying, Paul, that anyone can get on your forum and spread all the misinformation and outright lies that they want, as long as they are polite about it. Whereas someone who is more concerned with the truth than they are with obsequious politeness gets banned."
Anyone can come on the forum and share their opinion as long as they abide by the rules we have set down. If you happen to feel that what they have said is misinformation or lies you are welcome to think that. Like most forums we do not fact-check everyone's post.
"Sean said...
Rough men who are impolite are exactly the kind of men this country is dying from lack of. A few more like David and the bureaucrats, sissies, socialists and brain fart idiots who are in control will wet their pants and run. I'd take David over the politeness crew over at Calguns in a heartbeat. And I see no reason to be polite to tyranny enablers, Paul."
I'm sorry that you see courtesy as a failing, on this we will have to disagree. Frankly I don't care if you see someone as a 'tyranny enabler', what I am concerned with is that you act according to my rules in my house. Or you will be told to leave. It seems many of you are too willing to read more in to this then that simple fact.
"Paul stated:
I am not here to debate these issues and neither was that my concern with your post on the forum.
Well, there's the problem! What do YOU call people who are concerned only with form, and care nothing for content?
I call them Liberals."
Again you overcomplicate the issue. Content was not what I addressed, it was presentation.
Was Mike Haas "Courteous, civil, polite and respectful" in his invidious attack on another pro-gun activist?
If, as I suspect, he was not, was he also banned forever?
No? Why not?
Double standards stink, Paul."
Double standard? No. Do we take in to account a person's past actions and history? Yes.
I do not have your animous towards Mr. Haas, I do know what he has posted and how he has acted in the time he has been a member on the forum.
Mr Codrea registered and on his first post violated the rules of the board. How much slack do you give someone who comes into your home and first thing starts doing the things you asked them not to do as a condition to entering? Very little I would guess. Unfortunately Mr. Codrea choose set in motion this incident and blog event before the usual contact we make with a banned member explaining why and in some cases offering a reconciliation provided that the issues of concern are understood and properly addressed.
"Feel free to correct any of my many misapprehensions in your "courteous, civil, polite and respectful" way."
I would hope you found my reply courteous, civil, polite and respectful.
"straightarrow said...
Simply put Paul, I don't believe you. I have known David a long time and the only times I have known him to do or say anything that could be construed as insulting is when the truth of a matter,itself, is an insult.
When the truth of a thing insults the man hearing it, perhaps he should have done, been or said something differently."
Your option is to not believe me, I am sorry you do not but I am also not going to lose any sleep over it.
Mr. Codrea's post was well over the line of what we consider rude and insulting, you do not have to agree with the standards set.
"So Paul did you ban the man that said "....were less than ideal gun owners."? Is that not an insult, under your rules?
I can tell you it would not be under mine, if it were true. And if it were not, the man saying so being called to task for a falsehood, misrepresentation, or other sin against truth has no right to civility, courtesy or respect."
You are welcome to that opinion however when you are in someone else's 'home' do you not consider it necessary to grant them the civility, courtesy or respect they ask for? If not I would suspect that you, like me, would simply not go into that house. You seem to be missing that the civility, courtesy and respect I am referring to is not towards Mr. Haas, it is towards the Staff and members of the forum itself.
"David and I have a huge and passionate disagreement in which each of us believes the other to be completely in error. This disagreement is of long standing, yet, not once has David ever committed any of the sins of which you accuse him, in this instant. I have been aware of him describing others in less than flattering ways, but never inappropriately or undeservedly. In short Paul, I reiterate, I don't believe you."
Again, disbelief is your right but I do see in this last quotation a fundamental difference in our views. You state "I have been aware of him describing others in less than flattering ways, but never inappropriately or undeservedly". The implication is that if you or someone feels the person 'deserves' it then 'less than flattering ways' (I call that rude or insulting, again a difference of views) are appropriate or acceptable.
I do not share that view, in the first place the determinate criteria for 'deserving it' is individually subjective. Who deserves it? Someone I dislike or someone you dislike? Both? Neither?
Second, in the format of the forum, I don't care that person 'A' thinks person 'B' deserves it, you are not having that fight in my living room.
Simply put, once again, the requirement that people post in a civil manner is not for the person you are debating. You are asked to have respect for the person's 'home' you are in and to the other people who share that 'home', the memebers of the forum at large.
Fortunately there is an easy solution.
There are many forums on the internet that I simply do not join or read. Either the content is not of interest to me or the values espoused are not my own or any of a hundred reasons.
If you find the requirement to act with a measure of decorum to be overbearing and onnerous then don't log on to the site.
I'm quite sure some will take issue with one aspect of my replies or another and that is your right.
So Paul, am I to understand by your response. That like most liberals falsely believe; 'The Constitution doesn't apply in my house'? Are you even familiar with the occurences that transpired during the debates on the Constitution? How that it was heatedly debated? The very Constitution, by the way, that the state of Kalipornia and many others, has blatantly and flagrantly disregarded.
ReplyDeleteDo you understand what fundamental principles are? Do you understand the concept of free speech? What you seem to advocate is the same as what the Nazi's and Communists did. That, so long as it conforms to the accepted mandate of the 'state', than it is permissible? That's what the 'policy' of Calguns sure sounds like. Where the proper line should be drawn is when cursing and threats of violence are employed.
Is it just for a person to have anger when there are other people that advocate infringement upon our Rights, (so long as it just makes sense?). That is the VERY SPIRIT of America.
Your spiel has the rank odor of 'poliitical correctness'. One of the very perversions that is destroying our Republic. And all that you are doing here is attempting to justify the use of it.
David Codrea, in case you hadn't noticed, is a very well published and recognized author. His work is printed in a number of Gun related magazines, as well as in articles all over the internet. I've followed his work for well over a year. And I've yet to see him 'cross the line'.
Would highly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the TRUE American Fundamental Principles....
While I applaud your courage and patience in posting on David's blog, Paul, I still have serious questions about the essential fairness with which you manage debate on your site.
ReplyDeleteYour civility here notwithstanding, simply saying "My house, my rules," while understandable, will not garner you any supporters if your rules are not only fair, but SEEN to be fair. I strongly believe that every gun rights activist needs all the supporters he can muster, don't you?
You level several accusations against David Codrea, including a sudden change of direction with the broad-brush assertion that David's disrespect was not towards Mr. Haas, it is towards the Staff and members of the forum itself,
but you offer no evidence that he violated your rules. You don't even offer any specific rules, other than the general, non-specific, and rather maternalistic order to be polite.
We see from Mr. Haas's post that he was, in fact, rude, impolite, discourteous, and uncivil, but your own words indicate that he was not sanctioned because you had heard from him before. I've never heard of Mr. Haas before this, so I bear him no animus at all, contrary to your assumption, but I recognize severe cognitive dissonance in your disparate treatment of two posters who broke the same rules.
I think I'll accept your offer to go elsewhere, just as I did when the same unfair treatment and abuse of power occured at Packing.org, where moderators/owners felt free to verbally abuse posters with whom they disagreed, but banned anyone who protested their hypocrisy, however mildly.
Goodbye.
Hrmmm.
ReplyDelete"Anyone can come on the forum and share their opinion as long as they abide by the rules we have set down. If you happen to feel that what they have said is misinformation or lies you are welcome to think that. Like most forums we do not fact-check everyone's post."
Do you allow members to fact check someone's posts? And to post the results of the fact checking, even if the result is that the original poster is demostrated a liar? And would that be considered a personal attack, or would only ending the fisking with "therefore, you sir are a liar" constitute the attack? ;]
"Double standard? No. Do we take in to account a person's past actions and history? Yes.
I do not have your animous towards Mr. Haas, I do know what he has posted and how he has acted in the time he has been a member on the forum."
If you don't know how someone's acted in the time he's been a member of your forum, how do you "take in to account a person's past actions and history".
I'm not a layman in this, Paul. I'm a professional forum admin, moderator, and community troubleshooter, and I'm reading your responses from that perspective. They don't pass the smell test.
I know in general terms the posting history of the various members of the online communities in which I work, especially those in forums I moderate. If I *don't* know for some reason, I research and find out before making a judgement call: we have something called a "search feature" that allows me to pull up all the posts of a member via their profile, plus an admin screen that allows me to check and see what warnings or other member history they have. [In the case of a longer term member like Mike Haas would seem to be on your board].
I'm a not going to call you a liar. It is sufficient that your own posts demonstrate you to be an incompetent forum admin.
". The implication is that if you or someone feels the person 'deserves' it then 'less than flattering ways' (I call that rude or insulting, again a difference of views) are appropriate or acceptable."-Paul.
ReplyDeleteNo, Paul, that is not the implication. However, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and allowing as how you might actually believe that. There is a big but, though. The but is this. You seem to not be a principled man. I could be wrong, but if the implication you drew was that a thing is to be judged right, wrong, appropriate, inappropriate, etc. based upon one's feelings for the practitioner or perpetrator, then I must assume that you do not adhere to principle since, it seems, you cannot imagine such in another.
I have known people I liked very much that were scoundrels, I did not need to indulge in the myth of moral equivalence to make myself comfortable with it. On the other hand I have known people I disliked very much, but whom I had to respect for their good character, honesty and principle. Both such things, thankfully, are anomalies in my life, but they have happened.
My opinions of the actions of either had nothing at all to do with whether or not I liked them or agreed with them.
I may at some point find myself in agreement with you on some subject, that agreement will be based on the principles I abide, principles long established, before the specific issue would have been raised. That you seem to not understand that, but rather, believe that one's opinion as to what is appropriate depends upon his agreement with the speaker speaks more about you than it does others.
That is an argument of moral equivalence you are making. Moral equivalence is belief that all things and actions are no better or no worse than others and therefore all are to be respected and observed, at least as far as the extension of courtesy and acceptance.
Or, if you are not making the argument, yourself, you are accusing others of violating that "gentlemen's agreement". I freely admit I violate that agreement constantly. You seem to be upset at a violation of the rules of moral equivalence. That is what I came away with from your second post in response.
I sincerely hope that is not so, but to date, I can interpret your statements no other way. A ship with no rudder always ends up in the rocks and shoals. Moral equivalence is a ship with no rudder.
I promised myself I wouldn't respond again. I had addressed this and told Mr. Codrea that he was welcome to contact me regarding his ban. Since we (the posters I've seen here and I) seem to have fundamental differences on some points but shared a common concern for the continuation and restoration of our Second Amendment rights no more good could come from causing infighting amongt those with common goals.
ReplyDeleteHowever I do feel compelled to address a few points before I leave you to your blog.
"Ironbear said...
Do you allow members to fact check someone's posts? And to post the results of the fact checking, even if the result is that the original poster is demostrated a liar? And would that be considered a personal attack, or would only ending the fisking with "therefore, you sir are a liar" constitute the attack? ;]"
If someone feels another member is in error they are more than welcome to provide evidence that the member is wrong. What I expect is that we give our fellow members the benefit of the doubt that they are misinformed or unaware. The accusation of 'You are lying' no longer addresses the innaccuracies of the information but attacks the character of the poster. This is where we have a problem.
"Double standard? No. Do we take in to account a person's past actions and history? Yes.
I do not have your animous towards Mr. Haas, I do know what he has posted and how he has acted in the time he has been a member on the forum."
If you don't know how someone's acted in the time he's been a member of your forum, how do you "take in to account a person's past actions and history".
Either we have a miscommunication or a misinterpretation here. In the quoted text I said 'I do know what he has posted and how he has acted in the time he has been a member on the forum.' I'm not sure whether your comment of 'If you don't know how someone's acted in the time he's been a member of your forum' addresses Mr Haas or Mr Codrea so we'll take them in order. As I said above I do know Mr Haas' record and post history, this allows for consideration of known character in dealing with him. I do not know Mr Codrea and I have no history to refer to on the forum to indicate character and only have his first post to consider.
I know in general terms the posting history of the various members of the online communities in which I work, especially those in forums I moderate. If I *don't* know for some reason, I research and find out before making a judgement call: we have something called a "search feature" that allows me to pull up all the posts of a member via their profile, plus an admin screen that allows me to check and see what warnings or other member history they have. [In the case of a longer term member like Mike Haas would seem to be on your board].
Based on this I am going to assume, yes I know it's dangerous to do so, that our comment above If you don't know how someone's acted in the time he's been a member of your forum, how do you "take in to account a person's past actions and history". Is a misread of my original post wherein I said "I do know what he has posted and how he has acted in the time he has been a member on the forum." I have misread things more than I care to admit so I will attribute this to simple error rather than animous.
There is more I would like to address but my time is short and there are many other demands on it.
In closing I will repeat one more time my offer to Mr Codrea to contact me to disuss this. In all honesty even if we who are posting comments here either come to agree on everthing or decide we are diametrically oposed on everything that still won't resolve the issue for Mr Codrea.
As stated above this is the first I've heard of Mr Codrea, based on the responses here it seems he is a vocal advocate of the Second Amnedment and for that I applaud him.
I do know Mr Haas and am intimately aware of the efforts and success' we in Calfornia have had in the last year working as a team, Calguns, the NRA and Mr Haas.
The two most important things this last year has taught me is that when we as gun owners work together towards a common goal we are powerful force and can reach beyond our individal grasp. It has also shown me that for all of the hurdles placed in front of us by liberal politicians, media groups and anti-gun groups nothing is more detrimental or damaging to us and our cause then when we work to destroy each other rather than together.
It is clear there are differing views on how we are to achive our goal, we may not always agree on every point. But we do need at least a certain level of cooperative interaction or we will lose.
We have to learn to look past our differences in the small things and see the bigger picture where we are all working for that common goal.
It seems I have become a bit wordy here and gone a bit afield.
I guess the easiest thing to say is that you are welcome to disagree with what I have written and how things work on Calguns but do try to remember that in spite of our differences we are working towards a common goal.
Goodbye and good luck in yor future battles.
Paul
David,
ReplyDeleteIt is a wonder that it took this long for you to run into this idiot as I remember posters to the newsgroup tx.guns asking him, then telling him, repeatedly, to only post items related to Texas and Guns- quick hint, he did neither. As for proof that Mike Hass is an idiot, I offer three links for everyone, and that includes Paul, the owner of CalGuns.Net, to see what is blatantly obvious to anyone with eyes and even a rudimentary command of the English language, read the first link and pay VERY close attention to the sidebar:
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/nraila-v-rkba.html
Here is the last sentence from that sidebar:
“Haas video taped the infamous Kayne Robinson boast that NRA would be working out of the White House if Bush was elected. After Haas marketed that video on his Web site, HCI purchased a copy to give to the media who used it heavily against Bush.”
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=mike+hass&qt_s=Search
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=ke668hsAAABmsKE9Q7Z7rG9v-DoFwyQSf65gyCeQxAJryodY2HDd_Q
WP
Here is the gunzone link.
ReplyDeleteHere is the first google groups link.
Here is the google groups 2nd link.
I'd venture to bet that Paul's stance on the Second Amendment closely resembles the one he has displayed concerning the First.....
ReplyDeleteRock on David C!! If you need a cluebat to beat a few of these numbskulls over the head with, I have a few you can borrow!!
ReplyDeleteThe last time I listened to the kind of tripe Paul is putting out I was supposed to be holding a sack at a snipe hunt.
ReplyDelete"Anyone can come on the forum and share their opinion as long as they abide by the rules we have set down. If you happen to feel that what they have said is misinformation or lies you are welcome to think that. Like most forums we do not fact-check everyone's post."
ReplyDeleteYour reply confirms my accusation. I'll take the impolite truth, any day.
Paul, you have allowed one of your forum members to attack me personally with not only insults, but also blatant and demonstrable lies.
ReplyDeleteYou have allowed those lies to remain posted on your site, even though my rebuttal demonstrated the falsehood of Haas' accusations.
Your high-sounding words notwithstanding, you can keep your forum, Paul. I have no interest in doing anything other than defending my name and reputation, which I have done. That Haas is not man enough to come forward and address the points I made in my rebuttal is all the satisfaction I need. And that you, apparently, aren't interested in determining the truth of this matter tells me that having nothing to do with your forum is no great loss.
David, I hope you don't waste one more second on the likes of Haas. He was a spineless liar many years ago, and he clearly has not changed.
ReplyDeleteAngel Shamaya
David,
ReplyDeleteI quit the NRA years ago as it was and is a tremendous waste of money. There exists enough evidence from the US Senate, the writings of the Founding Fathers and others to successfully prove in court that the Second Amendment is an individual right that cannot be infringed. If the NRA had ever wanted to they could have proven the NFA and the GCA were entirely unconstitutional. The fact is they did not, and do not want to do that. For some reason I do not understand, they want to look "acceptable" and "mainstream" instead of standing for the unvarnished truth. In short, they have sold out to political correctness (read political and social cowards). The whole reason Wayne Fincher is in jail now is because the NRA won't do what it says it does. The Founders would have horse-whipped the leadership of the NRA for their hypocrisy.
Screw the Founding Fathers. They’ve been dead for 200 years. People like you Paul who spout this sort of crap are the reason we have gun control in this country. You are the problem, not NRA. Sitting around whining about how things are unconstitutional or quoting bullshit from the Founding Fathers accomplishes nothing. The Constitution is just a piece of paper. If you don’t have the desire and ability to elect people who respect it, your opinions mean nothing. There’s a reason GOA has negligible political influence and others like JPFO have zero. If you think the 2A is an individual right then explain in detail your plan for electing people who agree with you. If you think this Fincher guy has gotten shafted, then explain in detail your plan for electing judges who agree with you.
ReplyDelete"Screw the founding fathers"
ReplyDeleteListen to Jacob. He's part of the solution.
See the wonderful example he and his friends have achieved in New York, and their counterparts have achieved in California.
The solution is elections--except you can't vote based on principle, because that's "a wasted vote"--so you have to choose between the lesser of two weasels or you're again part of the problem.
Continue chasing sterile queen bees.
What a compelling AND convincing argument, not to mention such an inviting approach.
So, Jacob--when your "elected" representatives order you to turn 'em in, will you? What I'm looking for is whether or not you have a line in the sand.
If your only solution is "majority rule," that is, two wolves and a sheep, and if "we" lose, oh well, then I'm afraid I can't sympathize. If you have a point where you would advocate disobedience, defiance and resistance as a backup should your attempts at civility fail, then I'm all ears.
If the argument is where that line should appropriately be drawn, we can have a debate, but probably not a very civil one based on your arrogant attitude. If the argument is we cave in to ignorant superior numbers, then you've lost me.
So you volunteered to jump in this pool, Jacob. Show us how deep you're willing to dive.
Your “wasted vote” is nothing but a cop out and an excuse for doing nothing. Same with “civil disobedience.” You have a wonderful goal but no real practical plan on how to achieve it. That’s why people don’t take you seriously. Ditto for GOA, JPFO, etc, etc.
ReplyDeleteIf you feel you only have a choice between two weasels, then what exactly is your plan to introduce an alternative to the electorate? I don’t believe you have one. Ideas count for nothing unless you have a will and a way to implement them. You don’t.
I'll be happy to answer that, Jacob, because I have before, several times. But that's not the way things are done here--you don't get to keep asking questions and ignoring ones put to you.
ReplyDeleteTell us about your line in the sand first, Jacob. What will you do should your "democracy" let you down? (As if it hasn't already.)
You’re continuing to try and change the subject won’t work with me. There’s no need to appeal to the lunatic fringe with your implications of armed rebellion either Dave as your credentials are already well established with them just as Mike Haas’ are with the sycophants who believe NRA can do no wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou have lofty goals without the slightest clue as to how to implement them.
I'm not changing the subject, Jacob, you're avoiding it. What do you think the Second Amendment is for?
ReplyDeleteBut look, if you want to admit that you have no line in the sand and continue with name-calling, go for it--we're both appealing for hearts and minds here--let's see what your approach gets you, seeing as how you're so much more effective and influential than I am. If you think the regulars here are lunatics, you haven't a clue as to the caliber of people who frequent this site, nor what goes on here.
I'm not going on with this until you answer my questions. If there is no "or else" behind your "shall not be infringed," then they are merely hollow words to you--your enemies won't respect you, so I see no reason why I should pay any attention, either.
I haven't had time to read all the comments, but I read the first one.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe that the owner of Calguns had never heard of you, and I suspect Paul tried to get away with a complete lie. I can think of at least 5 occasions when your name came up in a derogatory manner, and I'm not on that site nearly as much as the owner would (should) be. (I should also note that these derogatory posts were met with no challenge or warning.)
As to Calguns' policy on banning, I've seen people be extremely disrespectful, and still get several warnings before being banned. This leads me to believe that some moderator (if not Paul) knew you, and gave you the boot instantly because he didn't like your politics.
It's crap, and I will no longer be supporting Calguns with donations.
Keep voicing the unpopular opinions David, it's important to hear them!
If any Calgunners wish to express their opinions on the board, the thread with the deleted post is in the 2nd amendment legal board under the thread "If this is true... More Trouble Ahead. :("
ReplyDeleteMake sure the mods know how we feel.
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteScrew the Founding Fathers? How about screw the U.S. Constitution or screw the USA or screw freedom and liberty while you are at it.
The GOA and JPFO may not have the "political influence" that the NRA has, but you grossly underestimate the work that they do.
You also grossly underestimate the benefit of having a "line in the sand". Whether we are talking about the actions of common criminals or the evil actions of governments it is the "line in the sand" that let those evil people know what they cannot get away with. And when there is no "line in the sand" then there is nothing that they can't get away with. Do you doubt that the most evil atrocities that we have witnessed in the 20th and 21st century were a result of evil people doing what they believed they could get away with? Have we seen any cases of genocide occuring where the people had both the means and the will to resist?
I do have the desire to elect people to government who respect the Constitution. But, I also know that evil prevails where the means and will does not exist to resist it. And yes, that includes the great ole USA. Luckily, we are a nation that was founded by courageous and wise men, who did have the means and the will to resist tyranny and they set about forming a country with a Constitution that they hoped would keep government in check and would not allow government to take away the peoples' means or will to resist tyranny.
As for your "plans" to elect politicians who respect the U.S. Constitution, I wish you well, and hope you succeed. In fact, I have been active in this myself.
If however, that is the extent of your "plan" then I am afraid that it falls quite short of that which is required. Your post seems to imply that you believe people who are willing to draw a line are part of the problem. If this is true then you have really lost the big picture. That is the very reason for the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
Having firearms to resist tyranny is completely useless unless there also exists the will to use them to defend freedom. We as Americans should not be embarrassed about our 2nd Amendment or about our "line in the sand."
Unknown to many people, the citizens of Iraq were a very well armed people. Yet, they did not have the will to resist tyranny. They did not have the historical background of the U.S., and therefor they did nothing in the face of evil.
Our Constitution is being diminished to nothing but a piece of paper, and our will to resist tyranny is being attacked as well. So, go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back, but just remember if the worst fears of gun owners are ever realized it will be those who are willing to "draw that line" that will be the last defense of freedom and liberty in the U.S., if not the entire world.
Jacob said...
ReplyDelete"Screw the Founding Fathers. They’ve been dead for 200 years."
Do you even have the slightest comprehension of what a Constitution is? Or, the intention of a Bill of Rights? It was meant that there NEVER should have been any voting on certain things. One, in particular, was the God-given, Inherent and inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
We are past the same type of scenario that caused the founders to revolt to begin with. The ONLY choice that is being left to us is revolt. The fact that we haven't, shows how peaceable and long-suffering We The People are.
The NRA is just a shill organization that has had influence in almost every usurpation of our 2A enumerated Right - a PREEXISTENT Natural Right. Its membership is chock full of politicians whom are Negotiating our Rights Away. They are a treasonous organization that needs reformed or dismantled.
David, and others, are doing their best to awaken our fellow citizens to the danger of what the treasonous vipers are doing to us. This is being done in a Constitutional manner; by exercising the First Amendment. (And this, in hopes that the Second won't have to be employed out of necessity.
You come off more as part of the problem, and none of the solution....
Let's review the bidding.
ReplyDelete1. Gun rights columnist David Codrea finds out the Bush administration adopted a collective rights "interpretation" of 2A, thus overturning the earlier, albeit weak, "individual rights" position of Bush's former AG Ashcroft.
2. Codrea publishes this fine investigative journalism on his site, The War on Guns
3. On Christmas, 2006 at 7:24 pm, "aileron" posts that news on the calguns bulletin board, citing Codrea's article:
"If This is true... More Trouble Ahead."
4. 78 minutes later, "damon1272" posts a reply that relates to the issue: "If this is true then let the impeachment proceedings proceed!"
5. Within a minute, still on Christmas at 8:45 pm, Mike Haas posts the second reply, a diversionary ad hominem smear against David Codrea and other loyal, accomplished gun rights volunteers. Not content with his initial Christmas smear, Haas tunes it up overnight, posting a final edit at 5:55 am Dec 26. Haas never mentions the timely collective rights policy issue, focusing exclusively on personal smear.
Haas' post is classic ad hominem: Argument "to the man"; a dishonorable, contemptible, cowardly method of argument. Classic ad hominem is more than just personal attack; it's personal attack that serves to evade, divert attention from, prevent discussion of an issue. It tricks weak, gullible minds into blurring the distinction between the message and the messenger, into believing that a fact or an argument should not be considered or discussed on intrinsic merits, but should be dismissed, disbelieved, or ignored when the bearer is disparaged.
Haas' post dumped on the Golden Rule, on Christmas no less.
Turnabout is fair play. By launching vicious personal attacks, in all fairness and justice, Haas opened the door to observations on his own character, ethics, methods, trustworthiness, veracity, and loyalty to the cause he purports to fight for.
6. Codrea responds on calguns.net. His response was suppressed by Haas' pals at calguns.net, but it can be seen at The War on Guns
It would be reasonable to expect Codrea to defend himself against a smear, harshly if not in kind. Codrea was justifiably harsh, yet he did NOT engage in classic ad hominem. In fact, it was not in essence a personal attack. Codrea's response was justified, non-diversionary; and continued to address the original topic. After Haas' smear, there were several new legitimate subjects for Codrea to address in the thread, with the new ones all introduced or invited by Haas. The fair game subjects included:
a. The original subject. b. Haas' smears. c. The defense to Haas' smears. d. The relation between Haas' smears and the original subject (diversion; personal attack to prevent discussion of an important 2A issue). e. Haas' history of smears and ad hominem attacks. f. Where Haas is coming from with this.
Haas opened the door; Codrea justifiably stepped through it. It's unreasonable and unjust to expect Codrea to defend himself against Haas' smear without implicitly addressing how it relates to Haas' character.
7. Moderator "Paul" protects Haas and suppresses Codrea's calguns post on grounds that are nonsensical, hypocritical, unreasonable and unjust. Paul's basic cover story is that Codrea used his first post to personally attack Haas, as if Codrea had registered for calguns for the purpose of attacking Haas, as opposed to, say, defending himself against Haas' smear.
That's rich. What was Codrea supposed to do after being smeared, register, wait a year, post on 200 other topics before responding? What a crock!
And while banning Codrea from calguns - punishing the victim for the crime of the victimizer - Paul leaves Haas' post in place as if it were not a personal attack, and he continues to allow participants to attack Codrea.
Meanwhile, squire Paul makes a phony offer to let Codrea plead his case privately to Paul, for the implausibly deniable ability to throw up his hands and claim it was really Codrea's decision not to respond, Codrea's fault that he's still banned from calguns.
To accept Paul's absurd rationalizations, a vicious smear is ok, as long as Paul has known you for a while, but an evaluation of a smear is not acceptable as the first post of a guy who got smeared. Vicious ad hominem against gun rights champions is ok in Paul's forum, as long as you claim your motive is to work against divisiveness in the gun rights community. And so on. Cowardly double standards and doublethink standards. How many calgun participants recognize the underlying assumption here that they're either imbecilic enough to fall for this nonsense, unethical enough to play along, or cowardly enough to say nothing?
I used to think such MO as Orwellian doublethink, double standards, self-righteous spin, and ad hominem smear were the province of Bolsheviks, Nazis, and similar scum - particularly the technique of pre-emptively accusing others of evils the accuser is perpetrating. But over the last dozen years or so I've come to realize that these days the most skilled and shameless perpetrators of such contemptible behavior come from the ranks those who portray themselves as zealous conservatives.
Paul is either an accomplice or a tool of this smear and its coverup on calguns. Which is it? Why ask Codrea to contact him privately? Why not do the right thing and either delete Haas' posts on the grounds of personal attack, or publish Codrea's responses?
And sheesh, Christmas day! What's the deal?
Should I picture a dyspeptic, malevolent, prevaricating creep, fed up with all that Christmas spirit and goodwill to men, finger twitching over the ENTER key for an hour, knowing it may be a bit too much if the first reply to a news item consists solely of gratuitous personal attacks and falsehoods on the original source. Is Haas so full of hatred towards Codrea that he can't wait until after Christmas to exploit an opportunity to smear anyone associated with him, on a forum where Haas knows he'll be protected by his pals?
Or is it that Haas doesn't want anyone discussing the news that Bush adopted a collective rights "interpretation" of the 2A? If so,
Why are Haas & pals willing to smear to keep the news on this collective rights "interpretation" from being discussed?
Are they protecting -- at the expense of the 2A cause -- the people responsible for the new collective rights "interpretation" because those people call themselves "conservatives" or "republicans"?
Or are they protecting the collective rights "interpretation" itself? After all, Haas ridicules and attacks Codrea and others for supporting civil disobedience instead of legitimizing false authority and knuckling under to constitutionally subversive gun laws. But how far is Haas' position in favor of obeying all gun laws and gun bans and gun confiscation orders - however unconstitutional (and thus void) - how far is that from having no rights at all, let alone from having a mere "collective right"? "Collective right". What a communist-sounding concept that is!
Codrea's position is the constitutional one, loyal to the clear intent of the framers and the spirit of 1776. Haas' position is the subversive, false-authority-worshipping, constitutionally subversive one. It would not surprise me to learn he's willing to support a collective rights "interpretation" promulgated by "conservatives".
Codrea's the one with the intelligence, courage, confidence, and conviction to let Paul and Haas and their pals post on Codrea's site -- even after they censored Codrea's response to personal attacks on theirs. Paul and his crowd are the ones using cowardly, unethical, transparently nonsensical justifications for wielding their awesome powers to prevent Codrea from defending himself in their playpen. Instead they should be pressuring Bush to repudiate the "collective rights interpretation" of the 2A--which is what Codrea is doing.
8. I won't be surprised if I get smeared now, but don't expect me to respond on calguns. I have better things to do with my time than waste it at the Circle-J Ranch, and my response would be deleted anyway.
Russ Howard - WOW! Hat tip, SIR! Am humbled, and in awe at your well written post. Good show.....
ReplyDelete> You have a wonderful goal but no real practical plan on how to achieve it.
ReplyDeleteBe that as it may, "Jacob", I don't see you volunteering to devise one for us.
Neither do we have any burden to devise one that *you* must approve of.
Your last name wouldn't happen to be "Wormtongue", would it?
Mark Odell
Very nice work, Russ. Absolutely accurate. You have posited exactly the reasons I told Paul I didn't believe him. He isn't trustworthy. No one intelligent bought that organic fertilizer dripping from his keyboard.
ReplyDeleteYou did a perfect job of laying him open for a look at the corruption spreading through the corpus.
Long-time pal "Froggy" re-posted a "sanitized" version of my deleted Calguns post on their forum.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the length, it's in two parts:
Part One
Part Two
You might want to get to 'em before Paul does, although let's hope he leaves them up just to prove how fair he is. I'll be occasionally checking up on them to see if there's anything posted that's worth further comment.
Thanks David, E David & Straightarrow.
ReplyDeleteNote, "Let's review the bidding" quotes a Turow character-Cr where due. Meant to attribute, but ran out of time; which is also why it's not shorter (Twain)
-Russ Howard
It'll take me some time to wade through the folderol over at Calguns, and I nearly ended the perusal upon seeing a Moderator's avatar; a boy swinging police batons isn't necessarily a laugh riot, but for one placed in a position of authority it does speak volumes about who these guys are, or believe themselves to be. Does appear that the ever sacrosanct NRA is above reproach over there, and why doesn't it surprise me that California breeds such gun owners who seem to enjoy wearing blinders.
ReplyDeleteAnyhoot, good job, David.
"I have misread things more than I care to admit so I will attribute this to simple error rather than animous." - Paul
ReplyDeleteYup. My wrong - for some reason, my eyes inserted a "not" in between the "I do" and the "know".
Possibly because the rest of your responses suggested a "not"? *shrug*
Rest still stands: you don't seem to be a very competent forum admin. No makey. The 'net is full of forums, and it doesn't bother me to discover one more I can cross off my list of places to join.