Psychiatric evaluation to exercise a constitutional right? Lovely.

:haha::har::rotfl2:

So you want to continue this? Okay. I don't speak for anyone else. That said, if it's what you want I'll give you my take on you.

You're a nice guy. So is Skybird. So is Tribesman. I've made observations on them. That said, everybody has their opinions. Mine is that I'm usually wrong. Yours seems to be that you're usually right. That, to me, is dangerous. The guy who "knows" he's right can't deal with the possibility that he might not be. As I said, on one thread you can be reasonable and even logical. Sometimes. In my opinion you don't seem to understand how logic really works, or how debate really works. You say what seems reasonable to you, up to a point. When challenged enough you get your dander up and start to become antagonistic. When someone points that out you become defensive. Defense mode then leads to attack mode. When someone responds in kind you become downright hostile. Someone is always attacking you, never the other way around. And this is all because you don't seem to understand give and take.

Have you ever been wrong? Have you ever admitted that you might be wrong? Debate involves exploring an issue, not just making pronouncements on it.

The next time you jump on the Constitution bandwagon in defense of your opinions, remember this: The Constitution, every single word of it, was the result of compromise. I'm not saying we should compromise our rights or our freedoms, just that to truly grasp the situation you need to see it from the other side as well.

Oh, and "Reading comprehension FTW" is exactly the kind of arrogant, snarky attitude we were talking about.

Says the guy who said he'd drop it but then brings it back up again by taking offense at a statement that wasn't even directed at him.

I didn't ask you for your take on me Steve. Nor have I asked for your condescending lecture on the constitution so you and Takeda can go bother someone else. I'm done with you both.

Close enough to pass as being correct. Though I would maintain that the magazine capacity is irrelevant when talking about Assault Rifles. Though i do wonder what you consider "high capacity" verses what you would consider a "normal capacity" magazine.

I didn't realize anyone was actually arguing for the possession real assault rifles. I know I never have. However people are arguing about rifles based on the civilian version of Armalite Rifle No. 15. Regarding that, I found a very humorous justification.

Also correct. Assault rifles don't grow on trees. You just can't go down to your local gunshop and buy one. They are rare, and incredibly expensive.

Yeah, you have to jump through hoops to get a class 3 as it is already. Fingerprints, mug shots, the whole ball of wax.

When was the last time an assault rifle was used in a shooting anyway? Off the top of my head, I think that was the north Hollywood shootout. Interestingly, the 1994 assault weapons ban was in effect at the time. Clearly it was working wonders. :rolleyes:


Yes sir, it is called the Bill of Rights. Not the "bill of needs". I find myself rather tired of politicians wiping their asses with it.

Useful reading. :arrgh!:

http://www.crucialconversationsapp.com/

Crucial conversations blog app? :timeout:

Well said.

How does a comment made directly to me not directed at me, even indirectly?

Even when I back you up on other things? But fair enough.

"Directly to you? I think you better go back and see who I was quoting. It's post #97 if you forget.

No because I never know when you'll turn and start lecturing me for something that you misunderstood, like you are now. Go back and read that post. It's pretty clear who I was talking to.

Ah, I see what's gone wrong here.

The phrase 'I find you both biased and judgmental' has potentially been mistaken to refer to two people as opposed to two adjectives.

That being said though, the snide comment of 'Reading comprehension FTW' was uncalled for in the circumstances. A simple pointing out of the mistake made would have sufficed in my opinion, but what is done is done.

He knows that Oberon, just like he knew the first time I explained it to him.

But that is par for the course for him and Takeda. They tag team people, deliberately trying to irritate them into saying something they can take action against. I've been around here for many years now and i've seen them do it to quite a few people.

Such as?

You know I have a terrible memory and i'm sure that I can't give you accurate enough details so I withdraw the "many other people" part, but they have done it to me twice now. That much I can say.

The problem really is that they make personal posts from a moderators bully pulpit. Special moderators icon and all. That's just wrong in my opinion and i'll do whatever I can to make Neal see that as well.

Yes, I knew what you meant. I only responded for myself, admitting that I'm not perfect. I don't speak for others.

Except for the times I've stood against him, and we've had confrontations over that. No one tag-teams anybody. That we happen to make the same observations or that we feel the same way about something is not the same thing.

I've disagreed with many people on many subjects. Unlike Takeda, I happen to agree with you more often than not. I made the observations I did because I believe them to be true. I could be wrong, but that's how I feel about it. The difference I see is one I mentioned earlier. People have said things about the way I post sometimes, and I always think about it and I'm always ready to admit that I'm wrong. I don't always do it as well as I could, but I do try. So I'll ask again: Can you name a time when you've ever looked at your own posting habits and thought you might be wrong? Have you ever apologized to anyone for anything. I'm not saying I think that makes me better, just that I admit the possibility. I could even be wrong here. Could you?

So you're telling me that you responded to a post that was made to another person like it was made to you even though you knew it wasn't. Even edited it to make it look like I was talking to you, and then have the nerve to lecture me on my opinions? You're a real piece of work there bud.

Yes I do that all the time.
Yes I have.
Yes I could, but based on our "discussion" today I don't think so.

I can see where you're coming from, it's a bit like wearing a uniform, when you're wearing it what you say is a representation of whatever service you are wearing the uniform of, rather than a personal opinion. That's something that has gotten a lot of people in real life into trouble as well and caused a lot of anger.
However I don't think that either of them are using their 'uniform' as a shield to hide behind, in fact I think both of them would say exactly the same things without it, if I'm honest.
I believe, that when Takeda speaks as a moderator he signs his post with 'The management' as so:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/sear...archid=1537529

So, as long as it doesn't have 'The Management' attached to the end of the post, I think it's safe to assume that Takeda is speaking his personal opinion and not that of Subsim, likewise he is not acting in moderator fashion.

That being said, the breakdown in communications that has lead to this situation is from all parties, Takeda, Steve and yourself, it's like a cycle, one snide remark may lead to one in return, which creates a retaliatory response and we slowly climb the escalation ladder until someone gets brigged and/or the thread gets locked. I think that we have all got a little personal in the recent threads, and I think that all the members involved need to just step back and maintain a respectful distance from each other until the emotions and tempers have passed.

Just remember the old quote by a very wise old man:

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

I have no doubt that both of them speak from the heart. Just when they start mixing the personal with the official.

He didn't use that once today before he infracted me for defending myself against his personal attack. Maybe he just forgot.

I appreciate what you're trying to do Ob and thank you. I've put the matter to Neal. He's a fair man. We'll see what he says about it once he has a chance to check it out.

Now that's just plain dishonest. You were infracted because you chased me into another thread, hijacked it and continued to fight with me, even after I posted a very specific warning. I didn't want to infract you, as you had been here since 2005 with a clean record but you forced my hand. And you can ask the other moderators; I wasn't happy about having to do it.

Now, I haven't been involved in this thread for awhile now, but I won't stand for falsehood. I know what I did, and it was both correct and within the bounds of moderation.

Yeah like you never moved one of your arguments between threads.

Whether you think i'm being dishonest or not you did not use the title Ob said you used.

I want you out as moderator. I'll continue to advocate for just that.