[12-34hom]

Been busy here for quite awhile, just got off duty and wandered here to read up.

Got a PM from Riy, saying she had been banned from this site. She explained her reasons for her post and other interesting tidbits.

For those who PMed her and got crude, insulting, or just plain stupid = congratulations are in order.

Your stereotypical actions go along way in galvanizing your image, as redneck morons.

To whomever banned her = another bright move. Someone comes along with an alternative view, posts it - is run out on the INTERNET's "virtual rail".

Are we all that threatened by someone who's views don't exactly coincide with are beliefs? Some here [to their credit] offered alternative answers, in a civil manner. I would hope that's the type of light we as responsible firearms owners extend to those who don't see eye to eye with our beliefs.

The fella who owns and runs this site, fled from a repressive type goverment, who controlled and stifled free speech & thoughts. How ironic that the very site he now controls adopts these same measures for those who don't hold beliefs that mirror his own or others that monitor these posts.

I guess the apple really does not fall far from the tree....

12-34hom.

[H088]

This is a forum about guns, not a forum about why guns are bad. You should go over to the Brady forum if there is one and start posting BS.

She was nothing but a troll who tried to threaten people - "Oh my God we need to suck up to her view or else she will take our guns"

I found her post laughable.

[Harvster]

This is not the free speech forum. It never has been. The owners and moderators of this site try to keep things on topic (gun related) and conducted in a mostly civil manner. They seem to do a pretty fine job. Threads get locked all the time for not adhering to site policies. There are many different forums out there for all points of view on any topic you choose. People (thousands) come to this site for a reason. And, postings this to insult members and the moderators is probably a good way to get on the banned wagon yourself.

As indicated in her post tile "first and probably last post...." it wasn't about participating. It was more of a drive by rant. I think reasonable discussion is fine but just coming on to post a rant is pure troll behavior as defined by forums everywhere.

[mike101]

I got a PM from her too, so I'll second what 12-34hom said.

The antis have been invited to participate by management. Yet, on the rare occasions one actually shows up and reveals themselves, they are dumped all over and insulted...........then banned, apparently.

This is the kind of treatment people like us receive at Huffington Post, or any number of other anti-rights blogs. I thought we were supposed to be better than they are.

I'm not sure what Riy's reasons were for posting here, but she behaved properly and was not insulting. Whoever banned her was out of line, as was anyone who sent her a nasty email.

The only thing I can figure is that some here are just can't handle an anti. An anti shows up, and they are scared to death of them. To them I say, 'butch up, Nancy'.

AGAIN, they have been invited here, so what's your problem?

Nice work.

[Treo]

The post that I read compared most THR members to child molesters & made veiled threats to disarm us.

My question to those that are defending her actions is " What is her conection to you? Why would she pick you two to PM especially the OP who apparently hasn't been here for a while.

I'm also kind of curious how someone who is banned could log in to PM you to tell you they're banned

Enquiring minds want to know.

[mike101]

"Everyone is welcome to participate, regardless of political affiliation, gender, religion, nationality, or stance on gun ownership. We aim to respect every point of view, as long as it is presented in a polite and factual manner."

From the forum rules, in case you forgot.

"The post that I read compared most THR members to child molesters & made veiled threats to disarm us."

I must have missed that part. I'll have to go over it again.

"My question to those that are defending her actions is " What is her conection to you? Why would she pick you two to PM especially the OP who apparently hasn't been here for a while."

Oh, well I'm an anti-gun troll who has been deceiving everyone for the last two years. It's a Brady Bingo Bunch conspiracy. Black helicopters and everything. Was that supposed to be a serious question?

By the time I saw her post, it had been locked. I sent her a PM first, saying I admired her courage for coming here, instead of skulking around in the bushes like most of them.

[mike101]

PS. I just tried to read her post again, but it's gone. Her name has also been deleted from the members list, so yes, she's been banned.

I wonder if some of the Huffpo moderators are not moonlighting here.

Hey, where's 'Preachy Guy'? He likes to give some of us a hard time for playing harball with the antis, when they deserve it. Even on the Brady Blog, he was beating me over the head with "the high road this" and the "high road that". Apparently he believes in turning the other cheek.

Well, Preachy Guy, how high-road is it to be sending an anti insulting and/or threatening PMs, and bouncing her out of here in no time flat?

Hey all of you, don't you get a little tired of preaching to the chior? Don't you think it's at least a little stimulating to have someone from the Dark Side here to debate with?

[Wayne G.]

"Riy" is gone? What?! No more attention-seeking drama-queen blither?!! YIPPIE!!!

This ain't "The Rant Road" afterall. Moderators must have agreed.

Thanks for sharing the good news!

[Shung]

any proof about her being insulted ? I didnt read anything like that on the original post.

[Titan6]

I got PM's also. I would agree with her more if she had not said that she expected to get attacked when she posted what she did. Seems a troll to me.

Got really tired of her talking about her "feelings" towards guns. Don't care much about her feelings and can't do anything with them if did. I know that this is passionate issue but it requires dispassionate examination, otherwise we would be just like them.

[Shung]

how a banned person can send PM ? this is something I can't understand.

[mike101]

Wayne, I hear ya. But this particular anti is a writer for someone. It wouldn't surprise me to see something of her's on the Brady site, or Huffingblow Post. They're taking pretty much anything they can get, these days.

She sees the foulness that the BC and the antis at Huffpo are always hurling our way. This was a chance to set her straight, and show her that this vitriol is undeserved. We dropped the ball.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe it's because I spend too much time tangling with these people on anti-rights blogs. When one of them comes off like a human being, it disarms me a bit. Maybe.

"Shung- any proof about her being insulted ? I didnt read anything like that on the original post."

I don't recall anything in the thread, but I didn't read all of the replies. It had already been locked when I saw it, but there had to be a record number of replies for a thread that only lasted a day.

She did say that she got a bunch of insulting, and some threatening emails.

As I said, I just tried to reread the thread, but it's gone, and she's gone from the members list.

Titan said:
"Got really tired of her talking about her "feelings" towards guns. Don't care much about her feelings and can't do anything with them if did. I know that this is passionate issue but it requires dispassionate examination, otherwise we would be just like them."

True. But this person, while an anti, was not a raving moonbat, like most of them. I think the emotion in her post was from her issue with her father, who was a member here. As I told her, I think she was unjustly projecting some of the anger she felt toward him on us.

You have to take into account for someone's personal "feelings" when they've had a bad personal experience, whether it inolves guns, or parental abuse, or any kind of negative, traumatizing experience. People are human beings, and they get emotional sometimes. And sexist though this may sound, women tend to be more emotional than men.

I just think that, given the circumstances, it wouldn't have killed us to be a little more understanding.

[dm1333]

The man, despite being revered by virtually all who met him, despite being nearly locally iconic in his role as a neo-classic Texas gentleman rancher, and despite his lifelong devotion to all that is considered sacred by the multitudes of pro-gunners here and elsewhere, was possessed of certain peculiarities of personality that rendered him considerably less beloved in the eyes of those who knew him inside his residence. While I will spare all the burden of a detailed disclosure, let it be known simply that he was not the kind of man that most parents would prefer their children to visit. He was also not the kind of man most parents would wish their daughters to marry. And, despite his public remonstrations regarding gun-control and its' infringement upon responsible, God-fearing American heroes such as himself, he was, as several members of our family might argue, perhaps the last person on the planet that should be afforded the right to own a firearm. I argue that now, as a 38 year-old woman, just as readily as I wish I could have when I was an 11 year-old girl all too familiar with the business ends of my father's various and creatively-employed implements of assault

All I had to do to find her post was use the search function. The bolded sentances were done by me.

[Shung]

good point dim1333

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=371112

she doesn't appear banned neither..

[Titan6]

Well I will open Pandora's Box. Only because she was "banned".

What they going to do ban me?

From a PM:


Me:
Quote:
You have to understand that since you reside on the left side of the fence you deal in a a world of greys while the other side deals mostly in absolutes. You claim to think logically so then tell me; is not logic an exercise in absolutes? There really is not much middle ground if you take a look at the issue dispassionately.

RIY:
I agree. There isn't much middle ground if you are dispassionate in your analysis. That is in fact the reason that I have resisted the internal temptation to this point to advocate gun-control. That doesn't mean however that the temptation isn't real, nor that it isn't pervasive or influential. By conducting themselves in a manner that alienates those who ACKNOWLEDGE having conflicted feelings due to collateral influences, many gun owners bank on the idea that they will never need the support of these people, and that these people will never hurt them. From my perspective, that isn't prudent. Sarah Brady's absence of logic and capitulation to emotion is a glaring example. You may never win the support of someone like Sarah Brady, but you stand a fair chance of winning the support of many people like me. So why would so many here choose to thumb their noses at someone who says they are on the fence? Why do so many of you feel compelled to deride or overtly write off undecided but potentially supportive people simply because they acknowledge who they really are and how they really feel? I have read many posts here. If I said I loved guns, but was schizophrenic, a blackout alcoholic and had robbed a bank ten years ago, there would still be people in my corner. But one can't come here and state that despite the fact I support your position, I have a personal dislike guns for my own reasons without being derided. Good heavens, pro 2A people are derided here simply because they live in California.

I believe that this behavior hurts all of you immeasurably. It certainly doesn't endear you or your politics to most of the middle ground... logic notwithstanding.

I do see some merit in this little tidbit. I see plenty of people here claim bad behavior and still get support. I also see people get booted regardless of their POV on guns so this is not entirely true.

Also while she claimed that all she did was say she was "on the fence" what she really says is "she does not like guns". Kind of like going on a date with someone and saying; "I don't like what you do for a living it makes me uncomfortable", and then trying to finish the date. Seems everybody would be real uncomfortable after a statement like that.

[SCKimberFan]

Was she banned, or was the thread just locked. Maybe she doesn't understand the difference. I read all of the reponses - while there were a few that were antagonistic and condescending toward her, I thought the great majority were thoughtful and well written.

If she chooses to pull the few negative responses and publish them then we will know, but Mom always taught me to give others the benefit of doubt until they proved otherwise.

[dm1333]

Hey all of you, don't you get a little tired of preaching to the chior? Don't you think it's at least a little stimulating to have someone from the Dark Side here to debate with?

THR isn't just about preaching to the choir. Sure, we have Activism and Legal, but we also just have a lot of people looking for information and looking around here just for fun. If she wanted to debate a little and try to educate herself on the issues why did she lurk for a year, start one thread that could be considered to have objectionable content in it, then sit back and not respond? She would have learned more by interacting with the members here on a regular basis. If she really had lurked here for a year she should have seen that there have been some pretty healthy debates here and that the membership is not a homogenous mass of rednecks. Personally I get tired of a few of the members here who seem to have one track minds and who want to debate everything. PM me if you want to here more about that.

[JWarren]

12-34hom wrote:

Your stereotypical actions go along way in galvanizing your image, as redneck morons.


Wow. You speak of stereotypes and then engage in that EXACT action.



I have spoken privately with Riy-- and still have a PM that I need to respond to. Based upon the dialogue that we've have, I can safely conclude that *I* am not one of those "Redneck Morons" you are referring to.


And yet my opinion of you has disintegrated based upon YOUR blantent use of degrogatory stereotypes.

You want to talk about division in the firearms community? You want to talk about reaching out?

And then you show your own prejudices.

Classic.


I find it fascinating that everyone is supposed to be respected-- unless, of course you are a rural Southerner.

You remind me of why I left NYC.




EDIT: Riy's thread was locked, she wasn't "Banned." Her profile comes up on the PMs I have in my "In Box."



-- John

[XD Fan]

Personally, I thought her statements were somewhat disingenuous. She claimed to be a fence sitter, but came off as an entrenched anti. She did not express reasons why she might be moved our way. The thing she said was pushing her toward being an anti was our lack of self-control. It was not about the validity of one position or the other; it was about the fact that, in spite of her claims to attempt give gun owners the benefit of the doubt, she lumps us in with her father and dislikes us as a group. Her post came off as threatening and condescending. The post resulted in several pages of responses to her without much in the way of productive dialogue. The mods allowed a fairly pointless thread to go on for a long while. They were very tolerant.

Additionally, she was threatening in tone with her big dogs comment and did compare us on this board to child abusers when she said:You see, I would wager that among the ranks of this board there are no small number of self-appointed defenders of individual right who, like my father, wear but a very thin gloss of veneer over the churning internal stink of hatred and depravity that is their true being. (Emphasis is mine.)

Also her second post was fairly odd. She took umbrage with the fact that people were annoyed when she would not respond their comments and questions. Her take in this post seemed to be that they should have given her time to respond. Why should they have given her time when she stated that the post would probably be her only post? To throw something out there like her post with no intention of participating in the discussion is fairly trollish behavior.

Has she been banned? There is some evidence to the contrary (e.g. she can PM).

On the other hand, shame on anyone who responded to Riy with threatening or insulting PMs.

[.cheese.]

her profile doesn't say she was banned. I don't think she was.

PS. I just tried to read her post again, but it's gone. Her name has also been deleted from the members list, so yes, she's been banned.

Perhaps you should try again.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=371112 = the original thread merged with the subsequent follow up thread of "I didn't get my reply in before the lock"

http://thehighroad.org/member.php?u=71072 = her public profile (not banned from what I can see)

Personally, I was not around for the whole thing. I took the LSAT that day and then had dinner with a friend. By the time I got home, it was all over and locked. I found her original post to be interesting, and raised some good points similar to the whole Fudd issue we dealt with a while ago. You can't make allies if you work so hard to make enemies. I did think that her statements which bordered on threats were entirely inappropriate. I know many well-connected, powerful, and influential people whether they be women or men - however what I admire most about those that I know is that they are humble and would never try to use their position as a threat.

I invite Riy to discuss her thoughts, and encourage THR members to keep their insults to themselves.

[JWarren]

XD Fan,

I addressed some of her comments and her tone in a couple PM's we've had over the last day or so.

I am satisfied that she spoke poorly and out of some frustration only.

She cited that a few of the people she has spoken with has caused her to reevaluate the entire issue based upon Rights. She, however, cautioned me that she was really referring to the masses of people in this country who do not see this in terms of "Rights."

And she is right in that regard.


Since she is an active member, the best thing we can do is let this thread die. If she has something to say, she can say it. There's no point in having any discussion beyond what we have already.



-- John

[Jorg]

I'm also kind of curious how someone who is banned could log in to PM you to tell you they're banned

One can be "banned" from posting without being "banned" from the site.

See the little box at the bottom right corner of the page where it says "Posting Rules"? Each of those can be turned off per user. Granularity, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

As to whether this particular user is actually prevented from posting or simply considers being unable to reply to a locked thread as being banned, I have no idea. But this forum's software, like most, does allow such restrictions.

[mike101]

I still don't see her name on the members list. Doesn't that mean she was banned?

[TexasRifleman]

Got a PM from Riy, saying she had been banned from this site. She explained her reasons for her post and other interesting tidbits.

For those who PMed her and got crude, insulting, or just plain stupid = congratulations are in order.

Your stereotypical actions go along way in galvanizing your image, as redneck morons.

To whomever banned her = another bright move. Someone comes along with an alternative view, posts it - is run out on the INTERNET's "virtual rail".


You really need to get more familiar with the workings of the Internet, Computers and Discussion Forums before you come unglued.

The post is still there.

The thread only is locked

The OP was not banned.

So now what's left of your argument? Since you have no skills using this forum AT ALL, I'll explain to you what REALLY happened here:

Basically a troll came along, referred to all gun owners as being in the same vein as her father who apparently did something wrong to her, a small percentage of members here were rude and she got mad. She said from her very first post she was not interested in a discussion and had NO plans to ever post again.

You're mad about that? Must be a slow day for you.

As for rude comments in PMs, welcome to the world. I'm not defending what anyone did but THR has a large number of members. In ANY society you will have a small percentage whose behavior is outside what is considered polite. You do not condemn an entire society for the behavior of a few. That is what the anti's want to do, condemn all gun owners for the crimes of a few.

[TexasRifleman]

I still don't see her name on the members list. Doesn't that mean she was banned?

She was active on this site as late as 10:30 yesterday morning. She has only made 2 posts but she is still active.

You've really gotten yourself twisted up over nothing here.

[Eleven Mike]

Your stereotypical actions go along way in galvanizing your image, as redneck morons.

Wow. You speak of stereotypes and then engage in that EXACT action.

He wasn't stereotyping anyone. That's not what he was saying. Calm down a little.

[jrfoxx]

As said, she doesn't look banned to me. From her profile, that anyone can pull up from "advanced search", then searching for user Riy, clicking on one of her 2 posts, etc....


Riy
New Member Last Activity: Yesterday 08:30 AM


So, she shows up as a member, and was logged in just yesterday morning, and her posts, and the thread are not gone. you can get to them with the search engine easily.Heres a link of what come up when you "find all posts by Riy" by clicker her user-name. http://www.thehighroad.org/search.php?searchid=4357664

So, I'd be careful insulting/disparaging the mods and the site owner Oleg.

That said, I'll agree sending nasty or threatening PM's, to ANYONE, is just childish, regardless of anything else. Doesn't matter how it makes "us" or "our cause" look, it's just plain childish and stupid.

She is not blameless herself though, as there were several comments in her post that, at least implied, all THR members, and all gun owners are like her father, and there were a couple comments threat were obvious threats to use her money, power, and influence to fight against us by joining the anti-gun movement, if we weren't careful, not to mention the thread title itself. The post was obvious trolling, insulting, insinuating, and threats. I'm surprised it went on as long as it did before getting locked.Personally, I think that shows the owner's/mods willingness to go a little out of their way to accommodate an opposing side/view.

[Don Lu]

I thought her statements were somewhat disingenuous. She claimed to be a fence sitter, but came off as an entrenched anti.

exactly...

[JWarren]

Quote:
Your stereotypical actions go along way in galvanizing your image, as redneck morons.

Wow. You speak of stereotypes and then engage in that EXACT action.

He wasn't stereotyping anyone. That's not what he was saying. Calm down a little.


Eleven Mike,

Respectfully, I disagree. The usage was to describe and equate an action to an image. The image portrayed itself was degoratory.

It doesn't bother you because our culture has come to accept that stereotype.

Insert ANY other "group" in that and you'd have outrage around here.

Try it yourself. I can think of a few words to insert. Then ask yourself how fast any other one would result in a ban.



-- John

[Landlocked Pirate]

I find it fascinating that everyone is supposed to be respected-- unless, of course you are a rural Southerner.


How true!

[Titan6]

Well for the record this was her stated issue in the mass PM she sent out:

My disappointment was in realizing just how little most people cared to understand the perspective of someone who stated that they didn't agree.

So I guess she was looking for tolerance in her dislike of guns. But expecting tolerance when you are being insulting is a twisted false hope at best. Especially when she is claiming to have looked at the issue from all sides and claimed to understand our POV.

[dcal]

It might be too early for me to be using software, but I did a member search for Riy, and came up with nothing. Deleted account?

[TexasRifleman]

It might be too early for me to be using software, but I did a member search for Riy, and came up with nothing.


Click on advanced search and search "posts by user" over on the right hand side.
It's not deleted, all still there. 2 and only 2 posts though.

Once you have her thread up, click on her name and you can see her profile. Not banned, still active.

[dcal]

TR, clearly it is too early for me to be using software. Thank you!

[mike101]

I'm not twisted up. I'm just not seeing her name on the members list. Not much chance that I'm misspelling Riy.

Thanks for the links to the thread, guys. I never knew you could do a search on a username.

[TexasRifleman]

I'm not twisted up. I'm just not seeing her name on the members list.

In my opinion you have some apologizing to do for this crap you posted earlier, before you learned how to use the search feature.
That was WAY out of line.


PS. I just tried to read her post again, but it's gone. Her name has also been deleted from the members list, so yes, she's been banned.

I wonder if some of the Huffpo moderators are not moonlighting here.

Hey, where's 'Preachy Guy'? He likes to give some of us a hard time for playing harball with the antis, when they deserve it. Even on the Brady Blog, he was beating me over the head with "the high road this" and the "high road that". Apparently he believes in turning the other cheek.

Well, Preachy Guy, how high-road is it to be sending an anti insulting and/or threatening PMs, and bouncing her out of here in no time flat?

Hey all of you, don't you get a little tired of preaching to the chior? Don't you think it's at least a little stimulating to have someone from the Dark Side here to debate with?

[Don Lu]

To me, her rant wasnt even about guns or gun rights. It was about her messed up childhood, her dislike for guns and her father. I didnt see much in the way of 2a. Just someone who claims to be logical, dumping on a forum and them leaving. Im a liberal..big time and im surrounded by anti's in my family and in my circle of friends everyday. I dont mind a discussion about the subject but she didnt present a discussion. There were like 3 paragraghs about her dad..2 paragraphs worth of threats...I dont think she should have been banned if she was but i dont agree w/those who said she has good points ...she didnt make any points in ref. to gun rights/gun control..all she did is say she didnt like guns or her father or how we treat people like her. Oh, then for good mesure she threatened to send hungry dogs to attack us.

[geekWithA.45]

On The High Road:


* We don't have threads to discuss members, even provocative ones, especially when they're serving as a vehicle for incivility.

* We don't ban people, except for good and just cause.

* We don't discuss bans.

* Problems with moderation are to be taken up directly with moderators via PM, and if you aren't satisfied, you can appeal to Oleg via PM.