Perhaps it's time for a new forum rule ... or two

Wow, if I wanted someone making rules about what I can say and when I can say it I would have voted for Obama and Hillary.
No thanks

Wow, if I wanted someone making rules about what I can say and when I can say it I would have voted for Obama and Hillary.
No thanks

Click to expand...

Not sure if you're making a funny or not, but signing up to post on an internet forum automatically means you're agreeing to follow a bunch of rules about what you can say (here) and when (or at least where) you can say it.

Anybody would comes to a privatly owned forum and expects unlimited free speech is mistaken.

+1 for AZAndy post 6. If I asked a question and was given an alternate solution I would be grateful. I am on The High Road to learn and if I have knowledge of a topic maybe pass along what I know.

when a newbie comes here asking about a certain make rifle pistol and another guy suggests a different model with a link with many bad reviews about the model the OP wants should that guy be fined or gun privileges taken away for 90 days because he "broke" a rule

when a newbie comes here asking about a certain make rifle pistol and another guy suggests a different model with a link with many bad reviews about the model the OP wants should that guy be fined or gun privileges taken away for 90 days because he "broke" a rule

Click to expand...

Oh, cool. Conflating discussing a forum rule about posing etiquette with wanting to confiscate someone's money or take away their 2nd Amendment rights.

That sure makes for a credible counterpoint to a reasoned discussion.



Maybe we should have a forum rule that says anyone who uses absurd hyperbole should be publicly flogged and then executed.

I guess that's pretty much the same...

Sam1911 said:

Oh, cool. Conflating discussing a forum rule about posing etiquette with wanting to confiscate someone's money or take away their 2nd Amendment rights.

That sure makes for a credible counterpoint to a reasoned discussion.
Sam you totally missed what I was saying. I was mocking the idea of more rules


Maybe we should have a forum rule that says anyone who uses absurd hyperbole should be publicly flogged and then executed.

I guess that's pretty much the same...

Click to expand...

Sam you missed my point entirely. I was mocking the idea of more rules and gave those outlandish punishments to show how stupid the idea is.

I understand that. And responded accordingly. The fact that you were mocking doesn't make your comments better.

Absurd, mocking attempts at ridicule are a wonderful way to influence people on Facebook or in YouTube comment sections. Here, they are unwelcome.

Sam1911 said:

Oh, cool. Conflating discussing a forum rule about posing etiquette with wanting to confiscate someone's money or take away their 2nd Amendment rights.

That sure makes for a credible counterpoint to a reasoned discussion.



Maybe we should have a forum rule that says anyone who uses absurd hyperbole should be publicly flogged and then executed.

I guess that's pretty much the same...

Click to expand...

I think you could have thrown in strawman, too?

I think we should ban gripe threads

Seriously, just chill. No one is forcing you to read or post here. If you find yourself annoyed with THR, take a break. Most of us who've been here awhile have done that a time or three. I've been a member on many boards, and usually bow out or just stop visiting within a year or two. There is a reason I've been on THR for over a decade.

I think you could have thrown in strawman, too?

Click to expand...

Yeah, probably. We are frustratingly prone to using rhetorical tricks and feints to "win" a point, as in the above example, where a straightforward statement of opinion against an idea -- or a refutation of its premise on logical points -- are seen as either too difficult or lacking sufficient "punch." So we sloppily throw around ridicule and hyperbole, and logical fallacies as rhetorical chum in the water, to get everyone else to feel compelled to bite on our sentiment, absent sound reason. Some of us are aware when we're doing it () at least sometimes, but I think most of us do it habitually. It's how we speak conversationally, so why not here too?

Hence, we can have an idea poo-poo'd as "that'd be like voting for Hillary" or mentioned in the same sentence as taking away someone's gun rights, and the crowd goes, "OOoooohhh! Baaaaad!!!" without having to think hard enough to consider the absolute merits of it.

Fifty lashes for bad posting habits? Death by a thousand paper cuts for making a strawman argument? Death by ten thousand papercuts, though, for incorrectly declaiming someone else's argument as a strawman case when it is not one, which seems to be about as common a problem! Very dramatic. Lives hang in the balance!

Sam1911 said:

Fifty lashes for bad posting habits? Death by a thousand paper cuts for making a strawman argument? Death by ten thousand papercuts, though, for incorrectly declaiming someone else's argument as a strawman case when it is not one, which seems to be about as common a problem! Very dramatic. Lives hang in the balance!

Click to expand...

LIVES?!?!? <GASP>

Lets take a few steps back.... maybe a 'participation trophy' would be kinder. gentler version of a public flogging.

Can we get a 'participation trophy' emoji ?

LIVES, I say!

Yeah, I like the participation trophy idea, but we'd have to slap ourselves for being just too snarky if we actually handed any out. Ha ha.

Sam1911 said:

Not sure if you're making a funny or not, but signing up to post on an internet forum automatically means you're agreeing to follow a bunch of rules about what you can say (here) and when (or at least where) you can say it.

Anybody would comes to a privatly owned forum and expects unlimited free speech is mistaken.

Click to expand...

That said, I feel we have enough rules already and the Mods are busy enough dealing with those that we have. If we have a rule that posts must stick tightly to the original topic, we'll have to have a rule one must read all previous posts in a thread before answering, that way we won't have any info repeated. I hate it when someone says the exact thing I did, 10 posts later and again 4 posts after that! Then we should limit posters to 2 posts per thread, that way the thread wouldn't be monopolized by fan boys or haters, and when two posters have a difference of opinion, then they are done arguing after two posts. What if we had a rule that only one brand of firearm can be talked about in any one thread? No more Smith vs Ruger or Colt vs Kimber! The best rule would be that no one can start a new thread on a topic subject that has been discussed before. If it doesn't show up on the search function then you're good to go. No more "what gun for bear?" threads.

Better yet, how about a rule there will be no more rules............

(nudging it back to topic)
I really think we are discussing 2 totally different types of threads here.
There is the thread where the OP is truly undecided about a certain platform and/or caliber of choice. He may say he's looking at 1911s and hears that Colt and Springfield are the way to go and what do we think. Here he is clearly looking for suggestions instead of specifics. This is an open thread, IMO.

The other type of topic is where the OP specifically states that he only wants an all metal gun in 9mm for SD and the "thoughtful helpers" keep throwing out the plastic guns because the OP must be stupid or the bigger calibers because the OP must be stupid. I truly believe the OP does not like these types of posts.

Of course, I may be off base and I may be making a post that irritates the OP right now.

The rules which the OP suggest are a good idea, however, I believe such rules would be repeatedly broken and almost impossible to enforce. A lot of discretion would rest with the moderators and I'm fine with that, but I have found the ignore button to work great at weeding out less scrupulous posters.

larryh1108 said:

(nudging it back to topic)
I really think we are discussing 2 totally different types of threads here.
There is the thread where the OP is truly undecided about a certain platform and/or caliber of choice. He may say he's looking at 1911 and hears that Cot and Springfield are the way to go and what do we think. Here he is clearly looking for suggestions instead of specifics. This is an open thread, IMO.

The other type of topic is where the OP specifically states that he only wants an all metal gun in 9mm for SD and the "thoughtful helpers" keep throwing out the plastic guns because the OP must be stupid or the bigger calibers because the OP must be stupid. I truly believe the OP does not like these types of posts.

Of course, I may be off base and I may be making a post that irritates the OP right now.

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree.

There is a HUGE difference between:

OP: I'm thinking of getting another full size 1911. Whats available in between a Springfield TRP 1911 and a Rock Island 1911?

Reply: How about a Colt? Hard to beat a dancing pony
Reply: Kimber? Ive had great luck with my Kimber.
Reply: Whats wrong with Rock Island? I think they're a good value.



And this:

OP: Im looking for a budget DA 22lr revolver from Charter Arms and Taurus to plink cans with a couple times a year. Does anyone have any experience with those?

Reply: Ruger single six is built like a tank and will last a life time several times over. Buy once, cry once!
Reply: Browning Buckmark, best trigger out of the box.
Reply: Neither. Don't waste your money. You need a AR for self defense.
Reply: Neither. Get a 12ga so you can hunt fur and feather in all of North America.
Reply: Get a 45LC. You can reload for cheaper than 22lr.

Sometimes having someone offer a product they feel is superior is a good thing. Sometimes we get so much tunnel vision that it obscures alternatives we wouldn't have seen without that person pointing them out.

Perfect example of this is about a year or so ago I retired my EDC knife and was looking at going for either a Benchmade or another Sypderco as my new EDC. Someone recommended a brand I didn't even know existed, Zero Tolerence. I did some research and loved everything I read about them and ended up buying a Zero Tolerance 450CF, which is by far the best pocket knife I've ever had the pleasure to own. If it wasn't for that guy offering his insight on that brand that I didn't specify in my original post I would have really missed out.


Another point of view would be that of someone new to firearms. Maybe they like how a 1911 looks and wants one to carry. If the guy doesn't have any experience with any type of handgun maybe something like a Glock or any other the other great polymer pistols would be a better suggestion for him. Something to get his feet wet and then decide if he wants to jump into something a little bit more demanding from a matainence stand point.

I think if they answer the original question then, add brands or ideas that might be an alternative, that's fine with me.

It is when you get the, "Both of those are garbage, get this instead," those bug me.

have you ever noticed there is a contrarian (or a fanboy or a blow-hard) lurking inside of every one of us at least once in a while? There's the 80/20 rule where no matter how great an idea is or how much consensus you want to build, 20% (or more) will disagree just out of orneriness. There's never been a more cantankerous bunch of men and women than a bunch of gun enthusiasts who approach the sport/hobby from every possible angle, experience level and philosophy. We'll have to agree to disagree without being disagreeable. We'll all take our lumps occasionally from the mods for being over-enthusiastic. We'll get annoyed and cross-ways with each other. But I've learned that's how many of us roll, here. Perfection is the enemy of the good.

BTW, I did it too... I read pages 1 and 2 and skipped to page 4, and then weighed in. So If I'm repeating anything already posted on page 3, I admit to having feet of clay too.

danez71 said:

OP: Im looking for a budget DA 22lr revolver from Charter Arms and Taurus to plink cans with a couple times a year. Does anyone have any experience with those?

Reply: Ruger single six is built like a tank and will last a life time several times over. Buy once, cry once!
Reply: Browning Buckmark, best trigger out of the box.
Reply: Neither. Don't waste your money. You need a AR for self defense.
Reply: Neither. Get a 12ga so you can hunt fur and feather in all of North America.
Reply: Get a 45LC. You can reload for cheaper than 22lr.

Click to expand...

But appropriate (to me) responses could be:
"Have you looked at the Rossi Plinker? Easier to find, is made by Taurus, and is $100 cheaper. "
or even:
"you may also want to consider a pellet revolver. $60 can get you the gun and 500 rounds of can-killing pellets. And you can shoot it legally in your backyard in many places."

Both are outside the scope of the OP's request. Both give him new options he may not have considered. New shooters don't know everything...that's why they ask questions. I have heard more people say "I wish I had known about those before I bought this" than "I had way too much information on other products before I bought this."

I don't see the need for the new rule. Posters can filter out what they don't want.

maxxhavoc said:

But appropriate (to me) responses could be:
"Have you looked at the Rossi Plinker? Easier to find, is made by Taurus, and is $100 cheaper. "
or even:
"you may also want to consider a pellet revolver. $60 can get you the gun and 500 rounds of can-killing pellets. And you can shoot it legally in your backyard in many places."

Both are outside the scope of the OP's request. Both give him new options he may not have considered. New shooters don't know everything...that's why they ask questions. I have heard more people say "I wish I had known about those before I bought this" than "I had way too much information on other products before I bought this."

I don't see the need for the new rule. Posters can filter out what they don't want.

Click to expand...

Sure but,,,,
That's far more closely fit's my 1st example and not the 2nd, that you quoted.

Your example is only slightly off from the OP question with your Rossi suggestion that's made by the Taurus he asked about, still DA, still 22lr and keeping with the OP budget idea too.

Then you offered the pellet gun idea which largely keeps with all the OP'S requirements except one.


That's waaaay different than 'Neither, get a single action 45LC and reload it for cheaper than 22lc' which doesn't meet ANY of the OP'S parameters (nor does any of they other replies in my 2nd example that you quoted)

danez71 said:

Sure but,,,,
That's far more closely fit's my 1st example and not the 2nd, that you quoted.
...
That's waaaay different than 'Neither, get a single action 45LC and reload it for cheaper than 22lc' which doesn't meet ANY of the OP'S parameters (nor does any of they other replies in my 2nd example that you quoted)

Click to expand...

Sorry,didn't mean to pick on yours specifically. It was just closer to the bottom than the other examples. That, and I just went through THAT EXACT scenario when I ended up buying a Rossi Plinker. And I thought the Pellet gun was pretty far off-base...it might fit what he wanted to do with it, but it isn't DA, a brand he selected, or even a firearm.

I agree that folks get out of hand with presenting their personal favorites as the answer to all problems, I just don't think it needs to be regulated.

My opinion favors giving contributors a little latitude. If somebody asks about the new Ruger handgun and a poster wants to decry the brand and make alternative recommendations so much the better for a wider field of thought. I can remember a few times when I have been talked out of something for my own good. If discussion runs far, far, afield then certainly the moderator can insert a reminder to stay on track.

Hokkmike said:

I can remember a few times when I have been talked out of something for my own good. If discussion runs far, far, afield then certainly the moderator can insert a reminder to stay on track.

Click to expand...

Sometimes you don't know what you don't know