MilsurpShooter
Member
Copied from the papers forums:
"dilbert, et al;
Well, I've attempted to answer. You just haven't liked the answer, so you keep coming up with your own -- we did it because "we can" for instance -- and repeating it over and over as if it'll become true. But it doesn't make you any less wrong now than when you started.
The reason you don't hear the answer is because it doesn't fit into the neat little conspiracy you worked up. There's no conspiracy and no agenda. The whole issue is that the paper published a list with some of your names on it and you objected, so you're angry. Understandable.
The reason it was published along with the article was because the article was about the lists. The lists illustrated the subject of the article, and provided a searchable database for people to report those listed who had passed away and had not been removed from the list. That occurred. One name was on the list despite being dead for 12 years. Another Westchester person is in jail in a cop killing. A Rockland gun owner died on 9/11 and is still there.
The publication of the list prompted people to call in and report that the names still appeared there. After the list was published people called. After. And since the purpose of the article was to point out that clerks don't keep the list current, publication of the list served its purpose.
Now, you may think it was a stupid reason, and perhaps even a dangerous one, if that is what you believe. I'd disagree. You might even think that the ends did not justify the means. Fine. But cut the conspiracy theories, because it wasn't part of the formula.
If you didn't keep casting it all in the context of some "liberal media" master plan to strip gun owners of their rights, you might actually accomplish something and hear the answer. Because if such a conspiracy exists, it elluded me when I wrote the articles. Sounds a tad paranoid to me, and makes me wish someone would go back to addressing and debating the issue in the context of the real world and the actual issues.
So why don't we agree that you will continue to have the discourse with yourself and believe your own answers and keep answering your questions for me, and everyone will be happy. I'll leave you to it.
And, frankly, not as many people complained about the lists being published as you suggest, certainly nowhere near even a tenth of the 30,000 you keep referring to. But whether you appreciate it or not, I have been responsive to anyone who did complain, because I took it on myself. It doesn't matter what you or this RUSH person say, I will continue to be responsive to those who are reasonable in their objections. That would exclude you guys, of course. Again, one can hope."
<sigh>
:banghead: :banghead:
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/NEWS01/612100348/1018
"dilbert, et al;
Well, I've attempted to answer. You just haven't liked the answer, so you keep coming up with your own -- we did it because "we can" for instance -- and repeating it over and over as if it'll become true. But it doesn't make you any less wrong now than when you started.
The reason you don't hear the answer is because it doesn't fit into the neat little conspiracy you worked up. There's no conspiracy and no agenda. The whole issue is that the paper published a list with some of your names on it and you objected, so you're angry. Understandable.
The reason it was published along with the article was because the article was about the lists. The lists illustrated the subject of the article, and provided a searchable database for people to report those listed who had passed away and had not been removed from the list. That occurred. One name was on the list despite being dead for 12 years. Another Westchester person is in jail in a cop killing. A Rockland gun owner died on 9/11 and is still there.
The publication of the list prompted people to call in and report that the names still appeared there. After the list was published people called. After. And since the purpose of the article was to point out that clerks don't keep the list current, publication of the list served its purpose.
Now, you may think it was a stupid reason, and perhaps even a dangerous one, if that is what you believe. I'd disagree. You might even think that the ends did not justify the means. Fine. But cut the conspiracy theories, because it wasn't part of the formula.
If you didn't keep casting it all in the context of some "liberal media" master plan to strip gun owners of their rights, you might actually accomplish something and hear the answer. Because if such a conspiracy exists, it elluded me when I wrote the articles. Sounds a tad paranoid to me, and makes me wish someone would go back to addressing and debating the issue in the context of the real world and the actual issues.
So why don't we agree that you will continue to have the discourse with yourself and believe your own answers and keep answering your questions for me, and everyone will be happy. I'll leave you to it.
And, frankly, not as many people complained about the lists being published as you suggest, certainly nowhere near even a tenth of the 30,000 you keep referring to. But whether you appreciate it or not, I have been responsive to anyone who did complain, because I took it on myself. It doesn't matter what you or this RUSH person say, I will continue to be responsive to those who are reasonable in their objections. That would exclude you guys, of course. Again, one can hope."
<sigh>
:banghead: :banghead:
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/NEWS01/612100348/1018
