TexasCHLforum.com

Matrix.... some of your style and wording sounds very familiar.... have you been on here before under another name??

...have you been married before???

I took my CHL class about 6 months ago...and did not have to pay until it was over. Once we paid, the instructor signed our paperwork. Next time, find one who does this....problem solved.

Well, if that doesn't fit the definition of deluge, I don't know what does. I'm sorry, but I will not be able to respond to all, there are simply too many. VMI77, I am working on a full response to you and I believe I owe you an apology; but first, just a couple of housekeeping matters:

Shinesintx wrote:I took my CHL class about 6 months ago...and did not have to pay until it was over. Once we paid, the instructor signed our paperwork. Next time, find one who does this....problem solved.

I didn't even know that was an option. Thanks Shine.

speedsix wrote:...have you been married before???

Is that directed to me? If so, major points for randomness. Answer: N to the O. I am in a long term relationship though, so what's the difference?

wgoforth wrote:Matrix.... some of your style and wording sounds very familiar.... have you been on here before under another name??

I assure you yesterday was the first time I posted on TX CHL forums. And should Mr. Cotton find it necessary to extinguish my contributions here, that will be the last you'll hear of me. I have better things to do than play games like that.

Crossfire wrote:While we are all so very sorry that your CHL class was not a pleasant experience for you, we are now a bit tired of hearing about it. We got it. You made your point.

Perhaps you should have asked your friends for a class recommendation before plunking down your hard earned dollars. But I suppose that would have been difficult, given that birds of a feather tend to flock together. Probably not too many of your Obama loving, Democrat, "common-sense gun control law" supporting friends have taken a CHL class. Or, perhaps, given your rather abrasive demeanor, you have no friends at all. Again, how unfortunate for you.

We also apologize that your initial experience here has been less than you had hoped for. Once again, a little prior research might have served you well. Yes, we ARE a bunch of gun-toting, conservative Republicans, with a few libertarians thrown in, as well as a couple of well behaved liberals. (But every family has a few black sheep. )

If you came just to stir up trouble, then you will not find a happy welcome here. We discuss issues that are important to the CHL community. We try not to whine, complain, argue, and pout. That is just counter-productive. If that is not your cup of tea, then you should go drink the kool-aid elsewhere.

So, we do wish you the best. Happy trails to you. Adios, amigo. Syanara. Auf wiedersehen. Good night.

While your entire post basically constitutes a long, petty, personal attack on me, that is not what I find worst about it. Neither is the fact that it is in clear violation of forum rule #2 (as another forum member helpfully pointed out). What I find really bad about your post is that it reflects badly on this entire forum. Especially in light of the fact that you have "moderator" attached to your name. Aren't mods supposed to be held to a higher standard, generally speaking?

I don't care for the OP's tone and line of thought and I will not answer any other postings by the OP. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Cotton or any other member of this forum. Call me names, chastise me, I simply do not care. I have personal beliefs and standards, and I am sticking with them. But I know they don't "pry them from your cold, dead hands"...they legislate and/or adjudicate them away, one little "common sense regulation" at a time. Just to finish up, I want to put my reason for responding this way. I was reading a book about the history of the Model 1911 tonight...did you know you could ORDER THEM BY MAIL once upon a time? And the fact that we cannot do that today is enough for me to think the way I do about the OP's postings and mindset.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

matrix wrote:Judging by your tone and general drift, I assume you'll "ban" me now . . . That's a shame because I think that I could be a productive member of this forum/community and contribute to the discussions taking place here.

Then stop trolling and do so, but do it now. You'll be gone on your next post of you continue.
Chas.

Just delaying the inevitable. Pull the trigger now.

...no, matrix, my question was directed towards my friend who posted immediately before me...kind of a private joke...

speedsix wrote:...no, matrix, my question was directed towards my friend who posted immediately before me...kind of a private joke...

matrix wrote:y ..in light of the fact that you have "moderator" attached to your name. Aren't mods supposed to be held to a higher standard, generally speaking?

Generally speaking, yes, but not when dealing with those that are only here to troll.

...this thread's kinda remindin' me of Old Yeller...it jest ain't gonna get no better...I'm out...

VMI77 wrote:You're snide, smug, and condescending. My first response to you was quite civil . . .

Without excerpting and specifically quoting every individual statement, I will agree with you here. After re-reading our initial posts, I find that you were much more respectful than I was, and that I was indeed condescending, snide, and even smug in my initial response to you. I can definitely see how a fair-minded person would pick up that vibe from me (and just for the record, I assume everybody here is fair-minded until proven otherwise). Therefore, I apologize. No if's, and's or but's. Now, let's continue, and I'll do my best not to fall into my previous mode:

My real point about labels was that everybody engages in labeling, because it comes natural to us. You label people, just like I do. I try to make a conscious effort to stay away from that activity, because I've found out how wrong I was on numerous occasions. I had labeled people various things and expected them to conform to my labels, but they didn't. And when they didn't, it was weird. But I learned a valuable lesson. That lesson is the reason why I would even attempt to post something on a predominantly right-wing forum. People aren't what I think they are. Many are much more open-minded, and some are even more prejudiced than I thought. My phrasing of labels as "simplistic" and assigning that to you was disrespectful. I don't think you're a simplistic individual, and your response to me proves that. However, I do have several problems with your response, mainly based on different worldviews, but some just factual.

VMI77 wrote:You spout Brady Bunch propaganda (blue) and use hyperbolic rhetoric when it suits you (green) while telling me that I'm "reflexively going on" about things, and then smugly tell me to "calm down." You talk about "common sense" solutions, and when asked for some, tell us that it's too complicated for you, and you'll just leave it up to "experts."

Saying "totalitarian craziness" does have the whiff of hyperbole. But let's look at the facts. What is the "gun show loophole?" It is the ability of anyone, convicted violent felons included, to purchase a firearm at a gun show because nobody is going to run their background check. So, are you in favor of convicted violent felons purchasing firearms? If you are, fine, that's a rather anarchist way to approach this serious issue. But if you are not, than what is wrong with the "common sense solution" of closing the gun show loophole and requiring everyone everywhere who wants to purchase a firearm to pass a basic background check? All that would do is bring gunshows in line with gunstores. I see nothing confiscatory or anti-2nd amendment about that. I see common sense. If we have a set of rules for people purchasing firearms, let's apply them evenly and universally. If that keeps even 1 gun out of a felon's murderous hands, it's worth it. What is this taboo on this forum about this "Brady Bunch" stuff? I honestly did not know anything about the "Brady Bunch" until this morning when I looked them up. I don't, how do I say this, give a flying care what they say, nor did I pick up anything I say from them. Is it Brady Bunch propaganda to suggest that felons should not own guns? If it is, fine, I'm just a "Brady Bunch" propagandist. But you are also an extremist. I don't see how checking everybody's background, no matter the location, when they are purchasing a firearm is an infringement on anybody's rights. I consider closing the "gun show loophole" a, yes, common sense thing to do. If you don't, what is the reason? Honestly. Do you want violent felons to be able to walk into a gun show and purchase a firearm? If not, why do you oppose the common sense regulation of closing the gun show loophole? You'll still have your guns, just like I'll have mine. But maybe that 1 felon who was gonna shoot that one innocent guy won't be able to legally purchase a firearm. What's wrong with that?

VMI77 wrote:In addition to your tone, your statements are full of straw men, another typical liberal "debating" tactic. For instance, your contention that someone who owns a gun can't be "anti-gun" and your request for specific actions Obama has taken "as president" to take your guns. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

"Someone who owns a gun can't be anti-gun." Why, you're right. That is a straw man. But not mine, yours. I never said anything like that. Not to be condescending (I learned my lesson on that), but I seriously think you should re-read the definition of straw man, because your second example doesn't meet the criteria either: my request for specific actions of Obama as president... A straw man is building up a false argument that is easily refutable so that I can knock it down... Requesting specific actions from the president does not fall into that category. If you are able to actually provide some, my whole argument falls apart. That's not a straw man, that's a genuine quest for information.

Keith B wrote:

matrix wrote:y ..in light of the fact that you have "moderator" attached to your name. Aren't mods supposed to be held to a higher standard, generally speaking?

Generally speaking, yes, but not when dealing with those that are only here to troll.

Keith, I've found that many people around here, you included, are walking around Condition One, thumb safety down, finger on the trigger, and just negligently discharging "troll" accusations left and right. Do you not see how that's just a cheap personal attack? Anything to say about more substantive matters?

speedsix wrote:...this thread's kinda remindin' me of Old Yeller...it jest ain't gonna get no better...I'm out...

Oh Speed, you'll be back. I think it's getting a little better. Well, I'm trying, anyway.

From personal experience, pull the plug on him now. Don't be nice, and don't think he can be "rehabilitated". He is taking advantage of the civility on the part of the moderators to keep pressing this garbage. The magic forum I used to direct had the same "be nice" philosophy until we realized the troll simply used that against everyone. It goes something like this, "You can ban me if you want, but you just prove what obstinate hypocrites you are in doing so. A real forum supports free speech from everyone and does not have the right to shut someone out". Um, yes the forum does. It is a private forum and Charles, et al., can pull the plug at any time. matrix defined himself early on and then has proceeded to try to linguistically overpower and impress.

Not impressed.

RJ

By the way, this reminds me of our president, for some reason...

johnson0317 wrote:From personal experience, pull the plug on him now. Don't be nice, and don't think he can be "rehabilitated". He is taking advantage of the civility on the part of the moderators to keep pressing this garbage. The magic forum I used to direct had the same "be nice" philosophy until we realized the troll simply used that against everyone. It goes something like this, "You can ban me if you want, but you just prove what obstinate hypocrites you are in doing so. A real forum supports free speech from everyone and does not have the right to shut someone out". Um, yes the forum does. It is a private forum and Charles, et al., can pull the plug at any time. matrix defined himself early on and then has proceeded to try to linguistically overpower and impress.

"Civility on the part of the moderators..." I believe I have already pointed out that "civility." (See "Crossfire"). I've been nothing but civil, and numerous members' attempts at banning me are nothing more than suppression of a point of view they don't like. It's censorship, pure and simple. Do you have a substantive point about any of the issues I have brought up?