Note to RMK

05 September 2003, 03:19

Outdoor Writer

Thank you. It's unfortunate the moderators here don't suggest the same thing.

For me, when someone can't type a sentence without using profanity or gutter language, it tends to reflect on that person's overall credibility. After reading the first couple messages, I tend to skip any others from that member, and I'm certainly not immune to using such language. BUT...there is a time and place for it, and a PUBLIC message board open to the world provides neither. -TONY

05 September 2003, 03:19

Outdoor Writer

Sorry, this was a dupe post to the above! -TONY

[ 09-04-2003, 18:19: Message edited by: Outdoor Writer ]

05 September 2003, 06:25

RMK

How about not reading my posts if you don't like them. The best part about this forum is saying what you want. Even though there are the assholes like you leif that cry rivers.

05 September 2003, 12:49

Mike375

Leif

There has been a constant move from our anti gun groups in Australia to have gun magazines banned or at the very least have some form of censorship applied to the cover of the magazines etc.

Whether we like it or not some people will find gun magazines to be offensive and not suitable for their children to see in the news stand.

Now remember that a gun magazine is far more "viewable" in the shop than is the case for finding foul language tucked away in a thread on one of these forums. Imagine the difficulty you would have in arguing against our anti gun group's stance on gun magazines given your suggestion to RMK.

Mike

05 September 2003, 13:23

Pecos41

quote:
Originally posted by RMK:
How about not reading my posts if you don't like them.

RMK, This is the first valuable comment you have ever made on this website. I think I'll join the growing ranks of folks who ignore you and your remarks.

05 September 2003, 13:34

HenryC470

Mike,

That's a pretty tenuous analogy there, buddy. Nobody's saying "let's make a law against RMK using foul language". I haven't heard anyone asking Saeed to intervene either.

Leif just suggested that RMK behave with some decency. I've several times asked someone to watch his language around my wife. I've never written my congressman or called the cops about it.

H. C.

05 September 2003, 13:49

Mike375

H.C.

Look at Outdoor Writer's suggestion "It's unfortunate the moderators here don't suggest the same thing."

The situation with your wife is different as your requests for people not to use foul language is a private issue whereas this is a public forum.

I am the first to admit that I am extreme on such issues but I can assure you that the "genuine antis" are equally extreme.

Actually the most "offensive" thing I find on all the gun forums is the use of the word "register" as well as previous debates that use to occur on why such sites as this one, Hunt America etc. should only allow "registered" posters.

Mike

05 September 2003, 15:54

Leif Wold

Mike,
Rudeness & vulgar language is something I don't tolerate. That's not censorship,(or intolerance)it is civilized behavior. If RMK's gutterspeak was the norm on this forum I don't think AR would be that sight that it is today.

RMK has made some points in his posts that are noteworthy, but his foul language is distracting .

05 September 2003, 16:21

Mike375

Rudeness & vulgar language is something I don't tolerate. That's not censorship,(or intolerance)it is civilized behavior.

Leif

It is civilised behavior from your point of view and probably the majority's point of view. However most of our problems come about because politicians and media work on majority point of view.

If you were given the option would you:

1) Have censorship of foul language applied to this site as is the case with many other sites

or

2) Leave things the way they are at present.

Mike

05 September 2003, 16:34

savage49494

Mike, I think the point Leif is trying to make is a matter of good taste, something RMK knows nothing about. The political forum is the place to vent and let it all hang out and I don't have a problem with that. But no need to infect the rest of the site with it.

05 September 2003, 16:43

Leif Wold

Mike,
option 2 of course. Otherwise I would be censored for censoring the censored. My point is the argument is absurd. I didn't suggest RMK shouldn't be allowed to post, I requested that he clean up his act to an acceptable level.
Back in the good old days (before non resident hunters invaded Wyoming), an acceptable level of decency was the order of the day. Those who didn't prescribe to it were gently reminded to toe the line or go elsewhere.

05 September 2003, 16:56

Mike375

Leif,

You will see that Outdoor Life's post is suggesting Moderator intervention.

My remarks are not really aimed specifically at you. As you probably know this issue has been discussed on this site and other sites many times in the past. There are many gun owners who do in fact favour these sites being censored and my feeling has always been that gun owners who advocate any form of control on the basis of something being offensive etc. tread on dangerous ground.

Mike

05 September 2003, 17:02

Mike375

savage49494

Your suggestion is basically along the lines of having the political forum non censored but "civilised behavior" should apply to the other forums.

That is the same in principle as the suggestion that gun magazines should not be on display on the general area of the news stand shops.

Mike

05 September 2003, 17:05

HenryC470

quote:
Originally posted by Mike375:
H.C.

Look at Outdoor Writer's suggestion "It's unfortunate the moderators here don't suggest the same thing."

Okayokayokay

quote:
Originally posted by Mike375:
Actually the most "offensive" thing I find on all the gun forums is the use of the word "register" as well as previous debates that use to occur on why such sites as this one, Hunt America etc. should only allow "registered" posters.

Mike

Can non-registered people post here? I signed up and gave Saeed my email address and picked a password and stuff. Is that registering? One thing I kind of like is that the process is at least an inconvenience. Maybe it keeps threads from loking like AOL chat rooms.

I have seen BBS's where they just ask you to type in some name and add a reply. Pretty low quality discussions you get there, by and large; looking more like a couple dozen people standing in line to get on a soap box; nobody interacting or responding to anyone else; everyone competing to be more provocative than previous posters. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad there are places like that, but it's alright with me if there are a few places that are not like that.

H. C.

[ 09-05-2003, 08:06: Message edited by: HenryC470 ]

05 September 2003, 17:17

RMK

The size of this forum is a prime example of what happens when you let people post what they want. The forum gets big. I've seen plenty of forums in the past that went from being large and informative to a pile of shit nobody used,simply because of censorship. Huntamerica is a prime example,swamp decided who he wanted posting and people got sick of it. Now that forum is a fraction of the size it used to be.

05 September 2003, 17:50

savage49494

Mike,

quote:
Your suggestion is basically along the lines of having the political forum non censored but "civilised behavior" should apply to the other forums.

That is the same in principle as the suggestion that gun magazines should not be on display on the general area of the news stand shops

Nowhere did I say that any of the forums should be censored, don't put words in my mouth to suit your own agenda. There is a big difference between censorship and civilized behaviour in an appropriate place. And your second remark is irrelevant designed to suit your own agenda again. If this whole thing is headed where I think it is, I suggest we start a new thread on the political forum as this has little to do with big game hunting.

05 September 2003, 17:55

gotogirl3

I get offended when people post derogatory remarks about people I know personally and I usually reply accordingly. I have that option or the option to ignore them, which I also do sometimes. But the comment that someone made about "not tolerating" RMK's language is absurd. He doesn't have the right to tolerate anything on a public forum unless it is by not reading it. I don't think it should be excessive, but I can also skip it if I don't like it.

05 September 2003, 17:59

Mike375

H.C.

Your comment that registration produces a barrier of inconvenience is identical to the thinking of the anti gun groups. The very basis of the gun control people's argument is that various gun laws will not produce a barrier to the "genuine gun owner".

Mike

05 September 2003, 18:48

steve y

Leif, relax, your pleas fall on the deaf ears of one who cares nothing for a stranger's feelings. And that is his prerogative. To modify one's behavior in response to a harmless request to do so is an admission of weakness to some. RMK stands nothing to gain from accomodating you and others who are offended so don't expect it. Not everyone is here to make friends or even to be cordial. I feel sure he would agree with me on all these points.

If compulsively profane persons offend you the best you can do in our world today is make sure one never marries into the family.

(Edit- Scrolling back up I realize RMK actually has excercised restraint with only one expletive per post. Thanks, RMK.

BTW Leif a PM would have been the proper way to make a request like this. Much more likely to get results.)

[ 09-05-2003, 17:36: Message edited by: steve y ]

06 September 2003, 00:00

Bakes

I don't understand people getting upset about swearing! I swear alot, as an adult I'm allowed to. Now days its a part of life. If I'm sitting around a camp fire with a bunch of mates and I ask them to stop swearing, they'd throw stuff at me [Eek!]

As to the women and kids on the site, well if they want to get on a site with a bunch of men, and if they see some words that they find offensive, well tough! Thats life.

Bakes

06 September 2003, 00:32

JLHeard

I think this is whole thread is being hijacked away from the initial post. Leif asked RMK if he would reduce the swearing in his posts. Now typing anything, much less cursewords, requires that you think about what you're typing. It's not like a conversation where things just come out of your mouth.

Leif is more than in the right to make this request (although I agree with Steve Y that it should have been done with a PM). And RMK is more than right (under the forum's rules) to say no. Or hell no for that matter. How RMK talks and acts and types in public is up to him. Along with dealing with how it reflects on him. And if those things offend Leif, then it is up to Leif to avoid them. But there is nothing wrong with him asking RMK to change some behavior. Especially in this case where the cost of change to RMK is so low.

Now this whole thing about anti-gunners is somewhat mind-boggling. How we got from OW saying the moderators should "suggest" (note it was suggest, not require, bannish, censor, or beat with flaming sticks) that certain posters watch their language to "this is just like anti-gunners trying to force censorship and outlaw guns" is beyond me. Guess what, our (or my) country works from the majority point of view. That's why it is a republic. I think there is a huge difference between requesting that the moderators censor a certain point of view and asking that they suggest a person not type cursewords when presenting whichever point of view he has. I believe that OW was talking about the latter, not the former.

[ 09-05-2003, 15:35: Message edited by: JLHeard ]

06 September 2003, 01:03

HenryC470

quote:
Originally posted by JLHeard:
I think this is whole thread is being hijacked away from the initial post. Leif asked RMK if he would reduce the swearing in his posts. Now typing anything, much less cursewords, requires that you think about what you're typing. It's not like a conversation where things just come out of your mouth.

Leif is more than in the right to make this request (although I agree with Steve Y that it should have been done with a PM). And RMK is more than right (under the forum's rules) to say no. Or hell no for that matter. How RMK talks and acts and types in public is up to him. Along with dealing with how it reflects on him. And if those things offend Leif, then it is up to Leif to avoid them. But there is nothing wrong with him asking RMK to change some behavior. Especially in this case where the cost of change to RMK is so low.

Now this whole thing about anti-gunners is somewhat mind-boggling. How we got from OW saying the moderators should "suggest" (note it was suggest, not require, bannish, censor, or beat with flaming sticks) that certain posters watch their language to "this is just like anti-gunners trying to force censorship and outlaw guns" is beyond me. Guess what, our (or my) country works from the majority point of view. That's why it is a republic. I think there is a huge difference between requesting that the moderators censor a certain point of view and asking that they suggest a person not type cursewords when presenting whichever point of view he has. I believe that OW was talking about the latter, not the former.

06 September 2003, 01:03

Hobie

First I'm glad to see that RMK hates everyone equally. Second, I'm glad to see that somebody else feels as I do that swearing, in certain circumstances, is distracting and reduces one's credibility.

Bakes,

I was a soldier for 27ï¿½ years. I can swear with the best of them. However, one never swears in front of women. One also does not have a high opinion of women who swear but one still treats them politely. That's how I was "raised", that's how I'll act. To be honest, I don't see you swearing much, but maybe there are Australian references I'm missing! [Wink]

For all,

You know, RMK reminds me of another angry poster on a list I was on. Absolutely, 100%, POed at anyone who disagreed with him. Sad indeed, that. You can add me to the list which will be ignoring such people from now on.

06 September 2003, 01:42

Bakes

Hobie I agree 100% with you. I don't swear much on this forum. I have let the odd one go when the situation warrents it. I try not to swear in front of women. If a woman swears it doesn't worry me. I work with two women that swear like troopers, but working with dogs can be a frustrating job and they are entitled to let a few go as well. But it gives me the shits when someone tries to force their own standards on other people. If Leif doesn't like the swearing then do as you are doing and ignor the posts, don't start being the site policeman.

Bakes

06 September 2003, 01:56

Outdoor Writer

quote:
Now this whole thing about anti-gunners is somewhat mind-boggling. How we got from OW saying the moderators should "suggest" (note it was suggest, not require, bannish, censor, or beat with flaming sticks) that certain posters watch their language to "this is just like anti-gunners trying to force censorship and outlaw guns" is beyond me. Guess what, our (or my) country works from the majority point of view. That's why it is a republic. I think there is a huge difference between requesting that the moderators censor a certain point of view and asking that they suggest a person not type cursewords when presenting whichever point of view he has. I believe that OW was talking about the latter, not the former.

JL,

Nice to see someone can read and understand what was written. Meanings have words, and words have meanings. [Roll Eyes]

Now let's ban all those Aussie guns, eh? [Wink]

-TONY

[ 09-05-2003, 17:19: Message edited by: Outdoor Writer ]

06 September 2003, 03:06

beemanbeme

I have yet to read any words I hadn't heard before in any of RMK's posts or,perhaps better said, rants. And, while I admire the moral high ground some are assuming, you need to watch what your children and young adults are watching on TV and in movies and listening to in the music of today before making RMK your morality whipping boy. By comparison, RMK comes off as rather mild. What no one has pointed out is that RMK uses profanity in the place of substance. He apparently has little knowledge and no facts. And so, he's like the fellow at the campfire (who doesn't get invited back) that thinks if he yells loud enough and profane enough, folks won't notice that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
As far as censorship is concerned, if you don't want to read him, don't. But he has as much right to post as anyone. If you don't agree, then maybe you're the one that should be over in that longrangedeersniping forum where everyone sits around telling each other how kewl they are.

06 September 2003, 03:15

<Savage 99>

I enjoy the discussions of guns and hunting here quite a bit. What I don't enjoy however is when the discussion gets off of that and becomes rude and therefore non productive.

The thread where RMK trashes women in the Jessica Lynch topic here really turned me off. I just don't treat people that way and I expect them to be the best that they can be. With that expectation I am rarely disapointed.

This site is not moderated. Some call it self moderating and to some extent it is but the threads on shooting of domestic pets and a very few here who use derisive and foul language does not make a good impression of gun owners.

06 September 2003, 08:22

Hobie

Bakes,

Thanks for the good words. You and I both know that pretending to be a "site policeman", as you aptly put it, is an exercise in futility here. It's not the owner's style. Of course he knows just who the subject person is, so he's got an advantage over us, and apparently that's a good thing for mr. potty mouth... [Wink]

So, are you working with military dogs down there?

06 September 2003, 11:13

larrys

I think this is a very interesting thread. I am actually enjoying it. A reasonable person asks for a modicum of civility from another member and is generally snubbed for it. Mike375, for whom I have a very high regard, I think missed the point and went straight to censorship. No one mentioned that except him. A question was ASKED and can be ignored, just as RMK's posts. I think the request was reasonable. I can personally think of at least 20 different words or phrases for the word "puke" and probably as many for "fuck", but I think it shows a lower value structure to use the most offensive I can think of. That is the way I think of people as well.

Mike375, I don't know how it is down under, but I surely want to visit to find out some day, but my children are more likely to read on the internet than in a magazine. It is just a technology thing. A magazine is, at best, month old news when they come out and my daughters learn more and faster with a real-time medium.

06 September 2003, 12:06

HenryC470

quote:
Originally posted by Mike375:
H.C.

Your comment that registration produces a barrier of inconvenience is identical to the thinking of the anti gun groups. The very basis of the gun control people's argument is that various gun laws will not produce a barrier to the "genuine gun owner".

Mike

Mike,

At first, I thought it would be productive to try and clarify a thing or two. On second thought, it is a waste of my time trying to argue with someone who thinks the phrases "is identical to" and "when carried to an extreme, could on some level be compared to" are interchangeable.

H. C.

06 September 2003, 19:18

Mike375

H.C.

Read your whole post again.

The view expressed in your post is also one of "keep the shit out" which is similar to those gun owners who side with some type of control for military style semi autos.

Again, the principle you put forward of a "barrier to entry" is straight from the gun control groups.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't think you are an anti...far from it....but one must watch their debating points

Mike

06 September 2003, 19:30

Mike375

larrys

I agree with you that gun magazines don't amount to much. However, banning or restricting them is the thin edge of a long wedge.

A very large proportion of the general public find guns "offensive". Thus I am very very very very very [Big Grin]

against the idea of gun owners expressing any desire on a public forum for the "offensive" to be restricted.

Mike

06 September 2003, 19:47

Bakes

Hobie
Yes I train and handle a man trailing/guard dog called Cassius. Though due to a blown knee, I'm out of action for awhile.

Bakes

06 September 2003, 20:44

Gatehouse

The whole reason this forum exists (apart form the hunting/shooting, etc)...Is for people who say what they want and feel.
'
I don't swear that much here, but I will say "fuck' and 'shit' from time to time. No apologigies, I'm afraid...

If RMK or anyone else wants to let loose with foul language, then so be it...
Sometimes newcomers to AR cry 'foul' and cry fpr moderators here...

If that is your style, and censorship is what you want..If you are concerned about the content for 'women and children' then go find a forum with censorship...There are plenty around.

It always blows me away that some folks that cry for "freedom" also think that those that don't subscribe to their idealogy cry for censorship or banning!!!! [Smile]

07 September 2003, 05:11

HenryC470

Mike,

Are trying to be post-modern and "deconstruct" everything you hear? That works very well in the English Lit. department, but not in real life. I meant what I wrote, every word of it. I think an objective observer would find little resemblance between my point and the one you are arguing with.

H. C.