What to say to an open carry visitor at church? - Page 30
Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 323

Thread: What to say to an open carry visitor at church?

  1. #291
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
    I'm almost afraid to say it but the strife in this thread is borderline demonic. I'm done with it
    Read: "Yes, I am Treo and I cannot escape answering that question any longer."

    Now I do offer judgment of your behavior: If this thread is inhabited by demons, then it is you, the liar, the hypocrite, the false witness, and the accuser who have brought them. How dare you! HOW DARE YOU! You are disgusting and, since it is now clear that you are this Treo who was banned, it is clear that you were banned for just cause! You deserved a ban, and you deserve to be banned again! And if saying so as a genuine newcomer gets me banned, then I would not want to be part of this forum anyway!

    Crawl back into your hole, snake!

  2.   
  3. #292
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by iKarith View Post
    Read: "Yes, I am Treo and I cannot escape answering that question any longer."

    Now I do offer judgment of your behavior: If this thread is inhabited by demons, then it is you, the liar, the hypocrite, the false witness, and the accuser who have brought them. How dare you! HOW DARE YOU! You are disgusting and, since it is now clear that you are this Treo who was banned, it is clear that you were banned for just cause! You deserved a ban, and you deserve to be banned again! And if saying so as a genuine newcomer gets me banned, then I would not want to be part of this forum anyway!

    Crawl back into your hole, snake!
    Maybe your vision problems prevented you from seeing it, but I said a few posts back that Treo was not banned, though I wholeheartedly agree, he should have been. Not my call though. I just call 'em as I see 'em and hope that refraining from going nuclear with name-calling and such is enough for the owner of the site to allow me to make those calls. So far, so good, and I thank Luke for that.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  4. #293
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by K7lvo View Post
    Step back and take a look at the tone of the posts in this thread - IF you can. Which ones sound shrill and which ones don't??? Hm-m-m???
    To answer your question of which sound shrill and which doesn't may I direct you to my quote of this post?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
    I'm almost afraid to say it but the strife in this thread is borderline demonic. I'm done with it
    Now... how could a discussion about the hypocrisy of a church policy that bans OC, and discriminates against those who would OC by telling them to either conceal their gun or don't come back, while welcoming CC with open arms... and trying to justify that policy by saying it makes the church more "secure" and "prevents disturbances"... be

    "demonic"?

    unless the argument that said policy actually makes the church more "secure".. and actually prevents "disturbances" has been shown to be nothing less than a fear based discriminatory and hypocritical policy that has no basis in merit?

    Using the term "demonic"... Now there is the embodiment of an attempt to diminish/redirect/obfuscate/diminish/demean/and ridicule any and all arguments in opposition to a church's hypocritical policy of banning OC while welcoming CC all in the name of "security" and "preventing disturbances".

    I only wish the pastor and elders of the New Life Church were reading this discussion. I would be greatly interested in their perspective.

  5. #294
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Maybe your vision problems prevented you from seeing it, but I said a few posts back that Treo was not banned, though I wholeheartedly agree, he should have been. Not my call though. I just call 'em as I see 'em and hope that refraining from going nuclear with name-calling and such is enough for the owner of the site to allow me to make those calls. So far, so good, and I thank Luke for that.
    Your message is insulting and crass. I have been reading this thread for approaching 300 messages, like everyone else here. If I missed one message out of those, then might it be because of anything else? Do you mean to defend "Cypher" in his accusation that those of us who oppose rejecting Christians because they own guns is "demonic"?

    If you've got a problem with me being here, and you've got the power to do it, then have me banned. And I will shake the dust off of my feet as I walk away. I wouldn't want to be on a forum where some leftist prick can go around calling people demonic for defending gun rights, but I would be banned for calling him out on it anyway.

  6. #295
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by iKarith View Post
    Your message is insulting and crass. I have been reading this thread for approaching 300 messages, like everyone else here. If I missed one message out of those, then might it be because of anything else? Do you mean to defend "Cypher" in his accusation that those of us who oppose rejecting Christians because they own guns is "demonic"?

    If you've got a problem with me being here, and you've got the power to do it, then have me banned. And I will shake the dust off of my feet as I walk away. I wouldn't want to be on a forum where some leftist prick can go around calling people demonic for defending gun rights, but I would be banned for calling him out on it anyway.
    Dang man, cool your jets. I simply read in some thread somewhere that your vision isn't so good. If you have to ask if I mean to defend "Cypher," then your vision is definitely in rough shape. No biggie at all, I certainly don't mean to be "crass" or "insulting," it's just that I am the only one who has been trying to get everyone else to recognize that "Cypher" used to post here as Treo, and you mistook that to mean that Treo has been banned. He hasn't. He could still come in here as "Treo" anytime he wants to, but he seems to prefer this new "stealth" persona for some reason.

    Also to keep the record straight, only one other regular poster here has agreed out-loud with me that Treo/Cypher is the same person, so it's a (slight) possibility that I'm wrong about it. It's also a possibility that I will get spanked or banned for saying it without concrete proof. If I were new here, and I wanted to stick around for any significant period of time, I probably wouldn't stake my ability to post here on old arguments between two long-time members without having first decided for myself who seems to be more honest in articulating their side(s) of things.

    Of course, I do understand that going straight from a petty disagreement about open carry and/or a specific church's policy to saying it was "demonic" to engage in such trivial arguments, may be all the proof someone might need, so have at it if that's where you're coming from.

    Honestly, I meant no insult towards you at all. Just trying to keep the record straight. And no, I don't have the power to ban anyone. I'm not a huge fan of bans, or of forum moderation other than enforcing the rules that people signed up being made aware of (if they did their due diligence and read the ToS, that is). Because I believe to the bottom of my soul that Treo/Cypher is breaking those rules every time he posts, I believe a ban would be justified, and I've said so, but I also have said many times that it's not my call, and it ain't. I'm fine with that. If moderation were instituted here and I was invited to join the "club" (which will never happen, don't worry), I would take the old Groucho Marx tack and say that I refuse to become a member of any club that would have me!

    By the way, I don't think Treo/Cypher is really a "leftist prick," I think he's mentally ill. YMMV.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #296
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    59
    Sorry to take your head off Blues… You are right that you have been the one pointing out that they're one and the same. I'd failed to go back and re-read your posts on previous pages… I had noticed that you seemed to be in agreement with other posts that made yours to me seem rather … out of place.

    And yes, going from a disagreement to misrepresentation and straw men, to accusations of demonic involvement, etc, or in other words "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it", yeah, it helped me make up my mind real quick.

    Though it takes the discussion in a much less topical direction, I think it's worth going down the list of "ethics", of which that was only the last:

    1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
    Eg, claim of an authority figure. A church elder, for example?

    2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
    Lots of Biblical citations. All in isolation, and usually non-sequitur.

    3. Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
    The people here are generally experts on the Constitution and laws of various states. How many of us are Biblical scholars? (More than Cypher bargained for, perhaps…)

    4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
    Applied fast and loose, of course. And naturally that's a one-way street.

    5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
    "Demonic". And that's only the most recent upping of that ante.

    6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
    If we assume his people are anti-gun, it's "compromise".

    7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
    The attacks have become more ludicrous, but they keep changing.

    8. Keep the pressure on.
    We're at nearly 300 posts and the OP's question has been asked and answered long ago.

    9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
    Admittedly doesn't apply here, unless you count threatening to leave the thread because we're "demonic". In which case, no that wouldn't be so bad at all. ;)

    10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
    Well, we've seen that.

    11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
    … Kind of goes to the whole heart of the out of sight, out of mind argument, doesn't it?

    12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
    There hasn't really been such a thing, has there? Any such thing has been completely ignored, at least.

    13 has already been dealt with, showing that we have a fairly clear Alinksyist debate style here…

    Remember that leftist "change" requires unfreezing society from an acceptable norm if necessary, moving society to the desired behavior (or closer to it), and then freezing society into the new behavior such that the old way of thinking is no longer acceptable. In other words, "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."

    "The ends justify almost any means," which means you can, "do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."

    I could go on, as it helps to know your enemy's tactics (and their origins…) But I think I need only one more quote to show all that this thread needs to know of these tactics: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer."

    Thus, I stand by my claim that if demonic presence exists in this thread, it is not we who have brought it.

    ETA: I'm a little nearsighted, and I have an issue with eye movement that makes it hard to focus on small things at a distance. It makes using most magnified optics basically not possible, and I do lose contrast on most front sights pretty easily. Also, it's a lot like my eyes are dilated all the time—the curse of the albino. But I can read my watch in light in which you couldn't find yours. As long as we're measuring shooting accuracy in minutes of bad guy and not minutes of angle, my accuracy is superb.

  8. #297
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    So refreshing to see that folks know about, and understand, how the disingenuous use the teachings of the leftist hero Saul Alinsky in their attempts to win their arguments and/or push their agendas.

    For more of what iKarith is referring to in his post above please go to:

    http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

  9. #298
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by iKarith View Post
    Sorry to take your head off Blues… You are right that you have been the one pointing out that they're one and the same. I'd failed to go back and re-read your posts on previous pages… I had noticed that you seemed to be in agreement with other posts that made yours to me seem rather … out of place.
    I hope the comment I made in reply to you doesn't still seem out of place. Not positive if you know or not, but the owner of the site's name is Luke. I wondered if maybe you thought I was referring to the Book of Luke or something, and if that may have been the source of our misunderstanding? Whatever, I really was only trying to set the record straight about the user name "Treo" not being banned.

    **NOTE: While writing this post and looking for quotes from this forum to include in it below, I noticed that Treo has now been banned. Anything that follows was written before I noticed that.**

    If at all interested, you could search on his user name with keywords like, "Scripture" or "church" or something else that came up often in this thread, and see if you don't find the unmistakable syntax and general "tone" of Cypher in this and other recent threads. Even in print, once you're well-established in a given venue, it's nearly impossible to hide who you are.

    Quote Originally Posted by iKarith View Post
    <Snipped only for brevity's sake, not to dismiss any of the quality commentary contained in it.>
    I've mentioned Alinsky exactly 10 times on this board. One was just a few days ago while addressing Bikenut about Cypher.

    Another was directly in reply to Cypher as he pulled another Rules For Radicals-adherent deviation from the topic at hand.

    I didn't find any such references from me to Treo, but I know why that is; I had him on ignore for more than a year, and only took him off earlier this year when I saw a quote of a very calm, articulate, and salient quote from Scripture by him that made me second-guess my decision to put him on ignore. Predictably though, taking him off ignore led to interaction, which led to him accusing me of "attacking" him and being un-Christ-like and blah blah blah. He was back on ignore the same day "Cypher" showed up, after "Treo" had gone pretty far off the rails with making references to naked pictures of my wife and the like.

    Anyway, if he hadn't been on ignore for so much of the time that I've been active here, he definitely would have earned multiple comparisons to Alinsky from me just like his doppelganger "Cypher" did.

    Looking back over some of those threads I participated in where I made reference to Alinsky revealed some interesting reading. At least to me they did.

    Anyway, great post iKarith. Thanks for it.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  10. #299
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I've mentioned Alinsky exactly 10 times on this board. One was just a few days ago while addressing Bikenut about Cypher.
    I know you have (though I didn't bother to keep count!). I merely keep a couple of cheat sheets handy with the Alinsky's various rules and a few other handy quotes for those occasions I need to thoroughly debunk something as being wholly based upon them, as I've done here. I don't do it often, but a little salt and light does wonders for people's understanding when I do. ;) Most people get that an Alinskyist argument full of misrepresentation, false outrage, and the like does not and cannot be inspired by any but the prince of lies if they're paying attention at all… But to see a point by point analysis like that is very useful when someone's laying it on pretty thick.

    The other thing for people to learn—and it's harder because the argument in favor is itself clothed in the Alinskyist crap—is the Delphi Method of "consensus" engineering.

  11. contact Starbucks,they know how to ask you to throw away your rights

Page 30 of 33 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast