sneaky one Wrote:Check back to post 216-217

stanc Wrote:Okay. Since you gave no reason for posting the links, and that post immediately followed mine, it appeared that you may have been responding to me.

I have to say, some of those links do not support a "need" for an AR15, though. In one, a pistol was used to fend off intruders; in another, a double-barrel shotgun was more than adequate; and in another, the guy with an AR15 couldn't get it loaded before confronting intruders.

montana Wrote:I'm sorry stan, next time I'll run my post through you first so I can verify the importance of them. My apology on the post and PM was sincere, but if you wish to take this to a different level I'm not interested.

stanc Wrote:Tom, as I said in my reply to your PM, no apology is necessary. I know I can be exasperating at times, so I rarely take offense at what others say.

sneaky one Wrote:Montana, you are at same speeds !

montana Wrote:I could keep doing the point counter point with you stan, but it was getting ridiculous. I'm sure the other board members were secretly PMing each other to collect funds for cleaners to shut both of us up.

montana Wrote:It also gets ridiculous having to defend every thought or opinion being posted by either of us.

montana Wrote:I would post the old SNL point counter point skit here, "but I know where that can go" so I wont.

stanc Wrote: Now, that is funny. (Also probably true.)


Doesn't bother me. I always thought that discussing ideas and defending one's position was the reason for having discussions like this.


Haven't seen it.

NugginFutz Wrote:

NugginFutz Wrote:Seriously, though, this back and forth tit-for-tat has long gone past the point of being wearisome. BFT tried to set the thread back on track. Can we not do the same?

Quote:If at first you don't succeed, give up.

JASmith Wrote:Stan, you may need to follow the wisdom in your signature line . . .
You have succeeded only in adding fuel to the anti gun community rather than bringing useful logic to answering the question posed by the original post.
You claim to use logic and have no beliefs. Yet that statement is illogical since you appear to worship your version of the gods of logic.

stanc Wrote:Simple solution: Don't read threads that bore the crap out of you.

I was attempting to read one that wouldn't have been boring, were it not for the constant interjection.

I attempted to do so when I posted my suggestion in response to BFT's request.

And yet there you are, continuing the same inane back and forth.

You complain, but neither you nor anyone else has made an effort to discuss either BFT's proposal or mine, nor has anyone else offered any ideas of their own.

Ever hear of the phrase "Using up all the air in a room"?

Can't keep a thread on track when no one even tries to discuss the original topic.

See above.

NugginFutz Wrote:

stanc Wrote:You complain, but neither you nor anyone else has made an effort to discuss either BFT's proposal or mine, nor has anyone else offered any ideas of their own.

Ever hear of the phrase "Using up all the air in a room"?