01-26-2015, 03:52 PM
Nukes Wrote:Parse carefully.
A moderator, LRRPF52, posted a video promoting a charity that had nothing to do with the Second Amendment. He admitted that.
Not until page 3 did I say anything. I noted the political and religious character of the discussion. I mentioned our food truck "freedom." There was no intervention to halt the rule violation.
When the moderator, LRRPF52, admitted that his post really didn't fit in any allowable category, he justified it by claiming the privilege of "veteran's [sic] opinion."
I then pointed out that, even though I personally work for veterans, there are other opinions and that posting one opinion invites other opinions. I mentioned the rule a second time. There was no intervention to halt the rule violation.
Then you, BWaites, moderator, went on about "Christianity" and "Judeo-Christianity" and the "greatest nation in history"—naked politics and religion. There was no intervention to halt the rule violation.
You and LRRPF52 opened the door. I "trolled" nothing. You and LRRPF52 ignored and violated the rule.
So, be honest with yourself, Bill. You ignored the rule as long as you agreed with the politics and religion. You intervened only when you disagreed with the politics and religion. "Some animals are more equal than others."
Be honest with yourself, what part of "further discussion on your part will result in banning" do you not understand?
You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live. - John Galt