The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
The Annoyed Man wrote:Not meaning it as a criticism, but I see that you've posted 18 times since you joined about 2-1/2 months ago, or a little over 7 posts per month. It seems to me that is a pretty small sample on which to base a complaint that the forum is not as friendly as it used to be, when "used to be" is in the fairly recent past. Perhaps if you were participating more frequently and over a longer period of time, you might perceive the nature of the posts differently. ...
There are people here who are listeners more than active participants. I have been here almost since day one and this is the only forum I browse daily. I don't post much, because by the time I finish fully reading a thread, someone else has more than likely expressed what I wanted to say. I try to keep my posts meaningful and fresh. As 'Crossfire' has said before, "I don't post much, but when I do ..." Therefore, I don't believe posting more would make one more perceptive.tamc9395 wrote:My comment was not intended to be critical, but constructive. As for posting now "19" times, I do find this forum to helpful and I read most of the information provided/responded too. I do not feel the need to type "ditto", etc when my conversation has nothing to add after 2 pages of posts. BTW - I did not take offense to the comment, but stating my case. ...
Whats that reference to?bizarrenormality wrote:I would appreciate people telling me where I can find the correct answer to my question, even if it's a one line answer with a link. That's more friendly than ignoring my question and more helpful than posting an unsupported opinion as an answer to a question about the law.
I like getting the correct answer or a direct reference to the correct answer. That's down right neighborly.XtremeDuty.45 wrote:I believe he was referencing the OPs statement above that he does not like it when people are told to use the search tool or handed a "viewtopic" link.
Not only acceptable , but darn fun.Frost wrote:I think pointing someone to the search function or a LMGTFY is an acceptable way to help someone get the answer to their question.
Now obviously all this doesn't apply here, but having dealt with "interest" communities all the way from the days of BBSs, FidoNet, and Usenet to today's social networks and forums; from subjects as diverse as computer users, internet gaming, and book author fandom to marine aquarium husbandry- I've often seen something like the above.A small group of really enthusiastic people get together and form a community. They all participate a lot up front, sharing information and insight. Everyone's happy.
They do such a good job of promoting themselves, or word gets around, or their interest becomes popular, something- and an influx of newbies comes in. Some are newbies to the interest, others are just newbies to this community. Some of the same questions get asked, and the same information gets shared. They pretty much share a lot of the same viewpoints.
The first and second waves of newbies are integrated into the one happy collective until some unidentified critical mass is reached. Rules are formed, incorporation happens, meeting minutes are taken, structure is applied. This group constitutes the 'old timers' revision 1.
Newbies after this point are in another class- those that remember the time before 'X event' and those that came after. (I see many of these stratifications occur based on different events.) Add a few waves of newbies and you get to what I call the 'link' stage. When newbies ask questions that have already been discussed, the tendency is to post a link to the old discussion and summarize into a pithy statement (e.g., "Config.sys loads device drivers and autoexec.bat loads TSRs.")
[update for our situation "Concealed means concealed."]
Usually sometime in the 'link' stage, the old timers are almost outnumbered by the newbies (from all waves after rev 1.) This causes a bit of a panic. The core goals and earlier discussions are reposted, discussed, and re-affirmed.
Toward the end of the 'link' stage, the balance tips. The core of active participants becomes a different group, either through attrition or sheer numbers / popularity. This often goes unnoticed. [cue foreboding music]
The next stage is the 'Search next time, but here's the link' stage. Regular posters have threads or links bookmarked so that they can quickly dole them out to any question tangentially related to the link. Posts get stickied, etc., and the presentation to these answers is accompanied by 'search next time' or 'check the archives..'.
As the community starts to age, folks' patience with the same questions starts to wear thin. Tempers flare, and newbies beware. The 'old-timers' commiserate on the cluelessness of the newbies, and reminisce about the 'good old days', further entrenching the 'Us vs. Them' mentality.
Should the "newbies" (newbies from the old-timers' perspective) actually start taking an active role in the direction of the community, the PTB (powers that be) start a protectionist clatter. They promote those that share their views to positions of power, while ignoring or even restricting those that don't share their opinions.
Eventually, the "newbies" who all share a similar (but different from the PTB) viewpoint either take over or leave to form a new group. Those left behind are the most patient, or the stubbornest, cranky ones. God help any newbie asking a question that could be found by using the search feature. Often, the only response to common questions is 'use the search' or 'google it' or 'check the archives'. Eventually it winds down to a core set of users, and newbies land elsewhere.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
That is an easy to get confused about with the exception buried in a subsection way beyond the body of the text.chabouk wrote:So, does anyone know if it's legal to carry in church?
