TexasCHLforum.com

I really wish we hadn't run Coastie57 off.

This forum has generally enjoyed a reputation as being civil and willing to listen to every side of an issue.

It should be noted that Coastie57 was and is a wealth of knowledge and experience. He may have an outlook that differs from many of ours, but I never found him to be obnoxious, offensive or obtuse.

I disagree with alot of folks on this board and many of my posts just take up space...but I do consider this forum a valuable resource and I sincerely hope that it stays that way. We cannot afford to lose folks that make a serious attempt to contribute to our discussions.

Purplehood wrote:I really wish we hadn't run Coastie57 off.

This forum has generally enjoyed a reputation as being civil and willing to listen to every side of an issue.

It should be noted that Coastie57 was and is a wealth of knowledge and experience. He may have an outlook that differs from many of ours, but I never found him to be obnoxious, offensive or obtuse.

I disagree with alot of folks on this board and many of my posts just take up space...but I do consider this forum a valuable resource and I sincerely hope that it stays that way. We cannot afford to lose folks that make a serious attempt to contribute to our discussions.

Purplehood wrote:I really wish we hadn't run Coastie57 off.

This forum has generally enjoyed a reputation as being civil and willing to listen to every side of an issue.

It should be noted that Coastie57 was and is a wealth of knowledge and experience. He may have an outlook that differs from many of ours, but I never found him to be obnoxious, offensive or obtuse.

I disagree with alot of folks on this board and many of my posts just take up space...but I do consider this forum a valuable resource and I sincerely hope that it stays that way. We cannot afford to lose folks that make a serious attempt to contribute to our discussions.

I don't think we ran him off, I think he was pushed to explain on his plan for compromise and he could not reconcile his liberal “we must compromise” with his conservative gun views. His head exploded and he took his toys and went home; but does that mean we should not have asked him what his compromises were?

Although I will miss him, I will miss the person who left the board due to a perceived threat from him more.

...and his work was done...

As for people CHOOSING to leave - that is what it is - choosing...

No one ran anyone off.

If one is courageous enough to offer up a controversial opinion as a new topic, don't be surprised when asked for specifics defending it.

If unwilling to defend ones position with particulars, but instead rely on distraction as a defense, don't be surprised when called on it and don't bail out either....stand up and offer specifics.

Abraham wrote:As for people CHOOSING to leave - that is what it is - choosing...

No one ran anyone off.

If one is courageous enough to offer up a controversial opinion as a new topic, don't be surprised when asked for specifics defending it.

If unwilling to defend ones position with particulars, but instead rely on distraction as a defense, don't be surprised when called on it and don't bail out either....stand up and offer specifics.

This.

IMNSHO it proves that the liberal stance is mostly an unsupportable belief that is rarely based on fact or reason.

"I am a gun guy but I think that sensible gun laws and reasonable restrictions are OK." has never made sense and never will.

I want Heartland Patriot back. I will probably not miss 57Coastie.

Anygunanywhere

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

Abraham wrote:As for people CHOOSING to leave - that is what it is - choosing...

No one ran anyone off.

If one is courageous enough to offer up a controversial opinion as a new topic, don't be surprised when asked for specifics defending it.

If unwilling to defend ones position with particulars, but instead rely on distraction as a defense, don't be surprised when called on it and don't bail out either....stand up and offer specifics.

This.

IMNSHO it proves that the liberal stance is mostly an unsupportable belief that is rarely based on fact or reason.

"I am a gun guy but I think that sensible gun laws and reasonable restrictions are OK." has never made sense and never will.

I want Heartland Patriot back. I will probably not miss 57Coastie.

Anygunanywhere

Anygunanywhere

Heartland Patriot left? Now that is depressing and dispiriting.

Purplehood wrote:I never found him to be obnoxious, offensive or obtuse.

I never met him and can't comment how the actual man conducted his daily life. However, I think the online persona demonstrated all of those qualities and, based on my time online, I think the effect was intentionally cultivated by whoever was behind the screen name. It was, at times, too artful to be otherwise. When he had that account disabled, rather than leaving quietly as some other members have done, it gave additional weight to my conclusion.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I never found him to be obnoxious, offensive or obtuse.

I never met him and can't comment how the actual man conducted his daily life. However, I think the online persona demonstrated all of those qualities and, based on my time online, I think the effect was intentionally cultivated by whoever was behind the screen name. It was, at times, too artful to be otherwise. When he had that account disabled, rather than leaving quietly as some other members have done, it gave additional weight to my conclusion.

I'm going to have to disagree to this extent. 57 Coastie hid nothing. His profile linked to his web site, complete with photo, interests, and resume, and he obviously had a long and distinguished career, and shared interests with many on the forum. While I, and many others, disagreed with his political bent, and he did like to "rattle the cages" so to speak, I never found him to be anything other than honest. I believe if we are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, we must also be the same for the First. MHO.

The question was "obnoxious, offensive or obtuse" not honesty. The two are not incompatible.

In any case, I agree about the First Amendment. That's why I support the freedom to ask for concrete suggestions from someone who proposed more "compromises" on basic human rights. I support asking what accommodations they expect us to make with those who wish to infringe, even more than they already have, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If someone chooses to run away instead of answering that simple, straightforward question, that can hardly be considered a First Amendment issue by any rational standard.

bizarrenormality wrote:The question was "obnoxious, offensive or obtuse" not honesty. In any case, I agree about the First Amendment. I support the freedom of people asking for concrete suggestions for what someone who proposed more compromises thinks our accommodations should be with those who wish to infringe, even more than they already have, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If someone chooses to run away instead of answering that simple, straightforward question, that can hardly be considered a First Amendment issue by any rational standard.

Well, if you deemed his posts as "obnoxious, offensive or obtuse," that is your privilege, but it is allowed by the First Amendment, hence my First Amendment reference. Did he violate forum rules? The honesty issue was based on your statement, ...the effect was intentionally cultivated by whoever was behind the screen name. It was, at times, too artful to be otherwise." My statement was just indicating there was no "whoever" as he was not masking his identity behind a screen name, as his profile was far more personal and descriptive than most forum members.

Was he banned? If not, the whole "forum rules" nonsense is a red herring.

bizarrenormality wrote:Was he banned? If not, the whole "forum rules" nonsense is a red herring.

No attempt by me was made to distract from the issue. My question was rhetorical. He was not banned, and no he did not violate forum rules to my knowledge. I responded to your post by stating his right to say whatever he pleased (First Amendment), but mostly to point out that he was very public in who he was as evidenced in his detailed profile. Your phrase "whoever is behind the screen name" called that into doubt. The fact that he did not answer specific questions has nothing to do with what I posted.

jmra wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I really wish we hadn't run Coastie57 off.

This forum has generally enjoyed a reputation as being civil and willing to listen to every side of an issue.

It should be noted that Coastie57 was and is a wealth of knowledge and experience. He may have an outlook that differs from many of ours, but I never found him to be obnoxious, offensive or obtuse.

I disagree with alot of folks on this board and many of my posts just take up space...but I do consider this forum a valuable resource and I sincerely hope that it stays that way. We cannot afford to lose folks that make a serious attempt to contribute to our discussions.

I don't think he was ever obnoxious or offensive...and about as far from obtuse as you can get. Some would become irritated when he pointed out the actual legal terminology in various statutes, which did not coincide with what they "wanted" it to say, or dismiss his technical argument as "just a bunch of liberal legalese". His opinions and viewpoints on some liberal/conservative "hotbutton" topics were just that...HIS opinions and viewpoints, and as such he was certainly entitled to express them like anyone else. Personally, I will miss reading his unique perspectives, anaysis and comments on some controversial issues. Regardless if I agreed with them or not, I respected his opinions.

talltex wrote:

jmra wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I really wish we hadn't run Coastie57 off.

This forum has generally enjoyed a reputation as being civil and willing to listen to every side of an issue.

It should be noted that Coastie57 was and is a wealth of knowledge and experience. He may have an outlook that differs from many of ours, but I never found him to be obnoxious, offensive or obtuse.

I disagree with alot of folks on this board and many of my posts just take up space...but I do consider this forum a valuable resource and I sincerely hope that it stays that way. We cannot afford to lose folks that make a serious attempt to contribute to our discussions.

I don't think he was ever obnoxious or offensive...and about as far from obtuse as you can get. Some would become irritated when he pointed out the actual legal terminology in various statutes, which did not coincide with what they "wanted" it to say, or dismiss his technical argument as "just a bunch of liberal legalese". His opinions and viewpoints on some liberal/conservative "hotbutton" topics were just that...HIS opinions and viewpoints, and as such he was certainly entitled to express them like anyone else. Personally, I will miss reading his unique perspectives, anaysis and comments on some controversial issues. Regardless if I agreed with them or not, I respected his opinions.

I don't really think so either: directly or personally. I'm not going to use the word "offensive" because I think the word is overused and points to the reaction of person who is the object of the remark rather than the intent of the speaker. However, when you post something like the Dowd rant that was deliberately obnoxious and insulting and therefore, provocative, and you give it your personal endorsement as he did, then I don't think you can entirely escape being labeled obnoxious or insulting. While I don't classify it as dishonest, it is a method of making an insulting remark and distancing yourself from it at the same time, to give an appearance of detachment or objectivity.

I do agree that his legal insight was a valuable contribution, whether I agreed with it or not, because where I didn't agree, it pretty much reflected the liberal position, and we all need to know what our opposition has in mind.