Airsoft

[Dan]

Colin, there was a very, very strong reason for this policy change and it is in the announcement thread, posted by Adam some time ago.  Please understand. We had a major melt-down and destruction caused by a pro-gun administrator and well, that was the reason for the change.  The entire forum disappeared before our eyes.  It is not pathetic at all.  A hard working group of people debate things constantly for the good of the general population.  Liberal? Yes, but I make no apologies for that my friend. And, you are my friend.

I saw both side of the issue at once (I had Mike on MSN as it happened).

Yes, he went too far but frankly, I don't think it's a moment to be proud of for either side and everyone had a hand in the eventual meltdown. I don't want to restart the argument because it was ugly enough the first time but I don't want gratuitous attacks on Mike when he isn't there to defend himself.

[Danee]

Colin, there was a very, very strong reason for this policy change and it is in the announcement thread, posted by Adam some time ago.  Please understand. We had a major melt-down and destruction caused by a pro-gun administrator and well, that was the reason for the change.  The entire forum disappeared before our eyes.  It is not pathetic at all.  A hard working group of people debate things constantly for the good of the general population.  Liberal? Yes, but I make no apologies for that my friend. And, you are my friend.

I saw both side of the issue at once (I had Mike on MSN as it happened).

Yes, he went too far but frankly, I don't think it's a moment to be proud of for either side and everyone had a hand in the eventual meltdown. I don't want to restart the argument because it was ugly enough the first time but I don't want gratuitous attacks on Mike when he isn't there to defend himself.

Dan, you had to add something, didn't you.  Mike was a founder. Mike tried to destroy this forum and all who were a part of it. There was no defence for it and no, you did not see what we tried to compromise with.  Do not dig this up again.  Do not.  There is not any defense for what he did and most of this community and all the other founders and staffers are in accord with it.  Done. 

[Dan]

Dan, you had to add something, didn't you.  Mike was a founder. Mike tried to destroy this forum and all who were a part of it. There was no defence for it and no, you did not see what we tried to compromise with.  Do not dig this up again.  Do not.  There is not any defense for what he did and most of this community and all the other founders and staffers are in accord with it.  Done.

Yes I did see it, Mike relayed me the *whole* thing live as it played out.

There's no excuse. None. I absolutely agree. I'm not trying to excuse him in any way shape or form. And that wasn't my point.

My point is that neither side faced the situation as you would expect from reasonable adults and I'd rather we keep the topic closed than bitch about someone who isn't there to defend himself, even if his actions were less justifiable.

[Danee]

My point is that neither side faced the situation as you would expect from reasonable adults and I'd rather we keep the topic closed than bitch about someone who isn't there to defend himself, even if his actions were less justifiable.

That is your opinion, and not the record.  That is all I will say, and given the fact this thread was being discussed in the staff area by more then a few staffers today, before I logged in, I would ask you to let it go now.  He has no defence for what he did.  There was none.  The record clearly shows a compromise -- against many staff members, not me, by the way -- was offered. Then, he cussed and began the destruction.  Again, let this go.  We lost members over what happened before it, and from other negative things as well.  Enough. 

[Delta]

While I do not agree with basing our rules on the action of a single member, I did vote in favor of a "weak" ban on gun content after the event. This thread once again proves the difficulty of having a civilized discussion about the topic, so even if the lethal potential of firearm abuse is not reason for restricting gun talk, the shitstorm that breaks loose whenever the topic is brought up is. Feel free to continue this discussion in a private communications channel, but in this thread it is getting off-topic and hostile.
Also, I kinda do not understand why gun control is brought up as something inherently liberal, and why liberalism is supposed to be bad. To me, liberalism is about supporting the freedom of individuals, something that ought to fit well within the naturist ideology. Gun control is in a way a controversial issue for a liberal - on the one hand, it takes away freedoms, on the other hand, it might be conductive to a peaceful environment.
Dan, I am curious about what exactly Mike relayed to you, but in the interest of civility, I am locking this thread for now. As I mentioned above, the thread has been utterly derailed on hostilities alone.