Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/ |
|
Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=13283 |
Page 3 of 4 |
Author: | mrokern [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:30 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Car |
joelr wrote: mrokern wrote: Oh dear fucking heaven, I think I'm done over there. What a whack off fest in that thread. ![]() When a few specific people show up at the capitol and actually start calling legislators rather than fawning over each other, then they can call themselves 2A fans. Until then, they're just running their mouths. -Mark To be fair, some small number of the kiddies have actually done a little activism in the past; several of them (perhaps as many as six?) have actually shown up at one hearing (I credit plblark for a lot of hard work on that), and I've been told that a few have made some phone calls and maybe written an email or two*. Tom Tousignant was pretty active during the (successful, as it happens, although it was a very close thing, and if it wasn't for Andrea Murphy running her mouth over at Gander at precisely the wrong/right time, it probably would have happened) attempts to prevent the MSA from taking over instructor certification and cutting themselves and the MCA in for a (presumably large) piece of it back in late 2005. But, yeah, mostly they just run their mouths. Andy "Pinnacle" Shapero is probably the worst -- he's got no interest, he says, in activism around 2A issues, but he's got a lot of interest in telling people who are actually Doing Stuff that they better not make waves while he's jumping up and down, pissing himself, and inciting panic among the other kiddies. Well, at least it's been almost a two years now since I got a hangup call from him. (Strong language to follow. Really.) That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with people having hobbies. I play bridge, myself. Some folks collect wine, or dolls, others guns. (I do all of that. Except for the dolls.) But at least the doll fanciers don't, far as I know, claim that they're doing anything important. ________________________ * Collectively, that's awfully important. This stuff doesn't get done without that. Oh, I figured at least some of them got involved. My comment is aimed (as you guessed) directly at Pinnacle and Co. I've seen close to nothing over there out of that little clique to be impressed with. If you don't get involved, you don't get to bitch when you lose your rights. JMO... That won't stop the bitching. -Mark |
Author: | joelr [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:58 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Car |
A few of them have done a very little. Haagensen/Goalie did show up at the 2004 birthday party, and -- after some persuasion from Andrew -- did talk to a reporter about his own DGU and the aftermath with the MPD. Pat Couteaux, I think, remembers in some sort of generalities has having done a lot, but I'm not sure what specifics he'd have to point to. Jeremy Poole, nah. Dallas Laurents has several times shuffled his feet, looked down, and shyly announced his willingness to take over a senior management position in the movement, which I think is pretty darned nice of him... ....but that's about it, as far as I know, from that crowd, which is pretty pitiful. (Hell, even Gary Shade can point to having done at least a little out in Apple Valley, a decade or so ago, to keep the local government on its toes. Not much, granted, but at least it's something, and that makes even Shade an activism giant standing next to a pygmy like "Pinnacle".) Now, it's entirely possible that one or more of the noisier kiddies are actually getting their work credits in without me hearing about it -- and I'd love for that to be the case; there's always too much work and too few hands -- but for obvious reasons I do try to keep track of who is actually doing stuff, at least in the metro, so that's probably not the way to bet. Much more likely they think that going out to lunch counts as activism, rather than recreation. |
Author: | Jonahwaters [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:41 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
joelr wrote: Jonahwaters wrote: [ hi Joel. i presume you are the owner of this neat forum. funny you mention Penaz. i was in a gun shop yesterday and the guy behind the counter told me about him. apparently Penaz just gave a free carry class for 90 college guys and gals. Still, if it does exist, even a $8.50 class is pretty cheap. good morning Joel. i'm not sure what happened but i think some posts are missing. i recall expressing my surprise regarding you being banned on mnguntak. why all the negativity about you in the "training" section of mnguntalk? you would think they would show some respect to a instructor of your status. |
Author: | mrokern [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:45 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Jonahwaters wrote: joelr wrote: Jonahwaters wrote: [ hi Joel. i presume you are the owner of this neat forum. funny you mention Penaz. i was in a gun shop yesterday and the guy behind the counter told me about him. apparently Penaz just gave a free carry class for 90 college guys and gals. Still, if it does exist, even a $8.50 class is pretty cheap. good morning Joel. i'm not sure what happened but i think some posts are missing. i recall expressing my surprise regarding you being banned on mnguntak. why all the negativity about you in the "training" section of mnguntalk? you would think they would show some respect to a instructor of your status. Not deleted. Just moved to another subforum. -Mark |
Author: | joelr [ Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Yup; here. |
Author: | Traveler [ Thu Jun 18, 2009 6:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
I am not a member "over there", but I did take some time to peruse some of the threads posted there. One thing that I note is that there certainly seems to be a lot of vitriol posted and eagerly accepted by the moderators. That being said, I haven't picked sides and I doubt if I will. I realize first-hand that at times it is extremely difficult to adhere to the premise of "attack the idea, not the poster". In a quick and unscientific comparison of the two boards, I believe that this board adheres to the aforementioned premise closer than "over there". A board owner can do what he wishes. It is his board. In my not-so-learned opinion, the forum owner here tends to attack behavior and the results of poor behavior, or poor class technique, and not so much the instructor directly. (He does seem to be kicking mightily at the constraints of that envelope. ![]() Here is an interesting video, if you can live through the confounded advertising preceding it: http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-behave-on-an-internet-forum |
Author: | White Horseradish [ Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
Traveler wrote: A board owner can do what he wishes. It is his board. In my not-so-learned opinion, the forum owner here tends to attack behavior and the results of poor behavior, or poor class technique, and not so much the instructor directly. (He does seem to be kicking mightily at the constraints of that envelope. ![]() |
Author: | mrokern [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:02 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
White Horseradish wrote: Traveler wrote: A board owner can do what he wishes. It is his board. In my not-so-learned opinion, the forum owner here tends to attack behavior and the results of poor behavior, or poor class technique, and not so much the instructor directly. (He does seem to be kicking mightily at the constraints of that envelope. ![]() It's also one of those things where outside of this thread there has been no mention of it as of late by the site owner. Nothing to see here... |
Author: | ttreml3 [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:56 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm curious why real names need to be mentioned over and over, presumably against the wishes of the person. There is a plethora of keyboard commandos left unnamed, why out those few? I've met a number of members from both these forums (My preschool daughters and I met some of you at the hearing last year, for example) and in person there isn't anyone I would have problems with shaking hands. There is nothing to be gained by all the poison on both sides is all I'm saying. Here I go back to reading politics and guns. Peace, Tony Treml (In case you were wondering. ![]() |
Author: | mrokern [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:11 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
ttreml3 wrote: I don't have a horse in this race, but I'm curious why real names need to be mentioned over and over, presumably against the wishes of the person. There is a plethora of keyboard commandos left unnamed, why out those few? I've met a number of members from both these forums (My preschool daughters and I met some of you at the hearing last year, for example) and in person there isn't anyone I would have problems with shaking hands. There is nothing to be gained by all the poison on both sides is all I'm saying. Here I go back to reading politics and guns. Peace, Tony Treml (In case you were wondering. ![]() The real name thing is a bug up someone's butt on the other site. I don't get it, honestly. If I won't sign my name to something, then I shouldn't be saying it. For the record: mrokern = Mark R. Okern -Mark |
Author: | jaysong [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
I respectfully disagree Mark. I would not share my name or that I even have a permit on the web in public if I was not an instructor. I disagree with what Joel has done with this and on the Coconut Charlie/Penaz deal, but it is his right to do as he sees fit (even though I think there have been consequences and relationships damaged). I think this is where you and disagree. I think Joel has done a ton of good for the carry movement, but this is not IMO. |
Author: | mrokern [ Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:00 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
jaysong wrote: I respectfully disagree Mark. I would not share my name or that I even have a permit on the web in public if I was not an instructor. I disagree with what Joel has done with this and on the Coconut Charlie/Penaz deal, but it is his right to do as he sees fit (even though I think there have been consequences and relationships damaged). I think this is where you and disagree. I think Joel has done a ton of good for the carry movement, but this is not IMO. Apologies, I should have qualified a bit more. I don't have an issue with someone wanting to stay anonymous for personal reasons, especially when it comes to permits and firearms. Where I do take issue is with people who use anonymity to hide behind when attacking others. Folks may agree or disagree with Joel's parodies, but we can all agree that he hasn't hidden his connection with them in any way. I can't say the same for some of the other folks who are bent out of shape. Now, this is one of those annoying little "what Mark believes" vs. "what Mark would personally do" things. It wouldn't be my thing to out an online PITA who didn't wish for their name to be public. That said, I would consider them to be ethically lacking. If you're going to attack someone, I think it changes the online game to where you should be willing to use your real name. Consider the myspace suicide scandal. It's the whole "say it to my face" thing, just with keyboards and monitors. ![]() And as always, JMO. ![]() -Mark |
Author: | Jeremiah [ Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:34 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
mrokern wrote: I don't have an issue with someone wanting to stay anonymous for personal reasons, especially when it comes to permits and firearms. Where I do take issue is with people who use anonymity to hide behind when attacking others. Folks may agree or disagree with Joel's parodies, but we can all agree that he hasn't hidden his connection with them in any way. I can't say the same for some of the other folks who are bent out of shape. Now, this is one of those annoying little "what Mark believes" vs. "what Mark would personally do" things. It wouldn't be my thing to out an online PITA who didn't wish for their name to be public. That said, I would consider them to be ethically lacking. If you're going to attack someone, I think it changes the online game to where you should be willing to use your real name. Consider the myspace suicide scandal. It's the whole "say it to my face" thing, just with keyboards and monitors. ![]() And as always, JMO. ![]() -Mark +1. Basically, IMHO, it boils down to this- if you're a big enough man (or woman!) to say it, then have the cojones to put your name on it and take whatever lumps you have coming. |
Author: | Blued Steel [ Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:34 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
This sort of thing is a very substantiai reason why people do not want real names on boards some might think are un PC. Quote: City Asks Applicants for Passwords to Their Social Networking Sites Friday, June 19, 2009 By Matt Gouras, Associated Press Helena, Mont. (AP) - Job applicants with the city of Bozeman are finding that their private Internet discussions and pictures may not be so private after all. The city is asking job seekers for the user names and passwords to Internet social networking or Web groups they belong too. The decision is sparking an outcry from those who say the policy goes way too far. The issue has spawned hundreds of comments on Web forums and sharp criticism from legislators and the ACLU. "I liken it to them saying they want to look at your love letters and your family photos," said Amy Cannata, with the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana. "I think this policy certainly crosses the privacy line." The city argues that it only uses the information to verify application information -- and says it won't hold it against anyone for refusing to provide it. City officials say such checks can be useful, especially when hiring police officers and others in a position of public trust. Bozeman officials have been hammered with e-mails and phone calls ever since KBZK-TV of Bozeman reported the policy on Wednesday, including an excerpt from the city application form that states "Please list any and all current personal or business Web sites, web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc." Bozeman City Commissioner Jeff Rupp said he was unaware city officers had implemented the policy, and expects the city commission will be talking about it. But Rupp said it is not as bad as it sounds since applicants are not scored negatively for refusing to answer the question. "I can tell you I would not provide it in an application I submit," Rupp said. "I have been told repeatedly it is not scored, and the application is not discarded if not provided." Rep. Brady Wiseman, a Bozeman Democrat, led the state's fight against the Patriot Act when the Legislature issued a harsh critique of the federal act, arguing it trampled civil liberties and put the government into a position of snooping on citizens. Wiseman said Bozeman now is going too far. "Asking for passwords is over the line," Wiseman said. "I think that this notion opens up a whole new line of debate on privacy." The intense pressure generated in just a couple days is hitting the city hard. Bozeman City Attorney Greg Sullivan told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle Thursday that the city may look at changing the policy so that they could view an applicant's social networking sites without asking for login information. One option would be to have an applicant add the city as a "friend" on such sites as Facebook. "We've already began that discussion," Sullivan said. Cannata, with the ACLU, said her organization has not found another government body that asks for such information. And even though the ACLU has not done a full legal analysis, she said the Bozeman policy doesn't pass the smell test. "It's one thing, and I think totally reasonable, if someone has a public profile to go check it out," Cannata said. But private groups and profile could reveal information employers could not legally base hiring decisions on, such as a person's religion, she added. "Are they going to go in and look at those things?" Cannata said. "And even if they don't intend to look at those things, it's still there for them to see." It is not a matter of "cajones" it is a matter of discretion, employment, and free speech. |
Author: | mrokern [ Sun Jun 21, 2009 12:43 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Complaining about Joel Over at Day Care |
Every now and again the ACLU can be useful. ![]() I won't out somebody who hasn't outed themselves. That's me, personally. I will give a very large ![]() ![]() -Mark ETA - And when I say attack, I don't mean respectfully disagreeing with an opinion. That's certainly allowed here. I mean an attack on the person, which is likely to get the attacker in enough trouble around here regardless of how they sign off. |
Page 3 of 4 | All times are UTC - 6 hours |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |