Armed defense?

[Mike Barskey]

Also, I think those accusing Russell of being aggressive mean it in the sense of belligerent, not the term of art that libertarians use to mean immoral initiated force.

That could be. It makes more sense to me. I'm confused, then, why they'd use the word aggression. I don't think such an act would be belligerent, either - maybe rude or blunt or cold (I don't think so, but I could understand that perspective).

I imagine one of the admins are trying to do a netblock-wide ban in order to block the dynamic IPs that one or more of these users are using, which is catching random people under the same IP range.

Yes, that makes sense to me. I wonder, if this turned out to be the case, would leetninja and/or erisian apologize?

[KBCraig]

Also, I think those accusing Russell of being aggressive mean it in the sense of belligerent, not the term of art that libertarians use to mean immoral initiated force.

That could be. It makes more sense to me. I'm confused, then, why they'd use the word aggression. I don't think such an act would be belligerent, either - maybe rude or blunt or cold (I don't think so, but I could understand that perspective).

In the common usage, "aggressive" doesn't just imply "force"; it also means assertive, emphatic, bold, overbearing, etc.

In the interest of openness and honesty, I propose that whichever admin and/or moderator is deleting posts and/or banning IPs, speak up and explain what they're doing.

Property owners (and their agents) are free to do as they please with their property, but if their intent is to address a certain behavior, they're not going to be effective unless they explain what they're doing, and why. If they do explain, then those affected can at least know what they're doing "wrong", and either change what they're doing, or decide they'd rather go elsewhere.

Moderation without explanation pretty much fits the definition of passive aggressive behavior: "keep changing until you figure out what I want you to do different."

[leetninja]

I don't have a problem with you, but your attitude on this thread has been, to me, as I've said, not very friendly. I appreciate your support, I appreciate your stance regarding liberty, I may not want to be friends with you (I don't know that for sure, but appreciating some things about you and not liking others is not an impossibility).

I'm not convinced Russell lied. Do you know how many admins there are on this board? Did you know that I'm an admin here? I don't recall anyone asking who deleted posts or banned IPs; instead, assumptions seem to have been made.

I also don't see this particular case of banning (if indeed banning occurred!) as being passive aggressive, or as aggressive, yet those claims keep coming up with only opinion as backing. Aggression is not an opinion.

Good to know - like i said before I cant make people read emotionless text a certain way.  i did not mean to have attitude in my posts or some negative tone to them.  i am a relatively calm and laid back person - a bit of a wiseass on occasion but more often than not im joking around and pretty light hearted about life as a whole.    I'm not going to try and make anyone be friends with me my whole view on that is that i get along with 98% of the people i meet and know.  of that 98% i would consider a small %age of them real friends where as probably 97.5% view me as their friend - i am a friendly guy all in all but to each their own.

as for convincing you or anyone that russell has lied ... well ... i will let kat and russell do the talking here ...

it started with this:

He seemed annoyed that you were calling me stupid.  I thought he posted something or I wouldn't have mentioned it.

That is russell saying i called kat stupid ... which i didnt do.

then it escalated ... i was IP banned "accidentally" even though my IP range is nowhere near Ivy's. 

I haven't deleted any posts...not sure who did.  I was blocking someone else, you were blocked by accident.

so im not banned according to her.

-------------------

then:

Oh, Russell says he deleted your post when you said, what if I raped your wife in front of you?  I can't say that I sympathize with your "plight".

so according to russell i said i would rape his wife ... when i tried to explain in thread that it was not the case etc my posts were removed by someone.  i got one through and kat must have noticed it.  at that point russell (he removed my original post) decided change my words again.

also worth noting that this is the post that russell has admitted to removing - so i wonder if he or someone else removed my 8 other missing posts trying to explain what i had said.  as soon as i posted them they were removed within a couple of minutes or less.

WHAT IF I raped your wife in front of you?  What Russell said leetninja posted was a hypothetical, not that he was about to do it.   I never saw the post.  I don't know what happened to the other post leetninja says has been deleted.

with this i dug through a couple pages of the threads and found someone who quoted me.  no one has brought it up since.

im really not sure where you are going with this ... i didnt say that i think your way of life is useless.  in the right circumstances it is great.  dont you get pushed too far at some point?

if someone decided to come to your home and just search and seize your belongings with the intent to take what they want how exactly would you non-violently not co-operate when that person pulls a gun and says "sit down and shut up or ill shut you up" and proceeds to take your money, firearms, etc?  Lets go with double scenario even ...

first person that does that is a Kop ... how do you non violently not cooperate with him?  how are you planning on preventing him from taking your belongings that he had no right to take to begin with?

the second is just a jackass that also decides to throw in raping your wife while you watch ... so really how do you remain non violent through something like that?  same questions as above plus the obvious add in question about him and your wife.

maybe if it hits closer to home you will think differently?

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=4640.0

FOUND IT

and now that i have ... seriously ... come on ... i cant scream WTF loud enough right now ...

with this the entire thread - which if you remember was a simple innocent sticker idea thread - was moved to the bottom of a long list of sub forums, that no one really frequents from what i can tell (judging from post views of other topics here and lack of replies to them) called "Endless Debate and Whining" - which begged the question ... why?!

I think erisian hit the nail on the head saying:

I guess that's so he doesn't have to answer any questions or defend his position.

I have also heard anyone who dares to speak against russell is treated this way and that he bans people all willy nilly.  and here i thought he was against tyrannical control over people ...

so yea - honestly i am a tad pissed off - i dont like nor do i have to like the way russell decides to run the forum - at the same time i think that treating anyone this way and acting this way is not the way someone should act towards someone who has not harmed or hurt or really done anything all all "wrong" to them.

i keep trying to just let it go away or die off but then it just gets dragged up again and things that have already been addressed (by me especially) seem to need to be re-addressed or passive agressive comments are made such as .  i.e. all of this above me.  i personally dont like when my words are twisted and i am accused of things i havent done or said in this case it just happens to be a member of a group instead of some jackass kop.  and here i thought we were all on the same side ...

[erisian]

In the common usage, "aggressive" doesn't just imply "force"; it also means assertive, emphatic, bold, overbearing, etc.

In the interest of openness and honesty, I propose that whichever admin and/or moderator is deleting posts and/or banning IPs, speak up and explain what they're doing.

Property owners (and their agents) are free to do as they please with their property, but if their intent is to address a certain behavior, they're not going to be effective unless they explain what they're doing, and why. If they do explain, then those affected can at least know what they're doing "wrong", and either change what they're doing, or decide they'd rather go elsewhere.

Moderation without explanation pretty much fits the definition of passive aggressive behavior: "keep changing until you figure out what I want you to do different."

Thank you for being rational.

[Mike Barskey]

In the common usage, "aggressive" doesn't just imply "force"; it also means assertive, emphatic, bold, overbearing, etc.

True, although I'm not common. When I speak of aggression, I'm almost always referring to the initiation of force, so perhaps I'm biased. The the use of "aggression" I was addressing was "Pretty aggressive for a pacifist." In that sentence, "assertive," "emphatic," "bold," and "overbearing" don't make as much sense as "initiating force" - none are polar opposites of "pacifist," but "initiator of force" is. But apparently I was wrong.

[MaineShark]

with this the entire thread - which if you remember was a simple innocent sticker idea thread - was moved to the bottom of a long list of sub forums, that no one really frequents from what i can tell (judging from post views of other topics here and lack of replies to them) called "Endless Debate and Whining" - which begged the question ... why?!

Because you keep posting on a subject that they don't want to discuss?

so yea - honestly i am a tad pissed off - i dont like nor do i have to like the way russell decides to run the forum - at the same time i think that treating anyone this way and acting this way is not the way someone should act towards someone who has not harmed or hurt or really done anything all all "wrong" to them.

The Tea Party was created because some of us disapproved of the way that Russell and Kat dealt with certain situations.  This is, however, their property.  Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.

I think it's rather important in life to try and understand other positions.  For example, I might explain "Molon Labe" to a Christian pacifist like Russell in terms of "turning the other cheek," or otherwise expressing defiance without acting violently.  There are many who think of the term in that manner (ie, "if you demand that I turn over my guns, I won't do it; you can come and get them, but I won't act as your slave and bring them to you").  I'm not a Christian pacifist, but I choose to play by their rules when I'm in their house, so that I can learn how to discuss things with them and find common ground.

Think of it like a foreign language.  You speak a different language, so you can't communicate effectively.  If you are willing to take some time to learn their language, you will be able to communicate and (potentially) find those commonalities.  There are no guarantees that you will find many (or any) with any given individual, but if you aren't able to communicate, then you are guaranteed to find none.  I believe that force should not be initiated.  So does Russell.  Russell also believes that force shouldn't be used in self-defense, which I disagree with.  If I focused solely that disagreement, I wouldn't be able to discuss the things we do agree on.  In some cases, the few areas of agreement aren't worth the trouble, but I expect that's not the case, here.

So, to sum up what my rambling point is, I hope that you will discuss different topics in the venues appropriate to those topics.  I hope that you will continue to read and even participate here, keeping in mind what topics are considered appropriate by the owners of this forum.  If you are willing to keep an open mind, I expect that you may find that you have a lot of common ground to discuss.

Joe

[erisian]

Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.

Then it is helpful to know what the rules are, in order to avoid breaking them.

But when the enforcer(s) of the rules refuse to explain them, and instead only issue punishments for perceived transgressions, nothing is accomplished besides the creation of bad feelings and schisms between people who should be trying to find common ground.

[MaineShark]

Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.

Then it is helpful to know what the rules are, in order to avoid breaking them.

But when the enforcer(s) of the rules refuse to explain them, and instead only issue punishments for perceived transgressions, nothing is accomplished besides the creation of bad feelings and schisms between people who should be trying to find common ground.

Indeed.  That is a point of contention which many of us have with the administration of those forum.  But it's still their right to run it that way, if they prefer.  They could ban members by random selection, and it would still be their right to do so.

I don't think that aspect of this forum is helpful to discourse, but the situation is what it is, so those of us who disapprove can choose to deal with it, or leave, or some combination (ie, participate in only certain ways on certain forums).  They've made it clear that this is how they intend to use their property, and that they have no desire to change the way they use it.  Moaning about it is not beneficial.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

little joe's got it
I hope you don't mind my nickname for you. I always picture you like the cool youngest brother on Bonanza with the hat and leather vest and sidearm.

[leetninja]

maybe if the "rules" were laid out and if i had actually broken one i wouldnt have said anything. 

kat has said numerous times that my IP ban was accidental.  yet im still blocked and there are a million excuses why.

as much as i agree that someone who owns something can do what they want - that doesnt make them right. hitler ran/owned germany for a little while and well i think we all know how that went.  i refuse to bow to the king but the rest can feel free to enjoy their gold stars ...

[AntonLee]

remember folks. . . it's just the internet.  The internet.

[David]

Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.

Then it is helpful to know what the rules are, in order to avoid breaking them.

But when the enforcer(s) of the rules refuse to explain them, and instead only issue punishments for perceived transgressions, nothing is accomplished besides the creation of bad feelings and schisms between people who should be trying to find common ground.

Maybe it should be written at the top of the forum or something, but threatening gov't people either specific individuals and generic threats has been not appreciated for quite some time.  The Kannings have asked others to leave when they have done these things. 

It is ironic, that many here profess to believe in the right of private property, but when something happens that they don't like, they violate the right of property. 

If you want to yell out generic threats to gov't people, please go elsewhere. 

[MaineShark]

little joe's got it
I hope you don't mind my nickname for you. I always picture you like the cool youngest brother on Bonanza with the hat and leather vest and sidearm.

Never watched it, but with a name like "Joe," I've had more nicknames than I can count.

Joe

[leetninja]

Libertarianism is all about property rights, so even if I disagree with them on certain things, when I post here, I abide by their rules as best I am able.

Then it is helpful to know what the rules are, in order to avoid breaking them.

But when the enforcer(s) of the rules refuse to explain them, and instead only issue punishments for perceived transgressions, nothing is accomplished besides the creation of bad feelings and schisms between people who should be trying to find common ground.

Maybe it should be written at the top of the forum or something, but threatening gov't people either specific individuals and generic threats has been not appreciated for quite some time.  The Kannings have asked others to leave when they have done these things. 

It is ironic, that many here profess to believe in the right of private property, but when something happens that they don't like, they violate the right of property. 

If you want to yell out generic threats to gov't people, please go elsewhere. 

quite simply: no one threatened anyone government or otherwise.