"wrong call by the editor?" Topic

You really cannot work it out? Wow!

Don't play coy. Just spell it out.

I doesn't harm me in any way. It might make a little more of a work load for the staff as they have to investigate reports of violations. But that's hardly "harming". You could make a case that having a trouble maker yanked from the middle of a conversation might slow the flow a bit. But he only has himself to blame. Again, that's not "harm".

I just don't see the harm here.

Martin

Would you prefer that TMP be a beacon of inclusion and acceptance for all people, or an under-siege apartheid state that clings to bigotry while websites like LAF and Frothers look over here and say "what a bunch of bigoted weirdos"?

Well Rebel…based on what I have seen, I can say the following…

1: In all the years I have been on TMP, I have never seen ANYONE excluded based on race, religion, sexual identity, gender, preference or orientation. I have not seen anyone excluded from joining TMP based on creed, culture, veteran status, disability status, age, or dietary needs. That being said I have seen people locked out due to them espousing certain ideals that are pretty much socially and generally repulsive across the board….

So yes, I think that TMP already is an inclusion and acceptance for all people. Not sure why you think it isn't….

2: Based on certain things I have been sent coming from another site, I can say that if that is what they are thinking you aren't going to change their minds about TMP, since most of them have an issue with Bill, (whether it be how he runs TMP, his personal life, his religious beliefs, what he does in his spare time, etc…) The question I would ask is, "Why are you so damned worked up about it?"….

The question I would ask is, "Why are you so damned worked up about it?"….

Empathy towards other maligned and misunderstood minority groups?

>>>So yes, I think that TMP already is an inclusion and acceptance for all people. Not sure why you think it isn't….

I doubt he actually thinks that at all, Murphy. His dire predictions about "an under-siege apartheid state" are just hyperbole. I'd be surprised if most don't recognize that. In any event, this is not about support for minority rights or inclusion to him. It's about "getting" me any way he can since the "take out the trash" complaint fell flat.

I don't know if I should laugh, shake my head, roll my eyes, or all of the above. This thread has become surreal in it's ridiculousness. Between Rebelyell's faux-outrage, Kyote's keyboard pounding agitation and thinly veiled threats (ie "It's personal!! I'm not just going to let it go this time!!!1111"), and OFM's flat attempts at humor the absurdity level is at flash flood levels now! ;-)

Martin

All right. That's it. He doesn't like the OFM's humor.
Off with his head. We can't have his kind around here.

Murphy wrote:
'Really?
So you support the idea of 40 year old men marrying 10 year old girls because "they are in love"?….
You support some of the quacked ideas that is going on out there to support "equality"?….'
Why would you equate two consenting adults with a pedo? Nice little straw man there.
Don, this isn't killing any chance of talking with Frothers, they'll just say "we told you so". If you want to talk to Frothers, talk about your soldiers, your terrain, etc, etc. So far this thread has LGBT equated with mental illness and marriage equality with pedophilia. All of this presumably is allowed on here.

JezEger;

I went with that line simply because of this statement that was made:

"As well as the able to marry who the love regardless of old-fashion mores."

We now have people in our society who are wanting to marry their pets, their computers, food, as well as having those organizations out there that are trying to push the concept of pedophilia as a form of "sexual preference" (using the practice of social acceptance of the "gay lifestyle").

That's the reason I asked. Because when someone makes statements like that, I always wonder "Do they really know what they are saying, or are they just parroting something that sounds good according to their socio-worldview and what they have been told to think and say?"

Empathy towards other maligned and misunderstood minority groups?

What I find odd Rebel, and Don, is that you two seem to be more worked up about the "personal attacks on the editors", than the people who were actually personally attacked, (aka: "the editors"…)

Ahhh…the fun of watching folks become SJW's….

(using the practice of social acceptance of the "gay lifestyle")

The problem with that statement is the fact that "gay" isn't a lifestyle, no more than "straight" or "Caucasian" is a lifestyle. "Hammerpants" is a lifestyle, "Bronie" is a lifestyle. "Gay" is not a lifestyle.

Murphy – "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

If there is one thing that TMP has more than it's quota of, it's long winded blowhard gasbags who take and twist what people say, just so they can find something to be offended at. And by.
This thread is full of them.

Isn't this site supposed to be about the color of the overalls the second battalion of Guards wore at Guilford Courthouse?

More when I have had coffee.

Cup #5 here….I think….

Gotta love IT….

And now that TrenchRaider has kindly reminded a forgetful old coot like myself why I don't like him, I guess I have to agree.
I had forgotten. I will take his word for it.

Weasel;

PM sent asking for clarification of your statement….

Murphy, I like you, but not your politics,nor slippery slope straw man arguments.
That is one of the reasons I no longer post on The Lounge.

That's okay Don, I like you too, but not your politics or blind generalized statements based on ever changing social perspectives as dictated by whatever socio-cultural-political agenda group is pulling the strings this morning to get you going….

What I find odd Rebel, and Don, is that you two seem to be more worked up about the "personal attacks on the editors", than the people who were actually personally attacked, (aka: "the editors"…)

TrenchRaider engaged in a blanket attack against an entire group of minorities, not just a few specific individuals.

Social Justice Warriors.

Hi, Im painting an Austrian SYW hussar regiment Hadik and was wondering if anyone can advise on the colour of the jacket and facings of the bugler. Oops, sorry,I thought I was on a wargames forum. Apologies, please carry on.

Well I googled it and got Social Justice Warriors.

Does this topic prove once and for all the nonsense of a belief in a TMP-Frothers war as it seems we don't need Frothers to start another of these silly little argument topics.

Weasel; got your PM…please check the response…I think you will see that you grossly misinterpreted….

Um I don't get talking points memos so what are Social Justice Warriors ????????

Do some research on GamerGate, a bunch of misogynists (exiled from 4Chan) who were upset over a female game designer having a successful Kickstarter campaign, so they started a campaign of harassment while claiming to be advocates of "ethics in game journalism". Their targets were labeled "social justice warriors".

Page 4 Hurrah!

So where are we with the Hadik Regiment bugler thing?

Dualer…I'm thinking a nice white lacing on a bluish jacket would look good, but then again those are my old high school colors so what do I know???…

Rebel, correct you are, but it's now been expanded to essentially mean people who get upset/offended/butthurt about anything that they perceive to be "offensive", and go out after it.
Whether they were offended by it before or not, is NOT the point…it's the "now" that they are offended….could be something entirely different next week….

Never said you didn't Don….as I love my granddaughter also….

>>>TrenchRaider engaged in a blanket attack against an entire group of minorities, not just a few specific individuals.

It's not nice to just make things up.

Armintrout has been on this very thread and stated this was not the case. That should be the end of it. It's his site. his rules. (rules I did not violate as I have stated several times) Why are you even bothering at this point? Just to stir things up? Cause trouble? Provoke a reaction?

I think we both know the answer to that…

Martin

It's not nice to just make things up.

I'm a political and social conservative. I'm not a Neo-Nazi or anything of that sort. But I'm far enough right to be considered "non-mainstream" by most people. So no, I'm not ok with Armintrout exclusively hiring Asian transvestites to edit the site. I'm against the general effort to "normalize" what I see to be a form of mental illness. So I'm not down with his other site and it's agenda. It's the reason that on the handful of occasions I have needed to, I refuse to use the pronoun "she" when referring to an editor.

Your own words. That is a blanket attack against an entire group of people.

I also don't believe that my Grand Daughter suffers from a mental illness because she is LGBT, she is saner than I am!!

Of course she is….You sir, (*wagging finger at you*) support The Sultanate of Ifat…That country is a hive of scum a villany, and will rob people blind….

TrenchRaider,

I am just guessing here, and I hope that I am wrong, but I have a strong feeling that you are the sort of guy who is very into processes and rules and who finds feelings and emotions, especially those of others, somewhat baffling and incomprehensible.

Of course, you may reply with a refutation of my guess, but it would be difficult to know if that response is accurate as we can all decide who and what we are on the Internet.

By the way, I have just read the "Rhodesia" thread and I have to say that I rather agree with your comments there. While it was far from being a perfect democracy (where is, to be honest?), there was representation for all groups and ethnicities and a clearly articulated plan to move, over time, towards equal voting rights and representation. I rather suspect that what is now known as Zimbabwe would have been a far better place if that plan had been allowed to proceed.

I was born and brought up in Rhodesia and my father and uncle served in the war. They were not fighting for apartheid or a white supremacist state; like many others, they fought for a future Rhodesia that would be a truly colourblind nation, unlike the current Zimbabwe.

>>Your own words.

I've never denied that.

>>That is a blanket attack against an entire group of people.

No it's not. I've stated that several times. More importantly, Armintrout (you may have heard of him….he owns the site and sets the rules) agrees that is was not.

At this point, your opinion otherwise no longer matters. It's been resolved. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but it's been decided. You (and your two fellow lynch mob members) are now uselessly dragging this farce of a thread out. Do you realize how you are just embarrassing yourself on an international level at this point? Seriously, dude. Stop while you're behind. Save some shred of self-respect.

But you and I both know it's not about anything I might have said in that post. It goes back to before that. to the "Countries Added" thread. Spare us the faux-outrage.

Martin

That is a blanket attack against an entire group of people.

I just don't see how an opinion can be a "blanket attack" against anyone.

For example: I'm Mormon. For a variety of reasons, many people have negative misconceptions about my religion. That doesn't bother me. They have the right to their opinion.

In the name of religious tolerance, would it make sense to prevent people from expressing their opinions about the Mormon church? I don't think so.

Dear Editor, I am still at a loss as to why you are not defending your employees.

They are adults. They can defend themselves, if they want to.

Of course, two are on vacation, one has a fried computer, and the other is still sick, so maybe this discussion is not a priority for them right now.

And that is that.

Straight from the horses mouth so to speak. It's over. Both of the accusations from the lynch mob have been dismissed.

Can we lock or delete this thread now, Bill? This has gone on long enough.

Martin

I just don't see how an opinion can be a "blanket attack" against anyone.

It is my opinion that Christians are terrible people for holding bigoted beliefs about the LGBT community and for using those bigoted beliefs to justify law in the USA.

Bill,

The comparison between being LGBT and being a Mormon is not really a valid one.

Religious affiliation, or the lack of, is a lifestyle choice that each person makes; that is entirely different from the situation with the vast majority of LGBT people, who do not make a choice to be that way.

Expressing views about a particular choice of religion is valid, possibly even so far as describing, for example, all Mormons as being mentally ill.

However, criticising people in the same way because of something that they were born with is really unacceptable to all but the most bigoted of individuals.

Bill,

Regardless of your employees being adults, do you not have a duty to protect them while they are performing their duties? Are they employees? Do they have employment contracts?

I also don't believe that my Grand Daughter suffers from a mental illness because she is LGBT, she is saner than I am!!

Maybe you should learn more about mental health?

Having a mental illness doesn't mean one is necessarily "insane."

As I get older, I'm inclined to think all of us are insane, in our own ways.

Regardless of your employees being adults, do you not have a duty to protect them while they are performing their duties? Are they employees? Do they have employment contracts?

Thaddeus, is that you? Only you would waffle on about employment contracts…

Thaddeus? Wow! Someone's parents were feeling cruel that day!

The point is that there may well be a legal requirement for you to protect your employees while they are performing their duties. Glibly saying that they are adults and can defend themselves does not really cut the mustard.

Murphy messaged me off-thread and explained that he didn't intend any ill will towards Don and did not intend a personal attack on him.

I am going to bow out of this thread for good.

The topic of civil rights is near and dear to my heart and I feel quite strongly about it as do others, on different sides.

That tends to not lend itself to balanced discussions and it lends itself very well to assuming the worst of people we can't see face-to-face.

Londongamer:

Sorry, I missed your last reply to me above.

Thanks for the kind words and agreement on the topic of Rhodesia. The problem with folks like our friend Rebelyell2006 above, is that they listen to the propaganda and don't do any sort of research themselves…let alone actually speak to someone that lived through it all. Thus their opinion is fatally flawed from the start. You could see it on that thread in way he just parroted the propaganda line, spewed hate filled rhetoric, and didn't even make an attempt to refute any of the facts that I pointed out.

That's the problem with choosing emotion over facts.

Which brings us to your first paragraph and it's guesses about me.

While I disagree with your assumption that I find the emotions of others to be "puzzling", you are right in pegging me as a rules and procedures guy. I've been that way my whole life. My conservative "law and order" world view and choice in profession (I'm a 25 year criminal justice professional) reflects that. It's the institution of rule of law that makes human civilization have meaning. It's important that everyone not just pick and choose which laws they care to obey, lest the whole order fall apart. The rules of a forum like this reflect that fact in a microcosm. That's why I hate trolls and other trouble makers, and urge they be dealt with enthusiastically.

Sadly, not everyone agrees.

Martin

TrenchRaider,

While I agree with you about the importance of laws and rules to human civilisation, I would argue that there are times when both can and should be broken, or at least bent very severely, in the interests of justice, especially, but not solely, when one is faced by what might be described as "bad laws". As examples, I would suggest the obvious cases, such as some laws in Nazi Germany, the USSR and apartheid South Africa. Would you have been so happy and eager to uphold all of their laws?

When faced by rules that are not consistently applied, or which appear to not actually be rules at all but, essentially, rough approximations of rules where one can be punished not for breaking a rule but for being "close enough", I have to question your standpoint. Also, how does one define a "troublemaker"? That is highly subjective and it seems that at least a few people here regard you as one; so, should you also be dealt with enthusiastically, or does that only apply to those that you regard as troublemakers?

Also, how does one define a "troublemaker"? That is highly subjective and it seems that at least a few people here regard you as one; so, should you also be dealt with enthusiastically, or does that only apply to those that you regard as troublemakers?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

On the CAS myth, I would agree that it can do CAS- the problem is that it probably isn't as useful as a purpose built aircraft in that role. Part of CAS is assuring your ground forces that they are protected, and no fast pass, haul ass CAS platform does that.

The point is that there may well be a legal requirement for you to protect your employees while they are performing their duties. Glibly saying that they are adults and can defend themselves does not really cut the mustard.

Two of them have already expressed their views to me, and do not feel "attacked."

I also don't believe that my Grand Daughter suffers from a mental illness because she is LGBT, she is saner than I am!!

Maybe you should learn more about mental health?

That is quite insulting.