CathyInBlue Shootered??? (Also, what's for breakfast??)

[SMiller]

I have a real hard time believing she could have said anything bad enough worth banning, mods love to boot the good members and leave the village idiots...

 

[KLB]

I have a real hard time believing she could have said anything bad enough worth banning, mods love to boot the good members and leave the village idiots...

I can't imagine why you would frequent the forum if you really believe that.

 

[churchmouse]

Wonder if the religion thread took a turn south and we are seeing some fallout?

What say the mods? permabans? or just cooling off periods?

Yup. Cool downs.

It was fairly disappointing. I did not do the deed but we let the kids run the playground and it was just to much for them.
I neg rep for the religious experiment.

 

[churchmouse]

I have a real hard time believing she could have said anything bad enough worth banning, mods love to boot the good members and leave the village idiots...

Do you really think we are not reading these threads.....really.

You have your moments on the edge. I have seen them.

We do not "LOVE" to boot anyone that does not really need to be removed. You have no idea what takes place with us so rethink your opinion please.

 

[BFP]

I'm a new member and have read way more than I've posted, but have frequented Internet forums for many years, even moderate one. I got my hand smacked for something I thought was ridiculous a while back. I have a fairly good idea what goes into moderating a forum of this size, and I understand it's your sandbox, but at the same time, sometimes I think the mods should grow some thicker skin.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Much as I advocate open discussion of a wide variety of subject matter, including religion, for the reasons that it adds depth to other members to understand their perspective, and that the religiously-motivated behavior of some people is on the short list of reasons I own guns, there are other rules as well which strike me as conducive to the purposes of the management, including those regarding hostility directed at other members. I had opened the second to last page of the thread (first one I hadn't read) which was completely removed before I tried opening the last page (I don't remember which one of the "Civil discussion" doppelgangers it was) when both of them were already getting outside the rules regarding hostility. Paul posted a warning which was more than adequate. When I proceeded to advance a page, it got the error screen regarding insufficient privileges indicating that the thread had already been removed. Presumably neither of them took Paul at his word, which is a trait in which my experience has shown him to be very consistent and reliable.

I hate to see this happen to either of them even temporarily, but at the same time, I understand why it was done. My sincere hope is that all can treat the subject matter with thoughtful commentary without allowing ourselves to become distressed to the point that we stop thinking about what we are saying.

I would recommend keeping focused on one thing: The opinion of anyone else regarding religion, the lack thereof, or the correctness of that religion can do absolutely nothing toward affecting the path upon which we embark for our own lives. More to the point, your (hypothetical) lack of faith does not threaten my faith, nor does my (hypothetical) lack of faith threaten your faith. I have noticed that most have done well with this even when diametrically opposed on some of the most divisive points the subject has to offer and hope to see this trend continue.

Last but not least, in the short time the subject has been open for discussion, I believe that the good it has done both for honest discussion of things that affect us in a number of ways (like terrorism for example) and for a better understanding of each other far outweighs the risk of having two people having a really bad day at the same time and not thinking through what they are saying, as appears to have happened here. As for the argument to the contrary, I will rest my position on the difference between a community and a technical site. It is great that I can find most any answer to any question without leaving the house. There are tons of information on an incredibly number of gun-related issues, some things I would never have thought to exist. This is all great; However, a community is made of people and that is the most valuable thing offered here, and while INGO could be converted into strictly a technical clearinghouse, it would destroy that community.

 

[Birds Away]

The store should add a fine selection of cheeses. They could make a killing. Just look at all these folks with nothing but whine.

 

[Expat]

I knew those threads were a honey pot.

 

[churchmouse]

I'm a new member and have read way more than I've posted, but have frequented Internet forums for many years, even moderate one. I got my hand smacked for something I thought was ridiculous a while back. I have a fairly good idea what goes into moderating a forum of this size, and I understand it's your sandbox, but at the same time, sometimes I think the mods should grow some thicker skin.

Well, try it.
Do you really think we as a group relish in banning/infracting active members of long standing.....really.
You get your hands smacked when you break a rule. There are rules. Break one and you get warned/infracted/banned.
Most of what we respond to is posts reported by the membership. We do not prowl looking for trouble.

The religious experiment (yes, I said experiment) was opened up with stern warnings as to what would happen if civil lines were crossed.
Well, they were crossed.
This was acted on per the original announcement and those who crossed the line were removed for a cool down.

Thicker skin, really. We Moderate this site per the rules set down by the site owner. It is his play ground.

If you had any idea of how much actually goes on you might re-think this statement.

I was sure I knew what this was all about as well. Then, I got to stand on the other side of the curtain. Wow.

 

[KLB]

Much as I advocate open discussion of a wide variety of subject matter, including religion, for the reasons that it adds depth to other members to understand their perspective, and that the religiously-motivated behavior of some people is on the short list of reasons I own guns, there are other rules as well which strike me as conducive to the purposes of the management, including those regarding hostility directed at other members. I had opened the second to last page of the thread (first one I hadn't read) which was completely removed before I tried opening the last page (I don't remember which one of the "Civil discussion" doppelgangers it was) when both of them were already getting outside the rules regarding hostility. Paul posted a warning which was more than adequate. When I proceeded to advance a page, it got the error screen regarding insufficient privileges indicating that the thread had already been removed. Presumably neither of them took Paul at his word, which is a trait in which my experience has shown him to be very consistent and reliable.

I hate to see this happen to either of them even temporarily, but at the same time, I understand why it was done. My sincere hope is that all can treat the subject matter with thoughtful commentary without allowing ourselves to become distressed to the point that we stop thinking about what we are saying.

I would recommend keeping focused on one thing: The opinion of anyone else regarding religion, the lack thereof, or the correctness of that religion can do absolutely nothing toward affecting the path upon which we embark for our own lives. More to the point, your (hypothetical) lack of faith does not threaten my faith, nor does my (hypothetical) lack of faith threaten your faith. I have noticed that most have done well with this even when diametrically opposed on some of the most divisive points the subject has to offer and hope to see this trend continue.

Last but not least, in the short time the subject has been open for discussion, I believe that the good it has done both for honest discussion of things that affect us in a number of ways (like terrorism for example) and for a better understanding of each other far outweighs the risk of having two people having a really bad day at the same time and not thinking through what they are saying, as appears to have happened here. As for the argument to the contrary, I will rest my position on the difference between a community and a technical site. It is great that I can find most any answer to any question without leaving the house. There are tons of information on an incredibly number of gun-related issues, some things I would never have thought to exist. This is all great; However, a community is made of people and that is the most valuable thing offered here, and while INGO could be converted into strictly a technical clearinghouse, it would destroy that community.

While I have avoided the religious discussions, I have to agree with you. It is better to have them at the risk of people slipping across the line than to not have them.

People need to learn to filter what they type. There are a LOT of things that cross my mind which I begin to type, only to click the cancel button upon further consideration.

 

[Trigger Time]

Well, try it.
Do you really think we as a group relish in banning/infracting active members of long standing.....really.
You get your hands smacked when you break a rule. There are rules. Break one and you get warned/infracted/banned.
Most of what we respond to is posts reported by the membership. We do not prowl looking for trouble.

The religious experiment (yes, I said experiment) was opened up with stern warnings as to what would happen if civil lines were crossed.
Well, they were crossed.
This was acted on per the original announcement and those who crossed the line were removed for a cool down.

Thicker skin, really. We Moderate this site per the rules set down by the site owner. It is his play ground.

If you had any idea of how much actually goes on you might re-think this statement.

I was sure I knew what this was all about as well. Then, I got to stand on the other side of the curtain. Wow.

You asked for it buddy. Don't give me your sob story

 

[churchmouse]

You asked for it buddy. Don't give me your sob story

Aw Geez man..........................

 

[Trigger Time]

We all know you mods get paid large amounts of untraceable cash and can borrow the Bugatti

 

[churchmouse]

We all know you mods get paid large amounts of untraceable cash and can borrow the Bugatti

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......Fenway does not know it is missing...............yet..............

 

[OutdoorDad]

I'm not a huge gun fanatic, but if INGO were to focus on only say, second amendment issues rather than the other divisive political discussions of the day, there will be supporters of the right to self-defense and keep and bear arms in all of the demographics you mentioned. I don't imagine this site has a huge following among Pink Pistol members, for example, but there's no reason why it couldn't.

Much truth there^

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Much as I advocate open discussion of a wide variety of subject matter, including religion, for the reasons that it adds depth to other members to understand their perspective, and that the religiously-motivated behavior of some people is on the short list of reasons I own guns, there are other rules as well which strike me as conducive to the purposes of the management, including those regarding hostility directed at other members. I had opened the second to last page of the thread (first one I hadn't read) which was completely removed before I tried opening the last page (I don't remember which one of the "Civil discussion" doppelgangers it was) when both of them were already getting outside the rules regarding hostility. Paul posted a warning which was more than adequate. When I proceeded to advance a page, it got the error screen regarding insufficient privileges indicating that the thread had already been removed. Presumably neither of them took Paul at his word, which is a trait in which my experience has shown him to be very consistent and reliable.

I hate to see this happen to either of them even temporarily, but at the same time, I understand why it was done. My sincere hope is that all can treat the subject matter with thoughtful commentary without allowing ourselves to become distressed to the point that we stop thinking about what we are saying.

I would recommend keeping focused on one thing: The opinion of anyone else regarding religion, the lack thereof, or the correctness of that religion can do absolutely nothing toward affecting the path upon which we embark for our own lives. More to the point, your (hypothetical) lack of faith does not threaten my faith, nor does my (hypothetical) lack of faith threaten your faith. I have noticed that most have done well with this even when diametrically opposed on some of the most divisive points the subject has to offer and hope to see this trend continue.

Last but not least, in the short time the subject has been open for discussion, I believe that the good it has done both for honest discussion of things that affect us in a number of ways (like terrorism for example) and for a better understanding of each other far outweighs the risk of having two people having a really bad day at the same time and not thinking through what they are saying, as appears to have happened here. As for the argument to the contrary, I will rest my position on the difference between a community and a technical site. It is great that I can find most any answer to any question without leaving the house. There are tons of information on an incredibly number of gun-related issues, some things I would never have thought to exist. This is all great; However, a community is made of people and that is the most valuable thing offered here, and while INGO could be converted into strictly a technical clearinghouse, it would destroy that community.

I agree. I have chosen not to participate much in those threads. For one, I am not a religious scholar--quoting and counter-quoting bible verses and expounding on their meanings is not my forte; secondly and, as far as INGO is concerned, such threads are not so important to discussing the issues of the day. It has been interesting reading some peoples' interpretations of various verses but I can see why INGO had previously had a 0-tolerance policy. It seems like when it comes to talking about religion, especially along the lines of whether it's foolish to be faithful or not, folks just can't help but to be nasty from time to time. It seems to me, for the over welming time the policy has been changed, INGOers have been far more respectful to each other, on both sides, than I could have imagined (until last night, apparently).

I like the change. More speech is better...even the stuff I find repugnant.

ETA: It appears the curfuffle may have been in this thread.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...s-discussion-public-displays-religiosity.html

 

[Cygnus]

I'm not a huge gun fanatic, but if INGO were to focus on only say, second amendment issues rather than the other divisive political discussions of the day, there will be supporters of the right to self-defense and keep and bear arms in all of the demographics you mentioned. I don't imagine this site has a huge following among Pink Pistol members, for example, but there's no reason why it couldn't.

Much truth there^

Not really......
Stick around. INGO is quite diverse. Not as much as one would hope but way more than you would expect.

The second ammendemnt forum IS usually on topic. Check it out. YMMV

 

[bradmedic04]

I hope Cathy comes back. She's mentioned before that if she were even temp-banned, she'd never return. Like others have related, she has an interesting perspective and is very knowledgeable, and I think she's certainly an asset.

 

[T.Lex]

Oof. I like CIB and D-Ric. Engaging thoughtfully with them and finding common ground was always challenging and fun. Hope they return.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm not a huge gun fanatic, but if INGO were to focus on only say, second amendment issues rather than the other divisive political discussions of the day, there will be supporters of the right to self-defense and keep and bear arms in all of the demographics you mentioned. I don't imagine this site has a huge following among Pink Pistol members, for example, but there's no reason why it couldn't.

I'm not a huge gun fanatic, but if INGO were to focus on only say, second amendment issues rather than the other divisive political discussions of the day, there will be supporters of the right to self-defense and keep and bear arms in all of the demographics you mentioned. I don't imagine this site has a huge following among Pink Pistol members, for example, but there's no reason why it couldn't.

Much truth there^

There are sections that I hardly ever look at because I have no interest in the subject matter. The political section, in particular, can be more abrasive than any other section of this site. Don't let the fact that that sub-forum exists preclude your active participation elsewhere.