This reliable source has said that the Anti's just can not fish properly
. .
duncan61 wrote:Port Arthur has been discussed on this site but it was a while ago
Jandamurra wrote:If you wouldn't mind clueing me in on something, were all topics able to be viewed by non-members/ even when not signed in at one stage, or has this been introduced since this forum was established?
I'm also looking for the thread on the Port Arthur Massacre (PAM). Has it been removed, or have I just not seen it?
Jandamurra wrote:What does "inflammatory" even mean, as a reason to close a thread to comments or viewing? Surely the only thing that should be banned is incitement to violence.
SomeoneElse wrote:I take the approach of:
- What goes online stays online.
- Anything you post in the forums can be read by anyone else, signed up or not.
- What you post may be taken out of context by antis to use against us as a group. I err on the side of caution and restraint.
- There may be secret/hidden sub-forums which I don't know about. I haven't received any secret handshakes from long-term members, and that's fine by me.
- Mods have "trimmed" threads when things get out of hand. Usually arguments between forum members that which head into "playing the man, not the ball" territory.
Aster wrote:Jandamurra wrote:If you wouldn't mind clueing me in on something, were all topics able to be viewed by non-members/ even when not signed in at one stage, or has this been introduced since this forum was established?
I'm also looking for the thread on the Port Arthur Massacre (PAM). Has it been removed, or have I just not seen it?
All topics are able to be read by the public / non members. It was never the case that content was available to members only.
I don't know which "the" PAM thread you're referring to would be, as there have been multiple ones over time. It may have been removed if the discussion was getting out of hand.
Do a search using the function (top-left) for "port arthur" and whatever is there, is there.Jandamurra wrote:What does "inflammatory" even mean, as a reason to close a thread to comments or viewing? Surely the only thing that should be banned is incitement to violence.
I'm not going to list potentially inappropriate subjects but clearly there are things in addition to incitements of violence that are inappropriate for a reasonable, all ages forum.
As it says under the submit button when posting/replying: "Enough Gun aims to provide a mature environment which promotes legal, responsible firearm practices. The discussion or promotion of illegal activities is prohibited and members may not post abusive, defamatory or otherwise objectionable content"
Let that be your guide.
on_one_wheel wrote:bladeracer wrote:I haven't seen anything that looked like it could be of ulterior motives.
I remember a "how many guns can I stockpile" question.
I think the best answer came from a regular forum user "why don't you just ask your anti gun mates?"
on_one_wheel wrote::welcome:Ed9362 wrote:usually the antis are trying to make us out to be paranoid redneck weirdos.
I think accusing new members of being government or media spies doesn't really help bust that myth.
Trust me ...
Ps. If anyone wants to download plans for an effective tinfoil hat that actually works, just pm me and I'll send you the plans when I'm not too busy dating my cousin.