Even if you can't admit what you did was wrong or even if you don't understand what you did was wrong, we all know it was. You've been informed that it was wrong and in poor taste and you still don't get it. No, you didn't name anyone, you threw a large net over a large group of people. Whether or not any one of the members of that group truly are "limp wristed" in your opinion or not is irrelevant and not the point.JerryK wrote:This will be my last post on this subject, it is taking up too much of my time, for a simple word usage.
There are some on this forum that have thin skin. I posted that “there are there are limp wristed people on this forum” Could that be true? I did not name anyone by name.
If I was reading that, my thought is, I am not limp wristed and he must be speaking about someone else. Another thought could be this forum has NO LIMP WRISTED members which cannot possibly be true, because there is a very wide segment of the population that has an interest in guns and SD. “Limp wristed” is a Point of View, the same as Snowflakes, Right Winger, Wingnut, Zealot, and so forth. But since this was posted and responded to… The closest rule that I approached is rule #2, I didn’t attack anyone. I used a term that could apply to a lot, ‘If the shoe fits’…
TAM if you want to label me "Boorish" that is your prerogative, and what I refer to as a point of view. Remember the saying ‘Sticks and stones’… But now if I didn’t have broad shoulders, you named by name and called me boorish, which is the same thing you are accusing me of. Except I never placed that a name on any member specifically. I could call you a hypocrite. It appears to me you violated rule #2 specifically.
I might also point out the term ‘improper signs’ was never brought up in this thread. I have heard some mention that a sign that had letters only 7/8” or a word was mis-spelled constituted an improper sign. My view is that expresses a ‘desire’ and is good enough for me not to walk past. It has also been represented there is no legal precedent and I do not want to be the test case.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “06/07 sign ignorance”
- Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:49 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: 06/07 sign ignorance
- Replies: 15
- Views: 6302
Re: 06/07 sign ignorance
- Sat Dec 31, 2016 6:04 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: 06/07 sign ignorance
- Replies: 15
- Views: 6302
Re: 06/07 sign ignorance
Political correctness and politeness are two very different things. I am unaware of nor do I recall anyone calling someone that might question a store manager regarding a 30.06 or .07 sign obnoxious or any other name. However, you did use a derogatory term to describe those that would simply choose to not patronize that store and let their wallet speak for them.JerryK wrote:I am sorry if what I said offended you, because it was not a 'personnel attack' on anyone. My comment was simply a 'shot across the bow' to try and tell me how I should keep my mouth shut, about trying to educate business owners on what signs mean. I am sure that would have been the next post how it is not a good idea...
PC is what has brought this country down. If DT spoke like some on this forum we would all be inaugurating Madam President on the 20th, rather than celebrating his victory. Keep in mind what I used is not really a harsh words unless...
Also, a "shot across the bow" is a warning that something worse that will happen if the other's action does not stop. To which action were you warning anyone from continuing and who had committed that action?