I would be incensed if someone called me a liar on this board. We are all Dems and shouldn't be at each other's throats like that. Being called a "liar" should be treated under the TOS as being called a crypto-Republican; it should be against the rules.

I have had plenty of heated-sounding arguments here, but at least my co-DUers haven't stooped to calling me a liar.

In question wish us to do and they will employ all manners of unethical tactics to achieve that end. I, for one, am routinely accused of being an NRA troll for daring to question some of the absurdities and ignorance surrounding firearms that’s often displayed on DU. It doesn’t bother me, that just tells me the accuser is either unable or unwilling to engage in honest discussion on the subject.

tortoiseA: Hey Mods - how many times will J1 be allowed to personally attack people and insult other posters before he qualifies for the big boot? .. surely accusing other posters of lying on multiple occasions (without justification) deserves some sort of response.

I think the 'Mods' would need you to actually post some of the transgressions you claim I made. I have remained civil, being snarky is not (necessarily) a violation of tos. I have not called you a liar, tho you called me a liar. I posted evidence of you either lying or posting misinformation, while you simply accuse people of improper posting without providing evidence.
I'll give you an example of how to do it:

1) tortoise : ..surely accusing other posters of lying on multiple occasions (without justification) deserves some sort of response.

Examples of tortoise accusing jimmy the one of 'lying', on multiple occasions:
tortoise, Post 42: Finally, J1 goes on to screech that
tortoise, Post 42: So, J1, who's the baldfaced liar here? That would be you.
tortoise, 42: J1 is still defaulting to attempted character assassination and outright lies when he can't prove his point.
tortoise, 42: J1 has created a fanciful Foreign Half/Domestic Half argument out of whole cloth

Now, tortoise, to get the mods to act on your complaint, you need to cite me actually calling you a liar without justification. When I did say you lied, I provided the evidence in a paragraph first.

2) my post 37: jimmy wrote: Tortoise above corrupts what I posted, & below is the proof. Observe how he takes one sentence from the 'british source' out of context, disregarding what followed. That is considered unethical, a misrepresentation, & a LIE, since in context it meant an individual right to belong to a militia:
british scholars: .. embodied in the English Declaration of Rights did not intend to protect an individual’s right to possess, own, or usearms for private purposes.. it referred to a right to possess arms in defense of the realm.

The second time I said tortoise lied, was when he claimed to have discussed Fort Wm & Mary, when he had not mentioned the fort by name, & had misidentified the town where the fort was located (tho town's mis-identity was later understandable).

tortoise: .. the fort I discussed was Fort William and Mary, not Pownall:
jimmy: You lie. You did not mention the fort by name, you insert the name here to save face.
-----------------------------------------------

Here is an argument tortoise used, and was later shown to be false: tortoise: The most common definition of "abroad", in the language of the times, was outside, as in outside of your house. This invalidates all the fancy language J1 used while talking about traveling armed in foreign countries, https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=205510

To follow the thread which provoked tortoise, will show who was more of an antagonist in this.
Posts are nearer the bottom, starting at 22 down.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172206840#post45

It seems tortoise became irate after shown to be wrong. Seems mr tortoise can dish it out, but can't take even a whiff of his own medicine.

Jimmy has a unique style of posting to say the least, but you getting mad and making a post like this isn't right. Choose your battles wisely. Anyone that spars with Jimmy better have their ducks in a row. He's obviously well educated and knows how to express facts and his opinions very well. If you want to even try to come out ahead in an argument with him, or anyone, this post isn't the way to do it : (

Looks like both of you used the "L" word. I don't know who said it first but if a post I'm in devolves that far I'm out. The bad feelings aren't worth it and no one's really winning the argument after that.

Have to say, these post show that a lot of people on DU don't care about what goes on in the "gungeon" LOL. I figured this post would be gone by now. Not sure about the other one but I guess no one alerted on it, or if it was, the jury didn't care. It's like "They're being disrespectful in the gungeaon? Meh, who cares."

Back in the day, you'd frequently see "Gungeon, vote to leave it". DU proper knows that this group can get a mite fiesty at the best of times, and for a while we had a few on the GC side who were -stupidly- offensive just in general. Perhaps ironically, DU's least-loved Forum didn't ban them, but they were tombstoned/FFRed by the rest of the DU instead for unrelated reasons. They were too much for D.U., but not too much for the Gunderdome.

Go figure.

There will always be a few like that on any forum, political or otherwise, and there's nowhere on the internet that's safe from it. Nifty thing about DU is, just Ignore that poster and the problem clears up nicely.

You get to keep rolling with us half-decent RKBA folks while simultaneously depriving the needy of the attention they so desperately lack in their lives. It's win-win!


Seriously mate, a majority of RKBA folks and even a few on the Gun Control side can, and infrequently do, have civilized back-and-forths. It's just unfortunate that you got hit with one of the scummier ones on the Gun Control side (Although even the GC folks avoid responding to that particular poster.) Being up front about it, just hit the Ignore button and carry on as you were. You won't be missing anything of value.