Michigan 2nd Amendment March - who's going

[Beerme]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

cabman1 wrote:

you must have home schooled yourself read it 3 times from the quoted post not his revised post!It said he knew it was illegal.But no one expected him to fight his own battles he did need a grown up to fight it for him.

You running to his aid only goes to prove he is a child!

Yeah? And what do you call a group of people who constantly gang up on someone?

The term "bullies" comes to mind.

And I read the quote, I got it right away.

They haven't constantly ganged up on him. This is the first time for most of these posters.

They are just tired of the two faced antics of this childish attention whore.

It was my first time seeing his posts.
I regret being able to read at that current moment of my life

 

[CoonDog]

imported post

Venator,

I'll get there early and lend a hand.

CoonDog

 

[Bronson]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Second, proper sentence structure and punctuation is necessary to articulate the denotation of you communications.

Did you mean "your communications" instead of "you communications"?

Just trying to clarify so I don't get all confused.

Bronson

 

[Bronson]

imported post

Hey V,

I'll probably beingdriving up ina small convoy with some friends so I can't promise to be there early, but I'll be happy to help out once I arrive.

Bronson

 

[Ruckus]

imported post

Upon confirming it with myself first by finally putting in for the pto time, I asked my father if he would like to go. I'm also gonna ask my great uncle to come down and go with us as well. Potentially got a cousin to come too so unless something comes up I plan to be there plus a couple-few others.

***former lurker known as "Ethan_Frome" since 2008.

 

[Guest]

imported post

Bronson wrote:

CV67PAT wrote:

Second, proper sentence structure and punctuation is necessary to articulate the denotation of you communications.

Did you mean "your communications" instead of "you communications"?

Just trying to clarify so I don't get all confused.

Bronson

In the context of the statement, do you not think that the plural would be appropriate?

ETA: Furthermore, the critique of the inability of lil_freak_66's inability to communicate effectively is germane to the discussion and comment thereon is more than appropriate as it was that inability that created the apparent misunderstanding in the first place.

 

[autosurgeon]

imported post

Ven My brother and I will be there as early as needed and will help setup whatever needs setup!

 

[Venator]

imported post

Thanks to all those that have offered to help.

I also have contacted the local hot dog street vendor (he is cleared by the Capitol for vending on the grounds) to be there, so if you get hungry nothing beats a street dog yummy...don't forget the tums.

 

[manicdevery]

imported post

woot. yeah i am going for sure but i will have to wait till a little closer to the event to give my departure time/location.

See you there!!!

 

[taxwhat]

imported post

CV67PAT wrote:

Big Gay Al wrote:

cabman1 wrote:

you must have home schooled yourself read it 3 times from the quoted post not his revised post!It said he knew it was illegal.But no one expected him to fight his own battles he did need a grown up to fight it for him.

You running to his aid only goes to prove he is a child!

Yeah? And what do you call a group of people who constantly gang up on someone?

The term "bullies" comes to mind.

And I read the quote, I got it right away.

They haven't constantly ganged up on him. This is the first time for most of these posters.

They are just tired of the two faced antics of this childish attention whore.

:monkeywOw ! :monkey

 

[Guest]

imported post

Glad to see that you recognize that your last three posts lacked merit and and were in need of deleting.

Big Gay Al wrote:

:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

Last edited on Fri Mar 26th, 2010 10:27 am by Big Gay Al

Big Gay Al wrote:

:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

Last edited on Fri Mar 26th, 2010 10:28 am by Big Gay Al

Big Gay Al wrote:

:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

Last edited on Fri Mar 26th, 2010 10:29 am by Big Gay Al

 

[John Pierce]

imported post

[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]People have been forgetting Rule # 5 lately and the Michigan forum has been a particular offender.

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks


[/font]

 

[WARCHILD]

imported post

Thank you Mr. Pierce!
Since we don't appear to be adult enough to govern ourselves, your attention is appreciated.

 

[scot623]

imported post

jpierce wrote:

[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]People have been forgetting Rule # 5 lately and the Michigan forum has been a particular offender.

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks


[/font]

Does this rule still qualify if we disagree not with the posters opinion, but their very dangerous, possibly improperly worded advice to subvert the law?

 

[Guest]

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Thank you Mr. Pierce!
Since we don't appear to be adult enough to govern ourselves, your attention is appreciated.

It appears that the children are still here though.

 

[SpringerXDacp]

imported post

MIKEHUNT wrote:

WARCHILD wrote:

Thank you Mr. Pierce!
Since we don't appear to be adult enough to govern ourselves, your attention is appreciated.

It appears that the children are still here though.

When all you have is a hammer....

 

[John Pierce]

imported post

That is fine. You can disagree with anyone on any point of fact. But personal attacks have got to stop and I think we are all intelligent enough to know the difference!



scot623 wrote:

jpierce wrote:

[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]People have been forgetting Rule # 5 lately and the Michigan forum has been a particular offender.

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks


[/font]

Does this rule still qualify if we disagree not with the posters opinion, but their very dangerous, possibly improperly worded advice to subvert the law?

 

[T Vance]

imported post

.

 

[WARCHILD]

imported post

Obviously not, it has increased 100 fold in the last 5 months. But then again I'm only a small snail in a big dirty pond.
JMO

 

[John Pierce]

imported post

You are misreading the 'OR'. Rule 5 states we will not tolerate

- personal attacks

OR

- general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation

And the rules are supposed to simply state what we all already know, and that is how to act politely in public.



T Vance wrote:

jpierce wrote:

[font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]People have been forgetting Rule # 5 lately and the Michigan forum has been a particular offender.

5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks


[/font]

I don't seeANYWHERE where CV67Pat violated this rule!

The rule specifically says "5) While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, sex, or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer)".


Could you please cite where he made any comments personally attacking or generally bashing any groups or people based on RACE, RELIGION, SEX, or CHOICE of OCCUPATION?