OK, I'm getting fed up with this "correctness" jargon. I continue to get emails from people who
supported raising the original topic of that thread, but felt intimidated by the group about
discussing it here. It would seem that that's really a lot more important than whether or not
there's an occasional OT political thread. Moreover, very few people actually posted on the original
topic. So there's a kind of PC-ness that's a little like the stuff floating at the top of the hot
tub. Everyone knows it's there, but nobody mentions it.
Here's a quote: "I'm really enjoying your discourse on ARBR. I'm currently unable to post due to
technical difficulties, though would have very little to add but my encouragement.
I very much admire your ability to keep the discussion cool and your responses well considered
and rational. How refreshing, over the usual bi-partisan posturing, blaming and name calling on
OT subjects!
If I recall, some similar situations to what the UK is going thru (Weapon Bans vs. Crime Stats) are
also taking place in South Africa and Australia. IIRCC, petty crimes in both countries have tripled
(or some monstrous rate) as well as violent crimes being on the upswing as well to a lesser degree.
Well done."
And that's only one. There are others.
So by all means ***** about the politics discussions, but that's not really the heart of the issue,
is it? It's something else entirely. It's about who gets to say what the definition of "on" is.
My take is that of all the folks who posted to that thread, roughly 20% "carry" at least
occasionally. Most of the people who carry take a lot of pains to conceal, because they know they'll
be ostracized if they don't. Did you know that? Why not? Does it matter? I guess not, if you figure
it's just an OT political discussion.
And I think there's a bit of a "nanny" element to these complaints. After all, not one single post
was cross-posted, in marked distinction to some of the helmet threads I've seen that were far more
disruptive and ultimately destructive. It's hyperbole to claim that these threads will destroy the
newsgroup. Nonsense. Are all you guys career bureaucrats or something? I mean, lighten up already.
There are three complaint posts to every OT post. It's (as my nephew used do say) "reedickeous."
--
--Scott
"Carl R. Murdock" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> > I wonder... Suppose those of us who are tired of OT discussions all
left.
> > Would the OT motormouths still stay here and talk to themselves?
> >
> > Frank Calloway
>
>
> No chance. They will go to the next recumbent group and infect it.
> They will go O.T. every chance they get, all the time trying to show
> how clever and right they are until the cancer ruins the group. They
> don't want to discuss their O.T. ideas with a newsgroup that would be
> appropriate. They would rather disrupt this group and say "you don't
> have to read it".
>
> Sick of it also!
>
> Carl R. Murdock
