What's your point? Maybe you can cite the rule that says one member can't comment on what another member says. If not, then perhaps it's time for you to be reminded of some rules and manners.
1) Don't lie.
Here you said,
"We have fire, Blues, Charles and Axe calling members here who want people with guns to be clean and sober, FREEDON HATING NAZIS. How telling."
Up to that point I had made
one post in reply to JimTH that discussed the thread topic, and that took note of the lack of links or citations for some rather out-there claims he was making, but I didn't call him any names, and certainly not a "FREEDOM HATING NAZI." After that, I made three posts that had zero to do with the thread topic in reply to what I perceived as a weird kind of innuendo by another member, but other than that member's name being in the quote-box I was replying to, I didn't mention anybody in the thread at all. Then I left you to make a fool out of yourself without any help from me by taking a break from the forum for a full week, ending at
Post #218 in this thread.
So you're a liar, and lying about what other members have said is against the rules, and most certainly violates any standard of manners I've ever heard of.
2)
Here again, don't lie, and don't think that your status as a Site Supporter gives you any more authority to call for bans or moderation than anyone else. You said,
"Reading this thread one glaring problem comes to light. The site is in need of moderation. We have dope smoking, drug using, anti all police, roaches in the woodwork."
You have a handful of people here who disclosed that they smoked pot 30+ years ago, and who all specifically said they haven't done it since then. You're now a serial liar.
3)
More lies.
"As a forum, can we litigate against the forum members here who have ruined this forum with their drug crazed posts?"
To a person, everyone who has admitted to smoking pot at some point in their lives have said they stopped many years ago. There is zero evidence of support for drug use of any kind in this thread. The other side of the argument than yours about the actual topic of the thread is a legal/constitutional/policy/political issue, not a drug use issue. No one has supported an opposition position to your stances because they intend to use drugs. They/we have only opposed policies that put government in control of people's private lives. There are perfectly valid laws against driving while impaired that can address safety concerns out in public, but you gun-grabber lites want to prohibit ownership of guns for what someone might do in the privacy of their own homes. You lose the ability/credibility to comment on rights issues when you take such an anti-individual-liberty stand as that, and then turn around and
lie about our positions coming from being "drug crazed." Quit lying. I've already caught you three times in this thread alone. Most forums you'd already be banned, but I'm fine with bans being a rare thing here, even in your case, because the solution to freakazoid speech such as yours isn't banishment or censorship, it's sunlight, and dude, I'm putting so much sunlight on your hairless, dimpled, lying backside that we can see the blisters rising from here!
4) You address
this post to
"You dopers" clearly directing the post to those who have disagreed with you, billt and JimTH in this thread. So not only do you add to your list of serial lies, you engage in name-calling in just the first two words of the post. You goin' for a record? Please refer to the rules you posted for some unknown reason in reply to me.
So "Yahn" all you want you pusillanimous prevaricator. You found the link to the rules, but obviously couldn't be bothered to give 'em a once-over.
Of course, I would expect nothing less from a badgefluffing, despicable hate-monger like you, who seems to think that
trying to rescue a stray kitten without "proper" ID is a perfectly valid reason for cops to shoot an unarmed citizen.
Good manners would dictate that you stop exposing yourself amongst discerning company.
Blues