Robyn is not going to accept your challenge. Not because she's afraid to or doesn't feel her arguments are up to the task, but because it's pretty obvious that she's not a debater.
Not everyone is good at or enjoys debate, some people just like to write. Some people do both, but often that's not the case.
Unfortunately, to the anti's, reasonable means that we should ban everything except break action shotguns. If you disagree, you are just an unreasonable meanie and that can't be tolerated.
And she has been discussing the topic. It's just that her interpretation of a discussion is this: She says what's on her mind, then she reads what we have to say about it. We get our side in, but it never continues past that—there's no going down the line and conceding or refuting points, it's just a "Ok, we both had our say" thing for her.
The point I raised, which she refused to post by the way, is that she and the other anti-gunners don't want to find "common ground". They simply want their way.
Their version of "common ground" is, if we will approve their current agenda, they'll "allow" us to keep our guns...well, except for the ones that look like assault weapons...and the ones that have a capacity over 10 rounds, or 7 rounds, or 5 rounds, or whatever the magic number is this week...and the ones that are too big...and the ones that are too small...etc etc etc.
My specific question to her was, in order to find this mythical "common ground", what three current gun control laws would she agree to see repealed if the gun rights lobby would concede three gun control agenda items.
Notably, she refused to even post the question, let alone try to explain how expecting us to meekly give in to their demands without any quid pro quo could possibly constitute "common ground."
She has said it herself...she is a columnist. She is used to one way conversations wherein she can say whatever she wants and can assume that her audience accepts her pearls of wisdom at face value because they have no avenue for rebuttal. She doesn't deal well with having to defend her untruths, misstatements and outright falsehoods because she simply is not used to having to do so.
It's nothing more than another case of a self-righteous, elitist, petty tyrant objecting when we lowly people, who should be thanking her for gracing us with her wisdom and insight, have the gall to contradict her. How DARE we!!! Don't we know our PLACE???
"Robyn, it's been more than 24 hours since I made that last comment, and it still hasn't appeared on the entry—I know other people have also replied to this entry whose comments haven't made it through moderation yet.
You said you were allowing comments through the 8th ... I hope you're not trying to sit on these comments for two more days and then be like, "Ooops, sorry I didn't get around to allowing your comment, but it's too late now."
Also, when you disable comments on Saturday, will the comments on these older entries still be visible, or are you going to wipe them clean?"
Robin, since you have become a lightning rod on RTKBA, why not let others help? Do the best you can and others will join the fray. Who cares if you aren't the champion debater of the universe? DO SOMETHING! We don't need quitters. We need staunch determination in the face of overwhelming odds. Come on. Open it back up.
Kevin, the reason she doesn't wish to debate is simple. If you calmly debate, with points of fact, the emotion the grabbers rely on is removed. Provable points can over ride emotion when put in black and white on paper/screen. They lose.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/09/open-letter-to-robyn-ringler.html (15 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Give it time, it sometimes takes a day or so for the posts to appear.
Also, you can see *your* posts, but nobody else can until she moderates them. If you clear your cookies it will disappear.
Yeah, I also have a comment awaiting moderation in that entry.
Robyn is not going to accept your challenge. Not because she's afraid to or doesn't feel her arguments are up to the task, but because it's pretty obvious that she's not a debater.
Not everyone is good at or enjoys debate, some people just like to write. Some people do both, but often that's not the case.
Hey, she was the one who said she wanted to discuss the topic. Remember, "a venue for reasonable voices"?
"a venue for reasonable voices"?
Unfortunately, to the anti's, reasonable means that we should ban everything except break action shotguns. If you disagree, you are just an unreasonable meanie and that can't be tolerated.
And she has been discussing the topic. It's just that her interpretation of a discussion is this: She says what's on her mind, then she reads what we have to say about it. We get our side in, but it never continues past that—there's no going down the line and conceding or refuting points, it's just a "Ok, we both had our say" thing for her.
The point I raised, which she refused to post by the way, is that she and the other anti-gunners don't want to find "common ground". They simply want their way.
Their version of "common ground" is, if we will approve their current agenda, they'll "allow" us to keep our guns...well, except for the ones that look like assault weapons...and the ones that have a capacity over 10 rounds, or 7 rounds, or 5 rounds, or whatever the magic number is this week...and the ones that are too big...and the ones that are too small...etc etc etc.
My specific question to her was, in order to find this mythical "common ground", what three current gun control laws would she agree to see repealed if the gun rights lobby would concede three gun control agenda items.
Notably, she refused to even post the question, let alone try to explain how expecting us to meekly give in to their demands without any quid pro quo could possibly constitute "common ground."
She has said it herself...she is a columnist. She is used to one way conversations wherein she can say whatever she wants and can assume that her audience accepts her pearls of wisdom at face value because they have no avenue for rebuttal. She doesn't deal well with having to defend her untruths, misstatements and outright falsehoods because she simply is not used to having to do so.
It's nothing more than another case of a self-righteous, elitist, petty tyrant objecting when we lowly people, who should be thanking her for gracing us with her wisdom and insight, have the gall to contradict her. How DARE we!!! Don't we know our PLACE???
I just left her another comment on that entry:
It is pretty clear she is an idiot. i wonder if I would get anywhere filing a complaint with her licensing board.
And what exactly would your complaint be? And it would get you where?
She has every right to be as wrong as she wants, trying to fuck with her professional life is completely crossing the line.
What a horrendous idea.
Thank you Guav. I concur completely. Screwing with someone's professional career because you disagree with their politics is over the line.
Robin, since you have become a lightning rod on RTKBA, why not let others help? Do the best you can and others will join the fray. Who cares if you aren't the champion debater of the universe? DO SOMETHING! We don't need quitters. We need staunch determination in the face of overwhelming odds. Come on. Open it back up.
Kevin, the reason she doesn't wish to debate is simple. If you calmly debate, with points of fact, the emotion the grabbers rely on is removed. Provable points can over ride emotion when put in black and white on paper/screen. They lose.
I'm aware of that, CM.
Apparently, so is she.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>