Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - D.W.

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50]
General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 05:08:29 PM »
I don't think so, but it is a very high percentage of gun related deaths that get trotted out.  I think it's MOST deaths actually. 

That is a "problem" worth looking into.  I would like to say it should be divorced from the subject of gun control but if you were of the opinion that "saving lives" is the goal, it would be silly to ignore suicide by guns.

Focusing entirely on gun crime and crime prevention and self defense and accident prevention would be my preference.  When someone wants to check out I think our primary concern is eliminating or minimizing harm they do to others in the process. 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 04:05:51 PM »
OK, S.M.A. is pretty cool stuff.  Not sure if it's the answer to this puzzle but glad I looked it up.  :)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 03:46:48 PM »
I'm totally unfamiliar with "shape memory alloy-based components" or how they apply to the topic.
DGR sounds interesting in concept. 

Power is clearly a concern here, too. But advances in microprocessor technology and battery storage that have been driven by smartphones and portable electronics remove this issue as a showstopper. Motion detection and wake-up software can reduce battery drain during storage. Integrating the power supply to the ammunition clip and even charging by mechanical cycling are all ways to address power loss as a mode of failure.
Not a fan of this handwaving statement.  Some numbers (in hours or days between recharge) would be useful / more convincing.

The electronics failure being lower than mechanical failure is good to know.  Though that I assume falls to quality and cost of components.

The recognition rates for fingerprint detectors have been claimed to be as high as 99.99 percent (1 in 10,000 failure rate).
If this is possible, why the sweet *censored* is this tech NEVER USED ANYWHERE?  My failure rate on any device I've used is more like 10-20%.  :(

Thanks for the link

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 03:19:28 PM »
But if a "stunner" could drop a perpetrator reliably and as or more swiftly than a barbaric slug thrower would we want our cops to have both?  I mean, why allow anyone the option of ending a life outside of the courts if we still had the death penalty? 

Apologies if this is a distraction from the main topic.  :P

Granted you couldn't do all the nifty TV and movie (and occasional reality) tricks like shooting off locks or door hinges for breech entries with a stunner...

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 03:00:15 PM »
That's why I like a plug in safe which is also a charging station.  It would meet that criteria. 

Actually I think "smart guns" is a "dumb idea".  But if you were set on it, I think this would be the way to go about it.

The one that teases my brain is what happens when we get the technology to have our blaster/phaser/sound emitting device able to "set for stun"?  Once that tech is reliable and affordable how does the debate turn?

Then rather than lethal defense we are talking about the threat of death as a deterring effect on aggression.  We must decide if the benefits of saved lives even in self defense is worth the risk such an invention would be to those who would use it to facilitate theft/kidnapping/rape?  I suppose tazers already brought a lot of that to reality... 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 02:48:53 PM »
How do you envision this working?  This requires some actuator to work.  Unless you are going full electronic firing (which is also already existing tech though never used to my knowledge in a handgun) 

Now maybe someone has plans for a kinetic powered or watch battery system but this is going to require some juice the way I see it.  Also, it would want (IMO) a visual indicator that it was functioning / paired. 

I always envisioned this as unique RFID short range detector.  Probably grip activated.  Then on detection of the paired watch/ring/implant it would disengage the (mechanical) safety. 

An electric firing system would make the electric safety easier to implement but I know little about the power required to ignite a charge or the cost per round of ammunition built for such a system.

You've got me interested again and maybe I'll look up the latest innovations in this regard.  The last time I did so (a couple of years ago) they were pipe dreams or prone to failure.  Also worth noting, law enforcement also rejected the concept and demand to be exempted to any legislation regarding its requirement.

I'm glad at least you are focusing on the most realistic approach to smart guns over say the biometric scanning / fingerprint reader options.  (Though a magnetic ring; fully mechanical may have merit.  But more easy to defeat/spoof) 

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 02:23:56 PM »
Now selling a gun like that (when reliable) where the safe is the charging station...  You may have a market there.  That said, the cost becomes an issue.  Is the "right to self defense" (or however you want to state it) something only those of a certain economic level are entitled to?  Could we / should we subsidize this technology?  Tax credits?  /shrug 

High bar:  Get police to adopt this.
Lower bar:  Get federal law enforcement officers to adopt this.
Executive decision?:  Get your secret service detail to adopt this.

I'd accept any of these and then would adopt it myself if affordable.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 02:21:20 PM »
The tech is actually commercially available but has faced opposition getting to market (from guess who).
By anyone who wants a gun for self defense or for law enforcement or military work.  Or even from any non gun user who has forgotten to plug in their phone overnight and realizes that going without calls is probably less serious than drawing a weapon when a deadly situation occurs and having nothing happen...

Also, the delicate components tend to not work so well beyond say a .22 cal.  Though I haven't researched actual studies on electronic component durability.  That was just something I read in a few places without citation.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 01:44:02 PM »
That was my point on the gun safe.  If safeguarding your child from a gun related accident or death is not enough motivation, WTF good will a fine or extra year in jail do to motivate them?

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 01:19:33 PM »
Workshops where rather than rejecting a proposal the other side asks, "OK, we'll lets say you get exactly what you just asked for.  What result do you anticipate?"

Then have a discussion pointing out flaws if any in their expectations and go over why you oppose them as presented.

"Common sense", on a divisive issue in politics, is more often than not grounded in ignorance.

For example I find magazine size restrictions perplexing.  Take a group of legislators to a range.  Have an inexperienced non-gun user fire and do a magazine swap.  Have a moderately proficient user do it.  Have a practiced user do it.  Then ask them, if they still feel that a restriction of magazine size would save lives.

For those against assault weapons present them with a comparable hunting rifle and ask them if they feel the differences are significant enough to require special laws for this subset of firearms.

For laws which are reactive rather than proactive (such as gun safes) ask if they accept that people will break them and if the goal is to save children's lives when dealing with unsecured guns, what they are more likely to achieve is increasing punishment on a parent who is already dealing with an injured or lost child.  (Yes, IS an acceptable answer, but I feel the question should be asked.)

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 01:14:36 PM »
I'm all for a law requiring that a 3D printed gun be given a unique serial number then be registered.  Not that we live in the CSI world depicted on TV but you also can't apply the same expectations/rules on uncontrolled (unapproved?) manufacturing materials/processes. 

You could ban them outright, but again if 3D printing becomes some wave of the future, then you will then either have to play catch-up, or the "anti-gun" crowd would stall those measures as an end run on banning the new standard.  No clue how much of that is nonsense or the future...

I'm not saying we should do nothing but the easier something is to do behind closed doors the less effective it is to regulate.  That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, but you should lower your expectations. 

If someone ONLY wanted a handgun, that they expected to need to fire only a very limited amount of shots (1 or 2) to defend against home intrusion, how do you convince them that they should obey the law and NOT make a 3D gun if they couldn't afford a manufactured one?  Or convince someone who already is prohibited from owning a legal gun that it doesn't make sense to avoid the risk of buying a gun on the street?    If they are only going to use it in a life or death defensive situation, the risk of, "oh no, I'll get in trouble!" doesn't mean a lot.

I rate this along with the gun safe legislation.  It's not a BAD idea, it's just not going to amount to much beyond an additional fine/time on top of other charges.

how far would "our side" have to change before they sat down in good faith?
Being well informed on the mechanics and logistics of weapons and their ownership as well as making proposals that would have significant impact on stated goals would be a good start.  Then comes the hard (impossible?) ones.  Acknowledging that someone has the right to defend their life with lethal force.  Acknowledging that firearm collection and range shooting is a hobby / sport to some.  Acknowledging that a one size fits all solution may not work when considering rural/wilderness residents compared to urban residents. 

Then you need to convince some that any concessions are well meaning and reasonable on their own and not just a "what we could get push through or trick the other side into accepting because we can't achieve a full ban... yet."  That is already impossible for SOME on the other side.  For others, the tactics used in the name of reason or responsibility that fall short is poisoning more against you.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:25:01 PM »
No I don't think they have the manpower at present.  The question would be (one of those we don't like asking) is if the cost for that staffing pays off in a reduction of gun violence, gun accidents or gun suicides.  (I believe the answer is NO, but I'm not a researcher.)

3D printing with a serial number and forcing them to get a FFL is all well and good but it falls into the "unenforceable" laws.  It's not a BAD idea, but I am skeptical it will have any impact.  Beyond that, I'm not sure where it falls on a buyer's rights argument.  If it was for your own use, is it more like buying a weapon or is it worthy of the scrutiny a re-seller or gunsmith warrants?  I'm inclined to make them illegal, but we don't have a firm grasp on the ubiquitousness or reliability of 3D printed goods moving forward.

The opposition to research is the worst part in my eyes NH.  It's not like the NRA couldn't fund their own research if they feel the research of others is bogus/flawed.

"Good faith" must be earned.  To this day most people seem to think assault weapons = fully automatic machine guns without realizing those are already restricted to the point of de facto ban.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:15:46 PM »
NM, re-read and it is clear you meant private sellers.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:08:51 PM »
Do you also understand that the ATF won't even accept a licensing request from such a seller?
  Can you explain this part?  From the private or licensed seller?

General Comments / Re: Who do you trust with the nuclear launch codes?
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:06:05 PM »
When it comes to private individuals or businesses I think we should expect them to operate in the gray areas.  Businesses in fact we should expect them to be RIGHT up to the edge at all times.

When it comes to our government thought.  I don't think it's entirely naive to expect them to avoid actions that are obviously going to be illegal as soon as the mechanisms of law catch up.  Our parties have differing goals and interpretations of what our country SHOULD be as well as a very large overlap.  Acting against those ideals because it's TECHNICALLY not yet illegal is something we should punish them for in an effort to discourage that behavior. 

"Truth justice and the American way" should be more than catchy propaganda and bumper sticker fodder.  All governments play outside the rules now and then, but the closer we hold to our (stated) ideals the better, when it comes to the global community, as well as domestic moral.  That's not to say some calculate a loss of moral and the apathy that brings doesn't play into the plans of some.  It just seems, to me, to be a risky play and very short term thinking.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 11:48:50 AM »
Now if gun control advocates want to come up with an IPhone app and magnetic strip scanner that ties into a drivers license or state ID magnetic strip initiative (some already are) and any private seller can wait a minute or two for approval?  Then sure. 

Though the anti-registry group would still wail.

The suggestion for an ATF booth isn't a bad one.  It's really that or ban gun shows or private transfer and make all transfers use a 3rd party license gun seller with the ability to process the check.  Make inheritance of a weapon or gifting of a weapon also require that process.  (back to anti-registry concerns again)

I personally have no problem with a gun registry but a lot of people do.  A lot of those likely because of their natural (or learned) distrust for politicians and the media regarding such information.

As for the 3D printing all you can really do is ban them all.  Treat them like a stolen gun with the serial numbers filed off I guess.  Or requires a federal license to possess one.  Even then, that's an additional charge after the fact if it's involved in a crime.  Or the off chance someone gets frisked and caught with one.  Fortunately (?) they are still unreliable enough or the medium is cost prohibitive enough that we aren't faced with it in any significant number.

SMART politicians would be trying to draft "common sense" laws that make an effort to stay ahead of technology.  You know, instead of yammering about solutions that rely on technology still ahead of us...  Or things we aren't willing to pay for.

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 10:48:17 AM »
What if -- just a what if -- he only wants to clarify and strengthen gun laws and lawful management of guns to reduce gun related violence.  Anybody think that might be possible? Maybe?
I use to.  But too many otherwise smart people come up with proposals so ridiculous, impractical, unenforceable, technologically impossible (for the moment), financially improbable or just based on shockingly bad misinformation, that I no longer do.

I find myself in the position of loosing respect for my President's intellect (and he is mine as I voted for him and overall support his leadership), OR admit that he's playing politics on the gun issue and knows full well the "stupid" suggestions will go nowhere, and the others won't actually do what he claims to want. 

I believe he is trying to act as a counter influence to gun culture by attempting to frame gun owners as irrational, reckless and/or mentally unhealthy.  I happen to disagree with that tactic as a means to make the average citizen safer. 

There are a lot of things that could be done to reduce gun violence.  There are few things he can do by himself.  If the majority of the pro gun control camp would quit behaving exactly as a gun grabbing conspirator WOULD act, the conspiracy theorists would have a lot less to talk about.

It is a cultural battle like Josh says.  If enough of your friends and family would all look at you like you are some crazy murderer waiting to happen for just owning a gun that may very well reduce gun ownership.  That could in turn reduce gun violence and will certainly reduce suicide by guns and accidental injuries and deaths with firearms.  To many making the gun owning public uncomfortable or pariahs is a small price to pay for ANY reduction to those numbers.  To them the question of if wide scale disarmament would have other implications is best not thought about.  Or at least, worth the trade...

General Comments / Re: The theory that Dems want to ban guns
« on: January 11, 2016, 09:36:53 AM »
I think this relates to another topic that recently came up.  Obama may not have a plan mapped out or any expectation it would be possible to ban all guns.  However there are many people who expect he would WANT to ban all private firearm ownership.  And if you believe that's what he WANTS then it's easy to see every action related to guns as an incremental step towards that goal.

There is the crazy person belief:  "Obama is coming for our guns any day now!"
And the plausible belief:  "Obama and other liberals would like chip away at our right to own guns through legislation and social pressure until such a day that a ban will be possible."

So is it a crazy conspiracy theory?  Depends on the timeline really.  There ARE people conspiring to get guns out of the public.  The amount of power and time table you attribute to them determines how much of a nut you are.

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: January 08, 2016, 07:49:01 PM »
The issue scifibum is that "proof" like this does our party more harm than good.  Seraiti does correctly point out the sloppy wording used in the interview.  That defense may not render your conclusion incorrect but it does discredit the "proof" label effectively.  When your argument amounts to, "you hold positions even when presented with proof contradicting you" then you have decided to hold yourself to a higher standard.  You can't just be "right" you must be unassailable in your argument.

General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 08, 2016, 03:06:34 PM »
Too late to edit...
"Is Trump a "bad" candidate for the party because he has tapped into motivational forces that can drive his popularity?"

I think what I was trying to get at is;  Is Trump a bad candidate because he tapped into the "wrong" ideals, or elevated them above other ideals (or worse rejects the ideals of a "real conservative") the ones that are typically just paid lip service to but no REAL candidate actually believes...

Still reads like a mess, hope you all can parse out what I'm trying to say there.

General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 08, 2016, 02:45:46 PM »
I genuinely believe that the GOP gets people to vote against their own interest by shrewdly combining different ideals into a "brand".  Democrats do suffer somewhat to the "toe the line" mentality but (probably mostly because I see myself as a Democrat) I feel the party is more ideologically consistent.

In that regard, I think Jeb is absolutely on to something.  To me the question becomes, are we seeing the natural result of "branding" less than compatible ideals into a whole?  Is this a continuation of the Tea Party fracturing?  Is Trump a "bad" candidate for the party because he has tapped into motivational forces that can drive his popularity?  Does whoever can get the votes get to drive the bus within the party and the differing and sometimes contentious factions prescribe to an "all boats rise with the tide" mentality?  Is the "real conservative" ship going to be torpedoed by Trump while the rest rise?

The way I see it, the "real conservative" Jeb is and is claiming Trump is not, has not in recent history been a viable candidate.  They may ALSO be, or REALLY be, this "real conservative" but it's appealing to other motivations within the party that gets them into the White House.  So ya, he can be pissed off someone who doesn't pay enough lip service to those ideals is ahead in the polls.  He may even be right to fear Trump may actually oppose some of those ideals.  The truth (at least my version of it) is that it doesn't matter.  Winning on those ideals alone is not possible.  It may have been in the past the core, or REAL, party identity, but it's not what gets the average American to vote Republican.

General Comments / Re: Must GOP mean "conservative"?
« on: January 08, 2016, 12:40:43 PM »
Can you rephrase your question so that it is NOT a discussion on semantics?  I agree that we stretch and abuse our political labels but it will do little but confuse your question when you link it with this critique of language use. 

Unless you don't care about Jeb's point and would rather discuss the semantics? 
Attempting both at once will just be a mess.

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: January 08, 2016, 12:28:47 PM »
And when a significant portion of the nation become like that, then we are all in big trouble. :(
Only if you choose to attempt to reason with them instead of manipulate them.

You don't sit down at a table with sheep and pile up text books and explain to them why it's a good idea to agree with your goals and convince them they should aid you in achieving them.

You write off the group then try to make sure children aren't raised as more sheep or you use the same "dirty tricks" you bemoan in your opponents.

P.S. if you don't think liberals raise their own sheep you are suffering from your own blind spots.  When dealing with those in my own social circles, I pour more attention into the sheep stumbling in my direction than trying to herd those going against the tide.  I try to believe it's possible to wake someone up when they claim to want what you want.  Doing so when they claim to want the opposite of what I want seems impossible.

General Comments / Re: Terrorized Americans
« on: January 08, 2016, 09:28:47 AM »
Wouldn't you agree AI that is the correct way to handle it under the law?
I much prefer that to the law labeling someone as a racist because they happened to get in a fight with someone of a race other than their own...

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: January 07, 2016, 05:04:05 PM »
Don't give me too much credit.  I "know" they are wrong as well.  I just like to understand how they tick.  :P

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: January 07, 2016, 04:59:36 PM »
Understanding it is what's important.  Unless you just like to worry about things you can't change. 

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: January 07, 2016, 04:32:17 PM »
Part of the support is a rejection of being told what to believe by those who claim to know better than you.  If you "prove" to them they are misinformed they MAY (just maybe) concede they were incorrect, but they will hate you for it and oppose you more strongly.  To many liberal is synonymous with smug smarty pants who delight in pointing out other's ignorance.  Actually doing so reinforces that stereotype.  There are people who focus MUCH more on the (perceived) condescending attitude than they do the information conveyed.  So much in fact that defeating or reducing the influence of those liberals is more important than the truth.

Throw into that any hint of religious persecution or derision (which is not uncommon) and they just stop listening.  The ability to direct that sentiment as well as playing off xenophobia and security or economic fears and it's not a huge shock that Trump has a following.  The size of that following surprises me a little I'll admit. 

The man is a master manipulator, like the Clinton's.  It's just not the same flavor we are use to seeing in presidential politics.  Most are, umm... more subtle?

General Comments / Re: Fear trumps facts
« on: January 07, 2016, 04:23:24 PM »
Well Obama is (along with many democrats) badly misinformed on guns yet I still support him.  When you aren't a single issue voter, you do tend to "let things slide" that you disagree with or would otherwise criticize.  When "your president" or "your candidate" does something wrong but on the whole is still miles ahead to anyone the opposition would field, you have a tendency to just let others point out these faults.  I also don't rail against him for pushing executive power for all it's worth.  I find it reckless as it sets bad precedent even if I do sometimes agree with his motivation to take action and sympathies with his frustration.

We are pretty much stuck with a two party system and the best we can do is try not to conform to all being cookie cutter partisan drones.  There is nothing wrong with siding with those who offend your ideals the least when another side offends them consistently and to a larger degree.  Politics is always a compromise.  We pick the lesser of two evils because most of the time, both options ARE dangerously ambitions (if not evil).

The challenge now is to convince the rest of the state that it's worth it to pour money into Detroit.  AI is right (as far as I can tell by what little attention I pay to Detroit) that the private side is still showing signs of life.  Convincing everyone that a, "they get what they deserve for mismanagement" attitude, is going to hurt the state in the long run is no easy task.  It's not like we don't have other state wide concerns to deal with.  Pouring money into a single city which failed it's people spectacularly when the rest of the state could put that money to good use complicates things for Detroit. 

We may agree that resuscitating Detroit is a "good idea" but when it comes to state wide triage, most of us aren't sure it rates high on the list.  May be we are neglecting the best shot at long term economic opportunity by doing so.  Ask Flint if they think Detroit should be a priority when they are sipping poison in a state which has some of if not the best access to fresh water in the nation... or world.

General Comments / Re: Hell bent on the Caliphate
« on: January 04, 2016, 01:14:36 PM »
Or when one is accused of misrepresenting someone because when parsed, a word has a different "most obvious implied usage" to the writer, than the one you claim is "correct".  Typically not much of a problem but in some cases (a surprising many cases on Ornery) they represent incompatible or contrary meanings.

Oddly, this seems to derail discussion into accusations of ill intent rather than listening to one side or the other clarify their intent.

I do think an oath would stop «some« violent islamists.  Osama Bin Laden himself expressed horror that the treachery at Fort Hood brought dishonor on Islam since the shooter had made an oath of loyalty.
Fair enough.  Maybe I'm wrong and it would work.  We are so far removed from an honor based society of that type I guess it just doesn't click with me. 

I have trouble justifying someone who wouldn't break their word with someone willing to go to such extreme measures to combat their enemies.  Honorable is not a title I would ever even consider using for someone who resorts to terrorist tactics.

(3) any measure that merely reduces a threat is useless because it doesn't eliminate the threat completely.
Does it though?  Pete, do you believe such a "test" would have ANY impact, no matter how slight?

Does this relate to your continued use of goat fornicators as a description?  In your opinion are the members of this group so stupid that such a test would "trip them up"?

I'm not trying to suggest you must show respect to those with offensive and dangerous beliefs.  I'm saying you are talking like a rabid crazy person spouting off nonsensical suggestions that would have zero impact. 

Stopping threats or those who idolize those hostile to our way of life from immigrating is something I agree with fully.  Your oath of reputation requirement is just dumb.  The only thing it accomplishes is laying further groundwork for state persecution of any religion that falls out of favor.   Something I must say I'm shocked to see put forward by you given the frequency you remind us of how awful that can turn out.

Why Pete?  Do you honestly believe that there will be those who's beliefs will not allow them to lie on that score if they did believe it?  So you embarrass or offend some and get to force some to lie?

Is there an interpretation of the Koran which forbids them to lie about such things?  I'm pretty sure there is an interpretation that gives a nod to lying to the enemy if the need arises.

Keep religion the F away from immigration.  Let's at least pretend to separate church and state now and then.  If we can't help ourselves on that front, then at least we should come up with policy that may have some practical application or benefit.

Lets say the issue was forced (and I kinda think it should be).  What changes?  They (those attempting to restrict or stop Muslim immigration or asylum seeking) shift to targeting "people from areas with strong terrorist presence as they represent a security risk."  There, no direct mention of religion, problem solved!  But wait, we want to let in the Christians...  Hmm.  Well, we could make allowances for persecuted classes of people from those areas.  Then all we need is for those Christians to be a minority or for any groups of Muslims to be actively killing some of them.  In at least large enough number that the news can build up a strong narrative about it to sway the people here that it needs addressed.

I guess what I'm getting at is, what changes besides the language used?  Now some language flies in the face of "what we stand for as a country" so blatantly that it must be changed.  Policy wise though, does this make a difference?  Is it a lie?  Do we, as a country, just need to have some policies 'framed' properly before we sign off on it and can sleep at night?

General Comments / Re: Welcome to the New Ornery American Forums!
« on: December 14, 2015, 09:17:07 AM »
Is this still hosted by the OSC?  Shouldn't there be a link on the front page going back to his "front page" of

As to "where is everyone?"  Rafi emailed me informing me of his current digital waterboarding; demanding he repent and reveal his true identity if he wants to be released from forum detention.

But more over, people probably haven't seen it yet, decide how suspicious they are it's not a some sort of fishing expedition, then decide if it's worth the effort to replace a bookmark.  :P

Pages: 1 ... 48 49 [50]