"in disagreement with their inference that armed revolution is what you should do with unlimeited funds. . ."
Huh?
Hi,
I posted the comments to indicate that the sierratimes was being totally hypocritical in their criticism of FR, in banning unwanted posters, while at the same time using that "right" themselve's.
I was banned from responding on sierratimes due to my comments on this thread:
http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=393&start=0
The "moderator" opined that they would forma and arm a militia/group to revolt against the "tryranny" of today's federal government in removing our "rights".
I didn't much care to be banned for merely replying to those who attacked ad hominem; although I certainly acknowledge that it is their right, as owners, to do so.
When I noticed their *obvious* attack on the FR, I signed on under another nick' and made further comments about the idiocy of complaining about activity they were conducting themselve's. That's all, but once again was banned for noticing their two-faced comments and, of course, replying to those who addressed me, directly.
I like the "jackass" jpg's, though, and thank the kind poster who used the asse's nose, instead of the fundamental, and diametrically opposite piece of equine anatomy!
BTW, for any that are still confused -- I like the FR and dislike the sierratimes. . .and. . .
I used to like J.J. Johnson, but his employees aren't too swift, and are tarnishing his site's image. . .