How this Blog Started

I have been watching Japete’s Blog lately, all I can do is watch because I have been “banned,” and I noticed that there is a new poster there ( I love peace) that is teetering on the brink of getting “banned” That reminded me of how I got banned by a simple “conversation” that I thought was polite. Before I started this blog I made this little video of the actual conversation the got me voted off the island.

Up until now I only shared it with my circle of friends and my facebook friends, so now I wanted to share it with my new blog friends.

If I was mean or out of line please let me know because I thought I was polite.

This entry was posted in Common Sense and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to How this Blog Started

  1. I guess we could play “count the lies” with her, but I can’t count that high without assistance. She doesn’t read our blogs? Ha. I’ve seen her comment on something that never made it off my blog, even though I’ve been banned from her blog for 2 months. She was extra special mad at me for my particular gotcha question. I turned that into a video as well.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6rUVlqWlSs

  2. Unfortunately, what japete means by discuss appears to be immediately agree with her. Unfortunately, I have run across that all to often with people who want to increase state control and decrease freedom.

  3. Robert S says:

    The impression I got from the ‘transcript’ is that she is frightened by her own innermost thoughts, her ‘shadow’, to the extent she cannot deal with that fear rationally. Hence I believe that may be why she avoided the question. That, or for her, “being frightened” isn’t a explanation — it’s a final answer that requires no further review.

  4. GMC70 says:

    Yea, Joan’s off her meds. Pretty much she bans anyone who challenges her assumptions. Worse, she has the gall to selectively quote posts she’s banned.

    The fact is she doesn’t want discussion, she wants affirmation. She’s incredibly naive and culturally illiterate, missing common references to recent historical events or cultural references surrounding her chosen topic. No one can be an expert on everything, of course, but if one is proposing legislating about guns, the first thing one should do is become extremely knowledgable about guns. She’s not done that.

    That’s a common failing among the gunbanners – ignorance of the very things they are attempting to regulate, or worse, outright deception.

  5. Karl Jacobsen says:

    I think you and Shelton need T-Shirts…..

    • Gail says:

      I think we need someone creative to design them, I’ll wear it. Heck, I’ll sell them.

      • Pat says:

        We need to get those logos — “Brady Suicide Watch” the ones with the sad panda on them! Or the “Unpossible” logo!!

        I’d buy one of those! Heck, I’d buy 3!

      • Karl Jacobsen says:

        I kinda like “I got banned from Jepete’s blog and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.” or “Proudly banned for not seeing “common sense”.

  6. Pat says:

    +1 – I’m banned!

  7. Mark Steele says:

    Gail,

    First – I want to thank you AGAIN for this blog – it is truly important to have an unfiltered view and conversation about these issues.

    Joan has been getting more and more aggressive in her posts of late – I can hear and see the frustration in her posts – but I am not convinced it is because she simply disagrees with us. I think her beliefs and worldview are starting to unravel in her own mind – our truths MUST be making an impact.

    I suspect in the near future she will either shutdown comments on her blog from the ‘other side’ entirely, or she will flip sides.

    I am anxiously waiting to see what happens.

    Regards,

    Mark

    • Gail says:

      I think she has too much of herself invested to flip sides, at least publicly.
      She does seem to be escalating but she has not banned I Love Peace yet I find that strangely incongruous.

  8. Pete says:

    I sent a link of her postings to a friend who is a Phd,MD in clinical psych. He is considering contacting her to offer some help.

    For being an educator, she has a very small world view with hardly any grasp of world or national events over the past few decades.

    Missing references to the killing fields and hotel Rwanda for a long time. Refusing to believe that that DuPont arms and happy land massacres were murders by arson.

    I put her over/under at being found under the dining room table with her thumb in her mouth at six months.

    • Gail says:

      Even more recently she stated that the U.S. was a Democracy and when she was corrected her response was “Well most people consider it a Democracy.” Just like when she talks about gun issues she likes to unequivocally pronounce what “most people” think and what “most people” want. Then magically these become her truths. I would really like to know what subject she taught when she was a teacher? US History? Math? Logic? Statistics? Critical thinking?
      I would really be interested in what your psychologist friend thinks about her.

      • Heather says:

        I don’t think she really was a teacher. I’m pretty sure every time she mentions it, it’s phrased as “I worked in a school,” not “I was a teacher.”

        …At least, I HOPE she wasn’t actually a teacher…

      • alcade says:

        Yeah, “most people” according to this MAIG poll I have right here.

        You know, if the NRA came out with a poll that claimed that most of the members of the Brady Campaign owned an AK-47, I’d be a bit skeptical.

        Apparently there is not such thing as skepticism in her camp if it comes from an ally.

  9. Pat says:

    She at it again here in MN — Joan and Heather are pleading with the other 11 members of “Protect Minnesota” for personal testimony regarding how MN’s redundant and ridiculous purchase permitting process for handguns has saved lives (it hasn’t). She also further shows her ignorance (naivety?) of the exiting laws by continuing to push the myth of the “waiting period” for handguns. There hasn’t been a waiting period in years.

    Since my comments no longer are published due to the truth filter on her blog – I’ve pushed for a broader audience in MN.

    • Pat says:

      …and when she loses an argument, she simply posts:

      “Dear readers, This discussion is now irrelevant and out of control.”

      …hilarious.

    • Gail says:

      I wonder if she realized just how much activism she inspires?

      • Pat says:

        *raises hand*
        Case in point – it was Joan and her accomplice Heather who persuaded me to move from a “Fudd” to “Gun Guy”! I used to be a dues paying member of Citizens for a Safer MN, until I realized their trues motives.
        I’m celebrating Joan’s derision of my hobby by taking two “Fudds” to the range on Wednesday to let them try out my “evil black rifle” and my “Terrorist weapon capable of shooting puppies and kittens”.
        🙂

      • Gail says:

        Pat, How did the weekend go? Are they converts? I too was busy this weekend with about 75 great folks exercising our 2A rights.

      • Pat says:

        Leaning — I’m helping both pick out their first handguns and register for carry classes!

    • Wanita says:

      Oh, and inspired by you, dug out the gold leaf and schlag, sizes and all the sweet gilding cutlery … but the piece I was working on didn’t need it in the end.I was quite didenpoiptas. Huh.

  10. The Duck says:

    Good Job Gail!

    They all ask for Reasoned Discourse, but they have no idea what it is, as reason is beyond their understanding

  11. DHS says:

    I thought I had been banned before because she stopped posting my comments, but then she started posting them again, but I noticed she hardly ever replies to them. She did quote my comments several times in the blog she posted Saturday.

    And while reading her responses to many other poster’s comments, I see she often misses the point of the comment, or she derives an entirely different meaning than the one I thought was clearly written. I wondered if she has a bit of a reading comprehension problem, but then I figured she is probably skimming through a mess of comments, and just misreads stuff often. I have seen people come away with an entirely different meaning from what was written, in a very similar way before though, it’s interesting. I wonder if it could just be due to how different people may see things much differently, hence why one person’s response to gun violence is to ban and regulate, and another person’s response to gun violence is to target the criminal and then try to remedy the root causes.

    She does seem very frustrated, I should hope however that we come to see more eye to eye with each other, and maybe she will try working with us rather than against us. I completely understand her point of view, having once thought similarly, but as I observed and learned, my views changed a lot. I don’t want to say that she is wrong, perhaps just not seeing the whole picture, she doesn’t have our perspective, so how could we expect her to really understand our point of view?

    • Pyrotek85 says:

      No, she purposely misreads them. Months ago, she was arguing that guns aren’t tools because they’re designed to kill, and when she asked her students examples of tools, no one mentioned guns so there you have it. Tools are a broad category and it’s basically anything that we use for a certain purpose, intended or otherwise. Weapons are a subset of tools in other words. So I post the whole definition, thinking I’ve provided evidence to my claim, but the 8th definition reads like this:

      8. Underworld Slang .
      a. pistol or gun.
      b. pickpocket.

      Her response? “Underworld? Do you belong to the underworld?”

      She completely glossed over the rest of the definition because she couldn’t argue it, she knew she was wrong. I think that’s the closest she’ll come to accepting defeat, by focusing on the wrong part of comment and trying to make it look like you’re still wrong somehow.

  12. GMC70 says:

    Just to post this somewhere, with a blog which has the guts to actually post. Gail, I know that were Joan and MikeB to post here, assuming they were’t blindingly nasty (and they aren’t) you’d post their writings. They won’t. That’s the difference between the two sides: we actually believe in liberty; they only pretend to. Anyway, here goes:
    —–

    What say you to Suzanna Hupp?

    Hey Joan – you have an answer?

    You so blithely and easily seek to infringe on the liberties of others – what do you say to her?

    You won’t post this, I know and you know, because you don’t have an answer. Suzanna Hupp is your worst nightmare, because she shatters everything you stand for.

    So you ignore her, just as you’ve ignored these posts. Which proves my point – I know it, and you know it. You just won’t post same and admit it.

    That’s OK – we both know the truth. She – and we – cannot be ignored. And we’re winning. Liberty always wins, if it stands up and fights. Because the forces arrayed against liberty, in the final analysis, are cowards; Baldr, Mikeb, and yes you, Joan – they choose safety over liberty. And as Franklin noted over 200 years ago, were the enemies of liberty to win, they would be likely to end up with neither liberty nor safety.

    That’s OK – we fight for your liberty too, Joan, even if you don’t recognize it. And we’re winning.

  13. Rob says:

    Gail,

    Thank you so much for this blog. I used to frequent Japete’s blog, but got tired of her filtering my comments. No insults, no vulgarities, only facts.

    I got particularly annoyed when I would go make a claim, she would ask for proof, and then refuse to post the proof.

    It’s easy to shape the argument in your favor when you only allow the “facts” you want.

    Thanks for doing what you do.

  14. Eric says:

    I think I’ll just start copying and pasting everything worthwhile to this site so at least someone sees it. Yesterday the entire list of British assassination attempts since 1812 went unpublished, and I hate to do work for nothing.

    “I don’t believe the “founding fathers” loved their firearms. Your idea that they sat around a fireplace drinking while discussing firearms is interesting but likely not true. You must tell me how you know these guys loved their firearms.”

    In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: “…I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.”

    References to ownership of arms and accoutrements may be found throughout his manuscripts and accounts. A cursory compilation shows that he owned a shotgun called a “two shot-double barrel,” purchased in France, a number of pistols and other shoulder weapons. Further evidence that he used these may be found in the columns of his account books

      • Eric says:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
        People with a criminal record are also more likely to die as homicide victims.[11] Between 1990 and 1994, 75% of all homicide victims age 21 and younger in the city of Boston had a prior criminal record.[34] In Philadelphia, the percentage of those killed in gun homicides that had prior criminal records increased from 73% in 1985 to 93% in 1996.[11][35] In Richmond, Virginia, the risk of gunshot injury is 22 times higher for those males involved with crime.[36]

    • Eric says:

      “Anon- I’m sure that P and ILP appreciate your defending their responses. Again you are all forgetting that I am talking about gun injuries and deaths here.”

      Joan-

      You’re right, the topic at hand is that good guys go bad. Once we’ve ruled out mental illness and religious extremism, if you can get together a statistically significant number of examples, you would have a case. But the bad news is that if you could manage to get 1% of more than 6 million concealed carriers, it would be news to everyone.

      “Concealed Carry Killers” says 288 people have been killed by permit holders. Assuming a one to one relationship between permit holder and victim (which is NOT the case as they say there have been 18 mass shootings by permit holders*) and assuming they were all mentally healthy (which is likely also not the case) that’s still only 0.000048%.

      If there are even 288 people who are saved by defensive gun uses, then it’s worth it.

      We both know there are WAY more. FBI’s Uniform Crime Report says that in 2009 alone there were 261 justifiable homicides by private citizens. That’s just criminals who were killed, excluding criminals who were injured, excluding the many more instances where just the presence of a gun stops the crime. And that’s just one year.

      Now, could we do better at keeping bad guys away from guns? Absolutely. But as we’ve said, the “we’re coming for your guns” crowd ruined that whole “compromise” thing.

      *These numbers are suspect, because they include Loughner, who did NOT have a CCW, since he didn’t need one due to being 1) in Arizona and 2)a criminal psychopath.

      http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_15.html

    • Eric says:

      “Anon- I’m sure that P and ILP appreciate your defending their responses. Again you are all forgetting that I am talking about gun injuries and deaths here.”

      Joan-

      You’re right, the topic at hand is that good guys go bad. Once we’ve ruled out mental illness and religious extremism, if you can get together a statistically significant number of examples, you would have a case. But the bad news is that if you could manage to get 1% of more than 6 million concealed carriers, it would be news to everyone.

      “Concealed Carry Killers” says 288 people have been killed by permit holders. Assuming a one to one relationship between permit holder and victim (which is NOT the case as they say there have been 18 mass shootings by permit holders*) and assuming they were all mentally healthy (which is likely also not the case) that’s still only 0.000048%.

      If there are even 288 people who are saved by defensive gun uses, then it’s worth it.

      We both know there are WAY more. FBI’s Uniform Crime Report says that in 2009 alone there were 261 justifiable homicides by private citizens. That’s just criminals who were killed, excluding criminals who were injured, excluding the many more instances where just the presence of a gun stops the crime. And that’s just one year.

      Now, could we do better at keeping bad guys away from guns? Absolutely. But as we’ve said, the “we’re coming for your guns” crowd ruined that whole “compromise” thing.

      *These numbers are suspect, because they include Loughner, who did NOT have a CCW, since he didn’t need one due to being 1) in Arizona and 2) a criminal psychopath.

      http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_15.html

    • Eric says:

      Here’s three studies that show how criminals select their victims. Not sure why she would bother trying to argue that, but she wouldn’t post them, so here they are.

      VICTIM SELECTION AND KINEMATICS:
      A POINT-LIGHT INVESTIGATION
      OF VULNERABILITY TO ATTACK
      Rebekah E. Gunns, Lucy Johnston, and Stephen M. Hudson
      “Victims of physical attack, human and animal, are not chosen at random; assailants select their victims. Wolves isolate and attack the most vulnerable among a flock of sheep whilst convicted offenders report that they select victims who offer adequate reward for minimal effort (Farrell, Phillips, & Pease, 1995; Fattah, 1991; LeJeune, 1977)”

      Predatory rapists and victim selection techniques
      Dennis J. Stevens
      “University of North Carolina at Charlotte, USA
      This article examines the self-reported target techniques of 61 sexual offenders incarcerated in a maximum custody prison. The data lend support to a rational choice perspective revealing predatory rapists as decision makers since they largely attack females whom they perceive as vulnerable.”

      Inside the mind of the serial murder
      RM Holmes, J De Burger
      “Posteal Laskey, the Cincinnati Strangler, illustrates the non-random pattern of victim selection. He killed elderly women after carefully appraising their vulnerability. It appears, therefore, serial killing may not be as random as once thought (Wilson and Seaman, 1985)”

      • Cammie says:

        Hidden due to low comment rating. .dapat 3rd pon jadi la…….yatt pn dh bertudong ! bagos lah itu petanda baik la kan….tapi kalau bertudong dengan hati yg iklas kerana allah itu bagos besar jugak pahala nye kn…….tapi kalau bertudong kerana ikut2tan tu kurang baik….minah jambu tk bertudong tapi ,inah jambu tengok majlis yg macmana yg minah jambu nk hadir n tengok tempat la kalau nk bertudong kn&n2nnnnnn#8n30;….kalau setakat nk ikot2 ni minah jambu tk main ………..hati lom iklas lagi…..Poorly-rated.

  15. mikee says:

    I don’t have a blog of my own. However, I have tried to comment on Japete’s blog, without success. I never got past her moderation, I suppose, so to those of you whose comments were posted on her blog, congratulations! And congratulations on your being banned by her, too!

  16. Braden Lynch says:

    I joined the NRA, then sent money to NRA-ILA and joined the Second Amendment Foundation due to Joan and her colleagues. We are winning!

  17. kfg says:

    I found your blog through Miguel’s and went on to Japete’s from this post and now my head hurts really, really badly.

    Thanks. Thanks a lot.

  18. pacific_waters says:

    Your comments seemed innocuous to me. I have never understood why anyone who puts up a blog thinks it should be sacrosant. You (the other guy) put up your thoughts for the world to see and get upset when others disagree? Then don’t blog. As has been said, if you can’t stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *