I did a search and he doesn't appear to be a gunner.

then the History of Feminism Group could (and probably should) block them from posting in the HoF group.


I'm also looking forward to this new group having a proper host soon, and I hope they agree with me

I think the first step would be to simply communicate that's not what we prefer be posted here.

We do have some gunners here that he is answering, and he is not a gunner from my advanced search.

I think we all know them. DanTex isn't among them.

I didn't much appreciate the satire as I come here to see activist posts, not criticisms of Gungeoneers. That's not the purpose of the group. Apocalypsenow also made a post about the reaction in the RK & BA which I felt was going to drag them over here for their spats.

And we need a host now to ban those from there who are littering the board who we know Dantex has answered. The premise of the visitors coming here in bad faith and their posting records being reviewed when they do post here to see if they are pretending.

I just saw your example of a gun control advocate's satirical thread as off target. I would have cited posts from those who are known Gungeoneers that membes have batted heads with and don't support gun control according to this haven's SOP.

Do you understand my problem with the wording or the example?

Your suggestion is great, the apparent target not so much. Unless you really think that Dantex is not sincere. His record elsewhere indicates he is.

I could understand your confusion if so. What browser are you using?

Both FreshWest and I overlooked the part where you said "stuff like this (satire) while pretending to be serious." We thought you were saying DanTex was a troll.
At least I think FreshWest did the same thing as I, based on his/her posts.

but he is not a troll. It would be useful to tell him of your complaint of style without using the rest of the language. There was no other poster or post in your OP that could have been inferred. So the general take would be that Dantex is a troll, and I don't see how you can't imagine that it says otherwise. I agree with Bain's Bane, this is a waste of time discussing trolls until we have our host in place.

I'm off to bed soon. I'll revisit this tomorrow. Obviously we've had some sort of failure to communicate

What a lot of time I took here and now that you edited I see what you were saying and I was wrong. I see three posters that should not be here. Shall I just delete, or is that going to make it worse?

I suggest ignoring disrupters and/or alerting on them. We've already given them too much attention.

It was clear that the post was intended to be humorous. If we're going to require policy discussions as the only acceptable posts, this group won't have a lot of posts.

I do think that DanTex contributes substantially to a supportive environment, which is in the SoP.

Yes, my post was satire (obviously), and it's also clear to me that the OP wasn't suggesting that I be blocked, but agreeing with the premise of my satire, which is that longtime gungeoneers are pretending to be gun control advocates in order to post in this group and either disrupt or water down the gun control message in the name of "balance" or "centrism" or "reasonability".

In reading this thread, I see some people think satire might be misplaced in this group. If we decide as a group that satire isn't appropriate here, then of course I'll respect that.

But I like satire, and I think satire is a useful tool (e.g. Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Doonesbury, Tom Tomorrow, etc.). Particularly in the gun debate because there really is a lot to be satirical about. Yes, it's a serious topic, and if you search the history of my gungeon posts, you'll find that I have made my fair share of serious, lengthy posts. But sometimes you need to just sit back and laugh at some of the things people are saying, if only to maintain sanity in the face of all the nonsense coming from the NRA/CPAC/etc.

I guess it wasn't so obvious to a few others here, which led to the misunderstanding.

It seems that reading comprehension issues here on DU aren't limited to those folks unable to understand the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."


edited to add: Here's a nice thread in GD, for those who haven't seen it yet http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2524696

stated views on guns. Some are here for cynical reasons and, in my view, should not be allowed to stay.