The question is finally answered

[Spoonman]

The nagging question posed by CO and Co. has finally been answered.

The often used “if guns are used so much for self defense, why don’t we read about it” question has a new light shed on it.

The light of censorship!

A CHRISTIAN organisation's news web site has hit out at Google for accepting ads for pornsites but not accepting ads for licensed gun dealers.

Google said that the policy, which it confirms, is part of its terms and conditions.

The story quotes a gun dealer from Valley Firearms, Rick Millo, as saying "I'm sick and tired of having the good guys be discriminated against".

Apparently, Millo took out ads for his company but got a notice from Google saying that keywords related to guns weren't allowed.

It suspended his advertising.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11976

“I use Google News search, and……..” How many times have we seen this quote?

Hmmm, make one wonder.

[MrBenchley]

1. Sure does make one wonder...

Makes one wonder which "CHRISTIAN organisation's news web site" cannot even be mentioned aloud....

World Church of the Creator?

[Spoonman]

2. Great rebuttle.......

http://www.connpost.com/Stories/0,1413,96~3784~1676655,00.html

It's still true.

[MrBenchley]

3. TOO TOO funnny, spoon

So which Christian organization IS the Connecticut Post's Business section?

From your new link....

"The e-mail goes on to list dozens of keywords
including "gun broker," "firearms for sale," "used rifles" and "ammunition auction"
that Google finds objectionable.
In addition, the e-mail states that Google policy "does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain 'firearms and ammunition.' "
The Google policy does not restrict searches; it only limits advertising on search-result pages."

In other words "The light of censorship!" turns out to be the RKBA crowd's same dim nonsense.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. No, it (meaning your claim) is NOT true.

First of all, this is the rejection of an ADVERTISEMENT on Google's pages, NOT a rejection of links in the search engine. Second, even if it WAS a rejection of links to firearms advertising in the search engine it is NOT a rejection of firearms related NEWS items in the news search engine!

So you are wrong for TWO different reasons!

A final point. I thought Libertarians liked to protect property rights?

Many, such as Stephen P. Gordon, vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Alabama, agree with Millo that it seems contradictory to honor First Amendment freedom-of-speech rights while rejecting an ad associated with Second Amendment assurances of the right to keep and bear arms.

As a Libertarian, surely Mr Gordon should be advocating Google's right to use THEIR PROPERTY any way they see fit? Have gun rights become more important to Libertarians than property rights?

Or is it another case of Libertarians wanting THEIR rights protected and everyone else can get stuffed?

[MrBenchley]

6. One also wonders how far down the food chain

this interpid reporter had to dredge to finally come up with the "vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Alabama" as a spokesperson who agreed....

Do you suppose everybody more important (or nearer Connecticut) laughed out loud and hung up the phone?

[iverglas]

14. oh, and btw

I loved that "rebuttle". So the thread was entertaining anyhow.

My Oxford Concise might say:

rebuttle v. intr. (also rebutle)
do the butler's work over after s/he's finished

heeheehee. Yer a funny fellow.

.

[enki23]

4. dear god. is *this* the sort of crap being thrown about in this forum?

deciding which advertisements to run on ones website is *not* censorship. it may not seem fair, and who knows maybe it *isn't* fair, but it sure as fuck isn't "censorship." here's a tip: do a search on google for something simple related to firearms, say, "gun sales". try "cabela's." try "thompson center." you can buy ammo at "winchester," "ruger" will only show you the goods (you can't buy direct.) you'll find, as the article grudgingly admits, that it's not hard to find guns and ammo for sale through google.

EDIT: beter yet. search for "valley firearms." it's owned by a certain mr richard j millo, jr. i assume, unless there is more than one firearms dealer on the web named "richard j millo, jr" that this is he of the censorship claims. first site hit on the google search engine. now there's censorship for you.

you know, i've been a firearm owner since i was eight years old. i still am, and intend to remain one. however the only thing i seem to have in common with the gun culture is that i'm a nominal member.

[Paladin]

7. Well Said, enki23

And don't feel like the Lone Ranger, OK? I used to be a gun enthusiast years ago, and I still have a few firearms gathering dust someplace. The main reason I found other pursuits? I didn't like the company I had to keep. A daily review of J/PS confirms I did the right thing; the gun culture gets more radicalized and ugly all the time....

[MrBenchley]

8. Exactly so...

"the gun culture gets more radicalized and ugly all the time."
As we saw from the Field & Stream survey, not even hunters repsond to its excesses.

[CO Liberal]

9. A Quick Refresher Course for Spoonman

These are apples.


These are oranges.

Can you see the difference????

:-)

[Spoonman]

10. Another refresher for CO and MrB

Sarcasm: A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered with some degree of scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a cutting jest.


Anti-RKBA: The jumping on anything that they perceive as contradictory to their cause, with reckless disregard for facts, sarcasm, or validity. The inability to recognize keen, reproachful expression due to blatant hatred and contempt for inanimate objects.

CO, I thought better of your ability to percieve "flame bait" and "Benchly Baiting" than this.
I'll have to shoot you a PM too the next time, and you can laugh with the rest of us!

[CO Liberal]

11. If You're Gonna Post Sarcasm, Spoonman......

...please indicate it by placing a notation such as "</sarcasm>" or "<sarcasm off>" at the end so we know for sure.

[Spoonman]

12. Why?

It helps shed much more light on the reality of the true nature of anti-zealots when it's presented the way I did!

This is the second time I've baited ....... in, and demonstrated who the over zealous crowd really is.

If you notice, you don't see the RKBA crowd "jumping" on this post. They were smart enough to *see* the difference.

[MrBenchley]

17. "the reality of the true nature of anti-zealots"

You mean folks who can read "The Google policy does not restrict searches; it only limits advertising on search-result pages." and understand what the sentence MEANS?

[CO Liberal]

18. You Didn't Put Ouot a Call to the RKBA Crowd

You specifically called out to me and others who agree with me in your priginal message (CO and Co.).

[MrBenchley]

16. One wonders what was sarcastic in any way

about phony screams of "censorship" that in fact, turned out to be somebody trying deliberately to confuse editorial content with advertising.

[iverglas]

13. and there I was just wondering ...

... how I was supposed to tell self-parody (which this would be, not "sarcasm"; I can't think of anyone else it would have been a parody of) from sincerity among my learnèd friends on the other side.

Of course, in that other case, my hindsight insight -- that what I had responded to as sincere might really have been self-parody, and rather funny at that -- was sadly wrong. It had been spoken straight-faced, not tongue-in-cheek at all.

Seems the problem is not confined to me.

Oh, and by the way; I hate having to use it myself, but sometimes find I must, and I occasionally offer an inventory of them for people to hold onto and toss into my posts if they're ever in doubt:

;^) --- ;^) --- ;^) --- ;^) --- ;^)

Anybody who finds him/herself in need of tongue-in-cheek smileyfaces for his/her own posts is welcome to help him/herself.


"The jumping on anything that they perceive as contradictory to their cause"

I didn't see anything in the initial post that was "contradictory" to any cause of mine, I'm afraid. I saw what looked like really dumb paranoia on the part of partisans for a very different cause, and someone telling us about it for some reason. One might almost have suspected that the partisans in question, the ones whose dumb paranoia was being reported, were in fact parodying themselves ... which would have been funny, yes ... but heck, it was funny all by itself as a bit of straight reality.

So I guess we were all laughing at them after all. Kewl.

.

[MrBenchley]

19. Guess we were not supposed to accept reality

and accept instead the "contradictory to their cause" claim that google practices censorship...which turned out to be total horseshit.

"One might almost have suspected that the partisans in question, the ones whose dumb paranoia was being reported, were in fact parodying themselves ... which would have been funny, yes ... but heck, it was funny all by itself as a bit of straight reality."
Never underestimate the ability of the RKBA crowd to provide inadvertant hilarity.

By the way, did I mention this to you? One of spoon's fellow "enthusiasts" announced grandly the other day that we should go to a certain site for five or so stories about defensive gun use that we could find there "every day."

Of course, there was no such thing on the site...but there WAS a splendid mix of hysteria, horesdshit and flat out craziness....including a loony accusing the Anti-Defamation League of fascism, AND these two stories which hilariously were posted one right after the other on the page....

"NC: Wilson Police Warn Residents of Fake Officer"

"OR: Pistol-packin' citizens patrol Western parks"

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=10/3/2003

[MrBenchley]

15. Is that what this post is all about, spoon?

A "keen, reproachful expression due to blatant hatred and contempt for inanimate objects"?
You mean like an intenet search engine?