Post removed

[Duckhunter935]

1. no your post got hidden as it was just plain insulting

Seems like you did not learn anything about it either. Truly sad.

Looks like one of those non-apology apologies, lol

[Surya Gayatri]

2. DUer Enthusiast, to whom it was addressed, did not appear to be insulted.

[mythology]

8. That's a little disingenuous to say the post was directed at Enthusiast

Yes the literal post is responding to him, but you were referring to other DUers as small-penised and gun humpers. Pretending otherwise isn't helpful.

[Surya Gayatri]

14. Gun enthusiasts in general, of whom I grant you, there are many on DU.

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. Thus the very reasonable hide.

You insulted multiple DU'ers (as well as millions of Democrats) with that nonsense.

[Surya Gayatri]

28. And this thread is meant as a mea culpa.

[Duckhunter935]

29. A very poor non-apology

in my opinion

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Of course. Because people who object to your sexist rant wouldn't realize that they are synonyms.

The "non apology" apology is overdone.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. You mean the documentary references?

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia is not a denizen of sexists and phallic symbology is a historically respected, valid psychological concept.

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Your original reference, in the hidden post, had nothing to do with symbolism.

It was just a typical (and sadly commonplace) "small-dicked gun owner" insult. To wit:

I swear, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is the only way to handle these small-penised, gun humpers--with total derision! LOL!

Classy...

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Other than meta, here's how I characterize this post...

with total derision! LOL!

[Surya Gayatri]

6. Point taken! Derision is a powerful and legitimate rhetorical device.

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. Less crude but no more valid.

Can we just dispense with the bullshit amateur psychology and have an actual adult discussion of these matters, please?

[Surya Gayatri]

10. 'Actual adult discussion'--that's what I thought was going on

in that thread until a disruptor barged in.

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. That person asked a perfectly reasonable question.

You made an irrelevant reply about the source of the info you presented and told him to get lost. You then doubled down on the non-responsive dismissal before the seemingly-inevitable (and justifiably hidden) small penis blurt.

That hardly demonstrates interest in any sort of "discussion" at all, adult or otherwise. If you just want to insult gun owners, fine...but may I respectfully suggest the Gun Control Reform Activism "safe haven" group for that. You might still get alerted on, but most gun-owning DU'ers don't bother visiting that group, so you're probably okay.

[Surya Gayatri]

23. Read the rest of said poster's interventions in that thread.

Then tell me that's not somebody looking for a flame war. Reasonable question? Pure provocation and confrontation.

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. I did.

I reiterate: that was a perfectly reasonable, relevant question about the data presented in the graphic you posted. Your responses pretty clearly indicated a refusal to explain or back up the assertions that data implied. In other words, you weren't interested in discussion.

If you simply wanted to insult that poster, perhaps a broad-brush insult of many DU'ers and millions of Democrats wasn't a good way to do that.

[sarisataka]

9. Could you link this data?

the actual genitalia of gun enthusiasts in general

[Surya Gayatri]

12. Sorry?

[sarisataka]

24. You said you mentioned

"the actual genitalia of gun enthusiasts in general"
-actual

I often see it mentioned but I have never been able to find a study of the statistical relationship between gun ownership and genital size.

I'm hoping you can provide such

[Surya Gayatri]

26. Google is your friend...

[HassleCat]

11. You crossed the line

OK, yes, some gun enthusiasts may be compensating for small genitalia, small IQ, small whatever. But we still have to refrain from name-calling. We can't call them small penised, retarded, etc. I own firearms, by the way, and I'm not compensating. Not that I wouldn't like to. I just realize it doesn't work that way.

[Surya Gayatri]

13. Watch out HC. Don't want a lock. Please replace the offending phrase with "such terms".

Please?

[HassleCat]

15. That's true

Sometimes they will alert your post and send it to a jury without considering the context. They probably should have let your post go with an apology for name-calling. They need to give us a chance to see and acknowledge our mistakes, instead of just hiding and blocking.

[Snobblevitch]

18. I'm curuous.

What do the links you provided have to do with gun owners? (Ihave not been here too long, maybe I'm missing sonething.)

[Surya Gayatri]

19. Read the referenced articles. Then get back to me.

Welcome to DU, by the by.

[Snobblevitch]

22. I looked at two of them. I still don't get the connection, other than insults.

[Surya Gayatri]

25. Connect the dots. You can do it...

[trueblue2007]

16. well i agree with the hidden note.

[Lizzie Poppet]

21. Really? You agree with that?

I swear, I'm becoming more and more convinced that this is the only way to handle these small-penised, gun humpers--with total derision! LOL!

A pity. If that's how you think literally millions of Democrats should be treated ("with total derision&quot , then frankly, that says all one need know about your value to any serious discussion on the matter of gun-related crime.