A question on acceptable sources at DU. Is this source acceptable?

[stone space]

Is Soldier of Fortune considered an acceptable source here at DU?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172187657

For reference, I am including some information from post #3 of the thread in question, drawn from Wikipedia, which I believe should rule out this magazine as source anywhere on DU, rather unconditionally.


From post #3:

During the late 1980s, Soldier of Fortune was sued in civil court several times, for having published classified advertisements of services by (private) mercenaries. In 1987, Norman Norwood, of Arkansas, sued SOF magazine, because of injuries he suffered during a murder attempt by two men hired via a "Gun for Hire" advert in the magazine.

In February 1985 John Wayne Hearn, a Vietnam veteran, shot and killed Sandra Black for a $10,000 payment from her husband, Robert Black. Black communicated with Hearn through a classified advertisement published in Soldier of Fortune, wherein Hearn solicited "high-risk assignments. U.S. or overseas".

In 1989, four men were convicted of conspiracy to commit murder in the 1985 contract killing of Richard Braun, of Atlanta, Georgia. The killers were hired through a classified services advertisement published in Soldier of Fortune magazine that read: "GUN FOR HIRE". Braun's sons filed a civil lawsuit against the magazine and a jury found in their favor, awarding them $12.37 million in damages, which the judge later reduced to $4.37 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_of_Fortune_(magazine)

11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Soldier of Fortune is an acceptable source for DU.
	4 (36%)
	Soldier of Fortune is NOT an acceptable source for DU.
	7 (64%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[ileus]

1. Odd reading habits you have there...

General rule of thumb is anything from negative about the 2A is acceptable no matter what the source.

[stone space]

2. I don't understand.

Odd reading habits you have there...

[GGJohn]

12. Of course you don't,

you never do.

[stone space]

15. Good thing that you arived here to explain it, then. Please proceed.

[GGJohn]

17. Why?

You still wouldn't get it and then you'd just claim to be the victim, as usual.

[stone space]

19. So you don't understand, either, huh?

Welcome to the club.

[GGJohn]

20. Except I do understand what was said,

it doesn't surprise me in the least that you don't.

[MohRokTah]

3. It depends

If used as a source to illustrate fucked up rightwing mentalities, it's a perfect source.

If you are using it as positive reinforcement for any argument you are making on DU, it's completely unacceptable,

[stone space]

4. This is the use being made at the link.

If you are using it as positive reinforcement for any argument you are making on DU, it's completely unacceptable,

[MohRokTah]

6. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to hide.

A source that promotes murder for hire is unacceptable on any web forum.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

5. Dear God, why? ON EDIT: Never mind, it's the Gungeon. I'm not surprised.

Last edited Sun Feb 21, 2016, 07:52 AM - Edit history (1)

I mean, seriously.

[Mosby]

7. Your OP was juried, 3-4

The post you linked to went 2-5.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. So when the alert and threadjack in the gungeon failed...

...you whinge about this in GD? Fucking hilarious...

For those concerned, the article cited had nothing whatsoever to do with the scummy stuff that magazine was part of in the 80's. It was an article on mistakes people make when carrying a concealed handgun (an appropriate topic for the gungeon, I suppose).

[stone space]

10. Feel free to make yourself the very first "yes" vote.

[pintobean]

11. I just did

based on Lizzie's post, and your freak-out.

I'm always amused at people who wet their pants over a rw source, when it's used in an appropriate manner.

[stone space]

13. Here's a link to the OP in question.

and your freak-out.

Please tell me the post# of my "freakout" that has you so concerned that you are supporting the use of Soldier of Fortune here at DU.

Thank you in advance.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172187657

[pintobean]

16. I'm not concerned

I'm amused. This thread is what I was referring to.

[stone space]

21. Oh, so it's merely asking the question that has you so concerned.

This thread is what I was referring to.

[GGJohn]

23. This thread is nothing more than flamebait,

of which I suspect you knew when you posted it.

[stone space]

29. It's a simple question on appropriate sources for DU.

Not sure why it's got you so upset this morning.

[GGJohn]

34. I'm not upset,

I'm laughing at the fact that because you didn't get the jury results you wanted on that thread, you bring it here to GD.

[pintobean]

30. Again, amused.

It's not like the two words look anything alike.

amused concerned


The failed alert in that thread wasn't good enough for you, you had to bring it to GD.

I think this sums it up for most people:

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whatever, it's the gun forum.

[stone space]

36. How is "the gun forum" different from other forums here on DU?

I think this sums it up for most people:

Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whatever, it's the gun forum.

Are right wing sources more acceptable in some DU forums than in others?

If so, why?

[GGJohn]

18. Your freakout was your alert and this thread. eom.

[kwassa]

9. Everything is acceptable on DU these days.

There are no boundaries.

[GGJohn]

14. I voted yes,

because the link you cited has nothing to do with what the magazine was promoting in the 80's.

So because you didn't get the jury results you wanted in the RKBA group, you take your grievance to GD to whine about it more?

[stone space]

22. What exactly was Soldier of Fortune promoting in the 1980s?

I voted yes, because the link you cited has nothing to do with what the magazine was promoting in the 80's.

I ask because you cite this as your reason for voting "yes".

[GGJohn]

24. Are you that dense?

It's right there in your thread.

[stone space]

25. You specifically cited it as your reason for voting "yes".

And now you refuse to even answer the question?

Why?

[GGJohn]

27. Again, as usual, you're wrong.

I said that the link you provided and alerted on has nothing to do with what SOF was promoting in the 80's.

For being a professor, you sure do have a reading comprehension problem.

[stone space]

33. This is the second time that you have referred to "what SOF was promoting in the 80's".

what SOF was promoting in the 80's

Will you please inform is of exactly what you feel that "Soldier of Fortune was promoting in the 80's"?

You keep using that phrase without explaining what you mean by it.

You even used the phrase in explaining why you voted "yes".



What do you mean by the phrase, "what SOF was promoting in the 80's"?

What exactly are you claiming that was Soldier of Fortune was promoting in the 80's?

[GGJohn]

35. LOL, you really are that dense.

It's right there in your thread, try actually reading what you cut and paste.

[stone space]

38. Personal insults aside, the phrase "what SOF was promoting in the 80's"...

...does not even appear in the OP.

LOL, you really are that dense.
It's right there in your thread, try actually reading what you cut and paste

That's purely your own construction, and a construction which so far you seem quite unwilling to explain, despite the fact that you used the phrase as your reason for voting "yes".

[GGJohn]

41. If you haven't figured it out by now,

then I can't help you.

[stone space]

42. Aparently, you haven't figured it out, either.

[GGJohn]

43. Ok, you go with that.

[stone space]

46. You've given me no other choice.

Ok, you go with that.

There must be some reason why you are unable to answer such a simple question regarding your own personal stated reason for voting "yes".

[Hoyt]

31. Soldier of Fortune is a racist rag. EOM

[GGJohn]

32. Which has nothing to do with the link he cited.

Everything is having to do with firearms and their owners is racist according to you.

[Hoyt]

39. Soldier of Fortune definitely is. I suppose The Turner Diaries is also acceptable to most gunners.

[GGJohn]

40. Thank you Hoyt,

you just made my point perfectly.

[stone space]

47. How so? What exactly is your point?

Thank you Hoyt,

you just made my point perfectly

[GGJohn]

50. I can't figure out if you're really this dense, or are just playing games?

Which one is it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. OK, to sum your position up: it's OK to link to professional killers about guns

because they are professional - they know what they're doing. Their motives for killing people don't come into it.

That's the impression I've got from your posts. If you've posted anything that says something else, please point it out.

[stone space]

45. It has everything to do with the question of acceptable sources on DU.

Which is, in case you haven't noticed, what this poll is all about.

[GGJohn]

51. Well, considering that RT, Sputnik News,

etc are commonly used, then why not SOF?
But we know this thread is nothing more than flamebait, as you obviously intended it to be.

[SidDithers]

26. I wouldn't use it...

But hell, posters were linking to the fucking Washington Free Beacon this week, so DU doesn't really have much in the way of standards anymore.

Sid

[Hoyt]

28. I'm sure it is among racist gun fanciers.

[bigwillq]

37. I think all sources should be accepted

If someone doesn't like the source, they don't have to click on it.

[Chuuku Davis]

54. If true and factual why not?

[hunter]

44. Eeewwwww.... No.

The pages are always sticky with gun lube.

Keep that twisted gun love to yourself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. It's been a bit since you posted and I was wondering...

...do you have a problem with the information contained in the OP to which you linked or do you just have a problem?

[sarisataka]

49. I don't know about sources

but some think using homophobia is ok-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172185048#post7

fortunately some on DU find such bigotry unacceptable-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=185037

[GGJohn]

52. 2 well earned hides and a time out to boot.

[GGJohn]

58. Wow, as usual, right over your head "professor".

[jmowreader]

53. Soldier of Fortune USED to be a lot of fun to read

They were really good on weapons, because the people who were running it didn't have a lick of common sense and kept going to all these dirty little wars. For instance, they were the first Western media to finagle a ride in a Soviet Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter.

Then Bill Clinton got elected president and Bob Brown turned into the king of the right wingers. Your average teabagger WISHES he could be as right-wing as Bob Brown. Mr. Brown pretty much singlehandedly invented the prepper movement.

So...as entertaining as SOF USED to be, right now it is not a reliable news source unless you want to read about internecine wars between Sylvania and Freedonia.

[SecularMotion]

56. The Dark Side of "Soldier of Fortune" Magazine: Contract Killers and Mercenaries for Hire

When I was in sixth grade my parents took away my collection of Soldier of Fortune magazines. This was in the mid-1980s, the Rambo-era heyday of the "journal of the professional adventurer." The seizure was preceded by a parent-teacher conference at which exhibit A was a recent two-page essay I'd written about wanting to be a mercenary when I grew up. Or a ninja.

I remember Soldier of Fortune articles in those days being a macho-to-the-max amalgam of firearms reviews, anti-gun control rants, Vietnam POW conspiracy theories and gory first-hand reporting on Cold War proxy wars, military coups and revolutions in Second and Third World nations. But what made Soldier of Fortune so enticing in my 11-year-old mind was less its editorial content than its infamous advertising.

Along with ads for mail-order brides, bounty hunter training manuals, surveillance electronics, Secrets of the Ninja lessons (including "mind clouding" and "sentry removal&quot , Nazi memorabilia, machine guns, silencers, and sniper rifles, Soldier of Fortune advertised the services of guns for hire.

"It's directed at professional mercenaries -- men who will fight for pay and those who want to hire them," wrote Chicago Tribune columnist Mike Royko in March 1984. "But since mercenaries represent only a tiny portion of the reading population, the magazine tries to broaden its appeal to include those who might be called war fans, weapon-lovers, fanatic anti-commies and Walter Mitty types who enjoy the vicarious thrill of reading about blood and guts."

http://www.alternet.org/story/152413/the_dark_side_of_%22soldier_of_fortune%22_magazine%3A_contract_killers_and_mercenaries_for_hire

[NCTraveler]

59. Under very few exceptions would I find that to be acceptable.

Then again, I wouldn't link to here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172
to back up an argument of mine or to make a point.

[pintobean]

60. See you in April

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313825&sub=trans

[GGJohn]

61. Well, he did last a couple of days longer than I thought he would.