DDGator-
My comments about censorship were not directed at you or Rohrbaugh. The name that was signed to the letter, and the post that preceded it, was the reason for the parody.
I have no agenda other than seeing things from both sides of an issue. When I find inconsistencies within heavily one-sided arguments, I call them out.
I find it amusing that my comments drew such ire, while ones similar to the ones below, routinely are overlooked or are somehow deemed "constructive":
What a great rebuttal Dr. Michael Ward presented to that [glb]useless, misleading, and self-serving piece of drivel[/glb] published by Gun Tests! [glb]Lo, how the pompous are deflated[/glb].
After reading Mr. Ward's rebuttal, I am canceling my subscription to Gun Tests. They are not only as bad as the regular firearms magazines, but much worse since they do such a good job of pretending to be objective. The word [glb]"Slimy"[/glb] comes to mind.
BTW, I don't have to bash Glocks at Glocktalk, because there already are plenty of members who highlight problems they experience with their glocks, and who are not insecure to discuss the issues they have or the limitations of their guns....that's what makes it such a great forum.
I believe you do a good job here too. I especially like it when you post an entire review (or at least as much of it as you feel you safely legally can), and leave it for your readers to decide. I don't much care for those, however, that feel they have to rush to the defense of the rohrbaugh, "bash" away at one side of an issue, then act offended when someone poses an alternate viewpoint.
I apologize if you feel my comments haven't been "collegial". I guess in hindsight I didn't realize the continual backslapping and positive reinforcement some require to enjoy a discussion on a gun forum:
Hey! With that post, I just got promoted to full member. Thanks, DDGator!