The Truth About Guns’ Robert Farago — Lying Blogger?

The subtitle to this post could also be “Robert Farago – ‘He can’t Handle The Truth About Guns”.

I’m the subject of a post on Robert Farago’s “The Truth About Guns” website. I feel honored – usually it is only Gun Control sites that ban me. — Maybe things haven’t changed all that much after all.

TTAG commentators are free to criticize my posts. Or anyone else’s posts. They may do so as vigorously as they please

Obviously that isn’t exactly accurate as you’ll see from the email exchanges below. I didn’t get screen captures of all my comments because I didn’t think they would be deleted.

It started on Monday when I visited (One of the Anti Sites I am banned on) the blog of Joan Peterson (aka Japete)  and saw she was parroting the words of Robert about  a picture on The Firearm Blog (TFB). I was interested in seeing what the Antis and Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns” had in common.

Joan was repeating Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns” words about the phallic nature of a drum magazine……just what pro-freedom people need. Now the antis can point to a “pro-gun’ site and say “See, even the gun guys see issues with it”.

But instead of addressing the issue with the authors of TFB, Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns” posted about it. I saw no comment on TFB, I saw no indication of a pingback. I have also confirmed that the editor of TFB was not contacted.

 

Instead of being like Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns”, I felt it was honorable to discuss the problem I had with the post. I left a comment about the post. Robert deleted it. I tried again and in the mean time started an email exchange with Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns”. That is shown below (Email Exchange #1)

Guess he can dish it out but not take it. I raised what I thought were valid points about the post as it was written. It wasn’t an “editorial” issue, it was directly related to the post.

Yesterday, while checking on the first post I saw that Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns” had posted another “Incendiary Image” and again was taking another blogger to task.

And again, I saw no comment on the originator’s site. I saw no pingback so again I left a comment.

Really if you have a problem with the imagery or the nature of a magazine, doesn’t it make sense to go to the source? Isn’t asking why that wasn’t done an appropriate question?

Is it valid to criticize a blog post criticizing another blog post?

Since I believed that I again tried to discuss the issue in the forum the issue was raised — guess that is against the rules also. Again my my comment was deleted.

Apparently Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns” thought I was “flaming” his site or himself. Apparently, flaming means anything critical of him.

He first edited my comment to remove the critique of him.

Let me repeat that Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns” edited another person’s comment to remove a critique about him. And worse in my opinion, did not note that he edited the comment.

Several emails went back and forth while I was answering other comments on the site. Then apparently when he realized I wasn’t going to go away and let him criticize others without saying something about it; he deleted all my comments.

After he deleted my comments, he made a third post “defending” his policy on maintaining an echo chamber environment over there.

In the third post (the one where he banned me), he lied about the nature of my disagreement. I was not offended by him calling it obscene, I asked what made it obscene. Nor did I “flag” it for enhancing the potential of a spree killing, I asked why he didn’t address his issues with the manufacturer of the magazine.

 

The man had a conniption about the Oleg Volk post and a previous one about the Glock porno mag (so to speak). I invited him to discuss TTAG’s editorial policies via email. This we did—to no avail. He seemed to believe that I should proactively contact the subject of critical posts to get their comments before I press play.

Not only did he ban me; he is flat out lying about what I said.

At no point did I say that he should ” I should proactively contact the subject of critical posts to get their comments” — which by the way is another revision without notification — it originally said “each and every”.

I said -repeatedly — that if he had a problem with the images, why didn’t he address it with the originators?

here is a screen cap of my comment — including his original wording — before it was deleted.

That is a valid point to raise. As is the criticism I had of Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns” views on the images. None of those comments survived, even edited on the 2nd post.

Now I might have been a little intemperate in my comments. I think I said something was “chickenshit” and another was “a load of Crock”……ooohhh extreme I know.

I keep my comments here fairly open. Very few are ever deleted, few are ever edited and when I do edit a comment, I inform my readers. Right now only one person is unable to comment on my blog — and that is because MikeB302000 has failed -repeatedly – to abide by my conditions (simply discuss his ownership in the depth and breadth of detail he has asked about our ownership).

I encourage people to comment if they have a problem with my views or beliefs. I believe out of conflict can come resolution.

If we as “pro-rights” advocates can not or are not willing to defend our views, then those views are probably not very strongly held.

I realized this morning what this could all be about – Payback.

See I was one of Weer’d Beard‘s “co-conspirator” in the infamous “Gun Blog Black Listing” scandal.

So, please read the email exchanges below (under the fold)  and let me know if I was “flaming”, if I was “intemperate” or if  Robert Farago aka “The Can’t Handle the Truth About Guns” is just being childish.

Please, and I really mean it, Join the Discussion.

Email Exchange #1

Robert,

I see you are up to your usual low standards again and showing your true colors. Why am I not surprised.

so when I saw this image on their pages, well, I was stunned.

You don’t slam the manufacturer for creating the problematic magazine in the first place.

Nope you try to take to task your competitor in order to generate more revenue.

We’re looking to overtake them as America’s most popular firearms-related blog. We’re getting close.

You don’t seek to get a comment from The Firearm Blog about the image used.
You don’t seek to get a comment from the manufacturer.

Nope, all you do is try to generate controversy and division within the firearm community.

Is that your business model for gaining readership?

Robert responded by email:

I have deleted the comment below. I violates TTAG’s posting policy: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. That said, I am happy to discuss TTAG’s editorial stance and.or style with you here, off-line.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by low standards and true colors. I have an inkling, but I’d appreciate specifics, and will respond to each and ever one. Meanwhile . . . 

I have nothing against high-capacity magazines. In fact, I believe Americans should be able to own fully automatic machine guns with high capacity magazines without a federal license. I was being sarcastic about spree killers. 

I think the post was pretty clear about my respect for The Firearm Blog: “Still, we respect TFB as our elder and, in many ways, our better.” No sarcasm there.

I didn’t start TTAG to make money. Generating revenue has not been, is not now, nor will it ever be, my top priority. My number one goal: tell the truth about guns. 

TTAG is a blog, not the New York Times. My writers and I feel free to comment on anything firearms related without launching a major investigation. If TFB wants to comment on my comment about their use of the image they may do so (as long as they follow our posting policy). If TTAG get the facts wrong, we acknowledge the mistake, print a retraction and amend the text. Otherwise, we move on. (Not dot org). 

If TTAG generates controversy and division within the firearms community, that’s a by-product of our core mission. Not its intent. But we will not shy away from addressing issues within the gun rights community. Sometimes, the truth hurts.  

My business model: tell the truth about guns by giving the best possible writers maximum editorial freedom and logistical support, listen to our readers, admit our mistakes and create an entertaining, informative and free-flowing of ideas about firearms.

Fair enough? 

RF

He won’t shy away from addressing issues with the gun rights community but apparently that doesn’t mean he’ll address any on concerning his own blog.

My response quickly followed:

What a load of BULL.

Your low standards — using the language of anti-rights cultists  generate hits on your website.
Are you telling me that isn’t your goal?

True colors? — As I said — and it is a valid issue that should be discussed on your blog.

YOU DIDN’T address the phallic nature of the magazine with the manufacturer, did you?
You didn’t even address it with The Firearm Blog, did you?

Nope you are showing your true colors by using smear tactics against your competitor “Oh Look, they are using PHALLIC symbols, shame on them”.

Yet you don’t allow them a chance to respond before you post. YOU don’t address the issue with the manufacturer “Hey, why that Design….do you know what it looks like?”

If you want to tell the truth about guns…..why not address the issue at hand?

Nope. You want to create division and draw attention to yourself.

If you wanted to tell the truth about guns, why didn’t you leave my comment up and address it in public so others can see it, eh?

I guess “What a load of Bull” could be intemperate.
He came back with:

What issue at hand (so to speak)? This was a light-hearted post. You know: a joke. See? The mag looks like a penis and testicles! Isn’t that funny? Get it? 

I explained the reason I took down your comment: it violates TTAG’s posting policy. In addition, it’s an unnecessary digression. When a reader raises serious questions about TTAG’s editorial stance or style, I create a separate post for public, uncensored feedback. 

With all due respect, this is not a serious question. We are talking about a dick joke. And the language was designed to mock anti-gun rights folk. 

I appreciate your concern about the site. Rest assured that we are doing our best to defend and extend your (our) Second Amendment rights. Have a look at the post I just published about training. What’s your take on that?

I did respond to his post on training — that comment stayed up. Guess if you agree with Robert Farago, all is good.
Notice that he has failed to address why he didn’t ask The Firearm Blog about the image. Guess they are supposed to scan thousands of blog posts and pick out Robert’s from all of them.
Again, I tried to give Robert Farago a chance to respond:

 

Again, WHAT A CROCK!!There is nothing in your post to indicate it is a joke. NOTHING.There is nothing to indicate it was a light hearted post.IT isn’t an unnecessary digression. You have trouble with the imagery but you aren’t addressing anyone involved with the design.Heck by your own policy you should have allowed the comment.

to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

Is it ethical to call out another blog but not allow yourself to be called out?Is it ethical to discuss the design of a product without discussing the PERCEPTION of the writer? You are showing yourself to be more interested in hits on your site then actually discussing the issue.

His response was to ask if I was German.

—————————————————————————————–

 

Email Exchange #2

 

 

So once again — in the same forum that Robert Farago criticized a blogger, I asked some questions.

Robert,

Your attempts at generating controversy are getting worse.

It is a posed — a staged — picture. From that you get the fact that she is drawing?

How exactly do you extrapolate that from a still image?

Heck for all you know she could be reholstering while checking to see if her child is safe.

Why do you continue to point out ‘problems’ with other people’s postings without addressing it with that person?

You didn’t post a comment on The Firearm Blog. I see no comment on Oleg’s blog from you.

Since you are posting on your site, I have to wonder if your problem is with the imagery or just not having enough traffic on your site.

I’m sure you’ll considering this “flaming” –Tell me, does any criticism of you get to stay up?

Let’s discuss it on your blog where others can chime in. Let others say if I’m right or wrong.

So you say IF she is drawing she should “dump” the kid?

Really…how safe is that for a child to be “dumped” to the floor?

How do you determine that she might be drawing?

Since you feel free to offer a critique of Oleg’s work, shouldn’t others be allowed to critique YOURS?

 

Robert did have the courtesy to email me about my comment. I didn’t notice his underhanded trick at the time.

As I’ve said before, if you want to discuss TTAG’s editorial stance or style, do so with me offline.

My reply:

Robert,

What a chickenshit maneuver.

You accuse others on a public forum but won’t allow any public critique on your own blog.

I am discussing valid points about the ISSUE YOU RAISED.

Are you so afraid of discussion?

When he replied with:

 

I left in your analysis.

Sent from my iPhone

I realized something — he had edited my comment to remove the critique of him or his motives.
That is right, Robert Farago he  who says he want “The Truth About Guns” edited a comment to remove criticism but did not note that he edited the comment.  Heck, that sounds like something the New York Times would do.
I can be a little stubborn at times but there are times when I think it is important to establish the motivations of a person.
I sent two emails before Robert responded

And deleted my reply to Havegun which was on topic — a valid discussion of the ISSUES you raised.

You didn’t respond to my analysis either — big surprise there.

So Mr. Farago, why exactly didn’t you leave a comment on Oleg’s site if you have a problem with the imagery?

What exactly leads you to believe that she is drawing?

Why do you continue to flame others — and that is exactly what you are doing to The Firearm Blog and Oleg – but delete comments critical of you and your blog?

Can you say hypocrisy?

 

And
By the way….your editing of my comment without showing that it was edited is profound unethical.
Okay, I realize it should have been “profoundly” but the point is I called Robert Farago on his editing of my comment — in private, via email as he requests.
His response:

I can delete it if you want.

Meanwhile, how about we call it a day? You don’t like my policy and I don’t like your comments.

 

Wait? What? Call it a day?

Robert,

Let’s not call it a day.

Let’s have the truth about it, eh?

You raised the issue. I’m responding. Isn’t that what blogging is about?

Why didn’t you ask Oleg — or The Firearm Blog for that matter – for a response?

Why do you believe she is drawing?

Let’s discuss it out in the open on your blog IF you dare.

You feel free to critique others in public but you won’t allow yourself to be critiqued. Isn’t that more than a little hypocritical?

and

Oh, you really are a piece of work aren’t you Robert.

A valid critique of your issues and you delete my comments.

You delete the evidence that you edited my comment without stating that it was edited.
Why did you edit my comment without mentioning that fact?

If you are after the truth, why not be honest about your editorial policy and where you’ve applied it?

Again — I feel that if you edit a comment, an honest person would note where that comment has been edited. I tried to address Robert’s editorial policy and again his response shows how much he is willing to discuss things:

You just don’t get it.

You can critique my post as much as you like WITHOUT FLAMING.
Only not on the site. You’re banned.

End of the exchanges.

 

44 Responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    The bottom line is Mr. Farago is a man of little talent, but high aspirations looking to do something he doesn’t have the skills to do as well as he’d like.

    Also he aspires to be a great car writer with nothing but a passing knowledge of cars, or a gun writer with nothing but a passing knowledge of guns.

    Rather than hard work and learning from those who are more experienced than you, he simply attacks and flames them himself.

    He of course projects those qualities on others (He trolls and flames other blogs, and claims others he doesn’t like as trolls or flamers. He got very unpopular for refusing to link from blogs he stole from….but gets upset if others say they won’t link to him…without theft mind you)

    He also focuses on the negative rather than the positives. Ever read his gun reviews? There’s a reason why most companies refuse to send him T&E guns….he just makes fun of the gun (doesn’t even point out valid flaws) and says unflattering things about the company that sent him goods.

    Of course he’s stood against gun rights when that would generate chatter…and then in favor of those very rights to cloak himself in the flag.

    And when people call him on this stuff he LIES. Like when he says he’s sorry for stealing from Tam and that he fully gets permission of authors he cites….on the same day he reposted a picture taken by Chance without his permission.

    When I met him in Pittsburgh I mentioned many of your same problems. He had deleted posts of mine that said nothing but pointed up issues with Mr. Farago’s cite and politics. Rather than “Discussing the Issue” he deletes the comments. When I asked him about him deleting comments that did nothing to violate his terms…well of course he lied.

    I decided not to go back, what can be won from playing in his piss-filled sandbox?

    Good on you for exposing him. He’s really a dire person. BTW just about everything deplorable he’s done is blog behavior Mikeb302000 has done….is it a wonder he’s given the troll author status?

    They’re peas in a pod!

  2. Posted by Merlin on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Bob,

    My only comment is that I don’t think it’s a big deal that he didn’t post on Oleg or TFB’s blogs.

    I’ve written plenty of entries on my own blog, criticizing something that I read elsewhere. Now, I’ll link to the post in question, so people can go read it for themselves if they’d like, but I won’t necessarily post a comment over there.

    That’s a bit of a red herring argument to me.

    Now, editing and deleting your comments, yeah, that got out of line in a hurry.

  3. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Merlin,

    I think there is a difference in the type of media being criticized. If it is newspaper or T.V. station, I would not expect a response from the originator. I provide a link back just in case.

    However, If I criticize something on another person’s blog — isn’t it ethical to first address it with that person?

    Robert’s own “About Page” states:

    explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

    If the morality of a post is in question — doesn’t integrity dictate that a person tries to communicate with the originator?

    I checked with The Firearm Blog — no attempt was made to contact that blog. Wouldn’t you want to know if I had a problem with your blog?

  4. Posted by Merlin on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Bob,

    I guess we just see this one differently. I believe I have done the ethical thing by linking back to the blog entry in question, and I don’t necessarily have an obligation to make the comment over there.

    It could be that I just want to point it out and put my spin on it. It could be I don’t necessarily want to engage in a debate with the author of the post, I just want to put my opinion out there.

    Honestly, it’s 50/50 how I approach it. Sometimes I’ll write an entry on my blog, and then put a shorter version on the originator’s blog with a link back to my site. Sometimes, if my comment is short enough, I’ll do it just on their blog.

    Now, I will be honest. Often times the reason I put my response on my blog is to drive traffic. I’m a stats geek just like most bloggers I know, and I don’t feel guilty about that in the least.

  5. Posted by Robert Slaughter on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Who?

    Based primarily on the plagiarism he engages in regularly, as well as the issues Weerd notes, I dropped his blog from my blog roll back during the “Black List” incident, as well as from my RSS readers, and I now avoid his site like the plague. I have no interest spending any of my valuable time dealing with him. I also steer people I know getting into the gunnie community away from his site where I can.

    He’s a traffic-whore, trying to get volume up on his site, so he can sell it for profit. Between the general downturn, plus the heavy rejection from the gunblogger community, the chances of that every happening get smaller every day.

  6. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Merlin,

    I am glad you brought up the driving traffic to your site.

    See that is — in my opinion — what Robert did not want discussed on his blog. I feel that is a valid point to raise in conjunction with the lack of comments on the original site. Combine that with the “black list conspiracy” and I feel that might have weighed more in his decision to ban me then his critique of the imagery.

    I feel that if you are going to criticize someone it is important to give them a more than adequate chance to respond. Just as I feel if you are going to criticize someone, you should be willing to face criticism.

  7. Posted by Merlin on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Bob,

    Seems like we might be closer on this than I originally thought.

    If the original author wants to come into my playground and respond, I’ll gladly let him. Or, we can get into dueling blog posts. Either way, it’s no skin off my back.

    Also, just because of people like Farago, by posting my thoughts on my blog, I have complete control and can ensure that no edits or deletions are made by the other party.

  8. Posted by Patrick on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    My problem with his post, and I called him on it, is that while he might have been trying to be sarcastic and “make fun of the anti-gun folks”… Joan *took* it as serious and actually used it to make a point, exactly as you suggested.

    I mentioned it in the very post you got deleted from and nothing was said about it. Nothing like giving ammo to the enemies.

    Of course, you raise another point…. He rubs shoulders with Mike, even allowing him to post his bullcrap, on his website. Any site that allows Mike to be an author cannot, by definition, include “truth” in its title.

  9. Posted by DirtCrashr on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    I’m with Robert Slaughter, and I agree with coming into my play-pen – but I try not to engage with him whatsoever and I’m sincerely disappointed when(ever) Instapundit continues to link to him.

  10. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    I will say this. There is no standard in the blogging community that says that you have to comment on an author’s post, or otherwise contact the author before you raise a criticism on your own blog.

    In fact, it’s generally frowned upon when you hijack a post to criticize beyond the scope of the post. I read your comment on the Oleg Volk post and re-read it here. It was largely out of context in my opinion, you were raising issues that fell outside the scope of the post.

    You’ll notice that I criticized Robert’s critique of the picture as well. My post was not removed. In fact I even criticized the removal of your post. I noticed it was missing before I had a chance to read it fully. If you look at my criticism and others vs. yours I think it’s clear that your’s was a bit out of line, based on a desire to keep comments on-topic. Just my opinion.

    I’ve personally had it out with Robert too. I felt that he was pimping the Wilson Combat a little too much and called him out about it numerous times; questioning his claim that he bought the gun with his own money. Robert removed comments I had made as well, he moved the discussion to e-mail as well. I understood his removal of my comments because they were, for the most part, out of the context of the post.

    The fact is that what your doing right here, is exactly what your accusing Robert of. Did you e-mail Robert before you made this post public? I doubt it.

    The fact is that this is how it works in the blogging community. If you have a grip that falls outside the narrow scope of a single post, you should refrain form hijacking the post, keep your comments relevant to the post and either write your own blog, or contact the author/proprietor via a different means with specific gripes.

    At the very least, you should understand that the comments section is not the place to have the kind of discussion you trying to have.

    Your assertions that a blogger should contact the subject of a post, before going public, is also a bit… well it’s just not how it works, it’s not practical.

    I’ve criticized things numerous times on my blog. For example, in one post I lambasted a show that was on the Discovery channel. By your standard I should have written the Disco channel before I made my post public. Do you really think the Disco channel cares what I have to say? Do you really expect that I should have made them “aware” of my post?

    Yes, there are issues that one should address privately before going public. But generally that’s just not how it works and it hinders the public discourse to operate in the manner that you suggest.

    Your basically asserting that everyone should get permission from the subject… that’s just not how it works. Most of the time it would not even be possible. You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding of how blogging, and the internet work.

    All that said: you obviously had a beef with Robert and TTAG before any of this. You have something personal against him. That fact shows in your comments. That fact shows in your use of five-year-old debating tactics (i.e. calling names). You were spoiling for a fight, you got one and now your crying foul.

    Whatever Robert’s reason’s for removing/editing your comments, it’s his site and his decision. It’s not an easy thing–trying to allow open discussion while avoiding people who simply want be dicks, or pick fights. It’s like Robert said in his comments policy post–you know it (trolls, flames) when you see them.

    At the end of the day you run your blog how you want to and everyone else will run their’s as they see fit.

    In your view, your completely right. But I was there watching this all unfold, add to that what you posted here and I have a pretty clear picture of it all. This post, posting your e-mail exchange, does not make you look better. It does not make you right. If anything it makes you look like a whining kid. Your e-mails are incoherent blathering, you name call, insult, and throw accusations around. Is it really hard to see why Robert wanted to end his exchange with you? Why anyone would have not wanted to end the exchange with you?

  11. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Robert Slaughter

    Can you offer any evidence to support your claim of plagiarism? Just curios because that’s an issue I take seriously.

    Also, everyone seems to have their panties in a wad about Robert’s desire to drive traffic to TTAG. I may be completely wrong, but isn’t that kinda the point of having a site? To have visitors.

    Could we also not claim that Bob S. staged all this (it’s obvious he was spoiling for a fight) in order to drive traffic here?

  12. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Adam here are two good examples
    http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/10/23/hmm-let-me-take-a-stab/
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/04/robert-farago/a-modest-proposal-the-disposable-gun/

    Linoge also had some stuff cribbed and was treated very rudely by Farago when he requested a little etiquette.

    Farago has made claims that he’s “made things right” and “Taken steps to avoid future plagiarism”…the most recent statement of this was the day he posted that picture taken by Sayuncle without permission.

    He’s a liar of the most bald face variety, and somebody who has been more than willing to give aid to those looking to disarm us, while spurning those who protect our rights.

    The big question is why do you read his site?

  13. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Adam,

    You mis-characterize several points that I raised.

    In fact, it’s generally frowned upon when you hijack a post to criticize beyond the scope of the post.

    Let’s see, Robert Farago criticized the imagery of a magazine on another blog. So asking if he discussed that criticism with the blogger is out of line how exactly.

    Robert didn’t post about the magazine’s performance, the construction — he specifically raised the issue of the imagery.

    I asked why Robert chose to make a post — just as you did about the Wilson combat – knowing a blogger’s motivation can help determine if the complaint is valid or not.

    In the case of the magazine, The Firearm Blog did not manufacture the magazine, did not take the picture, did not promote it as scurrilous — So why is Robert criticizing them for it?
    Could it be simply to drive traffic to his blog?

    That is a valid discussion.

    At the very least, you should understand that the comments section is not the place to have the kind of discussion you trying to have.

    Why?

    What exactly was out of line?
    Questioning his motivation for the posting?
    Asking if he contacted the originator with his concerns?

    Those questions could have been answered on the blog “No, I posted here and linked back” Done.

    If you have a grip that falls outside the narrow scope of a single post, you should refrain form hijacking the post, keep your comments relevant to the post and either write your own blog, or contact the author/proprietor via a different means with specific gripes.

    I find it ironic that you say the blogger should contact the originator via a different means with specific gripes when that was exactly what I was trying to find out if Robert did.

    Your assertions that a blogger should contact the subject of a post, before going public, is also a bit… well it’s just not how it works, it’s not practical.

    This is a gross distortion of my comments; both on the blog and in the emails. I didn’t say Robert should contact “each and every subject” of a post as he claimed. I asked IF he had a problem with those two images why he didn’t contact the originator?

    Heck, you just said that a blogger shouldn’t highjack a thread, shouldn’t post off topic criticisms. I was trying to find out IF Robert did try to do those things.

    I’ve criticized things numerous times on my blog. For example, in one post I lambasted a show that was on the Discovery channel. By your standard I should have written the Disco channel before I made my post public. Do you really think the Disco channel cares what I have to say? Do you really expect that I should have made them “aware” of my post?

    Read my earlier replies to Merlin!

    Different media requires different responses. Do you feel it is ethical for others to criticize you without giving you a chance to respond?

    I don’t.

    That fact shows in your use of five-year-old debating tactics (i.e. calling names).

    Help me out here Adam — show me where in my emails or comments I called him names?

    “A Piece of Work”? Is that it ??

    I have an ethical problem with anyone who feels frees to criticize others yet will not allow criticism of himself to be post – that is called being a hypocrite.

    It’s like Robert said in his comments policy post–you know it (trolls, flames) when you see them.

    So point out exactly what I said that was “a flame” as Robert called it?

    Your e-mails are incoherent blathering, you name call, insult, and throw accusations around.

    Never said I was perfect or blameless.

  14. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Weer’d Beard

    Regarding your “A Modest Proposal” example:

    He quoted a paragraph of text and linked to the original authors post. It so happens that the original post was only a paragraph. Since it’s such a short post I would have probably not quoted the article directly but would have phrased it in my own words and gave a link to the original post, to give credit for the original idea.

    It’s kind of a toss-up since the post is so short but I do feel (and I read up on this more than most should) that it falls under the guise of Fair Use. Which is a very real thing, despite may people’s insistence that it’s not.

    One thing is for clear–he was not trying to pass it off as his own work. Which is the definition of plagiarism.

    Regarding your “What’s Wrong With This Picture” example:

    Robert posted the picture in order to comment on it. Under Fair Use law you are allowed to use other’s work in order to offer a critique of that work. This is Fair Use.

    Also, in looking a the given examples I also found another incident of clear plagiarism. One of TTAG’s authors copied another bloggers post and was passing it off as his own work. Based on the trail I could find, Robert killed the post, apologized, and reprimanded the author.

    Unless you have better examples, it just looks like your trying to kick up dust where there is none. Besides TTAG is relativity new, and has an open authorship, mistakes are going to be made.

    Why do I read TTAG?

    I’ve only been reading it for about 6 months, maybe. I’ve not observed the anti-gun talk coming from TTAG’s authors that you and others seem to insist exists. I don’t agree with everything they write, look back through my comments there and you’ll see that.

    Someone (here? can’t remember I’ve been to a lot of places on the net today) pointed to a post where Robert was talking about keeping your guns in a safe, or on your person. This post was pointed to as an example of Robert’s anti-gun views.

    I’m sorry but suggesting that you keep you guns locked up, *or on your person*, does not make you anti-gun. It kind of suggests that your sane. I keep my guns locked up if they are not needed (needed = for carry or practice,etc.).

    Am I anti-gun? Furthest thing from it.

    Sure, Robert’s stance is strict and I don’t agree with his reasoning that if my gun(s) are stolen that I’m responsible for whatever havoc they are used to cause.

    The NRA is firmly against government rules regrading how guns are stored. So am I. If you read the post so is Robert. It’s not as if Robert was purposing that a law be enacted, it was an editorial expressing his opinion and what he does.

    That’s really the only post that I’ve come across that could even be suggested as anti-gun. If there are more examples I’d love for you to show me.

    On the contrary, I find TTAG to be more pro-gun than a lot of the other supposed pro-gun stuff I read. They routinely make posts in support of the proper reading of the 2A, they clearly support concealed carry, Robert routinely advocates home carry, they make post debunking myths of gun control, they are actively following the Gun Walker Scandal and lambasting the BATF while doing it. Robert even wrote a post against government mandated training for CC.

    If TTAG is anti-gun then I must really be missing something. Enlighten me.

  15. Posted by tp on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    I don’t even visit TTAG anymore. Farago is a lair and a thief. The bastard owes me $40.00 for tee-shirts he never delivered. Although he left up my scathing post when he offered a refund:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/09/robert-farago/ttag-t-shirts-and-cap-refunds/

    Of course he never did send my refund despite repeated emails asking for it…

  16. Posted by don’t be a robert farago | walls of the city on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    [...] document.write(''); OX.requestAd({"auid":"33504"}); « guns are bad news for women, the politician    don’t be a robert farago leave a comment | 1631 03Nov11 | written by Linoge My opinions regarding Robert Farago are not exactly state secrets – the man is an attention-whoring, victim-blaming, content-thieving, fuddish jackass who has latched onto the Second Amendment as his new "golden goose" after he drove The Truth About Cars into the ground and played the part of a rat leaving a sinking ship – but I was more than happy to let him wallow in his own self-delusions after the whole, "ZOMG, ebil CONSPIRACY!" fiasco… at least, until Bob S. posted about his interactions with Robert yesterday. [...]

  17. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Bob S.

    *Apologies if this is all mangled, I’m not sure what tags are permissible on your site*

    You seem like a relativity smart person. So I’m surprised that this has to be explained to you…

    Robert’s post was satire, a joke. You get that right?

    The fact that you’ve gotten so riled up about, a joke, speaks to my earlier point that you’ve simply been spoiling for a fight. This is so a non-issue that it’s off the list of non-issues.

    Yes, Robert poked fun at TFB for their use of the image because, I mean really it looks like a cock and balls. It woefully impractical (but probably fun) device. I kind of agree with Robert that this is not the kind of imagery we need to be promoting… because we get enough flack for being into guns–”your just compensating”.

    Anyway, it was a joke.


    I asked why Robert chose to make a post — just as you did about the Wilson combat – knowing a blogger’s motivation can help determine if the complaint is valid or not.

    He made the post because he wanted to. Same reason he make the WC post. Same reason you made this post–because you wanted to.

    You seem to have it stuck in your head that Robert, or anyone else has to explain themselves to you. They don’t. Get over it. If you don’t like TTAG, don’t read it.

    Yes, I asked Robert about the WC posts. I flamed several posts because I was irked by it. Robert removed some of my comments. He told me to stop bringing the issue up. We exchanged e-mails, he explained, I explained, we talked to each other like adults and then we moved on.

    Why were your comments out of line? Because the owner of the site said they were. That’s enough.


    I find it ironic that you say the blogger should contact the originator via a different means with specific gripes when that was exactly what I was trying to find out if Robert did.

    There is noting ironic about what I said… You misunderstood me I said if you *as a reader/commenter* have gripe that falls outside of the narrow scope of the post you should: write you own blog post addressing your issue, contact the author.


    I asked IF he had a problem with those two images why he didn’t contact the originator?

    Because he didn’t want to. Because he does not have to.

    Did you contact Robert to inform him of this post? I noticed you ignored that question in your reply.


    Heck, you just said that a blogger shouldn’t highjack a thread, shouldn’t post off topic criticisms. I was trying to find out IF Robert did try to do those things.

    You tried to do it in the comments. In your e-mails you were just being a dick.


    Different media requires different responses. Do you feel it is ethical for others to criticize you without giving you a chance to respond?
    I don’t.

    Blogs, the medium do not require the notice that you insist they do. That’s not how it works. Depending on the circumstances it my be prudent to contact the other party… but not always. Oh, and Robert’s post on the mag… was a joke!

  18. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Adam,

    I may be a little sarcastically challenged; so do me a favor and point out — from Robert’s original post what exactly indicates it was meant sarcastically.

    The fact that you’ve gotten so riled up about, a joke, speaks to my earlier point that you’ve simply been spoiling for a fight.

    You keep telling me I’m spoiling for a fight — pot calling the kettle black?

    Or could it be that Robert Farago — still smarting from our “black list conspiracy” was spoiling for a fight?

    I left a comment – Robert deleted it and in no way indicated that I was off base in my criticism. What in his email notification of deleting my comment indicated that I missed the sarcasm.

    It was not until several emails and comments that he made the defense of sarcasm.

    If we get enough flack on compensating — doesn’t it fall to our community to say “Hey, STOP giving the Antis words to work with?”

    Did you miss the entire part showing I found the link from Joan Peterson’s site? She (and I had to liken myself in any way to her) also missed the sarcasm.

    So, If she missed it and I missed it. — maybe a question of intention is valid.

    Robert could have simple responded to my comment saying “Hey Bob, you missed the joke”.

    He made the post because he wanted to. Same reason he make the WC post. Same reason you made this post–because you wanted to.

    Or he could have meant it to harm his competitor.

    From his original post — his words not mine:

    TTAG and thefirearmblog.com are locked in editorial combat. We’re looking to overtake them as America’s most popular firearms-related blog. We’re getting close.

    Hmm…let’s see, they are competitors, they are locked in combat, looking to overtake them.

    And you say there couldn’t be any other motivation?
    Isn’t asking if Robert is being ethical a valid inquiry?

    How is it not a valid — and should be public question?

    Why were your comments out of line? Because the owner of the site said they were. That’s enough.

    So a man who says my comments are “flaming” has not ethical duty to explain his standard?

    How can I change what I say if I don’t know what he has a problem with?

    Did you e-mail Robert before you made this post public? I doubt it.

    I missed that question in the volume of your original comment.

    The answer is no.

    I made my criticisms of Robert’s posts known prior to the post. He, Robert Farago indicated that he wanted to have no more correspondence by email. Did he not?

    However, I provided pingbacks to all 3 posts and in addition, I emailed Robert immediately after posting this — informing him that he if wanted to discuss it further, he could do it here.

    Heck, you just said that a blogger shouldn’t highjack a thread, shouldn’t post off topic criticisms. I was trying to find out IF Robert did try to do those things.

    You tried to do it in the comments. In your e-mails you were just being a dick.

    How are you not doing exactly what I did?

    I left a comment asking if the poster contacted the person he had a problem with. You did the same thing.

    Should I delete your comment or is it a valid question?

  19. Posted by Sean D Sorrentino on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Attention whore is an attention whore.

    Can we all please ask Insty to post a warning to all links to Farago? It pisses me off when I blindly follow an Instapundit link and find myself at TTAG. It’s like when the hot chick in a bar waves you over and then you find out that she wanted to introduce you to her really ugly friend.

  20. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Bob S.


    I may be a little sarcastically challenged; so do me a favor and point out — from Robert’s original post what exactly indicates it was meant sarcastically.


    Robert could have simple responded to my comment saying “Hey Bob, you missed the joke”.

    Robert said it himself, in reply to you 5 minutes after you asked him:


    Robert Farago says:
    November 1, 2011 at 10:24 AM
    I’ll leave this comment up Bob S.

    I was being sarcastic—which doesn’t always work on the Net (obviously). I don’t have any problem with the image or the mag or The Firearm Blog or penises or things that look like a penis. Not to put too fine a point on it (so to speak), this post is, basically, a dick joke. Ein witz.

    And look at the other comments on the post. Other people got it.


    Hmm…let’s see, they are competitors, they are locked in combat, looking to overtake them.
    And you say there couldn’t be any other motivation?
    Isn’t asking if Robert is being ethical a valid inquiry?
    How is it not a valid — and should be public question?


    So a man who says my comments are “flaming” has not ethical duty to explain his standard?

    Regardless if you question is valid or not no one is obligated to answer it. What makes you think they are? A blog is not a court room. Look at the monster image post – several people, including me, criticized Robert’s assessment and our posts stayed up.

    Clearly you were doing something that irked Robert (asking the same question repeatedly) and since it’s his site, he get to say who goes and who stays. Simple as that.

    Again, you bring up the issue of notification. By your own admission you don’t follow this rule.

    I really don’t get what the issue w/Robert or TTAG is. So Robert has a site that failed, so did a LOT of people in the history of the internet. Again, I invite you or anyone else to point to one post where he was anti-gun. Just one.

    Robert, TTAG is doing (my opinion) good work, brain bashing him, or his site over hurt feelings (you being banned) is really, really counterproductive for us all,

  21. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Adam,

    Do you consider asking me the same questions or making the same points repeatedly to be flaming?

  22. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Bob S.


    Do you consider asking me the same questions or making the same points repeatedly to be flaming?

    Dude, really?

    Me and you are having a discussion, you are making comments, I’m responding to them. You happen to be bringing up the same points (I’m assuming because you don’t get it) and so I have to keep responding to them. Your act of responding, without protest, signifies consent to keep the conversation going.

    If you asked me to stop asking a question, or to stop commenting on this subject altogether and I continued, yes I would be flaming.

    In that vein:

    You said this:


    I may be a little sarcastically challenged; so do me a favor and point out — from Robert’s original post what exactly indicates it was meant sarcastically.


    Robert could have simple responded to my comment saying “Hey Bob, you missed the joke”

    And I pointed out that Robert answered you 5 minutes after you asked the question…

    Care to respond?

  23. Posted by Barron Barnett on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Adam,
    See this as well for more history of Farago in the community.

    Taking the work of others, twisting it out of context and not providing proper attribution is the sign of a coward and a thief. He corrects or removes content only after someone calls him on it.

    If you want to support a thief go right ahead, don’t expect the rest of the community to be as accepting of you because of your association. I’ve watched him go through and correct and change posts as damage control and you know what, once would be one thing. Three or more times is enemy action.

    *On Unc’s pic, all he did was display the image and play mall ninja to create a discussion. Again if you want to support someone who aids the Brady Campaign and Joan Peterson, don’t expect us to be supportive. Pay attention outside of his blog and you’ll get a freaking clue.

  24. Posted by Dr. Anon on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Y’all realize that Robert is anything but “smarting” over the Gun Blog Black List, right? His site pulls in a million page views a month (I’ve seen the stats) and he had a pretty good belly laugh over the whole thing.

  25. Posted by Linoge on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @ Bob S.: Thanks for bringing this to our attention, and thanks for helping me realize that we should inform the community as to the types of people arguably within it. Given his prediliction for arbitrarily deleting comments and stealth-editing them, those of us who are concerned about keeping our comments unadulterated should treat his site like we do those of anti-rights cultists – take screencaps, and back things up.

    @ Adam:

    Someone (here? can’t remember I’ve been to a lot of places on the net today) pointed to a post where Robert was talking about keeping your guns in a safe, or on your person. This post was pointed to as an example of Robert’s anti-gun views.

    You are probably referring to a comment of mine, and, if so, you are misremembering it.

    I do not mind that Farago advocates the use of safes for the storage of firearms – it is a good policy, and it helps keep your property intact and unstolen/burned. I do, however, massively mind his “She had it coming because she was wearing a short skirt” mentality about those who were victims of thefts, but did not have “sufficient” storage for their firearms. Yes, it is unfortunate that their firearms were stolen – both that they were stolen at all, and that there will now be more firearms in criminal circulation – but blaming the victim for the actions of criminals is an absolutely despicable thing indeed, and simply something I am not willing to tolerate.

    Does this example mean Farago is anti-gun? Cannot say as though I care either way – the man’s attitude is reprehensible, and indicative of someone I would rather not associate with or be associated with.

    The same can be said of his attitude towards firearm training – that only “high risk” persons should take it, and anyone else who does not meet his arbitrary standards but does take training should be ridiculed, marginalized, and demeaned. What the hell kind of position is that?

    Even more observations about his behavior can be found in the comments here: http://www.saysuncle.com/2011/08/19/internet-serious-business/ . It is rather telling that one of the very few people defending Farago is also one of the most militant “gun control” extremists out there.

    And now he resorts to stealth-edits to redirect and control the discussion according to his whimsical standards.

    *shrug* I do think that Bob probably could have handled the situation better, and I disagree with him about contacting Oleg or TFB regarding those posts (though I completely agree that TFB was the entirely wrong target for Farago’s temper tantrum), but defending Robert’s actions in this case – and his behavior in the past – well, that is your call mate.

  26. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Adam,

    I agree that continuing the debate signifies consent. That is what I did on Robert’s advise — in the emails I continued to try to find out the information — because I didn’t get it or Robert didn’t answer.

    He continued, I continued.

    I don’t understand what your problem is -

    You agree that a person’s motivations are subject to question

    I felt that he was pimping the Wilson Combat a little too much and called him out about it numerous times; questioning his claim that he bought the gun with his own money.

    That is what I did.

    You agree that if a person does not answer then it is appropriate to ask again — see your above quote.

    I’m not saying that Robert has to answer me. I’m saying my opinion is to be ethical he should answer.

    Am I saying that he has to contact the originator, nope, I am saying my opinion is to be ethical he should contact them…or give them a notification in order to be able to respond.

    I asked if those things had been done.

    I never said that Robert had to contact the originator prior to posting. I said it was ethical to contact the originator. Is there any way to claim that I failed to contact Robert about my issues with him?

    Please also note that I left a comment on the post banning me. It was deleted. —I contacted Robert to address my concerns, he did not want to discuss it on the post he set up to discuss his commenting policy.

    I also set up, as I previously stated, pingbacks on all three posts I linked to (WordPress automatically tries to send pingbacks but I went an additional step).

    Since I was the subject of a blog post — which Robert Did NOT email or contact me in any way — I replied (as Merlin said ) with Dueling posts.

  27. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Linoge

    I’m not trying to defend anyone. I’ve been reading TAGG for ~6 months and I’m trying to understand where all the hostility is coming from. Based on what I’ve see, some of the venom seems uncalled for.

    I’m mostly disagreeing with Bob’s assertion that one has to contact the subject of criticism before making such criticism. It’s just so backwards that I find it annoying.

    Bob flew off the handle, as is demonstrated by the fact that he missed that Robert answered the question he claims Robert never answered.

    I read your post on what Robert did with your graphic. I can’t say that I agree with Robert’s use of your graphic but I’m wondering if the post, in the context of sarcasm does at least not explain it… it’s difficult to determine this late in the game. I don’t remember reading that post.

    As far as his views on training – just this week he made a post and talked against mandated government training. I happen to agree with this stance. I should not have to take a government mandated training class to exercise my right to carry a gun. I think training is good and people should do it… well anyway I don’t want to get off topic.

    I just haven’t seen what is being reported, I’m trying to understand.

    Anyway – I’ve subscribed to Walls of The City.

  28. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Adam,

    I realized the issue with the sarcasm. You are seeing his response to a comment that was left in.

    If you look at that comment, you’ll see that I said “Let’s try this again.” — that was the second try to address the issue on his blog.

    My original comment was posted around 8:00 a.m. in the morning. Robert deleted it and sent me a message at 8:31.

    His posted defense of sarcasm was 2 hours after I originally posted. The emails you are reading occurred PRIOR TO his posted comment.

  29. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Bob S.

    Just so it’s clear, since the point seems to have been missed, I was pointing out that I was in the wrong to berate Robert over the WC issue. I was pointing out that I should have been a little more… adult about it.

    As far as notification of a dissenting post… we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. But your still wrong [/sarcasm]

  30. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Linoge,

    Please refer to the earlier comments. I do feel that if you are going to criticize someone than an appropriate attempt to let that person respond, either in advance or after the fact, is the ethical thing to do.

    Asking if that was done I feel was valid. Please note that I did not ask the question until after I checked the site in question for a comment or link back. I understand some sites don’t make the links visible.
    So I asked about Robert’s motivation — which seemed to be much like the other well known link pimping blogger – to be simply to drive traffic to his site.

    I don’t have a problem with people driving traffic to their sites but I do have a problem with people manufacturing controversy in order to do so. I have a problem with people attacking others in order to drive traffic.

    Also please note that I tried – I think — 2 different versions of my comments after the original comment was deleted.

    Do I get frustrated, yes. Could I have handled it better, yes.

    Should my comments have been “stealth edited” — absolutely not. Hey if I’m off base, leave the comments up and let everyone tell me.

  31. Posted by Bob S. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Adam,

    Honestly, I don’t get it. Why were you wrong.

    If a blog site is being given free products and not informing people, then their integrity is suspect.

    If people don’t point out issues like that, then others may not notice a pattern of misconduct.

    Start with your concerns about the WC, add the stealth editing of my comments (on two different posts) plus lifting of posts (see Tam’s http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/ for example), his blatant theft of and mis-identification of Linoge’s Graphics post and there is definitely a pattern emerging.

    Without people asking questions, then those misdeeds never get uncovered.

    Right?

  32. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Bob S.

    I was wrong to go about it the way I did. I was posting questions on posts that were not necessarily related to the post. I took a step back and realized that had the roles been reversed I’d of not appreciated my behavior.

    In may last e-mail I told Robert that I would not refrain from leveling criticism in the future but that I would try to be a little less… annoying about it.

    In fact, there is noting wrong, and everything right with keeping an eye out for improprieties. If I’ve gained anything from this discussion it is that I need to be a little more vigilant when reading TTAG. You have raised some legitimate concerns.

    I just disagree with you on some of the finer points and I think that overall… TTAG is good.

  33. Posted by Adam on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    @Bob S.

    Let me say this: if your going to call someone out, then you best do it in a way that does not make you look like a loon. You kind of came across as a loon in your e-mails and insisting that one must contact the subject of criticism, which is not how it works (for the most part) in the blogging world, or the physical world (how many actors get contacted before a negative review of their acting in a movie?).

    The heart of your issue is that Robert deleted/edited your comments. On that issue, for the most part, I agree with you. Bad move Robert. With the exception that, at the end of the day, it’s Robert’s site to do with what he pleases. Deleting comments in and of itself does not equal impropriety. Insisting that someone run their site your way is… well it adds to the noise and makes the real issue difficult to hear.

    You had a real issue, but you generated so much noise trying to get that issue across that the real issue was lost.

    BTW – I’ve subscribed.

  34. Posted by Linoge on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Oh, I am certainly not trying to support or condone Robert’s actions in any way, shape, or form, and I sincerely hope my post made that clear – what he did was scumbaggish to the extreme, and not something I would tolerate from any weblogger on any side of any fence.

    However, I do think the comments sections of his posts would constitute an “after the fact” method for people to respond to his posts… at least, if he was not in the habit of ninja-editing and suppressing anything that might leave him looking less like his ego thinks he does. Once that behavior became apparent, I agree, all bets are off.

    In other words, how he handled his criticism of other people really does not bother me, personally, all that much. How he handled criticism of himself, however, is indicative of someone who never progressed beyond single-digit ages, at least in terms of maturity.

  35. Posted by Linoge on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Oh, and thanks for the subscription, Adam! A lot of the perceived hostility was forged out of months and months of problems with Farago, but not knowing that backstory, I can understand being a bit confused :).

  36. Posted by Weer'd Beard on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Not knowing the back-story is my #1 motivation for pushing all this information to the surface. I started reading TTAGs shortly after he launched the site. I didn’t start out as a regular reader because that whole “News Magazine” format is just a little sterile and I prefer the more human touch of blogs.

    Still as I read I got into a few discussions with Farago over things like Open Carry (which at the time he was opposed to) and Mandatory training (Which at the time he was in favor of). Like the above debates he chose to delete my comments rather than defend his convictions.

    Later the famous Troll Jadegold started making a mess in the comments section. I attempted to inform people that this was indeed a troll. When Farago started supporting his profanity and slander-laced comments, I asked if the controversy was worth more than the integrity.

    My comment was deleted, while the filth remained.

    Unlike Bob, once my thought-out comments get scrubbed for arbitrary reasons I stop wasting my time there, and didn’t further comment.

    Later Farago came out in favor of Open Carry, and Against Mandatory Training (he also flopped on Constitutional carry at least once) No retractions, no “I changed my mind” just a flip-flop.

    When I spoke out against this many people were un-aware. The website sprung from nothing and used SEO to drive more traffic to the site, so most of the readers were just short-term fans, and because of the volume only read a fraction of the posts. When Farago lies he often makes it hard work to prove him wrong.

    When I met him at the NRA convention and spoke with him he expected to me to believe he had no recollection on any of his convictions on the gun rights issues, nor any of his past stances.

    Furthermore he said to a friend of mine that his goal at the NRA con was to “Get Free Stuff”.

    He’s not a good person, nor is he a friend of the 2nd Amendment. He should be treated as such.

  37. Posted by mike w. on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    Farago is an asshole, a liar, a coward and a thief. By now this should be common knowledge.

    His site, by the way, may as well be a “gun control” site. He is a disreputable jerk and is NOT on our side.

  38. Posted by 3 Boxes of BS » Blog Archive » Addressing Issues on 03.11.11 at 7:54 AM

    [...] my post here, I took some heat for saying that IF a person had a problem with the way something was written that [...]

  39. [...] image, and now this picture from Miso Studios), and that does not even count the number of pictures Farago has… "borrowed"… from Oleg Volk just to lampoon and ridicule. In at least one of those incidents, Farago apologized and promised [...]

  40. [...] Yes, TTAG stole content. Yes, some of the people there pick fights when they don’t have to. But let’s face it, who amongst us isn’t also guilty of similar actions? To quote Mark Knoeffler,  [...]

  41. [...] again, he also did attack Oleg before as well.  Again, what a great way for him to prove his true colors. -B] Share this:Similar ContentThe [...]

  42. [...] Robert cannot take what he dishes out, and, for his trouble, not only were Bob S.’ comments edited without any public acknowledgement of that the editing took place, all of those comments were eventually deleted and Bob S. banned from TTAG once Robert finally lost [...]

  43. [...] have to give Robert some credit  for putting his phone number out. During my exchanges with Robert Farago last November, I asked I said -repeatedly — that if he had a problem with the images, why [...]

  44. [...] address all of the issues raised (I counted 5 separate headings).  Nor does it follow what was his previously stated position I explained the reason I took down your comment: it violates TTAG’s posting policy. In [...]