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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I left in your analysis.
Sent from my iPhone
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?
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.
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?
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.