Previous Post
Next Post

It seems that Laci the Dog from MikeB302000’s blog is a fellow member of the tribes. I can’t begin to tell you how much that sucks. Almost as much as his manipulation of the Talmud to justify leaving Jews defenseless against their enemies. Well not his manipulation per se. As TTAG commentator Jewish Marksman points out below, MikeB302000’s scripture quoting anti-gun dietribe [sic] was cut and pasted from So, anyway, here’s the argument . . .

In the Talmud there are specific regulations that resemble gun control. There is a law against owning a dangerous dog (Bava Kamma 79a). One who owns a dangerous dog must keep it tied in metal chains at all times (CM 409:3). Even if the dog is defanged or trained not to harm people, it must be chained because it may frighten strangers, and as a result may cause stress related injuries such as miscarriage and heart attacks (Shabbat 63b). One of the more pious Rabbis, Rabbi Pinchas Ben Yair, was so stringent about this law that he refused to own mules, because they can occasionally cause injury (Hullin 7b; Terumat Hadeshen 2:105).

Wow. That’s a bit of a stretch. It gets worse . . .

There is a second halacha that is relevant to this issue. The Talmud prohibits someone from selling offensive weapons to idol worshippers and suspected criminals (Avodah Zarah 15b; YD 151:5-6). The rule against selling to idol worshippers is based on an assumption that the idol worshippers will use them against Jews; however, if the Jews are allied with the idol worshippers, it is permitted to sell them arms. It is likewise prohibited to sell such weapons to anyone suspected of reselling them to criminals. This halacha requires that the buyers of firearms be carefully screened, and resembles in many ways laws requiring a national registry of gun and rifle owners . . .

Jewish tradition compels us to uphold the sanctity of life. An instrumentality like a firearm is not more valuable than a human life. The ownership of firearms must be responsible. These instrumentalities must be regulated in a manner which respects life. Anyone who argues otherwise is going against Talmudic tradition.

“Responsible ownership” as in the average man—the average Jew—shouldn’t have access to a firearm. So much for “never again,” then. Except from those of us who understand that self-defense is both a personal and a collective responsibility. But personal first.

Oh, and BTW: “If a man means to kill you, strike first! – Talmud, Berakhot. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Someone using a holy book as irrelevant justification for something oppressive and dangerous? Say it ain’t so.

    Laci, welcome to the same club as our buddy OBL.

    • “Our Rabbis taught, A father has the following obligations towards his son – to circumcise him, to redeem him if he is a firstborn, to teach him Torah, to find him a wife, and to teach him a craft or a trade. And there are some who say that he must also teach him how to swim.” Talmud: Kiddushin 29a

      Teaching my kids to shoot falls into both “teach him a craft or a trade” as they can always become respectable gunsmiths, soldiers, police officers and peace keepers. Moreover, I also believe that the obligation to teach my son “how to swim” demands I teach my children to perform all dangerous activities with responsibility, skill and deliberation. That includes knowing how to handle and operate a firearm even though, as a household, we do not own a gun. We rent at the range for the educational and sporting value.

      Laci the Dog’s logic is the opposite, he implies his own “spirit of the law” over the Gemara. If this were a debate about drowning, Laci’s logic would assert, “it’s forbidden to swim, lest you drown.”

  2. Honestly, there’s enough in the Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim to be used as justification for just about anything. Hell, if you used logic as twisted as Laci does above, then you could certainly justify the works of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, and yes, Hitler.

    One thing the world does not need is a plurality of Jews who do not take to heart the lessons of history.

    • American Jews can be very ignorant and arrogant when it comes to acknowledging the lessons of history. Jewish leaders who do not teach the vital importance for Jews to train in self-defense and to own guns are indirectly responsible leading the sheep to the slaughter.

      • Agreed. The fact that Jewish politicians are the leading voices of gun control causes me major tsuris. Shame on them. And shame on those who listen to their voices, rather than the voices of those who suffered death (and worse) at the hands of their oppressors.

        • Strength and the ability to strike back builds respect and fear in the minds of bullies whether individual or many. Just imagine if most American Jews owned and trained with guns, and practiced a self-defense system such as the Israeli Krav Mega.

        • No, shame on you robert for furthering the myth that it’s personal gun ownership that’s preventing the “never again” from happening.

          You guys like guns, that’s it. All the rest whether it’s 2A bastartization or Holocaust prevention is after-the-fact rationalization.

          The reasons you like guns may be varied, but they have nothing to do with collective Jewish causes or anything else.

        • Nice blog. I’ll take a closer look at it tomorrow. It is nice to know that there are leading advocates for gun rights that are Jewish.

          On one side of the coin are the liberal/progressive valued reform Jews and on the flip side are the Hasidic Jews both of which seem happy to ignore the lessons of history and continue living in their bubbles. Both groups relying upon government to keep American society and civilization together and running.

  3. Whether Laci is correctly understanding the Oral Law Talmud or not, Laci is foolish to write that God or the Creator is opposed to the individual right and responsibility to posses or own (whenever possible) the tools and means to defend oneself and other innocent people.

    I’m Jewish and a Kohen. The older I get, the more I read, reflect upon, and learn about life the more I am against such emphasis on the Oral Law and the power of the rabbi fraternity whether reformed or orthodox. The Karaite Jews may be onto something. I’ll stick with the stories and teachings of the Written Law Torah and my own interpretations of them.

  4. Jews defenseless? Every nation who seriously opposes them gets annihilated by the American military. You should thank those poor folks for being your golems.

    • Ordine, is it possible that you’re wrong about Jews after all? It seems that many of them seem to agree with you on some substantive issues around here. When it comes to guns and gun control, at least, you have a lot more in common with Farago, the Rabbi, and Aharon than you do with most other goyim.

      • As an open White Nationalist, I do have something in common with those desert nomads: ethnocentrism. If they sincerely wish to embrace Herzl and dwell in the Levant I wish them the best. Sadly, they won’t extend this courtesy to my people.

        • ” Every nation who seriously opposes them gets annihilated by the American military”

          Really? You mean like Iran and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon?

          “Sadly, they won’t extend this courtesy to my people.”

          What , you want to live in Israel now? Or are you referring to your sand-nazi friends, the schmuckistinians?

          Maybe after you help them exterminate Israel, they can re-invent texting and co-design the operating systems and the chips on the computers that you use.

          Bemoaning third-world immigration destroying America: WORTHWHILE.

          Sucking the dead marrow of nazi scum and aligning yourself with jihadi death-worshipers: REVOLTING.

          Signed, Proud American Jew whose Daddy happily killed many Nazis.

          • See Chris, this is what I’m referring to. Make positive statement on behalf of a non-selfchosen tribe and a pack of nasally creatures besets you. Culture distortion at its finest.

            • “nasally creatures besets you”

              you are completely anti Semitic, racist, white supremacist scum who hijacks every conversation about the “other” to spout your David Duke logic.

          • Hmm, American senators have been cheerleading for war with Iran for quite some time. America probably had a hand in deploying the stuxnet virus. America most certainly helped stage the failed “green revolution.”

            America levelled Iraq, israel’s only serious competitor in the region.

            Keep in mind I said “annihilates all that seriously opposes them.” I didn’t say “vaporize every nation that cracked a hooknose joke.”

            If I’m not mistaken, America also is backing the ousting of Assad in Syria.

            Your grandfather was part of the golem industrial complex. Sending young White kids to die in Europe for interests contrary to their own. So thank our ancestors for being good golems.

        • ON,

          What about non-Native Americans living in the Americas and the USA specifically. Should all those of pure white European decent move back to Europe as a courtesy to the Native Americans? Do you live here in the USA? If so, that would be interesting based on your comments.

          • Whites are the Native Americans. We built the nation-state called “America.” Amerindians are natives of the Americas. We have a “two-state” system in a sense with reservations. Although I wish they would be granted a larger tract of land to exercise their sovereignty.

            • Whites are not the Native Americans. What whites did was conduct a genocidal war of imperial conquest of the people/natives/Americans living here at the time destroying their own civilizations.

    • Ordine, you are one uninformed individual.

      If there was a military force Israel was in bed with, it was the Brits. The Brits seem to feel guilty over the way the British Mandate of Palestine was handled. France played a big hand at the start of Israel too, but it seems part of that was to get the Jews our of France. Besides arms sales and tough talk, the US hasn’t lifted a finger. If the US did lift a finger, it would likely come down in the form of a wedge keeping both sides from fighting.

      The US hasn’t participated in any of the Israeli wars but we’ve paid cash for peace on both sides of the fighting.

      • You are painfully misinformed. The American taxpayer has essentially financed israel’s military. Nothing inherently wrong with that, if they reciprocate. But they don’t and won’t.

        • At first you said: “Every nation who seriously opposes them gets annihilated by the American military.”

          Then you changed that to: “The American taxpayer has essentially financed israel’s military”.

          Very different things. We’ve never intervened militarily- and it’s unclear that we would now.

          I think you know a lot less about Israel than you think you do, plus you don’t read well prior to responding. I agree, the US did pay cash for peace (note what I wrote). We paid it to both Israel AND Egypt. And if I remember correctly, we didn’t start paying Israel and Egypt until the 70s AFTER Israels major wars.Just another white supremacist buying the propaganda. This is my last response to you though, enjoy the last word.

          • Those statements are complimentary, not contradictory. American taxes have financed their jets and munitions. America pulled their bacon out of the fire on 1973. America also works to destabilize their regional competitors (see my comments on Iraq and Iran). I’m a White Nationalist by the way. You should read more before responding.

              • Troll? I comment on plenty of other pieces. Usually for laughs or to talk shop.

                Supremacist? I’m not trying to establish hegemony…just autonomy.

        • “. Nothing inherently wrong with that, if they reciprocate. But they don’t and won’t.”

          You’re a liar and/or an idiot.

          Who captured the first Mig ever, and delivered it to the U.S.? ISRAEL

          Who took out the Osirak reactor so years later Americans wouldnt be facing a nuclear-armed Iraq? ISRAEL?

          Who took SCUDS up the rear end and didn’t respond so America could hold the coalition togther in the First Gulf War? ISRAEL?

          Who has helped improve the laser weaponry for the U.S. Air Force? ISRAEL

          Which two other nations got nearly THREE BILLION EACH in America military aid last year and did NOTHING FOR AMERICA?


          Now go back to the bathroom and look in the mirror again: The Muslim Brotherhood is leaking out of your lips.

          • I’d love it if America quit funding Egypt and Pakistan. Really the entire Middle East region is not worth a single American life.
            Why does israel sell American weapons technology to the Chinese?
            Why did israel knowing murder American sailors aboard the USS Liberty?
            Why does israel need a multi-million dollar lobby in DC?
            Why does israel send spies like Jonathan Pollard to steal our military secrets?
            Who cares about a nuclear Iraq except israel? There would be no second Iraq War if Bush and his neocons didn’t want to spill American blood for Levantine thieves.

            Israel cares about israel. All other nations are measured in what resources they can offer Zion. Now, there’s nothing inherently unhealthy about this attitude. It’s the epitome of realpolitik. But we un-chosen should be aware of this and act accordingly.

  5. It looks to me like the link article was simply lifted from this one:
    without attribution. I just say that to point out that this Mikeb302000 person is probably not speaking from any personal formal Talmudic or other religious education.

    Second, my Mibkeb302000’s statement:
    “To argue that Jews must respond to gun violence with a paranoid impulse to grab guns in self defense is a dangerous perspective. This is using darkness to fight the darkness in the world”

    is, in my view, a very un-Jewish statement. Jews are not commanded to turn the other cheek. The Torah is full of commandments to us to respond to attackers with brutal and merciless violence.

    Jews are indeed commanded to be a light unto the nations, and a muzzle flash is a good a light as any!

    • So among MikeB’s attributes we find plagiarism, or at the very least laziness. I’m sure there are a few rules in Judaism against that.

      • Well, it looks like when the grabbers can’t win by logic, they turn to the religious arguments.

        I’m not Jewish, and I won’t comment on the religious aspect, but what really ticks me off is the lack of attribution. Laci (or mikeb — I suspect all the posters on his site are one person) has done that before, lifting entire paragraphs from legal works and embedding them in blog posts with Laci’s name on them. Some of my income comes from writing, and I know how hard it is to create good content. The TTAG “tribe” knows that, too. What Laci did is stealing. That’s why I can’t take anything they say on that site seriously.

  6. Reading your excerpt, I thought that Laci’s argument left out some important exceptions, either out of ignorance or out of being disingenuous. However, referring to the linked original, I see that he notes the exception to the dangerous-dog restriction for those living in dangerous areas such as on a border. This implies a self-defense exception.

    Unfortunately, he then makes the unsupported statement that “[nevertheless], those who are more stringent would avoid guns completely.” As a Rabbi, I say the exact opposite: those who are more stringent take all necessary measures to protect their lives, as required by the Torah, and thus, should own self-defense weapons and know how to use them.

    Similarly, his argument about not selling guns to criminals or idol worshipers degenerates into a call for a national registry of gun owners. Again, an unsupported leap from a background check to the first step to gun confiscation. Something is not kosher [deliberate] about his logic.

    Not only are you correct about your last line, the true Jewish golden rule of survival: do onto others what they would do onto you, but do it faster and harder; you don’t go far enough. Jewish law requires even bystanders to kill burglars if it is likely that they threaten the homeowner.

    In fact R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach OBM, one of the great authorities of the previous generation, suggests [source on request] that in the case of a burglary, the homeowner should not reason that although he could kill the criminal he would rather just let him have the money and let him escape – because this puts the next victim, who might die fighting back – at risk. The responsibility to society requires killing the criminal.

    About the only argument in Laci’s article which I agree with is the sentence, “The ownership of firearms must be responsible.” His definition of “responsible” is, sadly, irresponsible and unsupported.

    Rule of thumb: when an argument starts with the phrase “tikkun olam,” as the linked article does, you can expect it to devolve into left-wing and occassionally new-age drivel. The expression “tikkun olam” where it appears in classic Jewish literature – such as in the concluding prayer “Aleinu”, refers to bringing the world to the service of G-d.

  7. I feel that individual freedoms are compromised when any and all religious scripts are the basis for law. I feel fortunate to live in a country and especially in the Great State of Arizona where I have the right to enjoy keeping a dog or two and may carry (open or concealed) a gun without need for a permit. I do not keep up with Israeli politics, however, it doesn’t surprise me that the religious hardliners are starting to make their way into the discussion.

  8. It’s a text that’s thousands of years old. It’s a text that lays down rules regarding the buying and selling of slaves. It’s a text that says the Sun revolves around the Earth. It’s a text that says the entire world was flooded over and every species on the planet is descendent from just two surviving examples.

    It’s ludicrous. No religious text should have any bearing on the laws that govern a nation. The real question is why do people look to these things for guidance?

    • “It’s ludicrous. No religious text should have any bearing on the laws that govern a nation.”

      You, Stalin and Mao would have gotten along famously.

      ” The real question is why do people look to these things for guidance?”

      Because, thank Heaven , our Founding Fathers were smarter than you.

      No nation has been more profoundly influenced by the “Old Testament” than America.  Many of America’s early statesmen and educators were schooled in Hebraic civilization.  The second president of the United States, John Adams, a Harvard graduate, had this to say of the Jewish people:
      John Adams – “The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other nation…. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth.  The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews.  They have given religion to three-quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.[ii]  …

      … Thirty-eight of seventy-nine statutes in the New Haven Code of 1665 derived their authority from the Hebrew Bible.  The laws of Massachusetts were based on the same premise. 

      The fifteen Capital Laws of New England included the “Seven Noahide Laws” of the Torah, or what may be termed the seven universal laws of morality.  Six prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, murder, robbery, adultery, and eating flesh from a living animal, while the seventh requires the establishment of courts of justice.  Such courts are obviously essential to any society based on the primacy of reason or persuasion rather than passion or intimidation. …

      more here:

        • Wrong, the US was founded as a non-sectarian (all religions and non believers equal before the law) nation not a secular one. It is only in the post-WWII era that this notion that American is secular came about largely driven by so-called Progressives and enforced by liberal judges. One could argue that the US has become a sectarian nation where the sect in charge is militant atheism.

          • Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by unanimous vote, states “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
            Article 6, clause 2 of the Constitution states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
            So the Gov’t of the United States of America was not founded on Religion.
            “Under God” was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1948.
            While “In God We Trust” was added coins in 1864, it was not added to paper currency until 1957, a year after it became the motto of the United States.
            I believe that your statement in regards to post WWII drive to become a secular nation rings a little false.

            • You excerpted the Tripoli Treaty and left out numerous back stories, including timing of communications between Europe, the Mediterranean and Washington, as well as “diplo-speak” used to calm down the ragheads of the day so they would DO THE FREAKING TREATY and stop ENSLAVING OUR SAILORS.

              IOW, jerking the sand-nazis of the day around by telling them that we weren’t a typical Euro-Church-State nation, was part of the deal.

              You made a PITIFUL attempt at linking one treaty WITH A FOREIGN COUNTRY and then claiming that because the treaty was made, it now defines our national concept.

              I wonder if you’re really “Brian” or if you are are “Achmed”, or if you are simply one of those dope-smoking secularists who who get off skewing Christians and Jews, but don’t have the rocks to stand up and march against the 9/11 jihad mosque going up in SECULAR NEW YORK, because the precious fislams “have freedom of religion”.

              Idiots like you will destroy America as fast as Øbowmao.

      • Nice straw man. Communism has most of the same attributes as religion does. Lack of critical thinking, blind belief in a higher power, fear of said power. It just replaces god with the state. They’re both equally unacceptable to someone who doesn’t like others doing his/her thinking.

        • Fake straw man.

          Modern Judeo-Christian culture in the West will not imprison or incinerate you if you do not want to participate.

          On the other hand, Communism killed ONE HUNDRED MILLION PEOPLE IN THE 20th CENTURY.

          Do us a favor, you want be so stupid and morally vapid that you’ll “believe in nothing, and fall for anything”, thats your business.

          But STOP LYING about the sources of American culture and of our founding traditions. Yes, they were designed to prevent coercion from a “State” religion. No, they weren’t designed to annihilate public acknowledgement of faith nor faith’s influence on our morality and culture.

          Any statements to the contrary ARE LIES and only further the aims of those who wish to rip the Judeo-Christian backbone out of America and leave her weak before secular Leftists and Jihadists.

  9. When I see somebody quoting the Talmud, first thing I think is,


    OK. The Talmud means something to some of us, to the general population, it is a big ZIP, ZERO. And as demonstrated by a few comments here, only bring derision on the text. Especially since the quoted text was just so irrelevant to this site, concerning ethics and morals of gun ownership.

  10. The Talmud is an academic book. If a man came up to me and starting spewing arguments that didn’t make too much sense, I’d welcome him in and review the page with him. MikeB is, as far ask I know, not a scholar. Once again he is warping knowledge and truth into something else.
    Too those who belittle Gemarra and Torah sheBa’al Peeh, it isn’t for you. You don’t need to know it or follow.

  11. Growing up Jewish with primarily Jewish friends, the anti-gun philosophy was cultural rather than religious based. I was attracted to firearms early on with pellet guns and such and there was never any discussion that I can recall about them in synagogue from our very scholarly (Orthodox) rabbi. Perhaps it was because so many of our congregation were Holocaust survivors or related to those that perished under the boot of the Nazi’s. No Jewish family I knew hunted, owned guns or shot with any regularity, and we all voted Democrat supposedly for supporting Israel, never drove trucks, and would never dare listen to anything but Top 40 music. After college, I started to wake up about the false left / right paradigm of Democans and Republicrats, learned I needed a gun for self-defense after a major break-in near my business, and suddenly realized I was out of the Jewish mainstream. Really, more like out of the Jewish pool all together. Now I am free to listen to country music, own 2 big Ford trucks, can go hunting, and learned that religious ideology has no place in choosing my hobbies, music, vehicles or tools I enjoy using including firearms.I might suggest that our erstwhile Talmudic faux scholar allows his own reasoning to enter his decision making process rather than cowering to those sages of old that never had to stare down the barrel of a Mauser held by a twitchy, blue-eyed goose stepper that was following his leaders orders much like MikeB302000 appears to want to follow the Talmud. “My Talmud will save me” will fly just about as well as “We were only following orders” did at Nuremberg.

  12. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Grasshopper? How big is the universe? What is existence? Who was Rod Serling and where did he come from, really?

    So Mikey now fancies himself as some kind of Talmudic scholar? Yawn. I picture Mikey as being a lot like the loopy guys you sometimes see on the Common or at the big T stations, handing out leaflets proclaiming the end of times and that he has all of the answers for the redemption of your blighted soul from eternal damnation. Simply stated, the guy is not rational and he hangs with some pretty strange rangers to boot, judging by the contributors to his blog. They are an irrational and delusional lot; it’s best to keep your distance.

  13. With all due respect to the many great MisraChi rabbis out there. Any American who quotes masechet Shabbat is someone I disregard instantly. It’s maseches shabbos and anyOne who thinks the msorah assurs the rkba is a fool.

  14. Guys, I am sorry to say that I am at fault for stirring all this crap up that has come out of MikeB’s blog site. I do aplogize. This all started when I just had to open my mouth (ah, err, keyboard that is) and make my comment on the blog on “MORE ON HR822” . If you search this blog you will find anonymous, thats me. I made the mistake of equating the “inaliable rights endowed by our Creator, AKA God” from the Declaration of independance and its influence to the Constitution that gives us our rights to firearms as the second amendment prescribes. I didnt know that these people, namely Laci the dog and dog gone were such flakes for the lack of a better and cleaner discription. The subject morped into a lot of bible passages untill they asserted that Jesus is a myth and never existed and did not publish my last post that let them know how I felt about that. After that came the “Song for anonymous”, “Why Jesus wasn’t the Messiah” and this blog commented on here.

    This is the blog on MikeB,

    Again, I apologize, please dont strip my CHL from me.

    • Old Colt owner, I apologize for the exuberance of my co-bloggers. The way they treat guests on our blog reminds me of what Don Corleone said to Salozzo. “I have a soft spot for my children and have spoiled them as you can see. They speak when they should listen.”

      But unlike the Don who disagreed with Sonny’s idea about getting into the drug business, I agree with Laci and Dog Gone. I feel justifying gun ownership or gun use by quoting sacred texts is ludicrous.

      How is it that you and your friends are OK with that yet find Laci’s idea that the sacred writings actually support gun control unacceptable? Can’t both sides of the argument pick and choose their holy quotes, like Robert did in his post?

      • “Old Colt owner, I apologize for the exuberance of my co-bloggers.”

        This is a tired line MikeB. You continually apologize for their actions, yet do nothing to stop them. Your apologies are starting to have a hollow sound to them.

        • no, allowing is different from condoning. As long as they blog on my site they’re treated like grown ups and allowed to do it the way they like. That’s the deal I made with them.

          The important thing is that I agree with their positions on gun control.

          • So you like continually apologizing for them? You like that they are driving traffic away from your blog? Why not just let them shit all over their own blogs and link to the blog articles you find pleasing?

  15. Something doesn’t smell right about this Laci fellow. British Army veteran and Jewish Talmud scholar. I know there must be Jews in the British military but in all my years in the defense and intelligence communities I have yet to meet one.

    • What Laci claims and what is reality are often two different things. Unless independently verified, I wouldn’t trust a word that weasel says.

  16. Odd, I read his references and I conclude the following. Based upon the “dog” story CCW is preferable to open-carry as it won’t scare the muggles, and NICS is a good idea. I’mnot sure how he’s extrapolated to his positions.

    Mind you, when you look at what the Talmud came up with for the dietary laws, well, the mind boggles.

  17. If mikey really cares about the Talmud, he wouldn’t publish Laci the Mutt since Jewish law prohibits displaying one’s a$$hole in public.

    • Mikey doesn’t care about the Talmud so much as he and his fellow travelers are grasping at whatever few straws they can find and twist to bolster their bankrupt and morally reprehensible ideology. They are an evolutionary dead end, of little or no consequence.

  18. My wife has made the observation that Laci And Dog are really his dogs and Mike is the only author, or that these two are really his children,,,

    “no, allowing is different from condoning. As long as they blog on my site they’re treated like grown ups and allowed to do it the way they like. That’s the deal I made with them.”

    At first, I didnt think so. But she pointed out they have the argument mentality of our kids when they were 15 thru 19. We just had to put up with 4 of them tho instead of 2. She made me aware of this when they didnt post my last comment making it look like that they had either out smarted me or run me off. “Nanay-nanay-poo-poo” Type of last comment they made equating to “we are better and smarter than you.” During these exchanges of principles or ideas, I guess, MikeB chimed in with “I like your style” but I havent been clear on what it was he liked. But not enough to make sure comments made were posted, since it wasnt, or do any moderation of condescending comments made from them. I tried to be as polite as possible as I do moderate another information site. I dont allow such exchanges to take place. The site I moderate is a members site with advertising and is kept peaceful.

Comments are closed.