You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CA-Man w/CCW kills home invaders
- Thread starter Mendocino
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Bill Mitchell
Staff Alumnus
Dale Seago's comments are even more surprising in that,from the looks of his website,he appears to be pro RKBA. He is a close quarters combat instructor,and the "Links" section contains links to a doctor's Second Amendment support page,the Lawyer's Second Amendment Society,and,yes,even The Firing Line.
Dale, and his wife, both carry Glock 19's. At one point, he created an organization called MARS that was written about in American Rifleman. This organization (though now defunct) existed to promote self-defense as being morally sound, among other things. Mrs. Seago, IIRC, used a handgun to thwart an assailant with weapon, at one point. Mr. Seago in the past has routinely injected sense into online discussions among several different koryu organizations, when dolts postulated that defense was good but ARMED defense was bad.
Since there seems to be a difficulty understanding: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, he might still have been killed, along with his family. But it is a certainty that at least one life would have been saved by the absence of Fang's gun, and another person would have avoided critical injury.[/quote]...let me help those who are weighing in against this personal protection specialist and friend. The life (that) would have been saved, as well as the person (who) would have avoided critical injury...WERE THE SCUMBAGS!
This type of behaviour makes me wonder if people dislike some gunners because they're gunners-or because they're not worth liking.
[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited January 07, 2000).]
Since there seems to be a difficulty understanding: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Yes, he might still have been killed, along with his family. But it is a certainty that at least one life would have been saved by the absence of Fang's gun, and another person would have avoided critical injury.[/quote]...let me help those who are weighing in against this personal protection specialist and friend. The life (that) would have been saved, as well as the person (who) would have avoided critical injury...WERE THE SCUMBAGS!
This type of behaviour makes me wonder if people dislike some gunners because they're gunners-or because they're not worth liking.
[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited January 07, 2000).]
Easy there Spectre...
My father once told me: "If you are trying to communicate an idea and you aren't understood, its not because they are dumb, its because you failed to communicate"
You appear to have personal knowledge of Seago...thus you are privy to personality traits, modes of communication, etc, the man has. If folks (who don't have personal knowledge) take issue with his sarcasm/irony, etc and take it on face value....its his fault.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
My father once told me: "If you are trying to communicate an idea and you aren't understood, its not because they are dumb, its because you failed to communicate"
You appear to have personal knowledge of Seago...thus you are privy to personality traits, modes of communication, etc, the man has. If folks (who don't have personal knowledge) take issue with his sarcasm/irony, etc and take it on face value....its his fault.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
DC,
I'll gladly take advice from you quicker than just about anyone. You are intelligent, well-versed, and cogent. I understand what you are saying, and you have said it fairly well- but a quick reading of this was easy for me to decipher, and I am certain I do not approach your intellect. Let's see- if there are x number of BG's, and xGREATER THAN number of GG's-ALL INJURED, and none by their own hand (duh)- if x number of individuals certainly would have avoided injury- it couldn't have been the good guys referenced. It ain't hard.
[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited January 07, 2000).]
I'll gladly take advice from you quicker than just about anyone. You are intelligent, well-versed, and cogent. I understand what you are saying, and you have said it fairly well- but a quick reading of this was easy for me to decipher, and I am certain I do not approach your intellect. Let's see- if there are x number of BG's, and xGREATER THAN number of GG's-ALL INJURED, and none by their own hand (duh)- if x number of individuals certainly would have avoided injury- it couldn't have been the good guys referenced. It ain't hard.
[This message has been edited by Spectre (edited January 07, 2000).]
Spectre, with all due respect, I believe it is you who has the misunderstanding. It was quite obvious from the beginning that Seago meant that the BG's were the ones who would not be killed or injured. And it is that observation that made the statement outrageous. However, it is also now fairly clear that Seago was being sarcastic, i.e., iterating the drivel that we might expect to hear from the likes of Sarah Brady. As DC points out, he wasn't exceedingly clear and that is where the problem came from. This is why statements taken out of context are extremely dangerous and can be grossly misleading.
Spectre...
Please, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm trying to prevent one. Note I didn't lambast Mr. Seago.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The doctor's arrogant machismo....[/quote]
can be construed as being a negative judgement against Fang and his actions.
Had the statement been: The doctor's "arrogant machismo".... with the quotes that can and do imply sarcasm, facetiousness and/or irony within the written context it would have been clearer.
Thats all I'm trying to point out.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Please, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm trying to prevent one. Note I didn't lambast Mr. Seago.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The doctor's arrogant machismo....[/quote]
can be construed as being a negative judgement against Fang and his actions.
Had the statement been: The doctor's "arrogant machismo".... with the quotes that can and do imply sarcasm, facetiousness and/or irony within the written context it would have been clearer.
Thats all I'm trying to point out.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Jeff Thomas
New member
Spectre, I appreciate your posts and I respect your opinion. I too must be pretty dense, because Seago's comments are not obvious sarcasm to me. I'll take your word for it.
Too bad the Fang's didn't more heavily sedate Nem, as with a few more licks from that frying pan.
Too bad the Fang's didn't more heavily sedate Nem, as with a few more licks from that frying pan.
Got an e-mail for my comments about Seago's comments. I'm not a dummy. Far from it. If what Oatko posted is accurate, then what needs work is Mr. Seago's ability to actually be sarcastic. Part of being effectively sarcastic is that it has to be quite obvious.
I checked out his web page, and found the comments ascribed to him to be quite strange in light of what I found there.
As I said, it is quite possible that he was attempting some sarcasm and I just missed it.
I checked out his web page, and found the comments ascribed to him to be quite strange in light of what I found there.
As I said, it is quite possible that he was attempting some sarcasm and I just missed it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.