Good point. Speaking of nazis and political bashing, perhaps this whole discussion belongs in the lounge.
Customary Use and Our 30A Legacy
- Thread starter Reggie Gaskins
- Start date
I cannot agree more. People get called Nazis fairly frequently. If you are a big person, and you know you are morally right, you should be able to laugh it off. If you a small person, I guess you let it fester, and you proclaim your outrage ad nauseum.Your outrage is so outrageous.
Seriously don't take his comment so seriously. Because the comment was foolish. Defending your stance by hanging your hat on that comment makes you look foolish.
Mr. Rauschkolb, if engaging on this thread is so insignificant, then why are you?
An 'echo chamber' is a metaphorical description of a situation in which beliefs are amplified or reinforced by communication and repetition inside a closed system.
Sure. It's a catchy little term to throw around by those who like to continuously speak in false narratives to the uninformed masses, but the term certainly does not not apply here.
Why? Because this forum is anything but closed. In fact it's very open to the public. Reggie opened this discussion asking some honest, serious, heart felt, thought provoking questions. Many informative facts followed by others (who must remain anonymous thanks to the documented intimidation tactics such as doxxing and staged video ambush by the agitators. That's right. Pro-property rights advocates are fearful of speaking out or even "following" similar groups because of such effective intimidation targeting spurred by a vicious social media campaign.)
And, where are all those opposing replies and answers to the questions presented in this long thread? After 20,000 views? And it's a very hot topic. If there was indeed any factual opposition, it surely would be presented here. Resoundingly so.
Dave, unless you have some insider knowledge of the specific metrics of this platform, perhaps you should reconsider your assumption about those 20,000 views. You might just be wrong. Perhaps they are actually representative of a silent majority now absorbing all these facts that have not been refuted. Not once.
Merely "calling" a fact "alternative" is not good enough for the majority of the educated professionals in our area. (I'm referring to the educated professionals who actually spend money in the upscale restaurants and shops advertised on this site. The ones who are very busy with their professions and giving back time serving the community and don't have time to be keyboard warriors.) Oppositional so-called "replies" filled with only emotional opinions or mere repetitive, disrespectful graveside memes by a known local troll seriously turn off the educated reader from even considering to engage here, so you can't really blame them.
The lack of factual opposition is indicative of a silent readership now scratching their heads, wondering if they have been bamboozled from the beginning by orchestrated social media campaign that has been quite misleading, built on emotion, not facts. And certainly not sound principles of public policy. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are having their eyes now opened, in that "lightbulb -Ah Ha" moment, as they realize the deep and revelatory hypocrisy of the instigators and agitators of the customary use battle.
Overdevelopment greed is what is truly driving the CU bus. Perhaps there is a silent majority who are now actively re-evaluating this whole customary use legal battle. A battle that will accomplish nothing over the next decade other than create deep painful social divisions and needlessly cost millions of taxpayer dollars. Funds that could have been spent on so many community amenities to the delightful benefit of our county's citizens and visitors. So many other wonderful ways we could have spent those millions of dollars. Oh, let me count the ways.
But development greed has successfully orchestrated a propaganda machine to convince a community to actually foot the bill on their behalf, for the sake of more overdevelopment. Slick move by the power brokers.
I genuinely feel sorry for the good people who have joined the CU bandwagon thinking that this is all on behalf of their grandchildren. No. It's about turning over the control of the commercialization of the beaches from private home owners to a county government. A local government not exactly known for its reputation for honesty when it comes to development and commerce.
The silly point you were trying to fabricate here Dave is completely without merit, and obviously yet another attempted distraction from the very serious issue at hand that we were trying to openly discuss in this forum. It surprises me that you think so many people would be fooled by those cotton candy words of yours. Go ahead. Enjoy your frivolous fun and make light of this dreadful community division that you have single-handedly spearheaded over the years, causing a great deal of personal pain for thousands of very innocent people on both sides of the CU battle. It's not funny to us at all.
Dave, if the facts presented here in this open public forum are incorrect, then where are your 6500 adoring fans presenting factual corrections?
Or maybe you can shed some light personally, Dave. Tell us just one fact that was presented in this thread that is not actually true. Just one. Go ahead. I'll wait.
It's pretty simple, Dave.
Renaming a truth chamber an "echo chamber" doesn't make it so.
Last edited:
Not sure what your problem is with Dave but it is obviously personal and has no place here. Axe grinding is not allowed and not tolerated. You have crossed the line from attacking the issue to attacking a forum member which is not allowed. Keep on topic and stop the insults. You discredit those on your side of the issue.
It's interesting that people interpret questions to Mr. Rauschkolb as a personal attack. Since he is both the self and publicly proclaimed leader of the customary use "fight", he is the logical person to answer questions and/or refute the facts presented here. The buck often stops with leaders of an organization and they are typically the ones to speak for said organization. Is asking him to address questions unreasonable?
If, on the other hand, those who are clearly on the CU side of the issues simply don't want to hear anything from the other side, just say so or ignore the posts. If SOWAL doesn't want to hear from property rights people on this site, then say that. If this is an open forum, then maybe if we all open our minds a bit, maybe, just maybe, we can learn something from each other. People on both sides deserve respect. It's just not that hard.
Last edited:
Calling someone out in an aggressive way on the internet is like standing in their front yard and yelling for them to come outside. Would you do that? Probably would be more polite and productive face to face.
As they hide in the shadows behind their anonymous identities. It’s really kind of hard to take any of these people seriously if they’re not willing to speak as themselves. I take responsibility for every word and action I say and do. I never even thought for a second to represent anyone but myself when I got on this forum so many years ago.
Last edited:
Are you referring to Lake View Too, bob bob, poppaj, Dawn, EZ4144, MRBS, Duchess, Jenksy, L.C. Bane, mputnal, buster, Leader of the Banned, Emerald Drifter, ShallowsNole, or jodiFL on this thread? How do you know Jim Tucker, James Bentwood, Pam Hicks are not pseudonyms? They are not in the Walton tax rolls used to look up Reggie Gaskins
Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy
Besides who would want to subject themselves to the CU anti-social media vitriol like with James Linch and many others and staged beach altercations like at Vizcaya and other private properties?
Last edited by a moderator:
The point of Auburn Fan post IMO is about CREDIBILITY. In an open forum if someone posts a fact, opinion, or belief shouldn’t the open forum members be able to discuss the post and person’s point and credibility and why? Shouldn’t the person who posted the original opinion be accountable for the post if questioned and name be used too if someone disagrees and explains why?
Because you ally with the original post-er and do not agree with the someone questioning the original post by the post-er; that raises to the level of “axe grinding” and “attacking” and should be censored? There has been far worse attacking property rights advocates on this thread alone.
Auburn Fan questioned the post-er's analogy and credibility of the original post [Customary Use Will Destroy Our 30A Legacy] and why, and went on to express that developer over-development and Walton Commissioners complicity allowing it was the counter point.
If someone makes a public statement like; “I personally am a beachfront owner in Seaside with my restaurant” and posts it in the public domain; but is NOT a beachfront owner, why shouldn’t that person’s credibility be challenged and name used so we know who is being questioned and they can respond to the challenge if they so choose?
Questioning credibility of the posts and those who post here should not be censored. If you are questioning how the credibility of a post is made? Heck some people claim it is common to call people Nazis all the time and they should just laugh it off.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mine is my real name. I have said what I believe in a respectful manner. I do understand why some use pseudonyms but at the same time I think part of the problem with hiding behind one is you are personally NOT ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR WORDS. I could say and do some outrageous things behind a mask. I may not be as polite behind a screen name and I think that is part of the issue here. Just my opinion.