Thursday, December 8, 2011

Where Seldom is Heard
A Discouraging Word

So, Greg wants to pose as an old West shootist.

Alas, one should be careful what one wishes for, because his choice of words mimics the wording of Othello in Shakespeare's play:
When you shall these unlucky deeds relate,
Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice. Then must you speak
Of one that lov'd not wisely but too well;
It seems that Greg has loved his western fiction, his idealized gunslinger image, not wisely but too well.

Greg uses the word shootist, without correctly understanding either its origin or its meaning.

The OED - for those of you unused to the slang, that is the Oxford English Dictionary, unabridged in this case, educates us on the word shootist:
shootist, n.
Pronunciation: /ˈʃuːtɪst/
Etymology: < SHOOT v. + -IST suffix.
One who shoots game, or who competes in a shooting-match; one skilled
in shooting. Chiefly jocular or disparaging.
1864 Gold Hill (Nevada) News 15 Jan. 3/1 (heading) A Shootist.
1872 M. SCHELE DE VERE Americanisms 657 The man whose rifle brought down the largest amount of
game became known as a famous shootist.
1899 F. V. KIRBY Sport E. Central Afr. iv. 47 Unfortunately it would not be the shootist and his party who
would suffer.
1976 National Observer (U.S.) 4 Sept. 18/2 J. B. Books, the protagonist of Wayne's new movie, The
Shootist,..not only restores the legend but expands it, giving the man and his memory grace and
dignity. A shootist is a man good with a gun, and J. B. Books is a retired marshal who was good
enough to kill 30 men.
shootist, n.
Second edition, 1989; online version September 2011. <>; accessed
08 December 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1914.
Oxford University Press
Since Greg is clearly not competing in target shooting and not in hunting shooting either, we can only assume that he wishes, posing as a 'shootist' for us to disparage him for doing so.  Greg wants to emulate the Hollywood fiction, not the historic fact --- and we are right to tease him for doing so.  His concept is pure fiction, classic Hollywood hype, and not factual history.


  1. That's really funny, especially given that Greg like to think that people use the word with the meaning that it had when it entered the language--never mind that meanings can change through time.

    The OED is good at showing shifts in meaning.

    But, Greg is indeed a shootist.

    And I mean that in a disparaging way.

    Between being proud to have been called an idiot and claiming to be a shootist, as well as his many other gaffs in his posts: Poor Greg just ain't coming off too well.

    I can hear him now!


  2. You're correct, Greg, any disparaging comment about you is an accurate term.

    Stop trying to gilt the piece of shit, Greg, you aren't coming off too well here.

    But, having that pointed out to you has yet to stop you from continuing to make an idiot of yourself.

    And it's not picking, Greg, you aren't very good at details--eeensy, teensy ones.

    Or big fat glaringly obvious ones.

    But, keep making a fool of yourself--we love to laugh at you.

    Not with you.

  3. OK, greg, I do admit that I am being nasty to you, but my reason is that you are so clueless to the fact that you are making a fool of yourself.

    And you are deeply in denial as well.

    And I don't mean the river in Africa!

  4. You aren't on the right track for anything other than disaster, Greg.

    Greg, I should really feel sorry for you since you are such a pathetic person.

    I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

    Other than you are making it quite clear that you are really a pretty sorry specimen of a human being.

    Seriously, Greg, Chic Gaylord--a Paladin Press author. one Bobbie Brown of Soldier of Fortune mag fame's authors.

    Gimme a break.

    You are one serious walt.

    And seriously deluded about your abilities.

    You belong teaching fuckups how to be further fuckups like yourself.

    And stop trying to act like you are coming off better than you are.

    If you shoot the way you argue, Greg, you are a dead man walking.

    As I said, don't blow your dick off.

    But, I think that's more likely an outcome if you do keep playing with guns.

  5. Greg, here's a more appropriate quote about You from Lord Acton:

    "There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion."

    You've got both ignorance and narrow-mindedness really well covered.

    You completely ignorant and narrow-minded.

    And too stupid to see that you are coming off as a fool.

    Oh, you're hearing your own laughter.

    As I said, Greg, I'm laughing at you--not with you.

  6. Greg, I think you would prefer to have me call you that than many of the other things I can think of to call you.

    You can call me what you want.

    And you can keep spouting your bullshit that shows you have no idea of what the term ad hominem and everything else you talk about means.

    Until you come around with some seriously well grounded facts to refute what I say--you aren't saying much of anything worth listening to.

    And your ignorance is getting really tiresome.

    I'm not gonna play with you, Greg, until you start saying things that are grounded in reality.

    Quit confusing fiction with fact.

  7. The problem you are up against Greg is we are neither of us, Laci or I, fools.

    You cite Chic Gaylord, who may very well have been a competitive shooting expert some 60 years ago, he was not by any stretch an historian, nor could I find any historians who praise his work.

    He may be idolized in gun circles, the same ones who think Soldier of Fortune is gospel, but that is not an historical source for what you claim.

    If there IS a legitimate historically accurate source, produce it; it shouldn't be hard to find.

    Chic Gaylord got his start in advertising; he was very much the master of self-promotion as much as shooting.

    THAT does not make him an historically accurate source.

    Produce something else, or go worship your gun loon idol privately but don't expect us to stop laughing at your confusion between history and Hollywood.

    They were not the same,and you still don't properly use the word shootist, nor are you one by any stretchl

    You are pursuing the gun loon fantasy; it doesn't survive a reality check.

  8. " It's also poignant that you mention the movie a day after Harry Morgan died.

    December 8, 2011 10:19 PM"


    Poingant? It evokes sadness in who? Not me, that's for damn sure. Harry Morgan was a pretty good actor. He was also an abusive alcoholic. On balance I feel sorry for the cop and the as yet nameless victim of the VT shooter.

  9. This parallels a conversation between Laci and I offline.

    It is concerning that you don't know the difference between gunloon hype sources and a source that is legitimate history, something well researched and documented with verifiable sources.

    Greg, you are genuinely not displaying good critical thinking - I'd remind you Laci has a degree in rhetoric / logic. Nor do you show a sound discrimination between entertainment and pro-gun propaganda.

    When someone provides verifiable sources here and good sound logic, you will receive the recognition for it that it deserves.

    So far, you aren't demonstrating the intellectual honesty and knowledge that a teacher at any level should have. And THAT is not a laughing matter.

  10. Where is Greg's side of this conversation?

  11. Mikeb302000:

    Greg Camp's comment(s) seem to have disappeared.

  12. Laci did not have an opportunity to address Greg's request to delete the photo, because he was sleeping during normal hours for that activity - unlike me as it happened.

    I felt that it should be Laci's prerogative to address and respond to that request. I happen to agree btw, that the photo WAS in fact his intellectual property and that he had every right to request it be removed, although I believe an email would have been a more appropriate venue for that request.

    However I objected to the threatening of a complaint to blogger before a reasonable opportunity for Laci to respond. I also objected to it in the context MikeB of your experience on the Daily Kos.

    So I contacted Laci first by email, and then later in a conversation which took place at 6:30 my time, so that I could explain my acting on his behalf.

    I decided unilaterally to also delete Greg's comments. It was me, not Laci. If Greg wants to be that pissy about intellectual content, then that can go away as well, so far as I am concerned.

    Laci has challenged Greg to be factual, to produce sources Greg boasts that he can show for his contentions. I have challenged him to produce any credible self-defense source which advocates shooting rather than giving your money to a robber, and to support his assertion that anyone trying to take his money is inherently a threat to his life or safety. I've challenged him to produce a credible historic source, (other than two clearly staged publicity photos that also show an unsheathed knife which we know is historically inaccurately worn as well) showing in the real, factual American west of the 19th century that handguns were worn shoved in a belt.

    Greg has been unwilling to come to a meeting of the minds. He has been factually inaccurate, and poorly reasoned. He has produced a quantity of comment, but a lot of that has been whiny bullshit rather than substantive response, including what we may call him.

    Greg wanted deletion of his content. He got it. I'm the one who gave it to him.

    Usually I'm the one who argues for restraint in deletions, between Laci and I, and even for more moderate language. Not this time.

    I would like to broker some better meeting of the minds between Greg and Laci and myself. But that will require Greg producing sources to back up his statements when called on them, and less of the whiny bullshit and threats on his side.

    Laci was absolutely wrong to use that photo without permission; it was removed within a reasonable time upon request. Now I'd like to see Greg address his errors and mistakes.

    THEN I think we will have a basis for moving forward, but we will not have such a basis without that.

  13. I prefer not to respond to temper tantrums.

    That photo was placed in the public domain, but I defer to Dog Gone in this matter.

    I will probably replace the picture of a rodeo clown.

    Unless fuckwit can produce the requested documentation and demonstrate and understanding of said, he can continue to hold his breath until he turns blue.

  14. dog gone:

    Ain't it always the way this goes.

    Young gunstunned NRA shill shows up. Begins by making some sort of "common cause" argument and then starts to make teh KKKrazeepants statements about any and all facets of the gunz debate--or anything else that is commented about. Eventually, they get VERY offended and make some sort of vague (or not so vague) threat to take some sort of cyber or meatspace action to keep people from hurting their fee-fees.

    It's happened here with a few folks, I've seen it happen a number of other places (not always Gunzbots, sometimes they suffer from some other mental defect). It's sort of predictable.

    Greg Camp has apparently, finally, ralized that his photo as a gunslinger, shootist or whatever the hell he was supposed to be depicting WAS a silly "Walt" sortathing. Now it's other peoples' fault that he looks like a wannabe dweeb?

  15. Wannabe dweeb?

    He is a dweeb!

    Don't forget having a temper tantrum as if he were three.

    Just because we asked him to back up his statements with facts!

  16. Greg Camp has two options; he can contact us by email, or he can back up the statements in question with credible sources - ie historians and primary sources for history matters, legal case citations for legal cases, etc.

    I look forward to him complying with reasonable requests so that we can go forward.

  17. Otherwise, he's on time out until he grows up.

    And he can use all the insults he wants--no comments until you grow up.

    Show us you can actually reason and back up your assertions with facts.

    Not temper tantrums.

  18. Greg is still whining, still calling names, and still not being factual.

    He is now complaining that I did not post his comments about statistics.

    He's right. I did not do so.

    However, I will happily post those comments if he will acknowledge that he did not have a basis for a complaint to blogger, which was the reason I stopped moderating his comments and deleted them. Greg is also insisting that we are holding him to a different standard of conduct than we hold anyone else.

    This is false. We ask pretty much everybody to produce factual sources to support their statements. I use the term 'pretty much' to differentiate between those statements which are more casual, in contrast to those which are making a seminal or substantive assertion. We apply the exact same critical analysis to everyone here.

    It is becoming more and more clear that Greg cannot support his statements, that he is talking through the top of his Wild Bill Hickock hat.

    Greg and his comments will be welcomed back by me, and I would presume by my colleagues like Laci, if and when he becomes factual and substantive about his statements as requested.

  19. When he stops having his tantrums, he can come back.

    And I hope he will back up his assertions with facts from now on.

  20. Actually, there's a third option, as we've seen.

    Rather than simply deleting a photograph that is not meant for general use, you deleted my comments. But I'm the one who had the tantrum. Dog Gone, you wonder why I don't regard your criticism of my thinking skills as being something to worry about. . .

  21. Greg Camp:

    "Rather than simply deleting a photograph that is not meant for general use, you deleted my comments."

    You're a crybaby. You love to talk about your gun collection. You love to make ridiculous comments about how bad you will be when you are confronted by a person who wants your money--saying you will kill them for whatever the value of the cash in your pocket amounts to.

    Tell me this, hero; when was it that you last killed someone? Do you have any fucking idea what it's like to snuff out a life? I've killed a few animals, it's not fun, it's not easy--unless you're a person who thinks destroying another life somehow validates yours (and it does not).

    I don't decide who gets to comment and who doesn't. If the decision was mine to make, you'd be gone. You're annoying and you add nothing to the thread. Fortunately for you, I don't get to be the arbiter.

  22. Greg, killing a person is quite different from the movies, or dime novels.

    I know people like you believe in the magic power of firearms to protect you from all harm, but it just doesn't work like that.

    Greg, you had a temper tantrum both on and offline.

    We have pointed out that you act in a manner which if one of your students presented you with similar behaviour would be grounds for failure.

    Instead, you whined and threw a temper tantrum.

    There is no obligation on the part of a blog owner to publish a comment. I would imagine an educated person would know this.

    In fact,I have proof that you deleted one of Dog Gone's comments on your blog.

    Yet, you demand that we hear your poor reasoning and find your argument correct.

    You are now back with the same silly arguments and no evidence.

    I can't give you a passing grade.

    If you are a teacher with any ability, you would understand why.

  23. Laci the Dog,

    I realize that a blog owner has the right to treat comments in any way that he or she desires. The policy here appeared to be open, and now it appears to be so again. If you have a different policy, perhaps you should post it.

    You claim to have proof that I deleted Dog Gone's comment, and yet, to my knowledge and in my immediate observation, it's there. Go to the About page and look. If there's another comment that she made that has not appeared or has been deleted, it was not because of my doing, and I'll be pleased to restore it, if she'll send it to me again. Before you claim that I deleted something, perhaps you should do what you advise and look for yourself.

    You call my reaction a temper tantrum. I find you mocking a picture of mine that you had no permission to use. This comes after a long series of haughty dismissals and foul language tossed at me. As before, I invite a neutral observer to read the various comments and tell both of us who looks more like a foul-mouthed and insolent child.

  24. The comment may be there now, but it was not when I checked a few hours after I had made it.

    Yet you were here clearly expecting your comments to be moderated, which suggests you may have read that comment.

    If it is there now, fine. It was not at the time I made the comment regarding it here.

  25. Greg, a neutral observer would probably confirm my observations about you.

    Would you really want that?

    greg, I find you to be lacking in legal knowledge, yet you pretend to understand the law.

    You are a bore and I am getting really tired of your acting the victim.

    I would prefer not to play with you if you keep having tantrums rather than address the questions placed to you.

    Additionally, I would apprecitate your acknowledging your ignorance on a topic rather than pretend you know more than you do.