There are comments and then there are comments that require thought and response from me. Thought -- and the distillation of that thought into words -- takes time, at least it does for me. Consequently, if I don't have time to think and respond when I get the comment, I hold it, flag it for response and then come back to it. I usually then give it a more prominent position of its own, rather than see it buried where most won't return. Yesterday I posted this link to a Kurt Hofmann piece, "U of K journalism professor's anti-NRA hate mongering is just latest example."
Shortly thereafter I received this comment from long-time reader and supporter Sean:
Seems to me this article of David's wreaks of hypocrisy since I've repeatedly seen members here at Sipsey, on War on Guns and WRSA advocate the killing of traitorous elected officials AND their families when the SHTF. Killing innocents is killing innocents, isn't it? Sean.
Now, I flagged this comment for later response because it contains some points that are important to hit, as well as some misconceptions about this blog, at least, and the killing of innocents. It seemed to me that if Sean, a man who I respect and admire, could make these errors then others could too. The man, and the comment, deserved a thoughtful reply.
Yesterday was a rough day, and I didn't get around to the task, putting it off until today with the thought that it could wait. I was wrong. I then received this from Sean:
Censorship is so unbecoming of you Mike.....not posting my earlier comment that OUR SIDE has uttered the same crap about killing innocents doesn't make it untrue. After your blocking Warrior Class from responding to your public commentary....I guess I gave you far too much credit for actually practicing what you supposedly preach and being a man of principle. Turns out that like most of us fallible human beings, you are very much the flawed hypocrite that we all can be and hopefully strive to overcome. Get your shit together man. You are far too valuable to fall prey to things like being petty and censorship. Sean
Now, what Sean is referring to is a similar situation Sunday last when I responded to a comment by Warrior Class with its own stand-alone post as well: "Warrior Class takes me to task, upcoming plans and reflections on two decades."
In this post, I agreed with Warrior Class' criticism:
But like Warrior Class I am never satisfied with my work, so I offer no defense to his critique. His thoughts track with my own.
And after he received some unfairly rough criticism of his own from other readers, I commented:
Cut Warrior Class some slack. He's been a mainstay of support for a long time and if that doesn't give him the right to bitch I don't know what does.
Agreeing with a friend's critique, giving that opinion a more prominent venue, and then defending his right to have that opinion seems to me a strange form of censorship.
Yet, like Warrior Class, as a long-time supporter and reader, Sean has earned the right to criticize me. This is my reply to Sean's original comment:
Sean, you mistake Kurt Hofmann's post for David's but allowing for that it concerns me when you write, "Seems to me this article of David's wreaks of hypocrisy since I've repeatedly seen members here at Sipsey, on War on Guns and WRSA advocate the killing of traitorous elected officials AND their families when the SHTF." If there is one thing that I have been crystal clear on, I thought, was that the killing of innocents was strictly forbidden according to my understanding of the Three Percent rules of engagement. So when you conclude, "Killing innocents is killing innocents, isn't it?" you are certainly correct. I know that David Codrea and Kurt Hofmann both hold to this principle as well.
Of course I cannot answer for Pete at WRSA. Indeed, the issue of Kerodin and Company advocating the killing of innocents -- and Pete's endorsing of Kerodin with his own stamp of approval -- is one of the principal reasons for my criticism of Kerodin, Nye, et. al., and my split with Pete. I hate it, but I lost a good friend over this very issue. So I reject your claim that Sipsey Street, or the original codification of the principles of the Three Percent done by me, in any way countenances the killing of innocents. Hence, in my opinion at least, I cannot be guilty of "hypocrisy."
I asked Warrior Class to contact me by email or phone after the post so that we could sort things out and I could make my apologies for his apparent misconceptions or any unintentional slights I may have dealt him. He has not replied. I repeat that offer now, and make the same one to you. I value both of you, as freedom fighters and as friends. If I have unintentionally given offense to either of you, I humbly apologize. It is unfortunate, but it seems timing is everything, and my timing has been off lately.