search
top

No Pot That’s Gone Unstirred

Bitter really stirred the pot with some snark about VCDL on the National Park Carry issue.  Sailorcurt took very strong exception to what he perceives is an unfair attack on VCDL.  Bitter responded on her own blog, and some folks brought the conflagration over here too.

Sailorcurt’s problem with me seems to be that I defended her actions.  I might be more willing to suggest her snark is in poor taste if I hadn’t seen her to do it just about every other pro-gun group out there, and had she not ripped NRA for web site crapitude two days before.  It’s her blogging style, and I’m certianly not going to tell her “Well hon, you can take snarky cheap shots at every other gun group, but you always have to be nice to VCDL.”  Bitter’s blog persona is snarky and bitchy, which you might expect from the title of her blog, and based on her moniker.

Besides, no one is questioning VCDL’s worth as an organization.  All three of us have stated that they are a top notch state level grass roots organization.  I would argue a standard by which other state level organizations should be measured.  I think people are overreacting to this whole thing, to be honest.  If Curt wants to think Bitter, Countertop and I are elitist, well, that’s his perogative.  I do hope that all this will blow over, and we can all be friends again.

12 Responses to “No Pot That’s Gone Unstirred”

  1. Bitter says:

    What I don’t understand is this perception of not friends.

    I don’t understand how questioning any organization – especially in the spirit of improvement and focus – pits us against each other. Perhaps it’s just my nature of questioning these larger issues, but I cannot fathom how this came to accusation of elitism and wanting to shut others out of the political process. This opens a whole new set of questions for me, but ones I’ll set aside for now as I try to work on a post about the nature of social and political change, and when/how organizations and individuals can work more effectively and efficiently toward those goals.

    However, I will say for the record that the result of such conversations should not be division and accusations. Even if there’s snark, sarcasm, or humor tied in, I hope that activists – regardless of issue or group – would be open to those discussions with their allies without throwing people out. We risk going down the path of the LP if that happens.

  2. RAH says:

    Sebastian.

    Bitter’s initial post did seem snarky about the VCDL, because they seemed to claim credit for the review in the Nat’l Park issue. I myself have been on the email list from NRA and never saw any public sign they were putting any effort on this issue except in the last couple of years, so their claim of working on it for 5 years is hard for an outsider to know.

    I do know that the recent publicity on the NP gun carry has had several approaches to get the ruling reviewed. I saw it listed in some bills and often these types of attempts to get a ruling revoked; there are different attempts from different representatives.

    I thought that the grass work efforts of VCDL in the last year or two did generate more heat and pressure and more publicity that helped the various gun groups and local unaffiliated people to call and petitions their representatives and agencies.

    When people call and write to their representatives, this does work to get the attention on an issue.

    VCDL efforts have been remarkably effective in getting people to email and call on various gun issues. For example, the attention on the releasing names by the Roanoke Times to get people to call advertisers and complain.

    I cannot tell what efforts made exact what difference on getting the administration and federal legislature to act on this issue.

    Personally I thought this recent announcement was not very much because the DOI said they would review their policies does not mean squat. I will be happier when the actual ruling is changed and what is the exact ruling change.
    I only really knew that gun carry issues in Nat Parks were banned essentially for the last 8-10 years or so. Because when we backpacked in Dolly Sods and Shenandoah in the late 70’s there was not any such restriction.

    I do think her tone was uncalled for and insulting. That is what upset Curt. We really do not need to generate contentions between various gun blogs and groups.

    I see that she has tried to resolve the issue but a simple apology for hurtful comments would have helpful in the beginning. Noting the irony of the human impulse to claim credit for a change is not so bad, but VCDL is a small group that has a big impact. Their membership has managed to get people to actually show up at locations and make their presence felt. That is a real grass root effort.

    NRA has been great in getting personal representatives to act on different issues. But the most success has been in the local state leglislatures in getting CCW passed. I think has been the most impact on getting gun rights back in balance.

    I really wanted to post on this a couple of days ago. I hope that Curt gets over his hurt feelings and understands that she really was not denigrating VCDL efforts. But I think a bit of courtesy among bloggers is essential. Volunteer efforts are so easily damaged when feelings are hurt and volunteer efforts are so important in keeping pressure on to change gun laws.

    This comment is really long so I will end it now

  3. Bitter says:

    RAH,

    Unlike yourself, I’m not going to paste identical comments on two blogs. So you’ll have to read my response and questions for you on mine.

  4. Sebastian says:

    I do think her tone was uncalled for and insulting. That is what upset Curt. We really do not need to generate contentions between various gun blogs and groups.

    I know that’s what upset him, but as I said, she’s done it to every other group out there. Why is VCDL special and above Bitter being a Bitch on a blog called the Bitch Girls?

  5. RAH says:

    Sebastian,

    If Bitter is being bitchy than she should not be suprised when she gets it in return.

    My comment was a caution about damaging small volunteer groups unnecesssarily.

    I personally don’t get ruffled when a group claims partial credit for a change. I don’t see how the email from VCDL saying “Congratulations” claims full credit and could not understand why she thought it worthy of a snark.

    I usually check your blog and have enjoyed your posts especially the one about your trip to Antitam.

    Maybe one day we will actually meet since I live in The Marxist start of Maryland.

  6. Sebastian says:

    I don’t think she is really that surprised, and I think she’s capable of making her points, which is why I haven’t gotten very bent out of shape about this whole thing. What’s surprising to me is that her snarky criticism never got much of a blip on the radar until she said something about VCDL.

    I also think the response was overboard. If her initial dig at VCDL was inappropriate, the response was equally so. She said something snarky about VCDL, her responders started insulting her. That’s a big part of why I won’t say she should apologize. If someone criticizes NRA, my first instinct isn’t to argue they are condescending and to accuse them of never having done anything for the gun rights movement.

  7. Bitter says:

    RAH,

    You’re still not answering why you’re against anyone joking about or criticizing some groups, but not others. By your own admission, some groups deserve special treatment. How do you define that? Why do you endorse that overall attitude that some people are protected about all others? And where do we reference who is and isn’t to be shielded?

    I really am interested in knowing what standards you’re setting for us all in this.

  8. Sebastian says:

    I usually check your blog and have enjoyed your posts especially the one about your trip to Antitam.

    Thanks! I hope all this unpleasantness won’t keep you away.

  9. straightarrow says:

    Some people are a lot like old Rover.

  10. RAH says:

    Nah.

    Despite Bitter’s defensive response, she is genuinely asking for a dialogue. She is not trying to shut off debate. It would be easier to argue this in person, probably a lot more fun. I have no hard feelings.
    She objects to being taken to task about the wisedom of her post. That is a natural response.

    I woulld be glad to meet both of you, Bitter seems to a interesting person and ceratinly not shy.

    RAH

  11. straightarrow says:

    Well RAH, I can’t say your last sentence is anything but true.

top