Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A question on acceptable sources at DU. Is this source acceptable? [View all]pintobean
(18,101 posts)30. Again, amused.
It's not like the two words look anything alike.
amused concerned
The failed alert in that thread wasn't good enough for you, you had to bring it to GD.
I think this sums it up for most people:
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whatever, it's the gun forum.
Explanation: Whatever, it's the gun forum.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

A question on acceptable sources at DU. Is this source acceptable? [View all]
stone space
Feb 2016
OP
This is the second time that you have referred to "what SOF was promoting in the 80's".
stone space
Feb 2016
#33
Soldier of Fortune definitely is. I suppose The Turner Diaries is also acceptable to most gunners.
Hoyt
Feb 2016
#39
OK, to sum your position up: it's OK to link to professional killers about guns
muriel_volestrangler
Feb 2016
#55
The Dark Side of "Soldier of Fortune" Magazine: Contract Killers and Mercenaries for Hire
SecularMotion
Feb 2016
#56