Thread removed???

[streck]

I remember the AAR and nothing struck me as odd so something had to happen off stage...

Either way, not my concern...

[Ryno12]

DocGKR was banned and his title changed.

DocGKR had his title changed back to the generic "Banned".

So technically, he was already banned when his status changed to "Dentist"? Sorry & pardon me, but a little bit of that is funny.

Sent via Tapatalk

[SHIVAN]

Guys, there's a bunch of drama going on.

You'll likely have to search a few other sites to find the info.

I don't think anyone without the direct knowledge of the four or five key people involved can distill, with any accuracy, what is really going on. This includes me, some others of our staff/moderators, and quite a few staff and moderators at those other sites either.

The friction points are not likely to see the light of day, and there are a lot of agendas and drama going on that only partially intersect with this current issue of DocGKR's AAR of Ken Hackathorn's class.

[Leonidas24]

Is it to be understood that because of the disagreement between the aforementioned 4-5 person party that the M4Carbine.net community is to no longer trust the information attributed to DocGKR?

Just speaking aloud, but I'm interested in finding out what really happened and deciding for myself. Here or elsewhere.

[SHIVAN]

Is it to be understood that because of the disagreement between the aforementioned 4-5 person party that the M4Carbine.net community is to no longer trust the information attributed to DocGKR?

I have no reason to believe that DocGKR's content, or character, would allow any reasonable person to jump to that conclusion.

There are some very stern, and long-running, behind the scenes disagreements taking place, but I do not believe the information attributed to DocGKR is in question.

[SHIVAN]

Just speaking aloud, but I'm interested in finding out what really happened and deciding for myself. Here or elsewhere.

Honestly, I do not believe you will find what you seek. You may get a picture of what is going on, but the details will escape most of us.

It's an unfortunate situation, for sure.

[Army Chief]

I do not believe the information attributed to DocGKR is in question.

Nor do I. It may admittedly take some time to sort out the rest.

AC

[GrandPooba]

Bottom line: DocGKR posts a very positive AAR of a Ken Hackathorn class. A couple of m4c staff members get bent out of shape over some perceived slights and syntax issues in the AAR (the whole thread gets quietly edited)...compound this with the fact that DocGKR is a contributing member to another forum run by someone who isn't exactly liked by a couple of m4c owners/staff...the rest is shall we say history.

[SHIVAN]

This is why respectful discussions can not take place on the internet.

[Swatdude1]

I think it is important to be honest about these types of situations or lose an incredible amount of credibility for all involved, including the forum as a whole. I did a search and read the pdf of DocGKR's AAR and subsequent comments. This was after finding this thread when I thought something was wrong with my computer because all the sticky's in the Terminal Ballistics Forum were deleted and I was blocked from some threads I was monitoring.

I did not see anything wrong with DocGKR's write-up that would put Hackathorn or Vickers in a negative light. But based on the subsequent comments, it is apparent that others with additional knowledge about Doc's attendance seemed to indicate a hidden agenda in his review. The sad thing is, it was not evident to a non-biased third party as myself, and I'm guessing would not have been evident to anyone else other than the 4 or 5 privy to this inside information had others not posted emotional responses publicly rather than handling comments via PM. And, not having any allegiance to any of the the three or four players in the thread including the OP, I came away believing that Vickers and Hackathorn, via Vickers third party claims of his opinions, were the ones that needed to put their big boy panties on in regards to the AAR.

If my comments get this thread locked and me banned, so be it. I am a nobody just giving a clean perspective of the comments without any insider bias. Internet Forums are private and not subject to Constitutional constraints. The owners of such forums are free to manipulate the information contained within by determining who's opinions they allow to be seen. This will always be driven by sponsor dollars and means by their very nature, they will never be truly "open" forums.

But I would ask the question, if DocGKR had an agenda, what would be the harm in bringing it to light here now that he is gone? It might put some of Vickers' comments into perspective, and restore my opinion of him. I hold humility in high regard for anyone that has found success in any realm, and that was not apparent in his response.