Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: KitJ


I see that I was previously unclear in my post to you, and will try to clarify my remarks.

On the new thread, you "snicker"-ed that I would no doubt reject you as thread chaplain.

If you have a genuine interest in supporting our thread's visitors and residents with prayer, I would gratefully accept you as a thread chaplain. I would be eager to invite those whom you have not insulted to seek you out for prayer requests and encouragement. I've seen the power of your encouragement and the positive effects you can bring to our threads.

I don't wish to leave you or anyone else with the impression that I consider those who advocate for bikini pics to be of lesser value, incapable of prayer or of unequal worth in any respect. The issue is not our natural differences in personal choices, values or spiritual faith etc., but is instead the (repeated) disruption the use of epithets and bullying demands, and references back in time to prior conflicts brings to our thread home. 

I originally avoided responding to your rebuttal  because, even if I am excrutiatingly careful to document and articulate my position and reason for commenting, I may (e.g., have in the past) create more division, particularly if I create the false impression that one side's opinion or values is "right" and the others' are "wrong" when discussing posting issues. I think I can handily defend the idea that utilizing demeaning epithets, selectively targeting women (or men), and issuing orders are divisive and as such, disruptive. 

To validate my first post which you refuted, I would have to field strip your prior posts from the great Bikini (pic) Profanity Wars of '19 and run a line by line analysis against your current posts to help explain, but that would waste a tremendous amount of time, potentially surface lingering or unresolved prior conflict, and trigger fresh debates with those who disagree with me. Consensus is not possible among so many. Besides, your old posts are difficult to find because many of them have been deleted by admin.

I forget the chronology of the Bikini Battles (BB) and the running firefights at Profanity Pass, so I will simply assign a sequence in order to make a point. You were memorably "assertive" (i.e., directed epithets at some women and gave an order to all) in BBII as your recent posts. In BBII, you publicly denounced respected women among us as "pearl-clutching, fainting couch, blue-haired bitties by the truths" and issued the order to "STOP pinging the website owner every time you’re offended" to everyone reading.  

From my admittedly limited perspective of the Mother of Dragons guarding thread collaboration, it seems like over time the grievances of Profanity Pass were referenced at the Battle of Bikini  which you then referenced in your new post regarding disturbing, graphic content. Comments (chain) linking prior conflicts, and their attendant emotions and unresolved grievances, have the power to inflame. Rather than healing and moving on, references back in time tend portray an underlying, intolerable invironment of inherent oppression. We're fortunate, extremely fortunate to have a home on FR and are under ordinary family friendly rules common to many venues.

References back to the Battle of Bikini, Profanity Pass or other battles are highly counter-productive when struggling to resolve (again) the disparate impact that disturbing, graphic content has on our diverse community In particular, references which include the utilization of epithets, the targeting some women, and ordering FReeQs and FReepers to adhere to your rules (i.e., "Y'all ladies who get the vapors and complain to the mods over a bikini picture, an off color joke, or foul language, better gird your loins. ") and ( can be interpreted by some to be an intentional pattern which selectively disparages some women, and employes demeaning intimidation and overreach.

Not all will agree with me or you; consensus is not possible in a group this large. Frankly if there were only 3 of us in this discussion, there would likely be three separate opinions. By thanking your "supporters", you identify the gap that had opened up among us on that thread and which probably drew in others who didn't post or those who only lurk.

WWG1WGA does not involve ordering those with whom you disagree and/or those who are silent of respect for thread harmony to "back off" or give you the right to dominate discussion through intimidation tactics (i.e., If you don't think this is the right place for you, then back off. Meanwhile, don't any of you dare bitch about what's being posted here. This thread is a fun place to hang out, but you've been warned over and over again.).   

Note: In this specific context,  I've used the term "orders" or "ordering" as I (and others) interpreted your word choice to mean compliance is mandatory and will be enforced with escalated hostility. No one likes to be insulted or issued opinions-based orders by others; those who wish to restrain their response to you out of respect for thread focus and harmony may be feel that their silence could be misinterpreted as submission to abusive behavior and I'm confident that is far from true.

After some back-and-forth where in you refuted, and possibly doubled-down, you stated you were ending your commentary while instructing others to keep their objections to it private, likely widening the social disruption that your original dispute created. 

Objections to behaviors which violate core values, whether those of men or women, are not signs that one's character or patriotism are ill-prepared to fight in THE GREAT AWAKENING."

We already know we have been on a "dark path which will end in exposure of drugs, corruption, abuse, slavery, human sacrifice, crimes against children and the most vulnerable." because we've been studying these topics for approx. two years now, and to the best of our personal ability (Note: You left out cannibalism and the ). At times, both women and men have raised objections to the posting of images (i.e., the Horror Hill Battle of Infanticide), so selectively directing epithets at women on the topic of graphic content is further divisive.

 "And now, necrophilia. People having sex with dead people." Sadly, after reading about the torture and rape of babies, necrophilia fails to shock because it's been in the news often enough over our lifetimes (so there's no need to assist us with the word definition). The formerly hidden/unspeakable works specific to Satanists are far harder to study. 

Q said the Choice to Know is ours and were choosing; deciding to view or not view disturbing images as Q advised; there's no need to fear we are falling short in our patriotic duty. We do not all start out with the same resources and must make decisions to guard our ability to support the fight, and that sometimes means passing on traumatic pictures or reading.

There's more, but I've spent time I don't have writing this already. I won't have time to proof it again.

I know Your (KitJ) powerful contributions to content and encouragement have made an irreplacable difference in The Great Awakening; my comments today are quite limited to the specific behaviors listed above and are given for the sake of our threads. 


1. I thought we had settled the issue of linking to graphic images or language and providing a warning at the top in order to allow people the choice to know. If this request isn't working, then I will need to revise our current advisories at the start of the thread. I request input from FReeQs in order to improve our graphic content advisory.

2. Jim Rob already has Free Republic's advisory regarding the respectful, collaborative environment he wishes to maintain. Please respect Jim Rob's wishes for a peaceful patriotic forum by avoiding the targeting of women, epithets, the giving of orders and any/all other intimidation tactis.

3. Please initiate respectful confrontations with individuals via pm first and then move rising or unresolved issues to the forum (or to me) only if necessary to resolve and remove disruption of our threads.

4. If tensions arise unexpectedly, please remove them to pm for resolution (see #3).

May God heal and continue to fortify our on-thread relationships and all who post and lurk, and may He crush our Satanic enemies, as they have crushed the bones of their infant prey.



1,527 posted on 01/22/2020 3:16:30 PM PST by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1519 | View Replies ]

To: KitJ; All

I really should have edited my large post.

My requests are made of all FReepers and FReeQs posting on our Q thread in a “going forward” mindset to improve our WWG1WGA. I know not everyone has broached these conflicts before - I just don’t want to put them in another advisory under the Jumping Dino at the start of the thread.


1,528 posted on 01/22/2020 3:34:24 PM PST by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1527 | View Replies ]

To: ransomnote; 103198; 31R1O; Hemingway's Ghost; acrolect; Aevery_Freeman; Airforce Sister; ...

New Q drop


1,529 posted on 01/22/2020 3:38:22 PM PST by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1527 | View Replies ]

To: NorthstarMom; NotQuiteCricket; Noumenon; numberonepal; Ol' Sox; OLDCU; Oorang; Oratam; ...

New Q drop


1,530 posted on 01/22/2020 3:38:45 PM PST by ransomnote (IN GOD WE TRUST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1527 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson