Tick... tock... is it the 18th yet? BadJoe's promised Exposé on JimRob (vanity)

LibertyPost | The 18th of October, a date that shall live in infamy | AUTHORED by BADJOE

[OWK]

What was true is that I was registered at a forum where there were unsavory jewish comments made.

Me too.

I take great delight in rebutting them.

[OWK]

Does that qualify me as a "Big"?

"I'm afraid not" she said with disappointment.

[A Navy Vet]

Ouch.

[OWK]

Couldn't let that one go by... ;^]

[Dales]

I didn't find the word, "nazi," in Badjoe's post here

How about this one?

Or the time MAF posted that Diotima (a jewish lady) is a nazi .

Continuing:

I recall seeing a poster in the open Forum, whose name I don't remember, accuse dio of posting on or being a member of an anti-Semitic website, about a year and a half ago.

You are remembering correctly. And this is what triggered the thread which I posted to the moderator's forum. When that user posted that assertion, I was the only moderator on-board. I also only had a few months under my belt, and was still pretty inexperienced. I made a mistake- I overthought things. I pulled the comment as being a personal attack, and then I thought about if I was going to make a situation worse by giving the impression that Diotima, who is very involved with FRN, had something to hide. So I restored the post, and posted to the other moderators an explanation for my action and a request for feedback on what we should do. I did not call her an anti-semite nor did MAF.

[Hacksaw]

I once got a job because the interviewer said I was so brutally honest. Now I don't get one because I'm over a certain age, honesty be damned. First things first, you know.

Try showing up with no clothes and your face painted in the Pittsburgh Steeler colors.

[diotima]

Its so good to see you here. Please stick around!

[Sabertooth]

The question was whether a claim against me was true, and if so should it stand on the forum.

What was true is that I was registered at a forum where there were unsavory jewish comments made. Can that fact be equivocated with "hanging around in Nazi chat rooms" was the issue up for debate.

Was such an equivocation ever given any credence, by anyone behind the scenes at FR?

Did you have the impression that you were suspected of being an anti-Semite?

[headsonpikes]

I pretty much see things politically the way you do, I think, but from my experience in life, I have to go with Dales on this one.

As a somewhat radical libertarian type, I have never felt the hot breath of a hounding mod on my case, even though I have enraged some active posters of the more 'white-shoe' persuasion.

Although no human being can be completely objective and unprejudiced by past experience, I think that a group of people such as those volunteering to be moderators here can do a reasonably just job, provided that they do not work in isolation.

Given that a review process exists, I don't see how a single moderator's spiteful day could really change the balance of debate here. Undoubtedly, some individual posters were treated injudiciously, but out of a feuding cast of thousands, how could this reasonably be prevented?

Secondly, why would a person in a mod role want to have every opinion they express subject to parsing by those with a bone to pick? The job is thankless enough as it is, it seems to me.

I hope that JR does not allow the moderator system to become bureaucratized, but rather keeps it somewhat in a state of flux, and let the natural energies of the people refine the review process over time.

Sort of a Burkean approach. ;^)

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

You coulda made him switch teams!

Who knows? Maybe I did!

[OWK]

As a somewhat radical libertarian type, I have never felt the hot breath of a hounding mod on my case, even though I have enraged some active posters of the more 'white-shoe' persuasion.

I have.

[Dales]

I'm about as far right as one could ever be

You are still here. The thing that causes problems for you is not your pursuit of libertarian goals. The main thing that gets you in trouble is when you go after religious people. You sometimes cross the line.

So Badjoe's claim that Jim intervened to curtail the particular focus on libertarians is untrue?

Joe has always said that is why he intervened. He has said a lot of things that are untrue. So I guess my answer is "that has been Joe's stated intent". I do not believe his concern reflected reality.

Ultimately being the key word.

I would agree with you if there were dozens upon dozens of people who were banned by a moderator and then reinstated by Jim. There have been cases of this, but not too many- and the number is a lot lower if we take Buckeroo out of the equation. And Jim banned him a few times too.

I didn't say that... you did.

Fair point. Let me rephrase it- if one is to believe that libertarians were targetted, then one must believe that Jim wanted libertarians to be targetted, since he is responsible for the site's direction.

[Daus]

I have a standing pool of water in my flower bed. Does that qualify me as a "Big"?

No... just a bad gardener. :)

[diotima]

Did you have the impression that you were suspected of being an anti-Semite?

Anyone who knows me, knows I am not an anti-semite. I have never made any comment that can be construed as anti-semetic or endorsed any such positions. Period. Criticism of the Israeli government is NOT ANTI-SEMETISM prima facie. Just as every participant on this board rightly ripped Clinton to shreds, it didn't make us Anti-American. Reasoned examination of the government is necessary for a healthy state.

I think in my case, the debate was to what extent the claim against me was factually correct and the consequences of pulling it or let it stand. The implication was false, but factually, elements of it were true. I will state for the record, that Mercuria is not anti-semetic, I have never had any experience with her to support that or seen any direct evidence either.

[A Navy Vet]

That's what I get for writing a setup line. With that additional kick in the pants, I'm outta here. Hope you and some of the other evil libertarians stick around.

[OWK]

You are still here. The thing that causes problems for you is not your pursuit of libertarian goals. The main thing that gets you in trouble is when you go after religious people. You sometimes cross the line.

Expressing my disbelief in God (which is what I was banned for last time) is not "crossing the line". I believe the words that got me banned, were that the God described in the Old Testament, would be considered a morally reprehensible monster if his actions were attributed to anyone else.

Joe has always said that is why he intervened. He has said a lot of things that are untrue. So I guess my answer is "that has been Joe's stated intent". I do not believe his concern reflected reality.

I didn't ask if it was why he intervened.

I asked if it was true.

I would agree with you if there were dozens upon dozens of people who were banned by a moderator and then reinstated by Jim.

I have been one of them.

Fair point. Let me rephrase it- if one is to believe that libertarians were targetted, then one must believe that Jim wanted libertarians to be targetted, since he is responsible for the site's direction.

Or perhaps (as was already stated) those who can't abide having their views questioned openly, seek ways to silence their opposition.

I think if you're honest with yourself, you'd concede this point.

It is a hard temptation to resist.

[Daus]

Yes. We ban liberals and other leftists all the time. Jim doesn't want this forum to be a place to debate them. That's been his direction since I came aboard.

OWK has already covered this, but here is the root of the problem. Once you open the door to ban on idealogy, than the point of this place is badly limited. You leave people no choice but to turn on each other a fight over the small differences rather than focus on the true opposition.

[OWK]

Why doesn't anyone else know that you're not a libertarian. ;^]

[Sabertooth]

*How about this one?

**Or the time MAF posted that Diotima (a jewish lady) is a nazi .

Fair enough, I hadn't seen that post.

Just to clarify to anyone reading, I didn't make that accusation against MAF, though the style in which you quoted Badjoe and me might inadvertently confuse which of had posted what.

You are remembering correctly.

And was that also the timeframe of Mercuria's departure?

I made a mistake- I overthought things. I pulled the comment as being a personal attack, and then I thought about if I was going to make a situation worse by giving the impression that Diotima, who is very involved with FRN, had something to hide. So I restored the post, and posted to the other moderators an explanation for my action and a request for feedback on what we should do. I did not call her an anti-semite nor did MAF.

OK, so, somehow during the feedback, Badjoe got the impression that such accusations were being made by moderators?

How did Mercuria's name get involved with this?

[Daus]

Why doesn't anyone else know that you're not a libertarian. ;^]

Guilt by association I guess. :)