[Dales]

That thread was the entire day- not selected excerpts. He made a direct assertion regarding what was transpiring that day; namely that two moderators (me and another) were banning people so fast that he had to come up with a distraction. It was an attempt at myth making.

His assertion about the 80% of all signups being banned can be proven false by anyone who takes the time to use the method I describe on that thread I linked- I'll repeat the method here so you, or anyone who wants to spend the time, can do so.

1. Take this link and copy it to your address bar: http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/profile?u=84554.
2. Change the number at the end to whatever number you want to start with. Look at the signup date.
3. Increment or decrement that number to move "up" or "down".
4. You will be able to see who was banned, who is active, and which names were never activated (those will be the ones where it doesn't say that the user was banned, and it doesn't show the user as existing (those it will redirect to your own profile)

And your counter-assertion does not do anything to counter the fact that Jim and the other moderators also dispute Joe's account. Either he is lying, or all of us are.

[OWK]

That thread was the entire day- not selected excerpts. He made a direct assertion regarding what was transpiring that day; namely that two moderators (me and another) were banning people so fast that he had to come up with a distraction. It was an attempt at myth making.

OK... I'll grant the distinction (it seemed a bit of a stretch anyway).

I'm more interested in the base claim (which seems to be avoided by most).

Was there discussion of targetting specific posters for banishment or censure because they did not adhere to a specific "conservative" or "republican" ideology?

Were libertarians targeted in particular?

I have to say I find those accusations particularly credible.

I'd appreciate an honest and direct answer to the spirit of the question.