Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Jean Chauvin; xzins; Corin Stormhands; P-Marlowe; Religion Mod
It seems to be the M.O. of the "neeners" to attempt to silence the Calvinists.

lay off the pulp novels -

Im frankly tired of these accusations -

anyone banned has rightly deserved it IMO - cept maybe wrigsd

401 posted on 09/06/2004 3:57:28 PM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies ]


To: Revelation 911

Anyone banned managed it on their own without an assist.

I think that "trolling" should be added to that list about personal attacks, racism, violence that they put at the bottom of the post window. They ban folks for trolling on all forums.

The RF is no exception. Trolling behavior can be immediately recognizable or it can be something that becomes obvious over time. Essentially, it is defined rather loosely as "attempting to stir up trouble."

While I've agreed with the bannings, I've worked to get one of them overturned to no avail....I was just flat turned down. It strikes me that the mods had their own reasons and they were firm about them.


403 posted on 09/06/2004 4:03:24 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Supporting Bush/Cheney 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

To: Revelation 911; HarleyD; drstevej; RnMomof7; Wrigley; CCWoody; snerkel; Frumanchu; nobdysfool; ...
”Im frankly tired of these accusations -

anyone banned has rightly deserved it IMO - cept maybe wrigsd”

No, I think the accusations have some merit.

In reality, it does not go at all to the issue of “power” or “authority”. No one is suggesting that you actually have the “power” or “authority” to ban someone.

It goes to your intent in hitting the abuse button.

I think the most telling evidence of this is your complaint to the moderator that thePilgrim used personal information in a Freepmail, when you yourself are guilty of using posting private information from private emails to FR.

Let’s use an analogy.

Let’s say you are neighbors with someone who is a tolerable nuisance.

For whatever reason, you are really annoyed with this neighbor.

He’s guilty, lets say, of being a bit too noisy. He plays his stereo too loud. His dog barks and keeps you up. He is a nuisance, but he is tolerable. None of these “crimes” are of great importance, but they are against city ordinance, nonetheless.

Now, there are a couple of ways you can handle the situation.

You can simply live with it. Make the best of if and realize that he could be a worse neighbor. He could be an Ohio State fan, perhaps. You can hope that perhaps the authorities will eventually clamp down on him, but you simply let him be.

-OR-

You can ~ensure~ that the authorities take notice in the hopes that ~eventually~ the law will handle what you failed to do on your own. Get your neighbor to stop.

In the latter example, you still can make the claim that “I don’t have the power or ability to get anyone arrested” or “they deserved to be arrested because they committed the crimes”.

But in reality, you do bear some responsibility in getting the authorities to take notice. Now, you might hide under the auspices of “I don’t have the power or authority” or “he deserved to be arrested because he committed the crimes” because it might make you look a little petty by calling the cops every time your neighbor did something you didn’t like.

In the case of the latter alternative, what would make matters worse is if you were actually guilty of the same problems. Perhaps you didn’t really break any city code, You see, your neighbor works third-shift and sleeps during the day. While you don’t actually break any city codes, you still do just enough –mowing your lawn, building that storage shed in your back yard, having friends over to play volleyball on Saturday in your yard which is right next to his bedroom window…- to annoy your neighbor.

Applying that analogy to the current events here on FR and your admitted hitting of the abuse button. I find it completely disingenuous that you ping the moderator because thePilgrim revealed personal information from a Freepmail on the forum when you yourself are guilty of revealing personal information from private-nonFR-email on the very same forum.

Oh, you are quite correct keeping in mind that while it is against the rules to post private information from Frmail to the forum, it is not against stated FR rules to post private information from non-Frmail-email on a FR forum.

You have not done the former, but you certainly are guilty of the latter.

While you have a “technical” complaint, Matthew 7:3-5 certainly does apply to this situation.

Now, in the light of the fact that you-yourself have posted private email information to the forum, the only rationale I can possibly see behind your complaint to the mod regarding the same actions of thePilgrim is that your intent is to get thePilgrim removed from the forum.

Jean

412 posted on 09/06/2004 10:02:35 PM PDT by Jean Chauvin (If you can't take the heat....well, you know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


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