Posted on 03/22/2005 2:23:38 AM PST by tadowe
Edited on 03/22/2005 5:20:14 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Posters Comment #1
The "death knell" is for sites such as this "moderator's" who attempt to raise their popularity by attacking competitors for their success.
The internet is NOT subject to any governmental "enforcement" of the putative "freedom of speech". The various blogs and "news" sites are PRIVATELY owned and no "owner" can be forced to accept the unwelcome words or commentary of another. To lead that inference, as the article attempts to do, is hypocritical in the extreme! That is even more apparent, when I noticed the article because I had been banned from posting on that site (sierratimes) in disagreement with their inference that armed revolution is what you should do with unlimeited funds. . .
Of course, now I am banned again, since I "signed-up" to post on the site under the title "Abannedposter" to highlight their hypocrisy. And, naturally, I was banned again and *threatened* with retaliation if I continued. . .something about the (scary) "Spam Commission" and hints/threats of "federal" felony this-and-that.
I must laugh-out-loud because this site literally *hates* Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, but will NOT hesitate to use it as a threat against an individual who notices what a bunch of two-faced individuals they are, indeed.
Article:
Freerepublic.com has over the years filled a unique and valuable niche for conservatives. In the past, I was also a Freeper, but I ceased posting when Freerepublic.com founder Jim Robinson first began censoring and banning members for any criticism of George Bush. I knew then the handwriting was on the wall for Freerepublic.com; that the situation would only grow worse with time. . .
He had a comment. It was Comment #1. Apparently it was too hard for many to find.
NO! It's tadowe's fault people CAN'T READ!!!
Is that A+bert?
In rereading your link, I find some things I agree with. I may have misread something. I hope you stay and contribute.
Personally, I would have waited awhile (maybe 3 or 4 years [/sarcasm]) before posting something inflamatory about a site I was a new member of.
But thats just me.
Best.
Naw. Death knell for trolls. Hasta la vista, baby.
"Okay, so you were attacking folks on FR with your post."
You might notice that I have the absolute right to reply to those who attack me? Can you see the difference between replying (addressed directly in the "To:" section) and your *generality* about "attacking folks on FR"? Indeed, my "generality" in describing these idiots directly specifies the type I mean, and doesn't include those who reply with reasonable (even if incorrect) words and comments -- and even if ad hominem.
If you can't understand that, goodbye.
"You are making it a little difficult for people defending you here to like you."
Well, I'm not really interested in being 'liked'. I post to express my opinion, and that's what I do. I'll leave making-friends to you.
"When somebody "nit-picks" your use of indefinite articles as a means of trying to clear up misunderstandings and offer you friendly and constructive advice on how to prevent future misunderstanding, that really doesn't call for the type of responses you have directed to this and similar posters."
Making 'me' the subject is a 'tell' on the capacity of that correspondent to actually 'think'. Why should I subjugate my concern, on-point, to such a technique of intellectual avoidance in response? Why should I allow such off subject patronization to continue at my expense? Should I start explaining to you just exactly what you are 'doing' wrong/incorrectly and assume some intellectual superiority by having done so? Would you say, "Thanks, you're my friend for life and please help me to explain myself, in future"?
No, because you would know that I was a supercilious jerk for assuming that superiority in grammar/understanding.
"You asserted that you are not responsible for the "misunderstanding of the others in here who jump to stupid conclusions." While that is true, one of the qualities of a good writer is that he takes responsibility for preventing misunderstandings of the reader. In other words, a good writer makes a conscious effort to ensure that his words are clear and his intent is clearly communicated. A careful reading of your original post would indicate you were criticizing the other site's hypocrisy and not FR. However, your intent would have been clearer had you been a bit more specific in who you were talking about. As it was written, it is easy to see how readers misunderstood -- a result of their lazy reading and your lazy writing."
Let me get this straight -- you read from the start and understood what I was saying, but take some little effort to defend those who misunderstood by criticising the lack of 'good' writing? And, of course as I mentioned, patronizing me by making my writing skills the neo-subject of this thread. . .unreal. . .
"As for your contention that the people who jumped into this thread with their jpegs and comments are the real "trolls", most of these posters have well established their credentials as conservatives and they enjoy identifying and ridiculing the trolls who attempt to register on FR to post their idiotic and disruptive comments."
*They* the putative 'trolls' are the exact same kind that lurk in ST. Their 'roll' isn't earned by any previous, reasonable commentary -- it is assumed by them because they can't think, they can't write, and they haven't an original thought in their *collective* heads. Go fool someone else. . .'friend'.
"You got caught up in their enthusiasm when a few people misinterpreted your post. Learn from it and work on using your writing skills to communicate more clearly when you post, and you will probably make some good friends."
Their "enthusiasm" is that of a mob who only ever listen to their own riotous voices (or jpg's). Their idea of a reply is the (to you evidently) perfectly understandable word (one word) "ZOT". I dislike "gangs" even more than I dislike patronizing jerks and grammarians. . .
Got that, 'friend'?
Note to tadowe. Vanities are never a good thing.
"With an attitude such as yours it is no wonder you get banned."
Neither the FR or ST want to ban anyone, they do so for 'cause'. As I have said, they both have a perfectly legitimate right to ban anyone for any reason they choose. My OBSERVATION is that the FR bans in order to reduce the amount of asked-and-answered rhetoric which the Left (in general) uses to actually spam the site; an attempt to sabotage the site and make it not understandable, meaningless. In the case of ST, I KNOW they ban for mere convenience and to save 'face', and not to save their site's forum from being damaged by spam.
And, if you read the threads on ST (and which I provided links to, above, in another post) you will observe that they, also, complain about my 'attitude' and that that is the reason for the ban. Funny, isn't it? You're in the wrong forum! You should be over there at ST agreeing with them that they AREN'T hypocrites for banning posters while they revile FR for doing just exactly that! You can join their 'group' and make me the subject of conversation (so you can avoid that you are a hypocritical moron). After all, it is every bit of it all about me and my attitude, right?
"I happen to agree with your observation of hypocrisy. I believe others here have already addressed that. Why beat a dead horse? Oh, I get it. You are looking for sympathy. Well, look up sympathy in the dictionary. You will find it is listed between sh!t and syphilis. Get my drift?"
You may say that it is all about *me* as many times as you care to expend the effort to do, but really it is about their use of banning at the same time they defame others of banning. I am an example of that hypocrisy on their part, since I was banned from the site. How can I support my contention in opposition to their calumny, without mentioning that example? Yet, you (in a very leftist technique) spin that into my seeking "sympathy". You are a regular little propagandist, aren't you? Spin-spin-spin, and there I am -- a disreputable sympathy geek who makes himself into the subject of conversation and tricking people into ad hominem attacks (who cares what he originally wrote his opinion concerning). . .What a joke! What irony! What a dunce!
I wrote: "Attack you? Where did I do that?"
"Post 32 by tadowe: It will replace any need for you to actually use any of your own intellectual capacity -- just post the "picture" and your thoughts and mental abilities will become obvious to ANYONE who notices"
More unreality! It is a challenge, not an insult. However, if I see another jpg from you in this thread -- I will know that you are a victim of child psychology and actually pretty stupid. . .
"I was merely replying to a humorous post by Zacs Mom. If you will back up a few posts, you will find I never posted to you, I was replying to Zacs Mom. You stuck your nose in it and insulted me. Now you want to play the victim. Go play with yourself!"
Excuses!!! Poor you! You must be devastated and that's why you are continuing to make a fool out of yourself by making me the subject.
HEY! ANYONE? Can we get a little 'sympathy' for Allo's being insulted? He would appreciate some jpg's erasing his neo-bête noire, the more violently the better!
Hi,
"I went over and read the thread..at least a page or two..You were banned there and are unhappy..."
I was surprised, on my first ban there, at actually being banned from a site which is putatively conservative. However, I was actually quite pleased and not "unhappy" about that. I didn't spam their site, but only attempted to answer those who addressed me, directly.
Then, when the 'moderator' over there posted the article I referenced, above, I was OVERJOYED!!! The petty tyrants who banned me for their personal convenience were complaining about this site's banning of posters!!!
Can you see the difference between your characterisation of my 'unhappiness' and the actual emotion I might have experienced when I noticed their moronic effort to defame by highlighting "Banning" as something which would be a 'knell' for FR?
I don't want to post there, but took the opportunity to place them in the "Petty Tyrants & Hypocrites" hall of fame, here.
And, that is it. . .
Hi again,
"You are indignant at being misunderstood..but look at what your post says in the title and climb off your high horse."
Why would I be 'indignant'? Those who make me the subject ad hominem identify themselves as intellectually handicapped -- they reveal their inability to discuss the subject with their supercilious demands to 'go away/whatever'!
I'm not the 'subject'. . .why don't you try and avoid patronizing me?
Hi, Hi,
". . .but poster made two errors. One, not a clear post. Can't tell who's side he's on, who he's defending, who he's attacking, or even what point he making. Two. Hostile. Immediately everyone who disagreed with him is stupid, fake conservative, socialist, blah blah blah.....rant rave, yada yada. Brings people's fists up. IMHO."
What a joke! No one has "disagreed" with the subject of the thread! Instead, and like you, they attempt to patronize the 'messenger' and, in their misunderstanding, act out as a "gang" who high-five and congratulate each the other in what a fine jpg was included in the rant they post OFF SUBJECT.
And. . .your 'opinion' is very 'humble'. . .
There are certain sites that people are not supposed to post from. Could add sierratimes to the list?
Once again, the author makes the claim that people who criticize GWB are banned.
I criticize him quite often. I do not agree 100% of the time with him and I say so. I do think he is the best president available to us today.
I'm still here
Frankly, I'm amazed we're still getting people who don't get it....
"providing no comment" as 1 reason it was "unclear" - too bad that's wrong, too! Extensive post #1, as you said. Would help to actually read things.
It was not a clear post. My humble opinion was that we may have misfired. Many agree. Many disagree. Make the post more clear next time and you won't be flamed. Then put some ice on it.
Please read post #1..The poster is complaining about the hypocrisy of the Sierra Times...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.