¿¿¿¿¿¿
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. . .
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.
Are you quoting from the link?
Ok this is like the millionth time someone has declared FR dead or dying... given that the site stats show steadily increasing popularity, it's really hard to take this seriously.
This is no more credible than any of the folks who declare that the end of the world is nigh... somehow the world keeps moving on.
I think they just cut and paste from one site to another. I know i've seen that Teddy Rosevelt quote thrown at Jim Rob at least half a dozen times by this crowd.
uh,Ping.
What nonsense! Jim Robinson has been more than fair. There are many of us who have been critical of Bush at various times, and Jim has not banned us.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Jim's site, Jim's rules.
Trolls and real frothing-at-the-keyboard types can expect to get zotted.
I have seen a fair amount of relatively civil discourse, and some less so, but that keeps things interesting.
Most of them (on the site with the article) sound as disaffected as liberals...sour grapes make bitter w(h)ine.
¿¿¿¿¿¿
LOL. Nothing beats making things up out of thin air, I guess.
I know Henrietta.
I liked her.
"in disagreement with their inference that armed revolution is what you should do with unlimeited funds. . ."
Huh?
Hi,
I posted the comments to indicate that the sierratimes was being totally hypocritical in their criticism of FR, in banning unwanted posters, while at the same time using that "right" themselve's.
I was banned from responding on sierratimes due to my comments on this thread:
http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=393&start=0
The "moderator" opined that they would forma and arm a militia/group to revolt against the "tryranny" of today's federal government in removing our "rights".
I didn't much care to be banned for merely replying to those who attacked ad hominem; although I certainly acknowledge that it is their right, as owners, to do so.
When I noticed their *obvious* attack on the FR, I signed on under another nick' and made further comments about the idiocy of complaining about activity they were conducting themselve's. That's all, but once again was banned for noticing their two-faced comments and, of course, replying to those who addressed me, directly.
I like the "jackass" jpg's, though, and thank the kind poster who used the asse's nose, instead of the fundamental, and diametrically opposite piece of equine anatomy!
BTW, for any that are still confused -- I like the FR and dislike the sierratimes. . .and. . .
I used to like J.J. Johnson, but his employees aren't too swift, and are tarnishing his site's image. . .
No, seriously. Die.
Oh, okay.
You can live.
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.
