Death Knell for FreeRepublic?(Banned Sierratimes Forum Poster Comments)

Sagebrush Saloon, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Sierra Times (www.sierratimes.com) ^ | 26 Feb. 2005 | Henrietta Bowman

[tadowe]

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. . .

[William of Orange]

which one of these sites is dying?

[lillybet]

However loudly we may assert our own unworthiness Few of us are realy offended by hearing the assertions contradicted, by a Disinterested party.

[kb2614]

[Mad Mammoth]

If you're so unhappy laddy, do everyone a favor and just *GTFO*, got it?

Adios Zot-bait.

[tadowe]

Hi Liz: However loudly we may assert our own unworthiness Few of us are realy offended by hearing the assertions contradicted, by a Disinterested party. I'm not sure I understand the thrust of your point, but I agree that contradiction is not an insult, per se, and shouldn't really offend anyone. When someone publishes their opinion, they should have some reasonable support for it. If they are contradicted, it shouldn't be difficult to justify your original opinion by using the "support" you had to form it. In this case, I think the ST moderator realizes their "mistake" in criticism of banning, when they have done and do, themself. Instead of supporting their argument(s), they attempt to kill-the-messenger who notices and reports on their hypocrisy and encourages ad hominem attacks on the "target" (none of the "gang members" were banned or corrected for their "abuse"). Then, holds that individual up to public ridicule by starting a thread about them, personally and by name. . . See, here: http://www.sierratimes.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=14&topic=689 Amazing, huh? Not only do they ban, but they libel, too!!!

[tadowe]

Sorry Liz, the url got away from me! A message to Tadowe

[beyond the sea]

Ok this is like the millionth time someone has declared FR dead or dying..

Here's hoping Michael Schiavo isn't the one to save "dying" FR.

;-)

[csvset]

Oh no, a "seminar" poster. I'm surprised (s)he didn't start out with, "I'm a life long Republican...."

[tadowe]

"If you're so unhappy laddy, do everyone a favor and just *GTFO*, got it?"

Funny! You're the one expending the effort to express just what an "unhappy laddy" you happen to be. Why don't you just not read this thread, yourself?

Why don't you go to sierratimes and post about how much you agree with their hypocrisy and what a dufus I am? They will literally LOVE you there! There's the ticket! Go!

[SquirrelKing]

ZOT!

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Mind if I "borrow" your cluepon? I can think of 30 or 40 individuals that are in dire need. LOL

[tadowe]

Of course you can use the jpg! 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. . . Enjoy: CAUTION

[Allosaurs_r_us]

WTF? Apparently you have lost your sense of humor over at ST also. Have I given you some reason to attack me?

 

With an attitude like this I have no doubt you are indeed on the wrong site, so here's a little of my own "intellectual property" as you put it. Enjoy!

[PilloryHillary]

[Mad Mammoth]

"If you're so unhappy laddy, do everyone a favor and just *GTFO*, got it?"
Funny! You're the one expending the effort to express just what an "unhappy laddy" you happen to be. Why don't you just not read this thread, yourself?

So let's review, first you start this vanity thread of yours where you're bitching and whining about how 'unfair' Jim Robinson is, you OBVIOUSLY want people to read it (why else would you post it, ya moron?), and then when you get pounded for your puerile sputtering, you say 'why don't you just not read this thread?'

LMAO! I'll go you one more, why don't you just refrain from POSTING such drivel?!?

And I'm quite happy, thank you very much!

Why don't you go to sierratimes and post about how much you agree with their hypocrisy and what a dufus I am? They will literally LOVE you there! There's the ticket! Go!

Hey tadpole, I like it right here at FR, I don't NEED to go to 'sierratimes', and you've already proven that you're a freakin dufus, so in effect, 'my work is done'.

I reiterate: you don't like it here, wave buh-bye, quit wasting bandwidth, and SCRAM!

(WHERE do these chowderheads COME from?!?!)

[Conspiracy Guy]

Looks like Ms Bowman has a serious knot in her panties.

[tadowe]

"WTF? Apparently you have lost your sense of humor over at ST also. Have I given you some reason to attack me?"

Attack you? Where did I do that? Are you avoiding the point: that replying to reasoned concerns with a snide "jpg" is bereft of any intellectual capacity?

"With an attitude like this I have no doubt you are indeed on the wrong site, so here's a little of my own "intellectual property" as you put it. Enjoy!"

You just made an example of yourself, over my contention -- where is your own "sense of humor"? BTW, I never mentioned "intellectual property". . .you are obviously a champion at replying with snide innuendo and I salute your imgaination; if that is your "tombstone threat". . .

Thanks, it was very humorous; even if it does demonstrate an inability to reason on-point. BTW, what do you think of an internet site which criticizes "banning" when they "ban" posters, themselves. . .? Nothing to say? Never mind, just post another humorous jpg -- that will show me!

[tadowe]

". . .first you start this vanity thread of yours where you're bitching and whining about how 'unfair' Jim Robinson is, you OBVIOUSLY want people to read it (why else would you post it, ya moron?), and then when you get pounded for your puerile sputtering, you say 'why don't you just not read this thread?'"

A miss! I am criticising Sierratimes (ST) and the Sagebrush Saloon (SS -- and how appropriate is that?) for their hypocrisy in reviling the Free Republic (FR) for banning posters. As I mentioned, that is their right -- for both FR and ST/SS. However, I can NOTICE! I can provide the example of ME (having been banned from ST/SS) as someone banned by them! It isn't "whining", per se, but rather it is commenting on the reality. I'm actually quite pleased that they (ST/SS) AGAIN demonstrate their hypocrisy with me as their target -- I don't mind the ban at all. . .

"LMAO! I'll go you one more, why don't you just refrain from POSTING such drivel?!?"

Why don't you avoid "drivel" and not become excited when someone makes a comment (you obviously misunderstood!)?

(The rest of your own "drivel" deleted because you made a mistake. . .)

[Zacs Mom]

lol ~ use as needed!

[fnord]

wow, you sure attracted a lot on non-readers this morning :-)

btw, while I understood the difference between the article (not vanity) that you posted and your comments that followed, you now can see the problem that indefinite articles (they, this, he, etc ...) can pose for many less attentive readers. carry on ...