I think I need my cluepon back.
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. . .
Hey, you started this thread.
In conclusion?
What #34 said.
Now bugger off.
Reading your comment history on fr shows you have contributed to your own view of FR.
How ironic.
"I think I will post like a troll, spew vitriol and then attack the owner for banning me".
Sweet.
What would we have done during the starvation attempt of Terri Schiavo if it weren't for FreeRepublic.com. I am grateful to Jim Robinson for his solid support for conservative activists. We have no other place to go. Go, FreeRepublic.com and go, Jim Robinson!!!! Lord bless you.
Start your own website! Hey, That's an idea! What's that, it's easier to piss and moan about someone else? Imagine that! Let us know when you have your site up.
You might want to clarify your post.
It appears you signed up recently to post a thread on FR about how YOU were banned, etc.
It looks like your trying to bash FR in your post. Might check it, thats why many are viewing you as a troll right now.
"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 ..."
Indeed! It is a definite problem in brief commentary; specially with those ever ready to take offense on behalf of their "blog/home". Most of the comments I see in this thread are defenses of FR, and from those who mistakenly think I was attacking this site (FR).
Funny, but I think it was the initial, senseless posts of jpg's (pictures) in place of any reasoned commentary about what they thought I intended to mean by my post! Someone should tell these "guys" that they make themselves into idiots by doing so and are far worse than "indefinite articles". . .
Thanks for your reasoned comment.
It's not dead, Jim...
I love it when trolls get axed. Trolls who disguise themselves as conservatives, enter discussions under false pretenses then out themselves are the real danger around here. Once people get suckered into fake conversations a few times, they are likely to give up on posting.
"I love it when trolls get axed. Trolls who disguise themselves as conservatives, enter discussions under false pretenses then out themselves are the real danger around here. Once people get suckered into fake conversations a few times, they are likely to give up on posting."
So, then I guess you think it is okay for Sierratimes (ST) to ban posters and then turn-around and defame another internet site (the FR) for doing the same? Or, do you mean the "trolls" who reside on this forum and defame anyone who bores them by forcing them to read and reply to someone else's; posting inane and stupid jpg's and one-liners without content?
Just wondering. . .
That's definitely not true because I have posted articles that support the guest worker program and as long as the articles make sense and are not liberal vomit they are not pulled. Liberals start to hemorrhage from every orifice when they begin to realize that their assault on the moral majority is failing. It is hilarious to see a liberal masquerading in ostrich like conservatism.
I don't know or care about ST.
read 45
"read 45"
I'm not sure I understand, since I didn't criticise FR and haven't ever made such a critical post against them -- anywhere.
You mentioned, or I understood you to mean from your post, some previous commentary I had posted about FR. Besides, what would it matter if I had just now signed on to flame Sierratimes for hypocritically accusing FR of doing exactly what they, themself, do? Is that somehow illegal? Immoral? Fattening?
No, not at all, but you deride that for some reason. . .
Are you a fan of the Sierratimes, by any chance? That would explain your angst, certainly.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the bedroom.
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.