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. . .
Hi,
You write: "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 agree with you, but the Sierratimes (ST) is a *conservative* website -- or at least that is their camoflage, if they aren't. That is why I posted my contradiction and commentary about their hypocritical accusations against the FR for banning some correspondents.
I know that the FR only bans those who are repeating (ad nauseam) the same tired, old propaganda op-eds about immigration, because I have read this site for more than six years now.
Even if the FR was intent on managing the site (this site) with an editorial policy to avoid certain subjects . . .
THAT IS THEIR RIGHT!!!
Just as it was the right of the ST to ban my disagreement with their attempt to belittle the FR by them. In regard to that, though, I think they (ST) banned me for highlighting their hypocrisy and with myself as an example of that, and not because I was too "abusive" or "spamming" their site.
They couldn't STAND to have a conservative on their tyrannical little "case". . .
However, they picked the wrong "troll", even if I do say so myself. . .
I find it hard to take him seriously.
Funny all these people posting about "clueless" and lambasting "tadowe", when it is they who are clueless, frankly.
CLEARLY tadowe was posting a quote from SierraTimes, specifically its "owner", in the article portion of his post.
Then, clearly, tadowe "him"self was commenting on that quote in the comment section of "post 1".
Bottom Line: TADOWE IS PRO-FR AND IS NOT A FAN OF SIERRATIMES.
Get a clue, people!
I explained in 45 that the way you wrote this thread makes it appear you were condemning FR.
And from the replies you got on this thread from people other than me, it shows I was not the only one who took your post that way.
I was only clarifying in 45 that I think you meant to post another website was criticizing fr and you were just putting that info here, and maybe you should make that known next time.
I think people are largely skimming the surface and jumping to their own conclusions.
Look at the 1st sentence of tadowe's (CLEARLY so) reply to (CLEARLY) SierraTime's article:
"The "death knell" is for sites such as this "moderator's" who attempt to raise their popularity by attacking competitors for their success."
Clearly there is reference to a moderator who is indicated by or in the article posted - from Sierra Times.
That's right, we should be zotting Henrietta, unfortunately, I think she is unzottable. However, we can let her know she is just full of sour grapes, if she ever reads this thread. So here is to Henrietta...
I think Henrietta was banned; hence her complaints! So, I don't think we'll be seeing much of her....
Not yet but just wait.
Your effort was to nit-pick my use of "indefinite" articles and to blame me for the (mis)understanding of others. You didn't misunderstand what I was trying to say, but you were tacitly supporting the effort of the actual "trolls" who post, ad hominem; in support of their personal attacks.
Are you "insulted" by my comments? That is too bad, but consider the reality that I am not anymore responsible for your "feelings" than I am for the misunderstanding of the others in here who jump to stupid conclusions (not that yours were, btw).
What discourages me is that this site has as many people claiming to be "conservatives" as apparently ST has on theirs, but who are nothing more than stupid, petty tyrants who *jump* at the chance to insult and revile someone else's opinion, ad hominem. They aren't "conservatives" -- they are closet-socialists who join together collectively to attack for their "team" and not for any abstract, or real, conservatism.
If FR banned for spam, as the ST used as an excuse in my case, there wouldn't be the problem with such "misunderstanding". You might notice that several reasonable posters didn't heuristically/reflexively respond without justification? The others are the type of "conservative" that posts on ST -- petty dictators and unreasonable (i hesitate to say) human beings; sans intelligence.
How's that?
The same losers in life have been saying that the Republican Party is dying and has lost it all for the past 4 plus years.
While they are posting/showing their terminal stupidity, the Republican Party is stronger than it has been in close to a century.
These same losers in life spew their vomit about the end of Free Republic the past 4 years.
Free Republic is stronger and more effective now than it was in 2000.
The reality is simple. The losers in life can't stand to be with a winning team or group. They have never advanced in life since they were terrible two year olds.
End the Tyrany sic is that you???
Exactly, if you don't like Jim's rules, feel free to start your own!
EtT was a troll banned yesterday.
I, (fill in the blank) was a Freeper and or lurker (for many, many years before I finally signed up), but I ceased posting when Freerepublic.com founder Jim Robinson first began censoring and banning members for (fill in the blank).
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.