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]

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. . .

[b4its2late]

Hey Henrietta. I know you can read this....You're sounding just like a rat....

[tadowe]

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the bedroom." What an appropriate nick' you have!!! I'm still here, bunky. Why don't you complain to the moderator of FR? Threaten to call the "Spam Commission" like the ST did to me. . .they are turning me in to the "federal" authorities; if you believe them. Imagine, they will be benefitting from the Patriot Act, if I am thrown into the pokey for "spamming" their internet site. . . Read their comments at these threads on ST: A very hypothetical question The original ban. Death knell for Freerepublic.com Where the thread, there, starts. The FreeRepublic Purge Continues. Second ban and. . . A message to Tadowe Where they libel me in retaliation for describing their hypocrisy too well. . . I've never seen the FR, or any other site, hold a correspondent up to "official" public ridicule for making embarrassing comments to them! I'm actually amazed that this site (FR) has so many flaming socialists amongst them -- ever ready to revile and defame anyone who might actually support the FR by criticising their (FR) critics! Why don't you all get together and form a "collective", then you can post one senseless jpg between you -- save yourself some time and "intellectual" effort? How about that?

[Allosaurs_r_us]

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

 

It should be pointed out Tadowe was actually defending FR, kinda. He is pointing out ST and their hypocrisy banning members who don't agree with them.. Unfortunately he didn't do in such a way as to make others understand that is what he was doing.

 

Tadowe:  "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. . ."

 

A little too "self appointed important" wouldn't you say? However you have to agree he has a point.

[finnman69]

[Judith Anne]

I find it hard to take him seriously.

[the OlLine Rebel]

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!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

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.

[the OlLine Rebel]

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.

[SolidRedState]

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.

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...

[the OlLine Rebel]

I think Henrietta was banned; hence her complaints! So, I don't think we'll be seeing much of her....

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not yet but just wait.

[tadowe]

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?

[Grampa Dave]

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.

[xone]

End the Tyrany sic is that you???

[tadowe]

Sic Semper Tyrannis. What "true" conservative doesn't hold this abstraction as their goal?

[Dashing Dasher]

Exactly, if you don't like Jim's rules, feel free to start your own!

[Mad Mammoth]

A little too "self appointed important" wouldn't you say? However you have to agree he has a point.

Yeah, I suppose, maybe so. What the tadpole is guilty of (if anything) is thinking that they're so damned important that anyone at FR, ST, or any other forum really gives a damn about what they think of the forum(s) themselves.

Take me for example, I came to FR after running afoul of Schoolmarm Amy Sheehan (as I like to call her) over at L.Com, and I said 'AMF' and here I am at FR. But does that mean I was irreplacable at L.Com?

Hell no, and I'm not irreplacable here at FR either. The truth is, the most important content on FR (or any conservative site) is the news that gets highlighted that the LSM ignores, and the conservative perspective that posters provide for those news items. If I disappeared tomorrow, FR would go on without skipping a beat. Ditto for the tadpole, ditto for you.

The only truly irreplacable person is the founder/operator of FR (or other sites), because without them, the future of the site is in question under even the best circumstances.

But getting back to tadpole boy 'kinda' defending FR, FR doesn't need no stinnnnkin' defending, it stands on it's own, and nobody gives a rats ass what Sierra Times, or any other site thinks. For God's sakes, FR has Tony Snow himself (although Tony is more of a lurker than an active poster), but what does that say about FR?

It says the FR is considered more than just a vanity blog or forum, it is viewed as one might view a porthole on a ship: if you REALLY want to see what's going on, you open the porthole and poke your head through it.

Sometimes you get a crystal clear view of the horizon, sometimes you get a cold splash of water in your face.

And that's the way it should be.

Note to tadpole (sorry, that is now my nick for ya): if you were actually defending FR, my apologies for stomping on you. But truth be told, FR needs no defending, we just need to keep on doing what we do, day-in, day-out.

My .02 - 'your mileage may vary'.

[xone]

EtT was a troll banned yesterday.

[Howlin]

Can't we just have a FORM for this crap?

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).