[ken5050]

I give up, I really do..my original comments were mild, neutral, and in no way offensive. I suggested that the religious doctrine comments, both pro-and anti Mormon, that seem to end up permeating nearly all of the GOP nominee political discussion threads were getting tiresome, if not out of control. Looking at the majoirty of the comments, they seem to make my point for me.

So, it will continue to get worse..and it debases FR..as was said, that's why mainstream conservatives ignore FR..and then there will be a needed correction by those in charge.

[Elsie]

...if not out of control.

Control is GOOD!

(Don't you wish that YOU had it!)

[Elsie]

...my original comments were mild, neutral, and in no way offensive.

That was LONG ago and far away...

[Colofornian]

I give up, I really do..my original comments were mild, neutral, and in no way offensive. I suggested that the religious doctrine comments, both pro-and anti Mormon, that seem to end up permeating nearly all of the GOP nominee political discussion threads were getting tiresome, if not out of control.

Well, let's break this down.

Q #1

Tell us, Ken, if you go up to complete strangers and tell them they are "annoying" to you...
...[your vanity stated, "I'm starting to notice more and more an annoying trend here in FR."]...
...could that easily be interpreted as...
(a) mild feedback?
(b) neutral feedback?
(c) in no way offensive feedback?
(d) (None of the above)

I say "D" none of the above. If we were family...then, yes, what you said could easily be "mild." But it's culturally uncouth, Ken, to just go up to complete strangers and call them "annoying." (Or didn't your momma teach you that?)

So for you to revisit this vanity so much later, and try to redefine your original statement as being something other than what it was, well...that's not very popular among people who don't appreciate historical revisionism.

Q#2: Is this original claim of yours true: That "It seems as though EVERYTIME there's an article, or someone posts a comment about Romney, either pro or con, it nearly always devolves into an extended, and acrimonious discussion about the Mormon faith. Those who defend it..."???

First of all you are guilty, Ken, of a strawman...saying "EVERYTIME there's an article"...I looked up FR articles with "Romney" in the title...and that wasn't true of most of them over just a few pages of May articles on Romney. You are guilty of exaggeration, Ken. And those who agree with you are fellow straw men. Strawmen argumenters are seen as "empty" because they tend to be too lazy to back up their contentions with facts or true nuances. They see something happening several times and they project that into everything. "Every" becomes an "all or nothing" to them & so they exaggerate.

You also said "Those who defend it, and those who, for whatever reasons, can't abide it, both sides seem determined to wage an "end of times" battle on all the FR threads."

Ken, if you were describing many of the FR battles during 2007-2008, I'd say you were closer to the mark here. But you're not. You say this is happening now. The problem with your comment is that most of the Mormon FReepers have either been zotted for malicious against-the-rules behavior or they've realized Mormonism is not defensible here, and have seized trying (for the most part). Oh sure, there's a few exceptions. But it's not the pitched online discussions of years past.

These have been trifle of late in comparison to before. And if FR weathered it before despite a few whiners about it; hey FR can handle it now since the Romneybots of 2007-2008 have gone under cover and the FReeper Mormons have been held accountable.

[greyfoxx39]

Don't you think you should address this comment to Jim Robinson? It's his website, even though some of you seem to think you are calling the shots.

So, it will continue to get worse..and it debases FR..as was said, that's why mainstream conservatives ignore FR..and then there will be a needed correction by those in charge.

Why don't you ask JR about how many "mainstream conservatives ignore FR"? He has stats...you pull these comments out of your butt to suit your agenda.

Jim can't have made plainer the status of Romney and his MittBots on FR.

[DelphiUser]

Ken, understand that this "I give up" result is the goal of the scorched earth anti's here. They will say anything to make the controversy distasteful, uncomfortable, and downright unpleasant. They will continue to post just so they can stand atop the mushy remains of an over beaten horse and declare a Pyhrric victory.

The problem with "Pyrrhic victories" is King Pyrrhus lost because of his "Pyrrhic victories".

The anti-Mormons here believe that the cause of anti-Mormonism is more important than the cause of conservatism and don't mind making the site less popular than it would otherwise be.

IMHO, from a business stand point JR should send them all packing.

Delph

[Jim Robinson]

If you can’t handle it, just log off.