What it takes to get banned from FR? (Vanity)

None | Today | CSM

[CSM]

Given the rumors and speculation regarding banning of individuals from FR, I took the suggestion of another poster to start a thread around the topic. I have gone back and reread the rules and the specific speculation of posting to one type of thread or posting one type of article only is not called out as against the rules.

So, outside of the rules, what constitutes being banned or suspended from posting on FR?

[Hacksaw]

All Roscoe ever does is post "cut and pastes" of court rulings justifying WOD excesses, especially with respect to Commerce Clause abuses by the feds. And he never gives his opinion about them - he just automatically contradicts in a "bot"-like manner anything that the anti-WOD side states.

Quite a contrast to the poster whose robotic reply to every statement is "provide evidence for your claim". Yet, when Roscoe does it, he gets crtiticized for it.

[robertpaulsen]

The times I remember Roscoe's "cut and paste" posts were in response to the "The drug laws are unconstitutional" claims. Since this seems to be the common mantra of the pro-legalization crowd, I don't blame him for not typing it in fresh every single time the statement is made.

If people want to state that it is their opinion that the drug laws are unconstitutional, fine. But to state it as fact is disingenuous, and I am grateful to Roscoe for pointing it out.

It saves me the effort.

[tacticalogic]

So presenting your own opinion as fact is bad, but presenting someone else's opinion as fact is good?

[robertpaulsen]

Sheesh.

Would you agree there's a big difference between, "tacticalogic is gay" and "In my opinion, tacticalogic is gay"?

That's what I'm referring to.

[tacticalogic]

I realize that. I also realize that absent any evidence, you're saying "tacticalogic is gay" carries no more weight than saying "in my opinion tacticalogic is gay".

WRT constitutional issues, Roscoe's was repeatedly asked to express his own opinion, and declined to do so. Instead he would cut and paste other people's opinions, a convenient dodge inasmuch as those people were not available to question as to the basis for those opinions.

[jmc813]

I have, however, objected to his violent anti homosexual posts, and his anti Catholicism.

I honestly think you are thinking of the wrong person. LeRoy was unapologetically pro-life, so I have a hard time believing he was anti-Catholic. And the hateful speech you describe was simply not his style. Please look back at some old posts and try to figure out who you are thinking of.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Bump to let MrLeroy back aboard! He was NOT a rules violator of any sort as far as I could ever see. I would LOVE to hear from YOU, AM, as to WHY he was either banned or suspended.

| View Replies |
No replies.

Figures.

[clamper1797]

I'm afraid that i have never seen MrLeroy using hateful speach on any thread ... and I talked with him a lot. Please give me a link to where he used that kinda speech as I have never seen it ... thanks

[robertpaulsen]

"I also realize that absent any evidence, you're saying "tacticalogic is gay" carries no more weight than saying "in my opinion tacticalogic is gay".

I disagree.

If a poster says, "tacticalogic is gay", that implies that the poster has evidence, something concrete, that makes him believe it. He is, after all, stating it as fact.

Now, some on this board may question it and ask for proof. But others will just accept it as fact and move on. That's where it becomes disingenuous.

[CSM]

So what is wrong if the proof of that claim is requested? Your post implies that you support Leroy's request to "provide evidence of your claim".

[tacticalogic]

Granted. And if someone makes a claim, and is asked to provide the evidence, then it is fair to judge that person's veracity on the quality of the evidence provided. As far as people who will accept such statements without question, all I can say is that from what I have read on the subject, a health skepticism is considered a cornerstone of conservativism, and if these people haven't learned to critically examine and question what they're being told, they need to.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If people want to state that it is their opinion that the drug laws are unconstitutional, fine. But to state it as fact is disingenuous, and I am grateful to Roscoe for pointing it out.

It saves me the effort.

Actually, I concur. Roscoe always made it clear that what he was offering was his opinion based on law, not on policy. He never debated policy, only law. And he was pretty damn good at it.

[robertpaulsen]

"So what is wrong if the proof of that claim is requested?"

Nothing.

But, as you point out, it was usually only MrLeRoy who requested it (and quite frankly most of the time he requested it simply to see if the poster was able to back up the claim, not because he needed the proof -- an annoyance, really).

Just about everyone on the pro-WOD side lets these "but it's unconstitutional" claims slip on by. Or they take the initiative and post the truth themselves.

[tacticalogic]

Or they take the initiative and post the truth themselves.

I have yet to see such "truth" that will withstand scrutiny based on an "enduring document" view of the Constitution.

[CSM]

"But, as you point out, it was usually only MrLeRoy who requested it (and quite frankly most of the time he requested it simply to see if the poster was able to back up the claim, not because he needed the proof -- an annoyance, really)."

Yep, and at least one other person wanted to see that proof of the claims (me, in most cases anyway). Now that he has been banned those requests are not going to stop. Is the main benefit of the ban the fact that those making the claims will no longer be annoyed by having to prove their claims?

[robertpaulsen]

Well, I guess he's handed off the "provide evidence for your claim" torch to you. Seems to me as though you're interested in arriving at the truth of the matter.

Unlike MrLeRoy, I assume that from a purely educational standpoint you're equally interested in the source of the claims made by both sides of the drug argument?

[Gianni]

Is Roscoe gone?

I gained a whole new respect for him on the Arnold threads.

[CWOJackson]

Kind of what I expected in one way, basically just the usual suspects responding. I do feel kind of let down in another way...I don't see any posts by "the coach", "goddess" or "groob".

Why the big push to reinstate him? He's already been back at least three times.

[jmc813]

Is Roscoe gone?

I haven't seen him in a while.

I gained a whole new respect for him on the Arnold threads.

You're not the only one. He's definitely one of the "good guys". Here's hoping he returns.

[LadyDoc]

nope, I know this leroy...

he got so hateful in one post that I quoted the bible from Peter saying that you should explain plainly and clearly what you believe, and he didn't even recognize the quote.

Most people only read certain posts...I'm sure some of his posts are good, or else he has changed in the past 12 months, but his language has been outside the bounds of polite discussion in the past...