| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 11/29/2009 7:55:10 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
You were told what trutherism was via freepmail, but you pretend you don’t know here. We don’t cotton to liars on FR. |
Posted on 11/29/2009 7:51:17 AM PST by Man50D
Earlier this morning I posted An article titled " Obama Orders 1 Million US Troops To “Prepare For Civil War". My comment was " Speculation or fact? You decide" The article itself had several links with information pertaining to the subject. Within twenty minutes the post had received over one thousand views and 33 posts running the gambit from outright denial to considering such an event possible. The premise of my comment was based on the possibility any or all of this article may or may not be true. I assumed that Freepers, being intelligent people with a vast array of sources, could confirm or refute any portion of the article and do so by citing sources to buttress their claims.
The Admin Moderator pulled the article with the contention it has links to trutherism, that trutherism is a conspiracy, that the subject was not open to debate.
I was perplexed by these remarks since I never had heard such a word and don't recall it listed in the dictionary. Accept my apologies up front if I am wrong. Regardless of this point, isn't FreeRepublic all about revealing the truth that would otherwise be buried by the socialist media? Consequently I responded "What is “trutherism”? Can you confirm none of this article is true?"
It also begs the question: How is it known any or all of the article is a conspiracy?" It may very well be a conspiracy or none of it is a conspiracy or the truth lies somewhere in between. I don't know myself and that prompted me to call upon the collective intelligence of my fellow Freepers for their input. It is from this point of view I also have the following questions and remarks:
What are your sources to confirm all of what is written is mere conspiracy and that none of it is true? You have enough intelligent people at FR to discern the accuracy or inaccuracy of the article for themselves. Freepers will shoot it down in a New York minute with sources if it is not true. That was the premise of my comment “fact or speculation?, you decide”. Removing the article reflects a presumption they lack the necessary intelligence and a lack of confidence amongst your fellow freepers."
Such a response also leaves me wondering since when did FreeRepublic deny debate to determine the legitimacy of an article or website? We do it all the time with socialist websites and articles. Why not do the same with this article? How does open and honest debate harm FreeRepublic? If the source of the website I posted a link to the article consists of a bunch of conspirators then why not let the combined vast knowledge of Freepers call them out with specific and detailed information? Making a simple statement without credible evidence is tantamount to slander.
I apologize in advance if I'm wrong but It seems to me given Freepers have exposed disingenuous stories many times in the past, they could do so again with the article I posted and that FreeRepublic have the same confidence in its members. I'll know I'm wrong if I am suspended or banned from Freerepublic for posting this vanity on the sincere confidence of my fellow Freepers.
IBTZ
Please tell me what to think about this item. I’m confused, bothered, betwixt and bewildered.
This will be pulled in 5... 4... 3...
Trutherisms refers to truthers, the scum who believe 9/11 was an inside job.
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.