'Flame war' or Constitutional debate?

vanity ^ | 3/20/02 | tpaine

[tpaine]

On the afternnoon of 3/18 Texaggie79 and I got into a type of discussion that is becoming all too common at FR.
In an effort to defend his position as a drug warrior, tex decided to attack the motives of his percieved enemies, 'the libertarians'. --- Here is that thread:

Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law Changes
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648477/posts?q=1&&page=201

Posts #205/206 are one of our more typical exchanges. -- Shortly after our disagreement ended, -- on that thread.

Later that same evening, I had just responded to a concealed carry question at #15, - on this thread:

Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648911/posts

---- When my correspondent asked if I was still 'harrassing' texaggie. --- I denied any such intent, -- and Tex immediately posted the URL of the cannibus tread as his 'proof' of being harrassed.

Thus, Tex set off another 'flame war' between us on the same subject as the previous post.

Eventually, others on the thread protested his hijack of the thread. -- In response, I tried to show that texaggies constitutional position was not only against drugs, but could also be applied against guns.

-- Just as this point was about to be established, -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' .
'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid-discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control.

No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation.
I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange.

And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods.

I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer.
-- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions..

[Texaggie79]

Who shall the moderator be?

[Bob J]

The Debate Manager for RFR is Doughtyone.

[Texaggie79]

will we be attached to electrodes so you can shock us when we are naughty?

[Bob J]

Pardon me, the segment producer for FR debates is D1. I think he would be a great choice. He's even, fair and unflappable.

[Bob J]

I haven't informed him yet, but I'm sure he will be excited about it!

[phasma proeliator]

"I have yet to see it used well in my experience people either are teetotalers, social drunks, or permanent alchohlics."

I'm sorry to hear that - you must not have very much experience and/or a sheltered life. (no offense).

[Texaggie79]

I forgot to tell you. I emailed Walter Williams some fanmail after he did one of his fill-ins for Rush and I included a question askin him if he would do an FR interview. His secretary said to inquire in the Summer and he might be able to do an interview.

[phasma proeliator]

Debate on RFR?

Excellent!

[Kevin Curry]

Yeah. Everybody knows that making addictive drugs freely and easily available causes drug use and addiction to disappear.

I still want to know why the pro-dope libertarians want to push this country deeper into the pit of nanny government socialism. They can harldy wait to get there. They're wetting their pants in anticipation.

Should I send you a fresh supply of adult-size Depends™?

[Bob J]

Excellent! I'll pass that on the RFR staff!

[phasma proeliator]

"I'll ask John to start a new topic called "Whine and Cheese" just for you. Thanks, Jim"

LMAO!

[phasma proeliator]

"adult size Depends^tm"

Stop it! I'm gonna need them when I wet my pants from laughing so hard.

You're right by the way.

[KC Burke]

There seems to be no acknowledgment by either of you in your exchanges that the vast difference of opinion should not be personal. By that I am not belittling the slights and bombs, but instead trying to point out that this issue has always been central to the concepts of J. S. Mill and those that oppose him. Mill concluded his famous On Liberty wherein he outlines his politcal concepts of application of a specific form of the Non-Aggression Single Principle, with a practical example chapter very much related to Drug sales. It was his chief method of explaining his percieved practicality and suitibility of his concept.

Critics subsiquently focused there as well.

Adherents to either side of issues like government in drug regulation have tended to conform and lean toward the politcal philosopies that most closely justify their opinions. (not there conduct, as that is not the issue)

Mush of the opinion on this issue seperate from you both, centers around the Federal role, especaily as it relates to other Bill of Rights issues that get trampled and that gets short shift in looking at it from the Order vs. Liberty debate alone.

Niether of you are taking postitions anyless polarized on this than have been taken for 150 years and ascribing motives keeps the bulk of us from seeing the worthy points each of you present.

---

I have seen others with a similar frustration to tpaine's regarding the questions of on-thread conduct, so I know they are sincere. In the type of debate you two like and are aclimated to, the restrictions would seem to need concrete "parlimentary" words that can't be uttered. I get the impression that site management (and here I fall in with them) feel that they will "know it when they see it" and just like to keep the heat down. All I can suggest is what seems to work for some others and to respond to the worded arguement of the other and not the poster.

Good luck to you both.

[w_over_w]

"Who shall the moderator be?"

If he can work it out contractually, how about Hugh Hewitt? The radio talk show host is a former Constitutional Lawyer/Scholar.

[Texaggie79]

I saw some pretty nasty comments on him when he hosted the Rush show. Seems that many FReepers in his listening area are not pleased with him.

[DoughtyOne]

Can I? I'm in! LOL

[Bob J]

Good idea, but let's get the bugs worked first!

[tpaine]

I thought it was a sorta cheesy answer to my question, meself. -- But then, I never argue with a big wheel of cheddar.

[w_over_w]

Perhaps (what radio host pleases everyone) . . . but he moderates ConLaw debates on his program between Churminski and Eastman. They rock! He also moderates public forum debates around the state. Very fair and impartial but will flame you if you misrep the facts or law. And THAT my Texas friend would be needed between you and Mr. tpaign.

[Bob J]

This is the only problem. Until we expand the equipment at the studio, each team will have to broadcast from the same location unless they conference call with each other prior to calling in to the studio. You will have to moderate via the chat board link, AG can introduce each new segment, and then you can conduct the call in segment and discuss what happened with the listeners.