Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About the Moderators' recent efforts on the Illegal Alien threads: keep an open mind
January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

Posted on 01/07/2004 7:22:57 AM PST by Sabertooth

Edited on 01/07/2004 10:46:05 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]

You may have observed the recent effort in the forum by the Lead Moderator to scrutinize and regulate the Illegal Alien threads, which started over here.

I’ve mixed it up a lot on these threads in the two-plus year I’ve been at FR, as I have some strong feelings about the subject of Illegal Aliens. While I like to think I’ve generally kept my cool, there have certainly been occasions when I haven’t.

That said, there have been plenty of occasions where I’ve attempted to engage sincere posters who did not share my opinions, only to have them jumped on by angry posters who did. In the past I’ve made posts on threads and requests by Freepmail requesting that the more aggressive posters cool their jets… to mixed results.

I’ve also seen posts suggesting that the borders be mined, which I think is stupid, hyperbolic spleen, or posts referring to the President as “Jorge Arbusto,” which stopped being funny years ago, and is now just antagonistic. It doesn’t matter that Vicente Fox once called him that in a friendly fashion, no one on the fence regarding Illegals is going to be persuaded by ad hominem rhetoric.

On the other hand, I’ve also observed a shifting coalition of posters who are less than sincere on the other side of the debate; who are prone to using Democrat talking points to smear posters who are concerned about Illegals as anti-immigrant and closet racists. When reading their posts, one half-wonders if they aren’t moles for the L.A. Times.

Their perceptions of “bigots, bigots everywhere” and posts in that vein have also been toxic to the Illegal Alien threads, and such was often the purpose of their baiting. Success was measured in flame wars, bannings, suspensions, and getting threads nuked or moved to the backroom.

It’s been my contention, and I’ve made the point to the Moderators on a number of occasions, that moving threads to the backroom only rewarded those who don’t want Illegals discussed in this forum, and encouraged their trolling behavior.

I’ll stipulate again that my own hands haven’t always been clean in picking fights and thread jumping. I’ll also reveal that about a year or so ago I attempted to organize a call, via Freepmail, for some self-restraint on these threads. Toward that end, I contacted eight fairly high-profile posters, not all of whom were regulars on the Illegal threads, and whose opinions varied widely on the issue, with the idea of some sort of joint letter. The response was uniformly positive, but the details proved to be unwieldy, however, and the effort died on the vine.

Since then I would come and go from the Illegal Alien threads, and observe the ebbs and flows of all of the behavior I saw above.

A few months ago, I took a different tack, and got into a running conversation over my concerns with the Lead Moderator, through Freepmail.

Last week an Illegal Alien thread was moved to the Backroom, in another episode of the process I described above. This irked me a little more than usual, given the imminence of President Bush’s announcement of a new direction in immigration policy, and I ranted a little more than usual to the Lead Mod.

He was receptive to some of my criticisms, and decided to try the new approach that is now the matter at hand. He posted his account last night (emphasis added)…


To: All
I just got a Freepmail. Without posting it or who it was from, the gist of it was as follows:

1) That the timing of this effort was suspicious.

2) That this person feels the actions taken have shifted the emphasis of the forum from conservative oriented to party oriented.

I wanted to share with you my response:

I am being evenhanded on the matter. There have been those on one side of the issue have been warned about personal attacks and baiting. There have been those on the other side who have been warned about the same.

There has been one suspension, of someone who decided he was going to repost things which had been pulled. He has no one to blame but himself.

There has been one banning, of a person who said that there was no way he was going to abide by the way things are going to be. Once again, it was his choice and if he changes his mind he can mail Jim and his account will be restored.

The timing, you can have whatever suspicions you want. The fact is that for months, someone who is mostly on your side of the issue tried to get me to do more on these threads, hating how they get pulled when they turn into flame wars and how they get backroomed when they turn into flame wars. He would point to examples of baiting. He would point to personal attacks. Sometimes I would point out the things going the other way. Finally, he convinced me and I decided to give this approach a try.

To be honest, I think it is hilarious that some think I had some idea that some policy was coming out of the White House. It is good to be thought of as that well connected, I guess, but it sadly has no basis in reality.

I am going to post my reply on the thread. I won't quote your mail or your name, although I will paraphrase it.

Regards, LM

That is all.
262 posted on 01/06/2004 6:03:37 PM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies | Report Abuse | link ]

So, if it’s not clear already, the Lead Moderator’s statements in this post are 100% accurate and legitimate. The timing of this effort was a direct result of my conversation with him, and was not the result of some conspiracy by Free Republic higher-ups, or Karl Rove, or Vicente Fox, or whatever current dark speculation is now popular.

Nor is there any overarching effort to censor a wide-ranging debate on Illegals, as far as I’ve seen. In the context of the current effort underway on the Illegal Alien threads, I haven’t received even the slightest hint that there are subjects that are off limits to me in this regard, nor have I been given the impression that there can’t be vigorous debate, and I’m hardly a party-liner in this.

Now, I’m certain that some will find it to be an abomination that I would cooperate with a Moderator, or he with me, but, as a friend of mine likes to say, there you have it.

As for the results, they’ve been a bit mixed so far, in my estimation. Not, however, because the Mods haven’t made an effort to be evenhanded. I’ve seen a few folks I warned to keep cool get swift warning when they didn’t, and I’ve seen some of the usual baiters get cease and desist orders. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the effort to raise the tone of the debate on the Illegal Aliens isn’t sincere.

Are the Mods doing things exactly as I’d like? Nope, nor do I expect them to do so. I’ve got strong opinions and subjectivities here, so the standard of my assessment is the combined words and deeds of the Mods on these threads to correct all offenders. Things look promising thus far.

However, I do think that there are posters of diverse opinions who need to reconsider their ways, and take this effort to heart.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: filipinochicksrock; immigrantlist; itsallaboutme; memememememememe; oneissuevoter; pleasebehisopus; saberbunny; saberisnotanative; snowtooth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 481-493 next last
To: hchutch
Does anyone who opposes YOUR position on immigration favor "Open Borders"?

Answering questions with questions, again?

Still hesitant to address my post at #246?

Still, I'll be sporting... no.

Now, would you please clarify your definition of "immigration restrictionists," and address my follow up questions at #246, which I repeated at #418?

You see, I don't want to silence you; that's why I keep repeating my questions, so as to better understand and illuminate your position.


421 posted on 01/09/2004 9:40:52 AM PST by Sabertooth (Eighteen solutions better than any Amnesty -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Thanks for this. Exceptional and well-written. I haven't read it all yet, but I intend to.

Seems to me you can fill in the blank on the topic for a number of issues here at FR that spark these kinds of "debates". And no, they aren't ALL trolls.
422 posted on 01/09/2004 11:18:55 AM PST by cgk (Kraut, 1989: We must brace ourselves for disquisitions on peer pressure, adolescent anomie & rage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Well gee, hchoochoo, why don't you tell us what you think of Hitler's quotes?

We have yet to see you disavow Hitler.

If I employ the 'logic' that you find so appealing, notably the Argument From Silence, your failure to disavow him means you must support him.

I'd like to know, and I'm sure others would as well.

On the other hand, you could pick up a copy of Copi's Logic, study the section on fallacies, and find out why no one with even an elementary knowledge of logic is buying your nonsense.

423 posted on 01/09/2004 8:03:51 PM PST by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

Comment #424 Removed by Moderator

To: archy
I'm sure that many opportunistic Quislings are getting themselves field position today for the coming of the new power structure. Very good point. And of course the left in general just despises America's dominance of the world stage today, and is working actively to weaken their own nation. (Except most of them consider themselves "citizens of the world" in their hearts.)
425 posted on 01/10/2004 12:23:31 PM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: archy; Poohbah; Luis Gonzalez; Lead Moderator
I find it interesting that is is now going from accusations of disrupting to being called a Quisling with what appears to be a threat of violence...
426 posted on 01/10/2004 4:20:41 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 424 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Your restraint in dealing with an obvious disrupter, is admirable.
427 posted on 01/10/2004 4:28:28 PM PST by NittanyLion (E-A-G-L-E-S...Eagles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I find it interesting that is is now going from accusations of disrupting to being called a Quisling with what appears to be a threat of violence...

Oh, Hutch, it's not YOU whose actions recall those of Norwegian Nazi co-activist and sympathizer and traitor Vidkun Quisling, previously A U.S. Army officer between the Great War and the sequel to that conflict. I may have overlooked something you've said, but note that both such inclinations and the power against others has to be exercised for the example and term of Quisling to really apply.

But do note that predictions of very probable forthcoming violence are no longer required; we've already had several FReepers murdered, and I'd hope that every one takes steps to fully protect themselves as effectively as possible.

428 posted on 01/10/2004 5:08:59 PM PST by archy (Angiloj! Mia kusenveturilo estas plena da angiloj!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
I find it interesting that is is now going from accusations of disrupting to being called a Quisling with what appears to be a threat of violence...

Hi hchutch,

You're back!

I find it interesting that a poster who was so concerned about being silenced, fell so silent when it came time to clarify some of your positions, as well as your definition of "immigration restrictionists," which you've alluded to on this thread.

Would you care to answer the follow up questions I posted to you at #246, to which I recalled your attention #416, reposted at #418, and recalled again at #421, and again with this post?

Please, take this opportunity to not be silent about your positions, in your own words.


429 posted on 01/10/2004 6:47:52 PM PST by Sabertooth (Eighteen solutions better than any Amnesty - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053318/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: archy
You will forgive me if I am less than reassured by that.
430 posted on 01/10/2004 6:54:25 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
No more than anyone who opposes you on the issue favors "open borders".
431 posted on 01/10/2004 6:59:25 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 429 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
No more than anyone who opposes you on the issue favors "open borders".

OK, I guess I was a little confusing, as I've only reposted my request for you to clarify your definition of what you call immigration restrictionists twice on this page, so I'll do it a third time.

hchutch: In addition, if one seeks to LOWER the current quotas, is that not advocating restriction? Isn't "restrictionist" an appropriate adjective for those who advocate that position? Why do you object to that term if it is accurate?

Sabertooth: Well, let's carry your logic a little further... aren't the current immigration levels retrictive? In a sense, aren't any immigration laws at all, "restrictionist?"

If we have no restrictions at all on immigration, don't we have open borders?

So, is everyone who's not for open borders an "immigration restrictionist," in your lexicon?

I'll take your quote at the top of this post as an answer to the last question, but I'm still unclear as to your actual definition. Maybe I missed it in the stream of "it's like the Wall Street Journal's," and "first answer this question for me," etc.

The question I'd like a clear answer to, hchutch, is what is your definiton of an "immigration restrictionist?"


433 posted on 01/10/2004 7:33:09 PM PST by Sabertooth (Eighteen solutions better than any Amnesty - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053318/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
I think I defined it the first time...

I'll provide examples of restrictionists: Federation of American Immigration Reform is one. I consider Tom Tancredo to be another. So is Michelle Malkin.

I hope that clarifies things.
434 posted on 01/10/2004 7:51:26 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion; Lead Moderator; Sabertooth
For the record, since Sabertooth was NOT willing to seek review of my conduct on this thread, I asked the Lead Moderator is what I was doing had crossed the line into disruption. The answer is below:
"No, I do not think it does in any way shape or form."

I'm going to use this post as a chance to place Sabertooth on notice. Review has determined my conduct on this thread to be acceptable. I will view any further claism that I am disrupting this thread to be a personal attack and will act appropriately.
435 posted on 01/10/2004 7:55:21 PM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: hchutch

Sabertooth didn't claim you were disrupting the thread, Sabertooth believes you are trying to dodge some pertinent questions about your words, and positions, on the subject of Illegal Aliens.

Sabertooth is aware that you have very dramatic concerns that you might be silenced, and so Sabertooth is doing his best to give you every opportunity to clarify your postion.

Sabertooth is willing to very patiently ask you, once again, some questions about a term you're using on these threads.

What do you mean when you refer to people as "immigration restrictionists," either generally, or specifically?

What is your definition for your term, "immigration restrictionist?"

How do we know an "immigration restrictionist" when we see one?


436 posted on 01/10/2004 9:07:35 PM PST by Sabertooth (Eighteen solutions better than any Amnesty - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1053318/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: rintense
the kindergartners sang two songs in Spanish! For the love of God! Have them master the ENGLISH language first!

I have found for me that I learn best with a continuos effort of learn, repeat and review over a broad number of subjects instead of the learn a, then b, then c.

When I practice golf, I do not learn putting, then irons, then driving. I try all three, repeat all three, then review all three. In basketball, I do not learn dribbling, then learn shooting, then learn passing. I try to improve all three.

I believe that having the children learn english, then math, then science, then foreign language would be a mistake. I believe that throw it all at them, repeat it, push forward, go back and review, then throw it at them again, repeat, push , go back and review, etc. is the proper way to go.

That does mean learning a little spanish, chinese, or fill in the blank with subject of your choice, well before english is mastered.

I suspect, you would normally agree with this, but the mexican invasion has made you so mad that you reflexively scratch spanish off the list.

437 posted on 01/10/2004 9:32:25 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
Hey joe, how are things hanging ? You and I have not mixed it up on an immigration thread for a while now. I think we should show these amatuer flame warriors how personal insults are really done.

I'm just kidding. Thought I'd add a little humor.

We do seem to share an interest in space exploration, even if we disagree on immigration.

Which brings me to my real point. No matter how many insults we freepers hurl at each other, we can agree on more than a few things.

The best government is the least government.

Tax cuts are better than tax increases.

Rinos are better than liberal democrats.

Tort reform must be enacted.

438 posted on 01/10/2004 9:40:15 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: christiankungfu
dont pay taxes

What you meant to say is that they don't pay income or ssi taxes. They do pay sales tax, property tax embedded in the rent, toll, cigarette tax, telephone tax, business taxes that are embedded in the price of the product, alchol tax, gasoline tax, etc.

Further, they pay about the same amount of income and ssi taxes as an american citizen would pay at that income level which is basically zero.

439 posted on 01/10/2004 9:45:58 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: expatguy
But if she BREAKS the LAW then she has to PAY the PRICE!

Time to arrest every waiter or waitress who did not declare all their tips to the IRS. They have to pay the price don't they ? Is it fair to regular taxpayers who pay tax on all of their income ?

Did I mention that I don't think we have enough jail space for an extra 20 million people ? Besides, I like going to restaurants and no one would be there to wait on me.

440 posted on 01/10/2004 9:49:43 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420421-440441-460 ... 481-493 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson