That came from a quote from Jim Robinson that he would not allow criticism of FR or FRN (or Bush, but that's dropped off my radar screen). Do I find it fair? No, for a few reasons... My main nit to pick is that anytime anyone asks a question that is deemed improper -for whatever reason, by whomever - it only takes a few more posts for that person to be accused of criticizing. If it goes longer than another post or two, that person is labelled an AFer or AKer. And if that person asks anything on another thread, the label is applied much more quickly.
Frankly, that appalls me. There are better ways to handle most of the questions, and you might not think it, but those approaches piss off a lot of people, regardless of whether they say anything. I know it pissed me off - primarily in the case of Sabertooth. It seems to me that certain questions cannot be asked, and in addition, certain people can ask no questions.
FWIW, I really have no questions about FRN. Frankly, you're not on my radar screen. I had a question about FR finances, and Jim replied with an answer I found to be satisfactory. I even donated $, not much since I was unemployed for a time.
So, while tongue in cheek, my tagline is very upfront. I won't criticize the FRN, nor will I even ask any questions since that will be construed as criticism. Of course, who is shielded under the umbrella? I only asked unsych who 'us' was. I got a cup of nastiness and attack back. No answer, though.
who claim to have innocent questions about FRN activities, have never once FReepmailed or emailed your questions to anyone in the FRN?
As I said, I have no questions. But I find it hard to swallow when someone is now labeled the enemy, as Saber has been. Simple as that.
The answer is easy, it's because you don't want answers, you want to engage in public performance art and throw around enough hateful slime (disguised as "I'm just asking
I was once on FR, and mojo dragged in SAS as a way to attack me. Why? I defended the FRN on some minor point. I don't recall what it was, but I would probably do the same thing today, as it was something he was completely wrong about. BTW - I refused to answer anything at all about SAS.
Not too long ago, another AFer contacted me looking for some dirt on SAS. I declined to assist. When that was noted on their board, it was twisted as me running scared, for whatever reason. So, I contacted said person again. Informed him quite strongly that he was wrong in his interpretation. He posted somewhat of a retraction. Still twisted, but I was happier.
Now, you're asking me about SAS too?
I resigned some time back for many reasons. Most of them were of a very personal nature. I will tell you, like I told mojo, like I told LOTF, that I won't answer any questions about SAS, my involvement in it, nor will I say one bad thing about the organization or the people running it. I fully support the organization and have been thrilled to learn that they are suffering from a growth spurt due to an article in Woman's Outlook. I now even converse with some that I had some very bad conflicts in the past. We don't re-hash it. We all believe that the 2nd Amendment is much more important than any ego or individual involved.
ability. In return, I will ask you questions about SAS and you answer them the best you can. When we are done, we will post the results her on FR.
Sounds fair to me.
I'm not sure who you are after Bob, me or SAS. I resigned a long time ago. They're doing great and so am I. If you have a lot of spare time to indulge in something like this, perhaps you could invest your time elsewhere more productively.
That sounds even more fair.
Is there any particular reason you're dragging your dirty laundry on to this thread?
"That came from a quote from Jim Robinson that he would not allow criticism of FR or FRN..."
Here is what Jim actually posted.
"Wasn't one of the mods. I sent him to the box myself. I had warned and suspended him just a few days ago about his antifreeping activities on FR and promised him that he would get suspended again if he continues and each new suspension would be longer than the last. If he continues antifreeping when he gets back, he'll be suspended again. Free Republic Network has my total support and blessing. Attacks on FRN are attacks on FR. Those who wish to attack and or smear FR or FRN or our members can do it elsewhere. It's not welcome on this forum."
Why would you spin Jim's obvious and direct comments like "Antifreeping", "attacks" and "smear" into the noncorrosive "criticism"? I may just be a dumb country boy, but alarm bells went off with that one.
"My main nit to pick is that anytime anyone asks a question that is deemed improper -for whatever reason, by whomever - it only takes a few more posts for that person to be accused of criticizing. If it goes longer than another post or two, that person is labelled an AFer or AKer. And if that person asks anything on another thread, the label is applied much more quickly."
It wasn't a question. Sabertooths original questions were answered, by your own admission, satisfactorily by Nick Danger and Interesting Times. The 'tooth kept on the attack with more personal questions' phrasing them in a way that implied impropriety.
No one in the FRN has been seeking 'tooth out. He has been following us around, posting on threads about FRN activities, throwing out questions that infer skulduggery (in other venues, it is called muckraking). The questions he asks are very similar to the slander and defamation exhibited on certain well known antifreeper sites. As with your own comment about FR and FRN being separate entities (who cares?).
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, I'm comfortable callings it a duck.
Maybe you could clear up what seems to be contradictory statements. First you state;
"My main nit to pick is that anytime anyone asks a question that is deemed improper -for whatever reason, by whomever - it only takes a few more posts for that person to be accused of criticizing...Frankly, that appalls me. There are better ways to handle most of the questions, and you might not think it, but those approaches piss off a lot of people, regardless of whether they say anything. I know it pissed me off - primarily in the case of Sabertooth. It seems to me that certain questions cannot be asked, and in addition, certain people can ask no questions...I won't criticize the FRN, nor will I even ask any questions since that will be construed as criticism."
Let me get this straight. The FRN attempts to answer questions sincerely, even from antifreepers. When they become fishing expeditions and veiled personal attacks, you're appalled. Not at the slimy inference of the questions, but at Jim when he removes the Grand Inquisitor from the room and because "anytime anyone asks a question that is deemed improper -for whatever reason, by whomever - it only takes a few more posts for that person to be accused of criticizing."
Later in your post you state these seemingly contradictory statements;
"BTW - I refused to answer anything at all about SAS...I will tell you, like I told mojo, like I told LOTF, that I won't answer any questions about SAS, my involvement in it, nor will I say one bad thing about the organization or the people running it."
I'm confused. You think people should be able to ask question and to have each and every one answered sincerely. When they aren't, you're appalled. But you refuse to answer any questions concerning SAS, an organization that you founded and were the Chairman of until recently.
I've got no problem with or SAS. I am concerned that you seem to be spinning the events concerning 'tooth and working an obvious double standard. I'll leave with one of your own comments from the thread in question.
"I am very sensitive to who gets in trouble for what. And I hate double standards."