Arnold's supporters had no facts to support their claims that failure to support him would elect Bustamante
You mean like, projective stats? Or even "past stats"?
we were constantly accused in very unpleasant terms of supporting that leftist candidacy.
Ah. You received "rhubarbs" instead of principled discourse.
I've seen the same scenarios happening in other threads: Schiavo, Public Breastfeeding, etc.
It just takes one person tossing a "stone", and another person taking offense and doing ad hominem "payback" to start a flamewar. In principled debate -- everyone comes away with newer thoughts to think about; with therefore the gifts to refine and redirect, possibly, one's own knowledge base, and therefore "decision-making" skills.
In a flame-war, everyone comes away with fury, hurt, and bad memories; feeling unjustly accused, not properly listened to, not respected. And of course, the imps are the ones usually starting these flamewars, for whatever their reasons. And then there are those who, in the passion of the moment, lose sight of self-control.
We've had military members brought up on charges for "losing control" or behaving in inflammatory ways. Conservatives -- all sides, could do, in my very HO, to take a lesson from our heroes in combat. Especially when it comes to impassioned topics. Particularly when it comes to impassioned topics.
I've said it before, I'll say it again -- it is "okay" to ignore and bypass ad hominem attacks from forum members. It is also okay to pick one's battles. Military members go where they are told to go -- to get the job done. Forum posters have many more freedoms in when and how to conduct themselves.
Alia, had you been identified as a "TobBot" during the recall, you would never have had a discussion as you have had here.
? What's a "TobBot"?
It may seem like opening old wounds, but as far as I am concerned, it's to put in a drain.I don't see it as opening old wounds, I think it is pretty darned important to discuss some of the older wounds, especially as the heat of "passionate" debate cools.
I've read numerous "departing opuses" lamenting the lack of reasoned debate as cause for the poster's "leaving". Or that "Free Republic" is not as it once was. FreeRepublic has been experiencing tremendous "growth"; and with it go growing pains.
OTOH, passionate debate is productive. There are some ways of being passionate which address the issue without attacking the poster, personally -- which nearly ALWAYS carry more weight, win "supporters" than the "ad hominem" attack. Part of what is killing the Dem Party is the routine use of "ad hominem". I think the "scream" was more productive for Dem fundraising purposes (but beside the point, I know).
En point, there are more productive ways of "calling a spade a space" employing good ettiquette but yet while still getting one's point across without going into a lowball modus. I think there is also productive "lowball". I've laughed myself silly at some of the clever posts which do accomplish exactly this. Maintaining an arena of civility; while yet still making a point perfectly clear in response to another's post.
Doing so is "powerful", and those watching I do think, can see the difference. However, some choose not to. It makes clear, then, what their *real* point is, no?
LOL! A ToMBot; i.e., a McClintock supporter.
I guess I would be a TomBot, with a code id duh head (to coin a pun for a change).
It makes clear, then, what their *real* point is, no?
It takes two mature and reasoned sides to have such a debate, and such is precisely where FR found its early strength. When one offers such on many occasions and gets branded as trying to elect Bustamante at every return, that option no longer exists. When FR moderators failed to quell the slings and arrows early in the recall campaign, there were no options left.
There is no reason in a debate with fear. What you describe has all been done to no avail.