Posted on 10/15/2013 10:31:59 AM PDT by Academiadotorg
“In 1934 a high-ranking member of the Communist Party, Sergei Kirov, was assassinated,” Cornell historian Holly Case wrote in The Chronicle Review. “His death, likely orchestrated by Stalin himself, was used to initiate a mass persecution that would result in over a million imprisoned and hundreds of thousands killed.”
“Actually, she’s a bit off on the casualty count,” we observed. ...
“The late Alexander Yakovlev, the lifelong Soviet apparatchik who in the 1980s became the chief reformer and close aide to Mikhail Gorbachev, and who, in the post-Soviet 1990s, was tasked with the grisly assignment of trying to total the victims of Soviet repression, estimated that Stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of 60 to 70 million, a stunning number two to three times higher than estimates in The Black Book of Communism,” Grove City College historian Paul Kengor has noted.
...Case wrote in a letter to us. “Many of Stalin’s victims came before that due to collectivization and dekulakization, which was likely why he initiated the Purge in the first place (to create scapegoats for those atrocities). I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge your mistake and withdraw your post, otherwise I will simply conclude that you are ideologically motivated rather than interested in the truth…not unlike Stalin, in fact. “
... the UN, never a virulently anti-Soviet source, has noted that during the Ukrainian famine (1932-1933), “It was estimated that about 25,000 Ukrainians were dying every day during the Famine. ..." & from the Russian Archives themselves, by way of the Library of Congress: “...During the ensuing Great Terror, which included the notorious show trials of Stalin’s former Bolshevik opponents in 1936-1938 and reached its peak in 1937 and 1938, millions of innocent Soviet citizens were sent off to labor camps or killed in prison.”
(Excerpt) Read more at academia.org ...
I prefer ther solutions already in place that would be SO much easier if blogpimps actually followed them.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2722423/posts
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2776537/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2636843/posts?page=552#552
Key text: “We’re not really that interested in driving OUR traffic to YOUR blog. But if our readers see that you post useful information then they might start reading your site and that’s fine by me.”
Then, I was correcting you for misquoting the policy. Now, I’m correcting you for misquoting me.
So how many page hits do you think you have provided the OP by continuing to bump this thread with your off-topic replies?
That is as cut and dried as it can get, it has been linked on this thread repeatedly.
I have NOT misquoted policy, policyy is "NOT AN EXCERPT if it is YOUR BLOG material."
And in post 61, and post 21 in this thread, links were posted to the above info and two Mod Lecture series threads which you, and others, proceeded to ignore.
Well, thanks to the choleric Blog Pimping Posse that is unable to distinguish between personal blogs and legitimate sites of organizations, we get free bumps to an interesting article, even if the “discussion” below is the very definition of lame.
Fine, here is a quote from one of your :
“Are the Pimp Busters mods or have any official power? No. They are members like any other.”
Happy now?
And here is my quote from your other link:
“This post is not authorized by JimRob or any mod committee”
Now that I’ve done your task, please answer my question. How many page hits do you estimate you have given the OP by bumping this thread with your off topic replies?
So you are admitting that you did not at all read the links I initially provided to you.
Which would have saved you all this bluster and bloviating.
Read the link in post 64 again.
Perhaps it will finally sink in.
That is policy quoted straight from the site owner.
If you don’t like it, take it up with him instead of continuing to be a fool.
I quoted from that post. Let me quote some more
“If a blogger can’t or refuses do that, and if he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then I’d just as soon he doesn’t post here. It’s not my job to make his content or his presentation or cooperation acceptable to our readers. That’s his job. And if he cannot do it or refuses to do it and continues posting brief excerpts only and obviously attempting to draw away our participants while loudly complaining about it, then I have no sympathy for his complaints and the more apt I am to ban his account and blog.
Furthermore, I’m not big on “rules.” You won’t see me posting rules for bloggers. The rules for bloggers on FR are the same as the rules for everyone else.”
Here are two points for you to consider:
1. “The rules for bloggers are the same rules for everyone else.”
2. “If he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then I’d just as soon he doesn’t post here.”
My take aways:
* The OP should not excerpt.
* The blog-police do not have a free pass to act like jerks and argue with everyone.
My preference would have been for this thread to be a discussion on genocides. The disruption caused by the blog-police has been a barrier to that discussion happening and is also against the same policy you link too.
The post police could have chosen to simply state that the OP should not excerpt. The post police could have simply posted the original article in full. I am in 100% support of these tactics. This approach would enforce the stated policy without disrupting the FR discussion or degrading the atmosphere of FR.
The fact the OP exceprted does not excuse posting snarky comments, flaming other members, and posting repeated follow-up comments that further pull the thread off topic.
This thread should be about genocide. You have deliberately chosen not to participate in that discussion and to make it difficult for others to do so.
Post 64 is a quote BY Jim Robinson himself.
Again, do you want to continue being an idiot?
I quoted Jim in my post. Do you even read what you are responding too?
Play more games, tell me more lies pal.
I have been telling you what the policy is.
If you want to argue it out, why not talk to the guy who made the policy as quoted in post 64 this thread and linked here in second link of this post?
Oh, too hard for you to do I guess?
Maybe we need a new nickname for the anti-blogpimping pests. "Holier Than Blogpimps", or HTBs for short? "Blogpimp Bloviators", or The BBs? Whole lot of bloviating going on on this thread. I'll spend some time thinking about it.
It appears as though teh world revolves around Darksheare, and its opinion. Did you notice that, too?
Back on subject: That Stalin was about the slimiest genocidal creep there ever was. Look into the activities of one of his murderous minions, Vasili Blokhin, triggerman at the Katyn Forest murders:
BABs: Blogpimp Ankle Biters...
You can't fault her for not including the death figures for the famine of the early 1930s in her number.
Her figure for the post-1930s purges was on the low side, but not engaging what she actually said was pretty shabby.
Yet one more time, you are incorrect! I have now quoted from all three posts you linked, and I have quoted from post 64 (the one you say I didn’t post from) no less than three times! Lets break it down for you since reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be your thing.
From post 64, first sentence from the second to last paragraph:
“If a blogger can’t or refuses do that, and if he constantly complains or fights with our participants over it, then I’d just as soon he doesn’t post here.”
From post 64, first three sentences of the final paragraph:
“Furthermore, I’m not big on “rules.” You won’t see me posting rules for bloggers. The rules for bloggers on FR are the same as the rules for everyone else.”
If you have trouble with any of the words, please let me know and I’ll be happy to get you a link to an online definition.
My take aways:
1. The OP should post the entire article
2. You do not have a special badge to allow you to argue, troll, call other posters names or be a jerk.
3. You are sloppy and can’t even do your own homework to read the posts leading you to constantly make incorrect statements.
4. Your argument has lead to this “blog” (which isn’t really a blog) getting bumped for several days in a row. Go ahead, keep on trolling, the OP loves your efforts.
Have a nice day liar.
Keep up with arguing with me about forum policy dude, keep lying. I DARE YOU.
Especially when forum policy HAS ALREADY BEEN QUOTED TO YOU.
Don't like it, take it up with Jim instead of lying to me about what you read!
I have agreed several times the op should post the entire article. How is that a lie?
My disagreement is with your choice to troll, disrupt discussions, call names and act like you are the special police. You are not, your links don’t support that behavior, and you are still wrong.
You have stated you can troll blog-pimps and their defenders, and that anyone who disagrees with your tactics must be a defender. I am still waiting for that link.
“You have stated you can troll blog-pimps and their defenders,”
Exact Quote please
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.