[Illbay]

I have as much right to do so as you have to tell me I have no right to do so.

So there.

My opinion stands: FR has become the dumping ground for every crack-pot, cockamamie conspiracy theorist who has enough nickels in his piggy bank to buy a roll of tinfoil.

I see the threads pulled almost daily now, and those are mostly the people that are then turning "anti-FR" and causing all the ruckus.

IMO, more strict guidelines are needed.

Heck, I'd settle for strict ENFORCEMENT of the guidelines we have: "No hate, no racism," and no bashing of religion.

[sauropod]

Uh-huh. Sure. And YOU decide what is "extreme?"

No thanks. I am certain that some here would consider my opinions extreme as i am not a "bushie" and I do not think that some of the stuff i see going on is appropriate.

Sorry. My statement stands. The way FR is going these days, some of us ol'timers may be banned for simply espousing paleo-conservatism, as I do. 'Pod

[FITZ]

My opinion stands: FR has become the dumping ground for every crack-pot, cockamamie conspiracy theorist who has enough nickels in his piggy bank to buy a roll of tinfoil.

Wasn't it always partly that and part of it's appeal? I've been here for a while and I remember being kind of fascinated by the black helicopter stuff and I found out all about tinfoil hats. And those Quidam posts.

[DNA Rules]

Just to note: it is worthwhile to have threads discussing the nature of religion and its place in society, as well as its effect upon culture and politics. Inevitably, there will be some bashing of specific religions there, which is not something that I would sanction. Still, it is important to allow controversial discussions of religion.

I would vote against narrowing the field of discussable subjects...if a particular thread turns out to be just junk/bashing, that particular thread can be pulled.

Say Jim, is there FReeper activism in the Pacific Northwest?