Skip to comments.
VANITY: The "Truth" about JimRob and Free Republic according to BADJOE
LibertyPost.org
| 10/10/03
| BADJOE (Slightly revised by JimRob)
Posted on 10/10/2003 2:23:07 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Edited on 10/10/2003 2:27:00 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Dear Free Republic Friends,
My old friend and brother-in-arms BADJOE has promised to warm the cockles of our hearts by publishing an expose (the truth about JimRob and Free Republic according to Joe) on the 18th of this month, which represents the one year anniversary of the date he last posted to FreeRepublic.com and started up with LibertyPost.org.
So, as I believe that only the truth can set you free, and based upon the stratergery of pre-emptive strike, I have a confession to make (before BADJOE makes it public):
I have poisoned the well.
By my sly innuendos behind the scenes.
By my intellectual ineptitude.
By not trusting those that brung me to the dance to bring me home.
By my biting every hand that fed me.
By my arrogance that causes me to think I did it all by myself.
By my stubborness not because of principle, but because of my lack of ability to see what is transpiring.
Evidenced by:
One would think that with half again as many Freepers. with a recovering economy, It would take a great deal less time to raise the necessary funds.
By this time in the June 2002 effort with a goal of $70,000 we had raised $73,000. Not because of who did the fundraising, but because the sense of purpose, of family, of comaraderie, was still present.
BADJOE rang the warning bell, but none heard.
Conclusion:
It is a sad day.
For what was once a great hope, a means of bringing together those who are willing to pay dearly in blood, sweat, and money to save this country, we all love, has been reduced to an asterisk.
So sayeth BADJOE as he promises to publish all this and much more on the 18th. He's been feverishly working on this "project" for one full year. In addition to the "truth about JimRob" BADJOE intends to further betray our trust placed in him by revealing the names of our moderators. And who knows what else?
I can hardly wait.
Is it the 18th yet? Tick, tock.
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840, 841-860, 861-880 ... 3,361-3,368 next last
To: aristeides; Sabertooth
Is either a reason why you ask for more candidates for banning, rather than for candidates for unbanning? I'm not sure I understand your question as stated, but let me take a shot anyway.
1. I've never asked personally that anyone be banned, for any reason. In my opinion, the existing safeguards against disruptors, the moderators, the abuse button, etc. are sufficient to remove offensive material from FR.
2. My question to Saber was based on his statement in Post 825, to wit:
"It's not just who you ban, it's who you don't ban. The inconsistencies are found between the two."
It seems logical to assume that Saber has one or more Freepers in mind that he thinks should be banned, but who haven't been banned and are being allowed to continue posting. All I asked was that Saber be more specific about who he thinks should be banned.
841
posted on
10/10/2003 11:46:48 PM PDT
by
strela
("It's about governance. It's not about sermons." Brooks Firestone)
To: Jim Robinson
Oh God, I hate these threads, yet for some reason I feel compelled to read them. I think I'm very sick. :o)
To: Jim Robinson
Some say it's too extreme Well that would be a first for LP and LF. LOL
To: Fred Mertz
My post #823 was factual. Do you have a problem with that? No. I rarely have a problem with non sequitur, Fred. I simply consider the source and dismiss them accordingly.
I do wish you would answer my question though:
"Does that mean he doesn't have to follow the site's rules?"
844
posted on
10/10/2003 11:49:37 PM PDT
by
strela
("It's about governance. It's not about sermons." Brooks Firestone)
To: strela; Sabertooth
It's equally logical to think he has banned posters in mind who should not have been banned when others have not been banned. Why not think positively, rather than negatively? Why not unban those banned posters? Or would you rather have more purging?
To: aristeides
We have incoming:
$100 from New York
$20 from Indiana
$100 from Washington
Thank you New York, Indiana and Washington!!
846
posted on
10/10/2003 11:52:54 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
Comment #847 Removed by Moderator
To: strela
Freepers I no longer see here and I enjoyed their postings: Sal, mancini, rdavis84, honway, OKCSubmariner, Wallaby, Plummz, Michael Rivero, Uncle Bill
That's just off the top of my heard. No, they all haven't been banned but half of them have.
To: Sabertooth
This thread was posted in Breaking News and left there for about an hour or so. What double standard?
849
posted on
10/10/2003 11:54:01 PM PDT
by
Sir Gawain
(Thanks Whizzinator...It worked like a charm!)
To: Lunatic Fringe
Mem-or-ies
850
posted on
10/10/2003 11:54:51 PM PDT
by
Sir Gawain
(Thanks Whizzinator...It worked like a charm!)
To: aristeides
Is either a reason why you ask for more candidates for banning, rather than for candidates for unbanning?
I'm asking for one or the other, because I'm asking for consistiency. The FR sky is either blue, or it's green... I'm flexible. However, if it's blue for one, it's blue for all, and not green or purple for a few.
|
851
posted on
10/10/2003 11:56:38 PM PDT
by
Sabertooth
(No Drivers' Licences for Illegal Aliens. Petition SB60. http://www.saveourlicense.com/n_home.htm)
To: aristeides; Sabertooth
It's equally logical to think he has banned posters in mind who should not have been banned when others have not been banned. But that's not what Saber said. His exact words were:
"It's not just who you ban, it's who you don't ban. The inconsistencies are found between the two."
I am incapable of reading minds, and believe that Saber is capable of clarifying his request if he wants to do so. Further, if Saber has candidates in mind who HAVE been banned that he thinks should be unbanned, he is equally free to propose them as well. I just think that Saber should name names if he is going to call for banning of posters first.
Why not think positively, rather than negatively? Why not unban those banned posters? Or would you rather have more purging?
I made my feelings on banning clear in Post 841. The ball's in Saber's court now, and I would respectfully suggest that you take the matter up with him if you're not satisfied with the way he phrased his question.
852
posted on
10/10/2003 11:56:39 PM PDT
by
strela
("It's about governance. It's not about sermons." Brooks Firestone)
To: Sabertooth
Earlier today in this deleted post, you suggested that Arnold Schwarzenegger ought to ... Why are you reintroducing deleted material to FreeRepublic? The post was pulled because it violated the guidelines here.
853
posted on
10/10/2003 11:58:44 PM PDT
by
strela
("It's about governance. It's not about sermons." Brooks Firestone)
To: Fred Mertz
That's just off the top of my heard. No, they all haven't been banned but half of them have. Were they banned fom the internet?
To: Fred Mertz
Mostly tinfoil-hatters. I saw some of these guys in action making up their conspiracy theories on the fly out of thin air. No thanks. We're a NEWS discussion site. Not interested in junk conspiracy theory.
855
posted on
10/10/2003 11:59:10 PM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
To: Sir Gawain
Like they say, it happens. Some of you try to make it happen 24/7.
856
posted on
10/11/2003 12:00:30 AM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
To: strela; Sabertooth
Sabertooth complained about an inconsistency. There are two ways to resolve that inconsistency, and I believe the more generous way is far preferable. I would be very surprised if Sabertooth did not agree.
To: Sabertooth
If nefarious, malicious posters are allowed to remain on Free Republic, then the bannings of their targets are nefarious and malicious by default. The malice and bullying tactics routinely displayed by many of the posters on this very thread is exacty what critics point to when they call FR a "hate site."
To: small voice in the wilderness
I can hear Barry's voice now: "His name was BADJOE, he was a *$#..."
859
posted on
10/11/2003 12:02:37 AM PDT
by
185JHP
( "The high, 'Hit it if you can', hard one...")
To: aristeides
You want someone unbanned, give me some names. As I get time, I'll look them up and check into it.
860
posted on
10/11/2003 12:02:47 AM PDT
by
Jim Robinson
(Conservative by nature... Republican by spirit... Patriot by heart... AND... ANTI-Liberal by GOD!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840, 841-860, 861-880 ... 3,361-3,368 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson