Posted on 11/28/2001 7:31:29 PM PST by Jim Robinson
OK, I'll try. But let me explain how I consider my own occasional dissent, especially regarding what sort of information is deemed unpostable on this forum. When I offer it, it is never in the spirit of "Jim Rob must do it my way or else." I know this is Jim Rob's site and he is free to do with it what he pleases. It's always been thus. When I offer up an occasional dissent, it is simply to be heard and noted. Jim Rob is absolutely free to reject it and run his forum as he sees fit. What is galling is to be banned merely for expessing one's opinion honestly. Whether Jim Rob (or anyone) agrees with my opinion I care not one whit. They are free to have their own opinions and I respect that. But so to am I free to have mine and I would like that fact to be respected as well. That's really all I've really ever wanted, for me, and for every FReeper.
This website is what it is. No one controls what happens here. Not you, not the moderators, no one. The content, in its voluminous nature, is controlled by the people who post here. If they stop posting, this website dies. If they stop contributing, this website dies. It's something more profound than you or me or Jim Robinson or the moderators. None of us, separately, can begin to replace the heart and soul of this website: the participants.
I agree with you 1000%, which is why it grieved me so to see so many great participants, your friends and mine, routinely cast into oblivion for nothing more than expressing their unique perspective on politics, or failing to conform to the prevailing officially approved group-think of the moment.
If you'll stop your I, me, mine bandwagon, not only will I forgive you (which means nothing in the big picture) but you'll never again be threatened by banishment.
Well, I never considered it only about I and me. There were far bigger issues at stake, like the heart and soul of this website as you so ably described it above. And as far as gaining an immunity from banishment, I don't really want that either. If I violate Jim Rob's original posting rules [no racism, no personal attacks (and hopefully mere expressions of political disagreement will not be regarded as personal attacks!), no spam, etc.], I will deserve to be banished and ought to be banished. I would only ask that I (or anyone) not be banished for expressing an honest opinion about politics or even about the way this forum is administered. After all, it's just one man's opinion. It has no power beyond the force of its persuasiveness, and everyone, as always, is absolutely free to be persuaded by it or not, and that includes Jim Rob. It's his site, and he has every right to run it as he pleases.
This is so surreal. While I was reading your comments I was watching Tomb Raider (a Paramount production I might add!) and they were talking about all this clock of ages stuff. Well you get the picture.
Beware the vortex! It'll suck you in and make you watch PBS, I've heard.
I hope you'll take the time to answer.
Something you should note....I've rarely posted, but have elected to simply read and enjoy the many thoughful articles and comments. So, there may be many more lurkers then you think.
The next two years will be the defining life or death time for many dot-com web-sites. Can this model succeed and flourish when thousands of others will be going bankrupt? I believe it can, because the model is sound, and the dedication of Jim Robinson and fellow freepers is tremendous.
But let's not just survive, let's flourish, grow and take on many other endeavors via the internet! Take Care, Mike
There are far too many multi-syllabic words in this paragraph to digest in one sitting. LOL. Could you translate this into layman's terms, please? ;^)
Since you appeared to miss the obvious: had Bill clinton been just an average guy with his own web site, no one would care, or need to care, about his behavior. Accountability would be between him and his maker, and his ISP.
But here's the difference: Bill Clinton was an elected official, the head law enforcer of the United States- not Joe Sixpack of Peoria, Illinois.
When you ask for 'accountability,' you have a right to demand answers from elected officials and government employees, but you have no reason to expect to be informed of your neighbor's business, nor the financial, political, legal, or personal background of any citizen you feel like harassing.
Posting here is a privilege- it does not imply that you are entitled to anything.
Hey, you're one Neo-con I'd nominate as host, exactly because you do and would tolerate, even embrace disagreement. And I agree with you, having some intelligent liberals here to wrestle with would be fun. We might even be surprised at the common ground we might discover once we peel away the meaningless partisan labels (like anti-globalism, anti-interventionism, etc.). Of course, I'm speaking from a Paleo perspective. LOL.
Yes, I think the term Paleo-con is equivalent to Old-Right. As for the Old-Left/classical liberals, they are so close to the Old-Right in many respects as to be almost indistinguishable. That great classical liberal, Murry Rothbard, for example, was virtually sympatico with and supported the candidacy of Paleo-con Pat Buchanan before he died.
Kind of like the cogency and intensity of your post above? ;^)
Maybe you just left him bewildered, and he wondered off completely confused. LOL.
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.