Posted on 11/28/2001 7:31:29 PM PST by Jim Robinson
BTW: no, it isn't.
Aren't you the guy who posted on this very thread that the truth doesn't always lie in the middle and used Hitler vs. USA to demonstrate? Yeah, here we go: #2528
I think the best option is no moderation at all, barring situations like those vandals who leave open marquee tags to make threads unreadable (and even that, I gather, is now automatically prevented by the software). Outperforming detractors is always more effective than shutting them up.
Still, I'll take restrained moderation and be grateful.
I've seen that you do nothing but post questions about which you have NO RIGHT to know the answers. As regards the W&S suit unless your name is Brian or Jim you have no reason to be in possession of privileged communications between lawyer and client.
Your idea that Jim should post the remaining communications regarding the suit is beyond ridiculous. Do you really have s*** for brains or do you honestly believe that you have some right to the communications.
Please do explain.
I've supported the site financially in the past and will do so both now and in the future.
You and your assistants have my deep and abiding appreciation and affection in doing the work you do to keep this site running.
He might consider? Are you aware that he has done so in the past?
There is no hypocrisy here: There's a huge difference between stifling dissent and staying on-topic. I believe quelling the first is fatal, and maintaining the second is vital. If the place exploded with home decorating tips or a floating bridge game or pet grooming advice or get-rich-quick schemes, I'd expect someone to jump on it pronto.
Why don't you enthrall us all with all the "facts" you've demanded AND received from CNN about how they run their web site?
And, no, you don't have to come here either!
I pick Door Number 3, Monty:
Because he's an totally self-fawning bore disruptor who uses the word "I" more than Bill Clinton and believes the whole world hangs on his every syllable.
Heaven knows none of you can form a complete sentence without running it past your buddies for high fives.
Let me tell you how it works:
The open two browsers, one with THEIR site in it, and one with Free Republic in it.
Then they scan FR continuall, copying and pasting OUR words over there (leaving unsaid the fact that THEY have nothing of interest to offer their own site) and then they generally mock and ridicule everything we say and do over here.
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Their other threads are basically filled with personal attacks on us -- and, of course, each other, because the AF site looks a hell of a lot just like this thread, day in and day out.
How about tattooed Barbies, padded codpieces, and nosy in-laws? Oh, and turtles that breathe through the excretory end of their alimentary canal.
I wouldn't consider religious threads in the same league of irrelevance or triviality. Since our religion is the prime shaper of our culture, it is an integral part of our society and our government. Granted, most religious threads end up as a sort of biblical dodge-ball, with one side throwing a scripture that battens their position and another countering with quotes that -- at least in their opinion -- completely disprove the opposition defense. I don't feel that purely theological subjects are particularly valid here, but certainly the moral derivatives of religion bear on our social structure.
Forgive me for intruding, your comments weren't directed to me, however, I believe that moderatoring at least some moderatoring is really needed. Many times newbies or people just surfing through see only the outlandish or stupid posts and go on their way much to their loss.
Take Rush for instance...he thinks we are a bunch of Kooks, I'm a big dittohead. And his screener is a dittohead.
Another example is Hugh Hewitt, he recognizes FR for what we are worts and all. He lets his audience know about us often with the qualification that there are some nuts and to just recognize them for who they are.
So I say to JimRob moderators are the way to go and he should do it anyway he sees fit.
End of speech. :-)
|
Perhaps JimRob has a different view on the subject, as he has been answering many of my questions. HTH.
Here's a question for you:
Would it bother you to see FR fail because of poor decisions, bad legal strategy, non-compliance with laws, etc?
I'll be waiting patiently for your reply. Have a nice brunch!
First, let me preface by saying I am currently involved in a group that is fighting off detractors so my natural sentiments lie with the "hey, if you don't like the way we are running things, start your own group". There are always personality issue that surface in any organization and can muck up a club, but since I don't know the players I can evaluate that aspect. I was just trying to figure out if this place is legit. That's the fly in the ointment, Mom sends you money and she wants to know that she can feel good about it.
I have seen many questions asked and some answers but I have a few of my own that I thought I'd take a shot at posting as well as some concerns. If they have been answered, a link will be apprechiated. I must admit to some 'eye-glaze' in this effort.
I accept the idea that "I give money to Jim and what he does with it is his business". But on the other hand, I have to wonder, if some of the people do want more info, like my Mom, why can't it be provided? I agree that it's no sin for a guy to make a living from a good idea. I just don't understand why the secrecy? If, as it seems, most of the donors want Jim to profit from FR, what's the big deal? If the people currently giving don't care, wouldn't more openess refute the doubters and increase yield?
So in that vein, I ask the following:
How many people and who, are drawing salaries from money donated to FR?
Is there a board of paid advisors?
Do they have a vote on how monies are spent?
Does Badjoe get a salary for processing the donations? Or a cut?
Who operates the sales of FR logo stuff?
Do they pay a royalty for the right to use the logos?
Does FR get a percentage of sales?
What is that percentage?
Will FR pay for the use of the new software?
Was the developer paid a salary from FR during development?
These are all pretty general questions, I think. I can't see the reluctance for providing this basic info.
How many people have access to the donation information. (This is a big issue for my Mom because she tells me she has been on threads where people have made statements to a poster that seem to indicate that they have sure knowledge as to whether or not another poster gives money and how much. Mom says it's getting common for some to 'dis' a person with whom they may disagree in that manner (I've seen this here, on this thread, as well) and although she has been a very generous, semi regular supporter for two years, she sees the day when she won't be able to do so anymore and is worried people "will turn on me" ... her words....
A personal question, out of my concern for my mother, how many people have access to the account info my mother provided when she signed up. The idea that a poster's name and email address were released to third parties in violation of the statement to the contrary on the sign up page, reference:
To complete the registration process, verification e-mail will be sent. This address will never be published on Free Republic, and will never be sold or otherwise made available to a third party.
This thread contains what I believe to be an admission by management that such was done in what seems like an act of vengeance.....outrageous! What definition do you hold for the word never?
To push onto the lawsuits, I'm on shaky ground her, not being a lawyer, but I have to ask why in the heck didn't ya'll just stop cutting and pasting the whole articles? I can't see how that would significantly effect the operation here. The info could be summarized and full text accessed through a link, so why didn't you just stop it when you were made aware of the problem, instead of getting yourselves sued and if I understand correctly, getting yourselves on the hook for a million large? I understand that some people think it's your only method for archiving what is printed in these articles but I ask, why not organize to do it yourselves? I can't see that every article referenced here is subject to suspicion in regards to revision.
Couldn't you organize to individually copy the likely offenders, privately, for historical purposes? And if archiving is the primary focus, where are these archives and how can a member access them for research purposes? I tried a couple random keyword searches and couldn't find anything back more than a couple weeks. Click on the "MORE" link and get "NO POSTS FOUND". To engender a million dollar debt to maintain a record seems silly if you don't maintain the record. Is access to these archives available to some people but not to the general membership as has been suggested?
As to the organization/social aspect of FR, a quarter of a million dollars a year seems like a ton of money to spend to do something that could be done for free on any number of boards. To be bare bones honest, I just don't get it. Also, I am surprised by the lack of respect for property that this whole copywrite issue reveals. The newspapers pay for their operations, their organization and reporters in order to produce a marketable product. You all want to take that product and use it at least in part, to generate income, without reimbursing the owners for that use. In this very thread, I have read people complaining the other media entities and personalities use FR as a resource yet don't contribute. Am I nuts in seeing hypocrisy in that position? You take something from a newspaper and balk when they want money for what you take, yet you complain when someone takes your "product" without paying? Not only news entities but posters, tagging them as 'Freeploaders' if they don't contribute. How do intelligent people stand on that very shaky ground. This sort of logic smacks of liberal speak so badly that I can't, for the life of me, understand how this stands among a group of allegedly conservative people.
From reading all that I have this weekend, I'm a least a little concerned that my post will be deleted. I'm even more concerned that I won't get answers. I'm pretty certain that I'll be jumped on for even asking but I promised Mom that I'd give it a shot. As it stands now, I've told her that I think she is throwing money down a deep hole because I don't see how this legal issue breaks in FR's favor especially given the decisions made in the past and what seems to be poor legal advice in previous matters.
A hundred thousand dollars of donated money to boot a disrupter? Forgive me if I say I wouldn't spend what seems to be almost the equivalent of last year's operating expense on such a misadventure. It doesn't speak well for the acumen of those at the helm.
I can't say I have enjoyed this weekend's work. The things you do for your Mom . I have listened to her Freeper tales for a couple years. She is devoted and counts many of you as her friends. She also used to be devoted to Jim and Tammy and I guess she has learned from her mistakes and came to me for my opinion. Aside from the above questions, I have to say you have an interesting place here. If you could get that archive problem worked out, I'd pay 100 bucks just to access that! Boy would I like to reread news from '91!!!!!
But personally, the secret police aspect of the anonymous abuse button and un named admin moderators is over the top. We have cops and courts in real life to keep the peace, but they don't get to hide who they are. People aren't perfect. Even moderators, and allowing them the full rein/reign, such as has been indicated by this thread, without accountability just seems un-American to me.
On parting, purely from a slightly interested observer, you should ban the use of the word whine. It seems to be a blanket characterization/response for any questions asked. It fits in with cult-speak intimidation and does nothing to solve problems.Questions aren't evil. Information is a good thing. I'm just amazed that a site which claims the purpose this one does, responds to questions with 'it's none of your business'. It's so.... clintonesque
Lastly for Pete's sake, clean up the language and chain the attack dogs. I've read the forum info and it says no vulgarity or personal attacks. Mom says most threads/posters are not like that but in my poking around, I've seen more than I thought my Mom would ever tolerate. Just changing a S into a $ doesn't hide the word or the sentiment. Buy a Thesaurus. It will do wonders for the vocabulary. Or else remove the restraints since it seems some people are allowed to break the rules with impunity. Come to think of it, that's what has been bugging me. I just realized that the under current of feeling I got here was of liberal-land, where the rules apply to the little people and not to the elite. Sort of like Rosie hiring a man to carry a gun while working to take guns away from the rest of us, not exactly conservative thinking as I have come to understand it.
I'm expecting people to jump in with "who asked for your opinion" responses, and my only answer is, my Mom did. She obviously really cares for this place and the people she has met here. But she's not a fool and seems to be getting concerned. I love my Mom and in rereading this, the tone is a lot lke I imagine her's was when she was grilling the parents of my playmates before they took me camping...maybe a bit too nosey but with the best of intentions.
Standing by, only for answers, you need not ban me as I will only post to this issue. And I hope the poster named Clinton's a Liar is out of town. That 'Can't Understand Normal Thinking' thread was maybe the worst abuse I have ever seen short of un moderated USNET boards. If it isn't forged, I understand my Mom's worries about "what if they turn on me?".
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.