I'll add mine, too.
I listen to Hannity on my drive home, it's on and I get info. I get annoyed on occaision, but I do get some rehash on what I already read on FR during the day.
As far an the eating you own comments, just this week I've been involved in an abortion thread where I stated my opinion that showing people pictures of dismembered babies may not be the best way to change their minds. I spent a lot of time stating my reasons for my opinions.
By the time I quit, I was accused of everyone on the thread of being pro choice, and flamed quite a bit.
I consider that an example of "eating your own".
I'm sorry you had a rough time on that thread, cspackler. However, I have to disagree (and this is not flaming you): that's not an "example of eating your own," it's an example of robust discussion and passionate disagreement.
There's a difference.
"Eating your own" is what Sean did to FR today on national air. If he wants to make his opinion known, come here and state it. But going to millions of people who may never have (yet) heard of FR, and giving them a totally erroneous impression of the majority of what goes on here, now that's "eating your own."
Oh, and childish.
Those threads are not representative of FRee Republic. The same goes with the Terry threads.
These religious topics bring a special difficulty with them in a debate. The problem is that convictions of this kind cannot be used to argue in a give and take, or normal way.
They sometimes allow themselves to express their passion in a often harmful and wrong way. Not all, but a few.
If you go there in the future, bring your flame retardant suit. It is gonna happen if you disagree with their passionately held convictions.
So what is the point in arguing with something that cannot be compromised or changed?
I have often asked myself the same question.
Make your proper point, and get out. You will often be labeled as a troll anyway.
It is up to the wary to know their fate. It is the price you pay for free speech. It is never free.