LOL! A ToMBot; i.e., a McClintock supporter.
I guess I would be a TomBot, with a code id duh head (to coin a pun for a change).
It makes clear, then, what their *real* point is, no?
It takes two mature and reasoned sides to have such a debate, and such is precisely where FR found its early strength. When one offers such on many occasions and gets branded as trying to elect Bustamante at every return, that option no longer exists. When FR moderators failed to quell the slings and arrows early in the recall campaign, there were no options left.
There is no reason in a debate with fear. What you describe has all been done to no avail.
OTOH, Arnold's response to snivelling Dems "hiding behind their 13-year-old daughter's skirts" as "Girly Men", I thought was appropo. There was no reason for Nunez to bring his daughter into a "personal" defense of his own. I thought that was wayyyy low of him to do.
When FR moderators failed to quell the slings and arrows early in the recall campaign, there were no options left.
I don't have a good handle on the role of FR moderators. But what I've been wondering and suspecting for quite some time -- is this: For a group of posters claiming they wish limited government, freedom, and self-rule -- perhaps they (FR Moderators) are in hopes they'll see those espousing this credo -- behave accordingly -- and not need "forum" police to step in routinely when "civil dissent" or "cyber brawls" breakout.
There is no reason in a debate with fear.
Do you mean.. fear of being "name-called"? Or do you mean "hunted down" like NCPAC and Buckhead were?