Posted on 05/10/2016 12:17:39 PM PDT by apillar
Since you’ve seen the list of zotted posters, why do I need to provide them to you? Those ARE some of the names I’ve intended. We both have the information, and anyone watching our conversation can lurk other threads to find it.
You know as well as I do that I can’t prove that they were paid. Not unless I’m a PI, and I’m not.
But posting at all hours of the day plus repeated talking points plus only showing up during the election season plus eventually opusing out or getting banned while claiming that they’re supporting Hillary does kind of lend itself to that hypothesis, am I right?
Now I’m wondering, why are you so suddenly intensely angry at the idea that there are paid posters on FR?
I strongly suspect that the gaggle of recently zotted “Cruz” trolls at FR were actually Hillary-paid trolls posing as Cruz “supporters”.
Explain how you know which, if any, were paid trolls.
Explain how you know which, if any, were simply expressing an honest..if not helpful.. opinion.
***
I JUST did, one post above.
Now tell me why this topic makes you so... energetic.
Is this a Cruz thing, or what?
Ain't nobody mad, just wondering how you manage to identify 'em.
Still don't know.
Looks a lot like you are assigning motivations to folks that you got no idea about.
Guess it's easy to call 'em paid operatives.
Without any kind of evidence. Because you "feel" like they are?
Did you even read the list of reasons I gave for calling a few of ‘em out?
Not a single reason in there that’s based on emotion. Every behavior that I listed is a behavior that we can expect from paid disruptors.
If they exhibit these behaviors, that’s evidence of intentionally disrupting.
You want proof? Well, too bad. I’m not a private investigator and I’m not going to try to hunt down these people IRL in order to find their paychecks. I’m telling you that they’re showing the same behaviors. You don’t like it, too bad.
Personally, considering the fame that FR has garnered, I’d be shocked if there WEREN’T paid posters here.
So basically you got nothing.
By the way, I myself was outed as a paid Soros troll in 2010.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2630004/posts
FWIW- the following listees had open accounts:
WilliamIII posted 5-8
Proudpapa posted 4-10
libbylu posted 4-16
unlearner posted 5-10
Agamemnon posted 5-10
alstewartfan posted 4-25
TexasCajun posted 5-5
Yosemitest posted 4-27
subterfuge posted 4-27
IsraelBeach posted 4-30
I’m not sure if these are zotted freepers that have been pardoned by the boss or not? Check it out-
Remember this: “Correct the Record”.
If you encounter a pro-Hillary astroturfer, ask them if they work for that PAC. Or, you can work the accusation into your post.
Be sure to point out that it is illegal for a PAC to coordinate with the candidate’s campaign.
I guess those ones either apologized and got reinstated as Jim said he’d do, or only had a temporary ban.
minor corrections-
texascajun
yosemitist
israelbeach
Interesting eh?
one last correction-
agamemnon
I have NO idea why this has you so up in arms.
Yeah. I’m suggesting that a bunch of zot-ees were paid for their time trolling the site.
I note the usual tactics among some of the group that got the bolt from above.
And now you so rudely dismiss me because... why? Because I dare to have an opinion on the motives of some? Because I believe that there are paid trolls on most political sites?
Flame away, buddy, but I gave you what you asked for in your original demand, and now you’re moving the goalposts because... I don’t know, vanity I guess. Or trying to defend a friend who’s on the list, maybe.
Interesting maybe.
I was pretty sure that some of them just got a time out for letting emotions run wild and challenging the boss to his face.
Even the infamous libbylu ended up getting zotted three times before the third one was permanent, if I remember correctly.
The boss man tends to be pretty long-suffering and easygoing... up to a point.
Nobody demanded anything.
I requested your evidence or reasoning behind declaring folks to be paid operatives and you have provided none.
Good enough.
BBQ pork chops tonight, party on.
Save the gizmodo link and wherever you spot them operating — post that link to GIzmodo
Did you ever dance with Soros in front of an owl effigy in the pale moonlight?
Liar.
I gave you evidence and reasoning multiple times.
I QUOTE:
“But posting at all hours of the day plus repeated talking points plus only showing up during the election season plus eventually opusing out or getting banned while claiming that they’re supporting Hillary does kind of lend itself to that hypothesis, am I right?”
That’s evidence. That’s reasoning.
You might not like it; you may not agree with it, but that’s both evidence and reasoning.
Therefore.
L. I. A. R.
Or you just didn’t read my earlier posts.
End of story.
Enjoy your ribs.
Otherwise known as her personal army of Flying Monkeys.
Glad to see “Durbin” finally got it.
Something “lending itself” to a hypothesis does not make it so.
I understand, it boosts your sense of importance to state such things.
Fact is and fact remains.. you got nothing on nobody.
Rave on, rant on, but know that in reality... you got nothin’.
Cheers.
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.