Posted on 08/03/2002 10:16:57 AM PDT by justshe
(Regarding the answer to stopping the 'in-house wars')
The answer is for everyone to just stop doing it.
I know that is hard for some, because things have gotten to the point where now things are personal. There are wounds in some cases, and in others there is anger. Makes it really hard for people to stand down. Unfortunately, I am pretty sure it has been planned this way.
Earlier tonight thanks to a tip from someone who I wish I had listened to earlier, we discovered someone who had at least 8 different accounts. One bashed Horowitz, Swaggert, and Art Bell. Another bashed Keyes. Another posted as a rabid Keyester. Another posted as a Klayman basher. Several seemed to have a thing for mocking Registered.
What was the guy's game? Here is a graphic and caption off of the profile of one of them:
Yes, he wanted to get people fighting to where they would walk away.
One of this guy's incarnations posted a piece or two from anarchist website strike-the-root, which to me hints to what his ideology is. It would also explain why he had a knack for going after the DC chapter folks. I recall nrkybill (anarchy Bill) had some issues with you all. They are not the same people, I don't think, but if their ideology is the same and their main targets are the same, then it is possible that there is some connection.
Obviously, the goal is to drive people away. This is not happening on just one side, it is happening on all sides. It is a form of disruption that relies on the cover of good people engaging in flame wars with them so that the disruptors seem part of the mass rather than the agent provocatuers that they are.
There are two options, really. People can help us out in finding them by refusing to take part in the flame wars and being understanding when a person gets sent to the cooler, so that eventually the real problem children are rooted out.
And the other option is to let them win by letting them drive you away- with you being people from every single conservative faction we have. Rest assured though, if that one happens, if you make another home and it starts being successful, they will come there and do it to you there.
I've asked this before. I'll ask it again. (And this is not aimed at you, ... but at the forum). Please stop it with the personal attacks. One can have a rip-roaring take-it-to-the-mat political debate with someone without getting personal, without resorting to childish taunts, and still not have it be bland.
And the best thing that one can do otherwise is to use a little self-enforcement. A Bushie telling a Bushie to knock off the insults is going to probably work better than a Keyester telling a Bushie to knock off the insults, and vice versa.
My flame suits are back on, so everyone have at it again. But please at least think about it. Thanks, AM
FYI The person who outted the fr member with "8 screen names" has SEVERAL of his own. I hope they do a check of that as well.
This then changes the discussion as the target feels the need to defend himself or herself as an independent thinker.
Exactly!
That part about being understanding can be made a lot easier if the mods would be more forthcoming as to why a particular corrective action was taken against a poster, rather than just deleting his comments and banning him out of the blue. That really is much more of a problem, IMHO, than flamers. Flamers for me have been mostly little more than a minor annoyance, but overactive moderators, or perceived overactive moderators, can really cast a pall over a thread at times.
Second, multiple screen names don't necessarily mean anything. I, for one, have a second one that has been long-dormant that I used as a joke. BTW, how do you know that the whistleblower had multiple screen names???
Finally, I don't think it's necessary to constantly call in the Admin Moderator for such minor things. We aren't in preschool here.
RBA ... in all fairness to Sabor and even though Sabor and I have had many disagreements .. I have to say he has tried to keep an open mind on many of other issues concerning the Bush Administration
His big beef which I think we all know is the immigration issue and if you really think about it ... it is a problem for our country
The problem I see is we don't all agree on the solution and maybe if their was a good debate we all could find a common ground and help to fix the problem instead of attacking each other
Agreed. It's good for Admin Moderator to occasionally step in and demonstrate that no personal attacks means just that. But otherwise, the posters on both sides of a given thread should take someone to task if they come barging into the thread wanting to start a food fight.
What's wrong with posting provocative articles? Please, I hope no Freeper would ever be afraid to do that.
Agreed, to an extent. Half the fun here is the skeet matches that ensue when an article from the NY Times is posted. But some folks try to post stuff that claims the aircraft used in 9/11 were remoted controlled, or that Bush knew about the attacks beforehand, stuff like that.
A very good point .. we all won't agree on everything .. and I'm not saying we should .. but if we all could find a common ground .. I'm all for that
I agree I don't have a problem with the Bushie name but the other names I find annoying and not called for
Just because I like the guy doesn't mean I don't have a brain cell in my head and can't think for myself
I still don't see what's wrong with that. The moment we say that we won't even consider the possibility that government would do X, then we're providing government with the perfect cover to do X.
And even if somebody is posting something truly ludicrous, there's nothing harmful in that, unless he starts making nasty personal comments to those posters who might disagree with them. Attitudes towards other posters should be curtailed, but not ideas for discussion.
The posts in question are completely ludicrous. We have radio and cell-phone communications from the planes that detail what was going on. But some folks claim the aircraft were under remote control. Any tinfoil stuff that is so blatantly against the facts does not belong here, because our opponents will use it against us as we pursue stuff with far more credibility, such as the Vince Foster matter or TWA 800. I've seen, on too many occasions, that the conservative anti-Clinton movement was derailed because we were too eager to lap up a conspiracy without sufficient evidence - the Danny Ferguson case is the classic example of that.
Just to be clear, I ping AM here because it was AM's post to begin with.
As someone who was part of many of the "flame wars" the poster in question was involved with, I'm very aware that the "flame wars" in question were going on well before the arrival of this poster. Perhaps I'm confused, but I thought they actually calmed a bit after the arrival of the poster in question.
As to the mocking of Registered, it appeared to me to be a reaction to Registered mocking the poster in question and others--up to and including the behavior that earned Registered his recent suspension.
My opinion, for what it's worth.
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.