"All's well that end's well"
Posted on 08/26/2002 7:21:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
God bless you all and God bless America!
Spoken like a true gentleman! Although there are several other competing conversation boards with similar formats, I think FR will always be the "Mother Ship".
May God bless you and yours.
Tolerance for these topics is razor thin around here. It's a fine line anymore, especially since W is in office; it just seems like there are throngs out there who will jump all over you just for criticizing the guy (face it folks, he does not walk on water). There hasn't been a "real citizen" elected to the office of President since James A. Garfield (and we all know what happened to him).
Thanks for your reply, I suppose I knew what the answer to my question was before I typed it. The link was only to remind folks of what FR used to be like...and I am grateful it has survived this long. FRegards
"All's well that end's well"
Please define this statement. Thanks.
Oh you know, wild, far out stuff, like the mention of any possibility that any Republicans, particularly any Bush administration appointees, were in any way implicated in or profited by the narcotics flights into the US during the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, and cooperated with their Democratic counterparts to keep the lid on, at Mena and elsewhere.
Oh, what a glorious moment that was! I was on the thread when it happened, and saved a copy of it for posterity.
By the way, just out of curiosity, I visited Rivero's site recently. Just as tin-foily as even. He claims that his "Total visits for the week [are] 4,021,309."
Pretty good for the little monkey, no?
I guess you could say it's a dead issue....
'Tisn't me. ;-)
For instance, one may state the assertions in the arguments behind a pro-choice position without assuming that position or intending to propogate it legitimacy.
That is an exoteric, hermetic discussion and debate.
The same type of debate is possible on most of the taboo subjects you indicated.
Can you put forth a position on that type of discussion assuming the participants are conducting themselves in a civil manner, or does the potential of bystanders misbehaving give cause to veto all such discussions a priori?
It may seem I am squinting at gnats here, but the policies on FR seem to have evolved from insisting on civil discussion to deeming areas of discussion off limits or an endeavor that one conducts at thier own risk.
In the interests of fairness and recognising that many of todays policies and news have tenticles rooted in these taboo topics, a debator can be hampered and cornered by the designation of such 'land-mined' areas of discussion.
Given that, I would think it is encumbant on the policy makers to be a bit more specific.
Understanding that there are those who seek merely to 'sow discord' and ugliness on certain topics, the question of fairness becomes: Why should the uncivil endanger the civil?
Right now, as best I can ascertain, the policy can be boiled down to: Do not conduct arguments or put forth assertions that cause turmoil because the majority consider them invalid/offensive -- but this only applies to forbidden topics, and does not consider the attitude, intent or civility of the poster. It does not allow exoteric debate nor 'devils advocate' mechanism.
By logical extension of this policy, you would have to include arguments critical of homosexuality -- a topic that is missing from your ad hoc listing.
I sympathize with your position, but this is an endeavor that is of your choosing alone. And now the conundrum amounts to this:
If anti-homosexual arguments are not supressed with equal ferocity as pro-racist or anti-semitic arguments, then how do you defend against the assertion that the policy allows 'hate' for the homosexual more than it allows 'hate' for the racist or anti-semite?
This can continue ad infinitum because there will always be a group 'exposed' and a group 'protected' whose differences are miniscule relative to the extent of the 'intellectual assault/bashing' the policy exposes them to.
This is why taking responsibility for the content of the discourse on FR or any board is a mistake, one should only enforce civility and congeniality and take no position on the political correctness of content.
The result is that FR has been pruned into a tool of advocasy and lost an important portion of the free dialog that proved it of public interest.
The moderator has the same problem as a secret trial -- no one really knows what happened when a post is deleted, its just GONE. I might suggest that to maintain the 'trust' of readers, the moderator might append a warning to a borderline post instead of deleting it, this would prove educational in refining what the policy really is.
It is human nature to suspect a 'good point' was executed simply because the post was brash or otherwise -- a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
In football the refs explain thier calls, I think that in a colosseum of the intellect a simular respect to the accuracy and legitimacy of a moderators calls need to be assured by the warning mechanism I described above.
I appreciate your consideration and am assured in your beliefs in the principles of free speech and the fruits it ultimately delivers. I hope the pressures of the ideology of yourself or others will not undermine the value and faith in that principle.
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.