Posted on 07/13/2002 5:55:15 AM PDT by BADJOE
When I was a young man, one of the womens magazines had a monthly feature "Can This Marriage be Saved" which would have both sides tell their stories, followed by a marriage counselor who disected the imput from both parties. Then the story followed up on the results.
Obviously some cases were hopeless, but many that seemed to be hopeless were resolved.
Would JC Watts want to post on a site that welcomes those who post that Replicans are no different than Demcrats and that the Republicans are sell outs and that the war on terror is a war for oil and to enrich the Republican fat cats? It sure seems that those who Jim gets rid of post like that an awful lot. I fail to see how keeping them around in an attempt to convince the unconvinceable would be any more successful than attempts to get peace in the Middle East by appeasing Arafat had been.
1. Joe Shmoe gets banned from FR.
2. So, Joe Shmoe goes to another forum site (lets call it Libertee) and joins there successfully.
2. Later, a current FR member(s) (in good standing) (lets call him Joe Shmoo) joins the Libertee forum where Joe Shmoe resides.
4. So the thinking is, since Joe Shmoo is a member of the Libertee now, and Joe Shmoe is too, and since Joe Schmoo is a member of FR, Joe Shmoe should be allowed to rejoin FR.
If that's it, that is pure BS, IMO.
So do I, believe it or not. Much more to him than his deliberately outrageous posts.
Well, I would if I could. :^)
I have to tell you, the reason I like FR is due to the moderation. Yes, an occasional idiot gets through the shield. And yes, the occasional non-offensive (but percieved improperly) one gets banned. But overall, there's just the right amount of moderation going on here.
I mentioned usenet before as a bit of a contrast. I've posted there before, but not for quite a while. While it beats a chat room by far, it isn't exactly the epitome of discussion media. In its totally uncensored form, you do have to weed through tons of BS to get to the meat of the subject. And if you think things get repeated here too often, you should see the cycles that certain subject matter goes through there. And those discussions frequently dissolve into bashfests.
So that's why I prefer a little moderation (or censorship if that's what you want to call it).
Agree.
Judging by how many threads evolve into Libertarian v. Authoritarian threads, I'm not sure that this is possible. Opposites attract, I guess...
Bait and Snitch Squad, stand up and take a bow. You know who you are and so do many of the rest of us.
Keep practicing. You need it.
No, we don't. That's like saying that if your boss fires you, you are condemned to perpetually issuing death threats against your boss and other employees.
There are other things to do than become an 'antifreeper' if you get banned. If a person becomes an antifreeper, there is something sick or deficient about the person to begin with that they need to work out on their own before coming back here. It's one thing to be a little miffed after getting banned but quite another to let bitterness and hatred become your daily bread.
If, on the other hand, the banned go off and don't slam the site owner because he felt the need to discipline them, they aren't antifreepers and there's no need to permanently ban them. If they go further and do something interesting, like build a really good web site which has real constructive content instead of one dedicated to whining and destroying the web sites of other people, I have no problem with a ban being lifted on an individual basis. If they did so others might actually seek their work out to post here, and people might come to enjoy seeing it. Chances are, though, if a person goes off and does something commendable and constructive on his own, he won't have the time or desire to pester some web site owner about being allowed to come back.
In fact, if FR was just a run-of-the-mill web site, such people wouldn't bother to worry about being allowed back in. They wouldn't consider it so worthwhile to slander the site owner, gloat over a lawsuit, disrupt, slam posters here, put out disinformation, make demands, lurk continually around the fringes looking for 'apostles' to join their club, etc. These people don't lurk around Salon.com or DU or the thousands of other forums out there, or dedicate themselves to harassing MSNBC or CNN forum managers, and certainly they don't go to various Joe Six-Pack web site to rail against average run of the mill site owners. But FR is not just some piddling web site. For many, the site is a free and easy place for them to make 'names' for themselves or spread their particular theories or to push their own exclusive causes, and so they tend to become strangely aggressive and even possessive when it comes to FR. They come to believe that FR is not a privilege but a right, and demand to use FR's resources to get their work seen, without regard to the owner's right to manage his site as he sees fit.
I don't see the value in caving in to each and every self-righteous person with an agenda to push.
You should try the Never Ending Story, it gets off track at times, it started as a catholic and baptist debate, and wound up being a lets bash each other to death debate, but we got tired of that, oh there is still some bashing going on, always will be, but its turned into a all faiths debate, someone posts a question or an article and we run with it, it takes about 2 -3 days on some less on others, and then a new topic is posted and we start over again, really its not as bad as it was. Come visit us. :)
BigMack
LOL, Can the rest of us go in and watch.
No, she's here. But as far as I know, she dropped FR for a while to moderate on Lucianne's.
After all, we just had a whole thread devoted to laughing at some Palestinian kids that were cut to ribbons by IDF machine gun fire.From search FR for "palestinian", THIS seems to be the thread:Link please?
59 posted on 7/13/02 6:29 AM Pacific by Lazamataz
Too lazy to find it, but you could probably search on "Palestinian" or "IDF". It was posted yesterday.
Not everyone was doing it--a lot were just saying "this never happened," which isn't so bad.
But far, far too many were making comments like "good, that's fewer suicide bombers."
I mean, these were little kids on their bikes, etc. I don't care who they were, or if it was on purpose or an accident or if it never happened at all. Those comments were WRONG.
(Arab) Cameraman records the slaughter of bicycling (Palestinian) children
Arab News | 7-12-02 | Stephen Farrell
Posted on 07/12/2002 6:54 AM Pacific by Guillermo
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.