Good-bye [if I can't post my 9/11 troofer garbage to FR, I'm leaving]

self ^ | June 25, 2009 | ThePythonicCow

[period end of story]

Yeah, who knew they had coon asses in Kansas.

Apparently you did. Who would have guessed?

[MARTIAL MONK]

You were here in ‘98. You should remember Lew. I can remember him vaguely from that time. Debate was a waste of time. He did not leave nicely.

[deks]

0.k. I didn’t know that. It’s taken me several years to figure out what portion of Free Republic I know how to use. Although I was once able to help someone who’d been here for several years to find the FR Home page (...there’s no “Home” to click on).

This is turning out to be a nice chatty thread. Maybe you should stay.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Cow, did you see this? The mod is trying to help...RD

[Hoosier-Daddy]

Coon Asses? Probably nice tail...

[Las Vegas Dave]

Sonnenfeld, 44, is charged with first-degree murder in the New Year's Day 2002 shooting death of his 36-year-old wife, Nancy, at the couple's home in Congress Park.
The case caused a sensation at the time, with friends describing Nancy as among the city's "beautiful people" and the two as "madly in love."
The charges against Sonnenfeld were dismissed just before trial in June 2002 after a note written by Nancy Sonnenfeld was found that supported Kurt Sonnenfeld's contention that she took her own life.
New charges were filed in 2004, however, after two Denver jail inmates came forward to say Sonnenfeld had confessed to them during his time in custody. By then, Sonnenfeld had remarried and was living in Argentina.
He has been fighting extradition ever since, describing the warrants against him as "a false pretext for other darker motives."

A good reason not to believe (or post) "chicken little" conspiratists...

[icwhatudo]

Neither did that Thompson lawyer from Florida that hated Janet Reno so much. He wanted to sue everyone-lol!

[thecabal]

I'm curious about your ideas about 9/11. I generally abhor 9/11 truther conspiracies; not because I don't believe that our government is capable of such treachery, but because I've seen NO good evidence and a lot of BS attached to the topic (I've done the reading on the theories, I love a good conspiracy theory). I know that you can't speak of your ideas here, but I'm intrigued when a seemingly thoughtful and long-lived Freeper takes this position.

I agree that JimRob can do whatever he wants with his site, but the moderation is a bit too heavy-handed at times for my tastes. Seems like a lot of good members get thrown under the bus waaaaay too easily.

[VicVega]

"This is turning out to be a nice chatty thread. Maybe you should stay."

LOL, I agree.

[ThePythonicCow]

Why not email Admin and ask why they deleted your post?

One doesn't even know it was -deleted- by conscious admin decision, as opposed to fat fingered by my old hands, or zapped by some cosmic ray hitting an overheated RAM chip.

Once again ... to repeat myself (sorry). The why is only a secondary issue. Web forums get to choose their own whys and why nots. A simple explanation of why is useful, so one knows where not to waste time composing posts that will only serve to irritate the admins in the future.

But the mere fact that it was intentionally pulled is never visible to the poster (unless they can happen to still have that old post link that no longer exists on any usual FR page.)

[VicVega]

Lets keep this thread going PCow. We got to pass a hundred for your good-bye post.

[ThePythonicCow]

Cow, did you see this? The mod is trying to help...RD

Yes, I saw it. Thanks for checking. See my reply to the mod at Post #21.

[amom]

There's also post 42

To: ThePythonicCow

OK - went back through the records and found it. There were two reported complaints by other freepers asking that the tread be pull because it contained "9/11 truther BS." On inspection moderators agreed and the thread was pulled. The reason a thread is pulled is usually posted at the top of the thread when the the thread is reopened.

The decision of the moderator was agreed to by several others who looked at the content at the time.

Sorry that you are considering leaving. I'd say that you owe yourself the opportunity to communicate with the mods... it is easy you know - and learn why users and mods here have little tolerance for those that spin lies about what happened on 9/11.

NOTE - I personally did not review the post, but I have implicit trust in the people who did.

42 posted on Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:35:55 AM by Admin Moderator

[ThePythonicCow]

Was prison planet where your removed 9-11 article came from?

No - my post was pulled for content (or lack thereof ;), nor the source link.

The obscure site it came from (I forget now; see some post above) is probably not on FR's current bad-guys list. However I suspect if I posted enough stuff from that site, it could quickly earn a spot on that coveted list.

[deks]

I was thinking if you had kept the thread page open after you posted it, and then refreshed it to see any comments added, you probably would have seen the ‘thread pulled/reason given’ page then. That is how I follow threads rather than the real-time “Comments” view.

[LadyPilgrim]

I remember when he said this. Not word for word...but I remember....

And it’s here folks.

[CellPhoneSurfer]

I have not had a thread pulled, but I was just wondering, do the pulled articles still appear in your “Pings” list? I seem to recall clicking on an old article headline in my ping history and being taken to a pulled thread. Even though the article and replies were no longer there, FR apparently kept the reply ping number for the article in my ping history.

If that is still the case, you could then see the reason given for the pulled article by clicking on the link in your own ping history.

[TypeZoNegative]

[ThePythonicCow]

The decision of the moderator was agreed to by several others who looked at the content at the time.

As I have stated above, I have no particular gripe about the reason it was pulled. FR gets to call those shots, hopefully with some modicum of visible consistency.

Just tell me it was pulled, perhaps by sending have an automatic private message that contains the no longer publicly visible link to the "This thread has been pulled" page at the time of the pull, stating that said linked thread was pulled.

I honestly don't expect to have a thread or post pulled. Having posted some 7000 FR posts without complaint before my first pull, it just didn't occur to me that was the problem back when I posted that bank-rate thread. I wasted another 30 or 40 minutes reposting that one after it was pulled the first time before convincing myself that the admin was working silently behind my back to erase my labors as soon as I posted them. By which time I was too pissed to trust myself to ask the admin, and went to bed.

Having stuff just disappear without any notice (that is likely to be seen by the poster) is too Draconian.

[ThePythonicCow]

We got to pass a hundred for your good-bye post.

Made it!