Posted on 10/13/2010 1:23:44 PM PDT by Wading Across
This article seeks to look into Missouri’s Prop B, which will be on the ballot in November. Prop B is the Puppy Mill Bill and it has become a heated debate. I mention Amendment 2 which was the stem cell/cloning bill which barely passed in 2006 here in Missouri. One of the major arguments against the bill – and which I share – was that the bill’s summary conflicted with its complete language and therefore lied to the public; in other words it is not a pro-life law. One of the arguments against Prop B is that it is vague and could affect any and all livestock breeders across the state; in other words that the bill lies and has a subversive intent. My hope is to air the bill out. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at wadingacross.wordpress.com ...
My general conclusion is ambivelance. It's hard to say how effective this law will be. It's apparent that it will put a number of breeders out of business due to the proposed cap (50 adult breeding dogs). The issue is enforcement and the concern is that HSUS (the group behind the law) is using this as a stepping stone for further, greater anti-breeding/farming laws.
I found some of the law vague and open to abuse, but mostly redundant. If it's not apparent, I'm not for the bill.
Why not just post it here?
My general conclusion is that you are pimping for blog hits.
Possible. ;)
As to posting it all on FR - it’s way, way too long. It was 4 pages single space on Word when I typed it out.
I’ve got enough tags on it that I’ll get hits off of search engines too as November approaches.
So you admit you are using FR as an advertising platform.
Have you any further comments on the matter?
Perusing the Blog/Personal board this morning I noticed three or four other postings by three or four different individuals doing exactly the same thing. Would it have made a difference if I’d used a different moniker when I signed up on FR? It’s entirely possible a far greater number of people are doing this.
I don’t post everything I blog on this site. If I have broken a rule that I am unaware of, then alert the FR staff and have this thread and my account deleted. I am posting “new” material; thoughts I came to on my own, not merely cutting and pasting - thus I put it on the Blog/Personal board. I have posted interesting items I’ve come across from other sites onto FR using appropriate boards, News, Religion, etc.
In effect, FR could be considered an advertising plaform for pretty much any site someone posts a link.
Show me the rule that I have broken, and I won’t do it again, simple as that, irrelevant of other people doing it.
Your blog is NOT on the “must excerpt” list.
There is no need to excerpt it, unless you are just looking for blog hits.
What is your intent?
To get the information out or to get blog hits?
Still learning the ropes of this particular site, even though I’ve been a long-time lurker. I hadn’t heard of a “must excerpt” list. The closest thing I can see is about “vanity posting”, but since I’m commenting on a bill that will be up for public vote next month, the closest vanity is that I’m posting my article from my blog using my account here. http://www.freerepublic.com/help.htm
I no longer care about what your opinion is of my posting or method. What I care about is making sure I’m following FR’s guidelines and rules. So far I do not see proof of what you’re saying unless it’s some sort of unwritten “ethical” code posters have come up with on here.
The closest things I can find have to do with posting/excerpting news sites over copyright issues. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1111944/posts
It seems that this behavior has gone on before as noted by someone who was banned, the Conservative Examiner, over the exact same accused practices.
And it seems that you’ve pointed out this “error” to prior posters http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2596247/posts
Unless you can specifically point out a rule - with a link within this website - your accusations, opinions of my motives and claims aren’t worth squat. Viewing your recent commenting history, it’s clear that you make a habit of it.
And, as of this posting, I just discovered that you’ve been banned or suspended.
Thank you FR staff.
Dang, I hate it when that happens.
Close.
A poster "welshman007" who "writes" on the examiner blog
(Anthony G. Martin) was indeed banned. Does this indicate anything to you?
In fact, here’s a thread on that very topic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2540034/posts
Post #11 on that thread contains prophetic wisdom, seemingly written just for you.
How sad.
Well then, here’s one person - me - who has a compliment about Mr. Wilders. “Keep it up!”
Not really. You haven’t proven squat. Where is the rule that I have broken? You have yet to provide hard evidence of a rule that I have broken. Your singular link discusses the behavior of a prior poster who was banned because of supposed threats. I am not making threats of any kind. I am merely asking if I have broken a rule, one you claim I have - yet have not backed up with anything except your own “rule”.
Prophetic wisdom for me? Not really. I’ve been a moderator before and written on message boards before. I know full well that message boards are not always perfectly run.
I ask again, where’s the rule? Specific link within FR please, as written and agreed to by FR administration. Are you a mod or administrator? All I see is a legalist with no law to back up claims.
I never stated you broke any rule.
I stated that your blog is not on the excerpt list.
You excerpt in order to get blog hits, this is USING Free Republic.
Refute that. You can’t. You’re a dang blog pimp.
I'm curious, why would you submit a post to one whom, ostensibly, has been 'banned or suspended'?
hg, how ru? have a grt weeknd.
GRRRRRRR!
You may have never stated it, but that’s what I’ve inferred. Furthermore, I suspect others get the same inferrence, whether that’s your implication or not. You state that my blog is not on an excerpt list. True. That list is for newsites which threaten lawsuits over copyright issues. There is nothing saying I must or must not excerpt portions of my own blog site. As for using excerpts in order to get blog hits, if I still post a link to my blog, I’m going to potentially get hits, irrespective of whether or not I’ve posted any portion of my original article.
You can call me whatever you want. I don’t really care. You still haven’t proved anything wrong on my part, only that you don’t like what you assume I’m doing as part of some sort of unethical practice. Unless I get a direct comment from FR administration that I’m doing something wrong, I do not see myself as doing anything wrong.
Were my original posting within 350 words, I’d have no problem posting it all on FR. As I previously noted, the whole thing was 4 pages long - I tend to write long articles and responses.
I have seen bloggers “self-promoting” on all sorts of other blog sites. The mere inclusion of a website (your own) in a comment name can be considered blog pimping and self-promotion. I have gotten viewings of my blog from other sites where I left a comment and the people clicked on the link within my name. Moe Lane and others on RedState crosslink their articles to their own website all the time. Lori Ziganto on Redstate also writes on NewsReal and iirc crossposts to her own website. That’s a form of self promotion. Big deal.
It sounds to me like you’re making a mountain out of a molehill with plenty of self-righteous judgement. Until I get specific notification from FR to cease and desist or correct particular posting methods, I will continue to do as I have.
If you post this in full I will read it. If you expect me to visit yet again another stupid blog forget it.
If you are excerpting for blog hits then you are using FR as a business platform and a nice large donation to FR would be appreciated.
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.