Posted on 05/01/2003 11:06:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Well, well, well. And yet another anti-Freeper site springs up:
http://www.freerepublicsucks.s5.com/crackdownmay2003.htm
We must be doing something right to have so many Bush haters hating us so much.
Well, we wish you luck. You'll have plenty of competition from FR haters.
Some people just can't be happy unless they're miserable...Me? I still have nightmares about those 8 years -- and the Clintoons' everlasting legacy, which nearly killed me.
There is a major difference in "debate" and in "trash Bush because he has not solved every problem and because it 'looks' like he will cave on xxxxxxxxxx".
Debate is interesting - trashing is not.
I use to woefully complain that all my efforts were spent on FR protecting Bush from other "conservatives(?)". We then did nothing to combat the liberals that were going on unopposed to bring this country down.
Would be nice if we anti-liberals fought liberals - not other conservatives to protect the best president we have had since Reagan. Why is Jim required to provide a site that allows conservatives to destroy this president and enable the liberals to again get power?
Why do the ex-FR people so resent the loss of their ability to tear down Bush? Why is it they so need to destroy this president for not being the unelectable man they want?
Why is it essential for them to use FR to mount their campaign of destruction to Republicans? Are we that respect and like Bush to be the only ones searching for another site?
I can tell you with the utmost assurance he is well hated in local circles.
Would you like to guess how many people would be in favor of him staying gone?
In other words, you are Oz, the Great and Powerful.
And people should bloody well know better to call you a coward to your face.
She brought up the Geneva Convention in relation to us bombing the crap out of Afghanistan in direct response to 9-11.
No wonder she got banned.
This seems to be the general pattern defining the banishments I've witnessed since a year or so ago.
Unpopular opinion causes reaction. (the truth is often unpopular)
People hit the abuse button, particularly if they cannot defend their ideas.
Reactionary moderators, or Jim himself, delete the posts which cause the clamor, and ultimately ban the "offender".
There was a time when FR was more than a mutual admiration society. It used to be a website that valued truth (at least to a large extent) over conformity. It used to be a website that recognized the value of defending challenges, rather than hiding them (lest someone have to think).
It's unfortunate, but it's true.
Sure. FR began w/o moderation and grew to a certain critical mass. Those who were here when it became necessary to do something to get this place under control can well remember that it was becoming a potential cesspool. Since anyone could, basically post anything, well, they did.
Jim and others made decisions. Any system of command and control is going to have strengths and weaknesses. By and large, I think what we have now works well.
No one holds a gun on anyone to force them to come here.
The most reasonable means I have available to me to test the validity of truth, is to evaluate the ideas I purport to be truth, against challenges asserted by others.
The difference between you and I, is that I don't run from such challenges. In fact, I seek them out (so as to better understand what I know, and what I don't know).
Each time you and your buddies hit the abuse button because you're unable to defend your ideas, it serves to reinforce the validity of those ideas you cannot rebutt.
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.