***"OMG, YOU'RE FREAKIN' ME OUT BUMP"***Any thoughts on this subject? I think I've been doing too much con law :)
Uh..... turn down your font???? is that the answer..?
I'm sorry, I mean, "What is 'turn down your font'?
;-)
I agree that FR is simply looking for honest and open debate.
You probably should have used a large font for a discussion of this level of importance.
Yes, you *have* been doing too much con law - LOL! :-)
Your "nutshell" summation says it all. It's healthy and refreshing to be able to debate, in a civilized manner, honest, opposing points of view.
Too many times, those with opposing views have been unfairly called "trolls" - I have seen it happen to longtime members and it is very disheartening.
I support the removal of Trolls and the like when they do the following:
1)Openly support the killing of our Troops
2)Openly support the overthrowing of our government. (If ya don't like something, get off your butt and vote!)
3)Openly give aid and comfort to our enemies
4)Openly support the killing of our President or any government officials.
There is nothing wrong with dissent. I actually enjoy the debates when it doesn't come down to name calling. Unfortunately, it usually does.
In my home...my guests must adhere to my rules. That includes keeping their language clean and not being disruptive to the moral upbringing of my children.
In Jim Robinson's home (Free Republic) I feel the same rules apply. He alone has the right to say what is allowed in his home, and we must respect that or leave!!
Factual vigorous debate and discussion is welcome here. Ad hominem or dishonesty is not.
To identify a troll sounds more art than science.
It does seem to me, however, that a conservative web site would be justified in stating that liberal ideas, in general, had been rejected and are not part of the desired debate. It seems fair to send advocates of these ideas on to sites that welcome them. It seems fair to confine the debate within certain parameters desired by the founder of the site.
I wasn't sure what the response would be when I first posted here after lurking for a while. The views expressed here are quite often contrary to my own. I expected to be ignored, scorned or even blacklisted. Yet some people had thoughtful replies to my comments. Thank you for that.
But it seems that the First Amendment is being ignored in the United States. The Secret Service has "protest zones" set up far away from the President. A man was arrested for having a "F U G W" sign. The mentality of "you are with us or you are against us" so prevelant nowadays stifles open debate.
Comments, anyone else?
I've noted that we can dissent on some things but not on others.
I know that I've been called an idiot for expressing the opinion that perhaps we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
I haven't called others an idiot, and there are plenty of well known conservatives that agree with this position, but I've suffered abuse for it.
Yeah. What's the deal with the font size? It's irritating.
The benefit is that we don't have any really nasty flamewars. In general, I have found that Free Republic is really a very pleasant forum, compared with what you will find elsewhere. If we opened it up to the DU nutcases, that would no longer be the case.
On the other hand, the mods can be a little nuts sometime. People have been banned who should not have been banned. And sometimes stuff is removed that should not be removed. It's not a big deal really, if you don't mind just creating another account. You aren't going to keep getting banned unless you really are a troll. Quad meme, for some, it is quite a shame to lose an account they've had for a long time.
Ideally, Free Republic should consider reinstating old accounts after period of time (at least the ones which have been around awhile before they were banned--not the DU trolls) and maybe allow for some kind of appeals process. But, otherwise, I guess you just have to make a new account when you get struck down by a quirky mod.
I have to put up with these idiots in the media, in the workplace, in my in-laws. I don't feel the need to have to put up with their "honest" debate here on FR. So far as I can tell, honesty and the Dem Party are at cross purposes. Let the opposition twist their logic on other websites....
I disagree.
In a nutshell, we at FR do not support viewpoint discrimination.
Well, it depends on the situation.
Personally, I prefer open and unrestricted debate. But the decision is not mine to make.
***"OMG, YOU'RE FREAKIN' ME OUT BUMP"***I find nothing to quarrel with in what you have written. After all it is hard to argue with letting the best idea prevail in the marketplace of ideas.
But I do not find much there that advances my understanding of this troll business. You seem to limit the definition to assertion of facts which are false and to slanders. You assert these are not legally protected speech, a legal tenet with which I would quarrel.
First, my observation shows me that those who scream TROLL the loudest are themselves the most prone to descend to the ad hominem and indulge in libel. Second, who is to say which assertions are false? Is that not a matter for rebuttal and not shunning unto outer darkness of the poster who tresspasses on our peculiar conservative brand of PC?
Finally, I have observed that troll alerts are not reserved for intentionally deceptive or libelous utterances but all to often are in fact motivated for "viewpoint descrimination" which we all say we abhor but which is clearly all too prevalent in practice.
I commend you for addressing this important issue to the future of FreeRepublic.
Sorry pal, I'm not going to waste my time or resources on America hating trolls. If you want to debate these guys, do it on DU or LP or wherever.