Talk:Free Republic

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Note: Other relevent comments may exist at Talk:Jim_Robinson. Consider reading that page, too, before taking any brash action.

Part of the history of this page is now at Talk:Free Republic/pagehistory, following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Freeploaders. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Archives

---

1. Talk:Free Republic/Archive1
2. Talk:Free Republic/Archive2
3. Talk:Free Republic/Archive3
4. Talk:Free Republic/Archive4
5. Talk:Free Republic/Archive5

Recent criticism

From the Stony Brook Press on Dec 3, 2006:

"Free Republic. HOLY CRAP IN A GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HANDBAG!!! The people of www.freerepublic.com are as psychotic as can possibly be. Now I understand that there are many conservatives that support Bush, the Iraq War, or other Bush Administration policies. But this site, its founders, and its posters take this America-worship to a new level! A new level of psycho has been achieved! Free Republic is another one of these blog sites, a right-wing one, but it’s different from the others, mainly because these people aren’t conservatives, nor are they neoconservatives. They are complete and total fascists. They abhor, though they won’t admit it, every value America was founded on. The moderator and founder, Jim Robinson, deletes any post that contradicts the opinion of himself, his members, and the Bush Administration. If you question any American policies (as long as they are Republican-made ones), you get banned. No questions asked."

More recent criticism of Free Republic Although I don't feel this material is inclusionable, its further corroboration of the statements in article concerning bannings and Bush backing. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

More criticism and praise

The reviews of FR on Amazon provide a good source of views from informed users on how they feel about FR. There are numerous reviews praising it and criticising it: A pro FR review:

"I have made over 4,000 posts on Free Republic. I am not a Republican. I am not a Bush Bot. I have argued against Republican statism, Bush diplomacy, the Supreme Court nominations, the Commerce Clause decision, The Patriot Act, the WOT, the WOD, and the culture wars of the Christian right.

I have never been accused of being a troll or zotted. Free Republic is not a Republican forum. It is a Conservative forum and there are just as many Libertarian Conservatives as Republicans on Free Republic. There are even a few bleeding heart Liberals who have been posting there for years.

No other political forum has the diversity that Free Republic has. Those who complain of being zotted or branded trolls are almost always guilty of racism or personal attacks on others. Anti-semitic white power types get zotted immediately, those with legitimate complaints about the government of Israel do not.

An anti FR review:

"FreeRepublic, back in the Clinton days, used to be the premiere news forum. A true government watchdog full of reasoned debate and rational thought.

Now, it's basically a Bush cheerleading site. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Back before election 2000, site owner Jim Robinson was very vocal in his dislike of Bush, even calling him a coke user and threatening armed revolt should Bush get elected. Now, however, posters who dare criticize Bush in any way are censored or banned. Old-time posters are being banned or leaving in droves, usually around the quarterly "Freep-a-thon" (fundraiser).

In fact, Robinson has openly declared that the goal of FreeRepublic is to re-elect Bush. This would seem to nullify their claims to be a a non-profit site (which wouldn't be allowed to promote political candidates), and throws their "fair use" justification for posting copyrighted articles into doubt.

It's really with a heavy heart I write those words. FreeRepublic, in my mind, could have changed the world. Now it's just an official web presence for the RNC."

Amazon user reviews of FR

Obviously, the allegations that FR and JR have become nothing more than rubber stamps for Bush, The Neocons and and the GOP is a divisive and hotly contested issue, and its as hotly contested right here, if the objections of the FR members and supporters are to be understood that they deny this as fact. I'm not sure if this is the case as they have objected to the Fahey info as being Non RS, but haven't argued that its untrue. (AFAIK) How do we solve this difference of opinion? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, RS is bedrock Either it is or it isn't RS. The concept being that if we concern ourselves with RS and V and NPOV we will eventually approximate the truth. If it isn't RS, then obviously it does not belong in the article. However, I think it likely is RS. --BenBurch 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User reviews at Amazon.com are not reliable sources, for very obvious reasons. You may only say that Amazon.com reviews exist, but that's about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Could we say something like "many Amazon reviews of Free Republic from those who claim to be members or ex-members corroborate the claims of bannings, censorship, and FR's and JR's shift from anti-Bush to pro-Bush, but many also deny it" with a link? ( I don't think we need it - just wondering ) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you could say anything like that. The sources are not reliable. I will again repeat the fact that Fahey is unreliable, and I'm editing out any material that's based on his scribblings.(removed BLP violations) FAAFA

Your claim that "Jossi left it in, therefore it must be RS" is a complete failure because the first thing you did when Jossi posted that so-called "compromise" version was to start editing the section about the LA Times lawsuit. He put that section in there, but you immediately started advocating changes. So it's clear that you don't believe Jossi's opinions were chiseled on stone tablets on Mt. Sinai.

Find a reliable source for these claims.

Find a reliable source for these claims.

Find a reliable source for these claims.

How many times do I have to say that? Banned Freepers are, by definition, NOT reliable sources. Remember, it's human nature to keep the good and get rid of the bad. When Jim Robinson banned them, it's reasonable to conclude that he was getting rid of the bad.

Among the ranks of the banned Freepers are the dregs of the extreme right-wing. The conspiracy theorists (like Fahey), the misfits, the anti-Semitic, the white supremacists, incorrigible trolls, racists and Klansmen. Are these the people you trust? There's one who posted an implied death threat against the Clintons. There's another who posted personal information about the manager of Chuy's restaurant. Do you really think these people are going to be honest about the reasons why they were banned?

In this case as much as any other, perhaps more than any other, you need a RELIABLE SOURCE. Fahey isn't going to serve as a placeholder until you find one. If you find one, we can always put that sentence back in. ArlingtonTX 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Response not merited. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V is not negotiable. The Amazon reviews and the Fahey piece have no place in this article.--RWR8189 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Banned Freepers, as a group, are no less reliable than current Freepers. Neither should be used unless they are part of a reliable source. Amazon user book reviews are not reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 07:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminology and subculture sources?

Surely somebody has published a FR Lexicon somewhere that is RS-V? I cannot find one. Otherwise I'll try to document each term individually. --BenBurch 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt something like that could be found in a RS. The closest thing I could find was this, and whether it satisfies WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves is questionable.--RWR8189 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. I needed a laugh, and I got one when I read that in August 06, Freepers were still living in fear of 'The Clenis' and are still tin-foil hat wearing, black helicopter and contrail seeing moonbats ;-) '"Arkancide = Mysterious death that somehow manages to happen to former friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton / CDS = Clinton Death Squad / FOB = Friend of Bill, someone who gets special favors for doing Clintons dirty work, but sometimes end up dead" - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

More Fahey discussion

Todd Brendan Fahey is a RS as is Lew Rockwell.com "(LRC) is a paleolibertarian web magazine run by Lew Rockwell, Burton Blumert, and others associated with the Center for Libertarian Studies. The site, which is also closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute"

Fahey Bio:

• "Todd Brendan Fahey is a Ph.D. candidate in English at University of Southwestern Louisiana, holds the Master's in Professional Writing from University of Southern California, received his Bachelor of Science, cum laude, in Justice Studies from Arizona State University and studied in 1985 at The University of London-Union College. He began graduate coursework in The Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State, before his acceptance into the prestigious Professional Writing Program at USC.

• Fahey has served as aide to Central Intelligence Agency agent Theodore L. "Ted" Humes, Division of Slavic Languages, and to the late-Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief Lt. General Daniel O. Graham; to former Arizona Governor Evan Mecham (R-AZ), former Congressman John Conlan (R-AZ) and others. He is currently stationed in South Korea as a strategic writer."

He is also one of the most respected experts regarding CIA drug and 'mind control' experiments. Fahey on CIA Drug Experiments, and helped debunk the claims of a disturbed woman who alleged that she was a CIA 'mind control' victim, and that Dick Cheney kept her sister hostage as a sex slave in a cheap and tawdry hotel room somewhere. (A true patriot to clear 'Dead Eye' Dick's impugned reputation!) As I argued, if Fahey were making an 'exceptional' claim, like Jim Rob is an Alien from Planet Xenu, I would agree with you, but he is documenting 'generally accepted truths' corroborated by dozens of other sources, that unlike Fahey and Rockwell, aren't RS V sources, but add to the veracity of his claims. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, you convinced me. --BenBurch 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was easy. Fahey's self-serving bio was already posted here. But since reviewing his self-promotion efforts convinced you so easily, you should read the negative things that he brags about. For all practical purposes, he is self-published. After every publishing house in New York rejected his first novel, he founded his own publishing company. [1] He seems to be proud of the quantity and variety of illegal drugs and alcohol he's used, and describes himself as a propagandist. [2] [3] "While I sucked lungsful of blonde Lebanese hash in London ..." [4]

I have a deeply-embedded fear of being 'straight.' I'll be frank about it. I have been enamored of chemicals since my childhood and it is surely the bane of my existence. I lost my wife over it just this past year. I love her and respect her enough to have finally told her, 'l can't promise I will change & a promise is what you want.' So, we divorced after 5 1/2 years of a rewarding and tumultuous marriage. She did not know about my LSD intake during the writing of Wisdom's Maw. I hid it from her - an LSD addicton that sometimes went for 40 days in a row ...

My relationship with chemicals is an uncomfortable one. To be very honest I am either bored of the "sober life," or else it scares the shit out of me. I don't know which. From the age of seventeen, I don't think I've been straight more than a week at any given period. My survival is a testament to the strength of the human will. I had a hideous relationship with alcohol from 1982-1986 (from the age of 17 to a wizened 22, when I went through rehab.) I relapsed to the bottle in '93, after about the 120th rejection of Wisdom's Maw. I 'drank-to- die' until Thanksgiving of '95 - a fifth of Wild Turkey a day. ...

I wrote my first book-length nonfiction 'novel' - a thing called Hell Bottled Up: Chronicles of a Late Propaganda Minister - in 1988, in my first semester at USC. Wrote it in a white-heat in six months, basically smashed on acid. ... So, I went to Amsterdam, started getting REALLY out of my head, like I hadn't in several years. (For the record, I stopped eating LSD in the summer of 1994 and, Bog willing, I will never pick up the habit again. Too many reminders. Too much psychic trauma. I'll probably do it again, 'cause I did it in Amsterdam - some incredibly pure & powerful stuff - but not as a "means of writing.") [5]

This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?

Publication at LewRockwell.com is also no guarantee that Fahey is reliable. While it has published articles by many reliable people, it has also published articles by unreliable people:

Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute has criticized the blog for carrying columns by controversial figures, such as Gary North, whom Palmer calls "one of the oddest of oddballs" (North has called for the stoning of homosexuals and women who have abortions) and Joseph Sobran, who, he writes, "speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review". Sobran was fired from National Review by William F. Buckley following a furor over Sobran's opposition to the 1991 Gulf War and what some considered to be anti-semitism. [6]

-- BryanFromPalatine 11:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have another source (a notable RS V print magazine) that confirms these allegations and more, which I'll post later. (that CIA LSD experiment documentation is staggering, huh?) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

New RS V Source

"Chronicles_(magazine) is a U.S. monthly magazine published by the paleoconservative Rockford Institute. Its full current name is Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. The magazine is known for promoting anti-globalism and anti-intervention stances within conservative politics.[7] The editor is Thomas Fleming; the executive editor is Scott P. Richert. Aaron D. Wolf is associate editor, and Chilton Williamson is the senior editor for books. Chronicles was founded in 1976, soon after the Institute's establishment earlier that year."

I found this article (published in the Dec 2002 issue) a few weeks ago, but mistakingly thought that it was only a forum post.

Notable quotes:

"Matters came to a head in early 2000 when Robinson (or "JimRob") speculated on George W. Bush’s connection to the airport in Mena, Arkansas where drug and gun-running allegedly took place during the 1980’s. Matt Drudge then dropped Free Republic’s link from the Drudge Report, and Goldberg took 2.000 members with her to start her own Lucianne.com."

"With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders..."

"Many banned Freepers have turned to such sites as Liberty Post (www.libertypost.org) and Liberty Forum (www.libertyforum.org) where members can post articles from anywhere and comment without interference from the thought police or fear of Siberian banishment."

The article was posted on FR:

Link on FR

More posts on it, and related.

an article on this article

another cached source

Discussion on Liberty Post - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

At first blush it seems to be a better article with less questions over reliability.--RWR8189 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA, if you're going to rely on the Chronicles article, I'm confident that you will be honest and NPOV enough to include the following excerpt from said article prominently: "Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs." It is believed that such "agents provocateurs" were responsible for the Chuy's incidents and many other examples that at first glance, would seem to be the very sort of thing that would feed your "criticism and controversy" section. BryanFromPalatine 12:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

BenBurch, when you reverted my changes, you posted one line on the History page: "Restore consensus version - Fahey material is a RS and appears in a RS print journal." But your changes went far beyond that, and there is no consensus supporting Fahey as a RS; at best, the consensus is 50/50 with you and FAAFA on one side, and RWR8189 and I on the other side. And since FAAFA has already found the far more reliable Chronicle article, why would you continue to rely on the proudly drug-addled Fahey as your so-called reliable source?

If you're going to insist on starting a revert war over Todd Brendan Fahey, at least do me the courtesy of explaining why you would insist on using him, when a far more reliable source has been found by your inseparable friend and ally, FAAFA. As RWR8189 said two days ago, "WP:V is not negotiable. The Amazon reviews and the Fahey piece have no place in this article." WP:RS isn't negotiable either.

I would like to work with you on this. There is clearly a consensus that accepts Chronicle as RS, but if you continue to post your Fahey nonsense, and until you base the material you want to add on Chronicle or some other RS, I must treat such reversions as vandalism and respond accordingly. -- BryanFromPalatine 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Bryan, I would have hoped that you read up on WP while you were blocked for sockpuppetry. Your edits to the intro and OR show that you didn't. The intro is supposed to suffice as a short 'stand alone' article, not be a place to hash out claims and counterclaims. Furthermore, there is no evidence that anyone other than genuine members made the Chuy's threats, and when I asked you to supply some, you suggested that I ask a FR sysop. By the way, WHY are you editing this article from two accounts, your BFP account, and the IP 209 account? You've been officially convicted as a sockpuppet and puppeteer. You should be more careful - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA, I've read up on Wikipedia:Vandalism and when you defy consensus like that, it's vandalism. I've just reverted your vandalism. Your claim that Fahey is RS is not supported by consensus. If you simply must include claims that FR has "changed course" from anti-Bush to pro-Bush, is "not conservative" and has banned a lot of good members for simply criticizing Bush (or whatever) then base such material on reliable sources. WP:RS is not negotiable. You have just produced a reliable source at long last: the Chronicles article. Fahey was used as a placeholder in violation of WP:RS, but that is now behind us. Build your encyclopedic material from the Chronicles article. Thank you. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I observe that you've reverted again, going back to the old version with the misspelled words. And you've removed the quotations from Chronicles magazine, which you've just finished introducing as a RS! What's wrong? Have you changed your mind about its reliability so suddenly? I'm getting some administrators involved in response to your efforts to vandalize this article. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

(UI) Why are you editing this article from two accounts? Didn't you read WP:SOCK while you were blocked for sockpuppetry? Your consensus claims are fallacious as it would now have to be described as 3 to 2 for Fahey with Picaroon joining me and BB (That's not 'consensus' but I'm using your understanding so you can relate) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any statements from Picaroon for or against Fahey as RS. Nor do I see any such statements by Lawyer2b, so I didn't include him either. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Free Republic, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (please stop)

Some advice that editors may consider. See WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. Using attribution, sometime helps give context to our readers. In particular is a statement is contentious, describing who makes that statement, can help our readers reach their own conclusions about it. I do not want to get into the discussion of this person Fahey is a reliable source or not, as that may be not the issue. Please consider evaluating if that source represents a "significant" viewpoint instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The "agents provocateurs" thing especially, while it might be a notable and reliable statement, does not belong in the opening paragraph if it comes from a biased source. Also, this is a good place to use WP:3O instead of revert warring. Ashibaka (tock) 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The agents provocateurs statement is a statement of fact, not susceptible to spin-doctoring. Either so-called "leftists" have done it, or they haven't. Absent some showing of bias on the part of this particular author, it should stay.

Fahey is neither RS nor a significant viewpoint. After being rejected by every publishing house in New York over the course of two years, he started his own publishing company; that, and starting his own Web pages, is the only reason he's published at all. His self-promoting "bio" is unverified. He persistently engages in bragging about the variety and quantity of illegal drugs and alcohol he has used. The fact that a witness is a drug addict or alcoholic may be used in court to impeach the credibility of the witness. US v. Cheatwood, (10th Cir. 2002), No. 00-6401; [8] US v. Contreras-Castellanos, (10th Cir. 2003), No. 02-8062. [9]

If FAAFA insists on adding one of Fahey's statements, then readers should be educated about what sort of person Fahey is. They should know that he hasn't spent seven consecutive days sober since he was 17, and that he has used LSD for 40 consecutive days. They should know that he describes himself as a "propaganda minister" and a "conspiracy theorist." Then Jossi's suggestion on attribution would work out. Otherwise, since the average person has never heard of Fahey (and for good reason), simply naming the source doesn't mean much. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

more criticism needed. The FR members and supporters here have agreed that this article should be similar to that of Democratic Underground as far as criticism. Take a look at that criticism section vs this one. They have cherry picked the most offensive quotes and included them verbatim like "The wife of former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards allegedly criticized members who did not feel compassion for Laura Ingraham in her fight with breast cancer. Comments about Ingraham's cancer reportedly included: "She Probably Gave it to Herself," "All that Hate, Lies, Anger," and "I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum." The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes documented actions like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in the article) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. The lawsuit info doesn't count towards 'crticism' either. It's not the members fault that Jim Rob encouraged them to ignore copyright. Where's the parity? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes documented actions like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in the article) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. It was written up by Jossi that way. The lawsuit info doesn't count towards 'crticism' either. Perhaps not, but it counts toward "controversy." Criticism and controversy, grouped together, add up to no more than 25% of the DU and Kos articles. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

We can move all but one sentence to the LAT vs FR article then. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Jihad Against Chuy's" article on Salon is linked as a reference. If the reader wants to know what was said, he can click on the link. This is an encyclopedia article, not an exhaustive inventory of everything that was ever said at FR that offends delicate left-wing sensibilities. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work on the lead, Ashibaka

Thank you. That works for me. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Not for me. Plenty of documentation of individual threats coming from actual FR members, (see Clinton death threats below) and NO documented threat is tied to a 'troll'.

proposed quotes to include:

"Followers of the Free Republic gained notoriety earlier for posting death threats against President Clinton. This was the most direct:"

• "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard [President Clinton] ourselves! He is now threatening my children and grandchildren, and I will kill him, before I let him kill my kids for his non-legacy! He, Clinton, has now embroiled The United States of America in a terrorist attack on a sovereign nation, and I will not stand-by, and let him kill my offspring. You better wake up, people, he's now gonna kill our kids, and the congress and senate are not going to do A GODDAMM THING!!!!!!! We better do it now, kids, while we've still got guns, or we're gonna be doing it with torches and pointy sticks later, with a lot more casualties! Don't think I'll be posting here for a while, folks. I think I'll be talkin' to the USSS for a while, and trying to convince them to kill him!...Later, buds. Gonzo" Posted on June 10, 1999 Free Republic Death Threats

"So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!"Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson SOURCE

Any objections? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course I object. I'm sure RWR8189 will object as well. American Politics is not a RS. It is hopelessly biased against conservatives, as other passages from the site (as well as the sidebars) demonstrate with painful clarity. This same article was discussed previously on these Talk pages and it was shot down in flames. Furthermore, American Politics isn't even the original source of the article. It's TJWalker.com -- which went "Error 404" so long ago that the domain name has been reassigned to a media group. [10] -- BryanFromPalatine 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Foot in mouth again ! That website IS TJ Walker's - the same TJ Walker who wrote the article. The SAME TJ Walker whose article appears here on CBS NEWS TJ Walker - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's the same TJ Walker? Show me. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, Let me get this straight, Bryan

You seriously believe that the truth of the matter is that Free Republic has been infested with enemies who are sufficiently able to sound like a coherent whatever-it-is-that-you-think-you are-there to avoid a speedy zot, but who are also the source of all extremist rhetoric and horrible grammar on Free Republic? Do you then also believe that America is still infested with Soviet deep-cover agents waiting for their "Manchurian Candidate" phone call? How about the Tooth Fairy? --BenBurch 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your mockery is duly noted. "[A]ll extremist rhetoric and horrible grammar on Free Republic?" No, of course not. Some of it? Yes. The reliable source, Chronicles, that has just been unearthed by your faithful friend and inseparable companion FAAFA has confirmed it. My sources indicate that the Chuy's incident was caused by a "leftist ... agent provocateur." But since it's OR, I'm not going to claim in the article that this particular incident was caused by a leftist AP. If I can find a reliable source, however ... -- BryanFromPalatine 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So unlike the fifty cents the tooth fairy left under your pillow, you have no proof whatsoever about your fairy tale? --BenBurch 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins are watching. It's a good thing.

Chronicles states that during the late 1990s "[l]eftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs." This is the same magazine that your friend FAAFA has just introduced as a reliable source. That is sufficient proof that SOME of the FR activities that have been criticized were the work of "leftist ... agents provocateurs." There's your fifty cents. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Threat noted. --BenBurch 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

So when you do it, it's all right; but when I do it, it's a threat? -- BryanFromPalatine 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OR: BFP, please explain how this addition isn't OR. I need a good laugh. "It is possible that many of these incidents may have been the fault of such leftist ... agents provocateurs." Why are you editing this article from two accounts, BFP, and IP 209? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a statement of fact. Since Chronicles identified the existence of "leftist ... agents provocateurs," it is possible that any given incident of extremism, or inappropriate calls to action, could have been made by one of them. Chronicles is YOUR reliable source. Regarding IP 209, I've read WP:SOCK. Then I read it again. And again. You should as well. First of all, an IP address is not an account. Second, I did not use it in an abusive fashion.

I hereby claim all edits today from the IP 209 address as my own. There was no effort to sway consensus.

Happy now? -- BryanFromPalatine 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)