Talk:Free Republic: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:34, 9 March 2007

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.)

Template:TrollWarning

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)[reply]

Dixie Chicks?

What's the issue with the Dixie Chicks section? <<-armon->> 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-arranging the section, which at one time was in chronological order, to put The Dixie Chicks into the lead and to further separate a significant quote and put that quote into a 'stand-alone' position of prominence.

How 'bout we add this quote into a similar position " "It's a hateful place that, if the world was working as it should, would be relegated to the Internet's endless fringes, where conspiracy theorists and pyramid-power believers roam the wasteland." Globe and Mail S'that OK? - FaAfA (yap) 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. What does the Globe and Mail quote have to do with it? <<-armon->> 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Maines quote is a 'weighty' quote, moved into the most prominent position possible. If that's OK, picking a similarly 'weighty' quote (not one of the mildest) and moving it to a similar position should be OK, yes? - FaAfA (yap) 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So am I correct in reading this as just a jockeying for "position" in the article? If so, sorry I asked. <<-armon->> 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is a very loud condemnation of Free Republic, reflecting the mean-spirited side of the organization, coming from one of its most prominent critics. Also, "the most prominent position possible" is in the lead of the article, which is precisely where FAAFA placed some nasty information in several successively nastier versions not long ago.

If FAAFA wants to counterbalance it, then we should give the same prominent placement to that statement by Sean Scallon about "leftist ... agents provocateurs." Since the Dixie Chicks statement in London was in 2003, and the other three paragraphs (Rathergate, Tony Snow and Jerome Corsi) are about events in 2004 and thereafter, Shibumi2 was correct in putting the Dixie Chicks at the top of the section to be in chronological order. I agree that we should get some input from an admin on this, since FAAFA is now starting a revert war with Shibumi2.

By the way, what happened to the Free Republic logo? Dino 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

From the article: "In addition, members whose comments and/or views are contrary to the prevailing Free Republic philosophies often have their posting privileges permanently revoked without warning." This has recently been added to the article by a brand new, single-purpose account and it has no basis in WP:RS, let alone reality. It isn't the "comments and/or views [that] are contrary to the prevailing Free Republic philosophy." I can immediately link you to the "User pages" of three or four Freepers whose views are diametric opposites to the prevailing Free Republic philosophy. If I start looking, I could find more.

What matters is how those views are presented. If someone registers the username "GOPsux" and starts posting "Republicans are fascists," he'll be gone in a hurry. But if someone registers a username like "Larry from Seattle" and starts posting a polite, well-founded constitutional dissection of the PATRIOT Act, the War On Drugs and the NSA's warrantless wiretaps, he will continue to be a valued and respected member of Free Republic. Dino 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I can immediately link you to the "User pages" of three or four Freepers whose views are diametric opposites to the prevailing Free Republic philosophy." Of course you can. But you don't.

And you claim four accounts out of a claimed 200,000 registrants shows diversity? That's 0.002%.Eschoir 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of new here, but I have read the guidelines, and it appears you have violated them (again) by threatening litigation and revealing personal information through your link to the disbarred attorney's article. It would please me for you to be banned (again) from Wikipaedia, but before I request an arbitration to that end I feel I must give you a chance to redact yourself. Please edit and/or delete your last two posts, or I shall avail myself of the process you are so familiar with.Eschoir 04:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome conselor ! Am I correct in my understanding that you're a real attorney as opposed to a pretend attorney, (or a pair of pretend 'brothers' pretend attorneys) or Free Republic's erstwhile disbarred attorney, Brian L. Buckley AKA 'Clarity' ? - FaAfA (yap) 05:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys offload this stuff to the arbcom case please? It's not relevant to the article. <<-armon->> 22:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. What are the secondary sources reporting this? <<-armon->> 00:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new here. But I just read this: Behavior that is unacceptable Please note that some of the following are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia.

No personal attacks A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. This mainly means: No insults: Don't make ad hominem attacks, such as calling someone an idiot or a fascist. Instead, explain what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it. Don't threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you. Don't make legal threats: Threatening a lawsuit is highly disruptive to Wikipedia, for reasons given at the linked page. Never post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely. Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others. It apears that the poster "Dino" cares more about his "war with Eschoir" than he does the rules. Could someone more familiar with the system help me figure out how to do a "Request for Comment"?Eschoir 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention "war with Eschoir", after looking at your wiki contributions, it seems that your only contributions to wiki have been to "war with Dean". Frankly I think you both need to take your squabble elsewhere. Dman727 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't WP:BITE the newcomers, buddy! Back off, buckaroo! He's only got about 20 edits. A LOT of editors come here to concentrate on one issue, then branch out. Like me! Shouldn't you be guarding all the bush Admin articles against unseemly references to Libby's conviction, anyway? ;-) - FaAfA (yap) 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Shouldn't you be guarding all the bush Admin articles against unseemly references to Libby's conviction, anyway?" Why should I be doing that? Dman727 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Dman727's User Page:

Please note that unsourced information about living people that could possibly remotely be considered negative by anyone can and must be removed by any editors, and that doing so is a specific exception to WP:3rr. JBKramer 18:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Eschoir 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is indeed from my user page. And I thank JBKramer for answering a concern or misunderstanding that I had in regards to WP:3rr 9 months ago on a different article. Did you have a specific concern or question with WP:3rr that someone can help you with? Dman727 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking you could and must remove Dino's unsourced and negative (and incidently false) information regarding me, thank you.Eschoir 15:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Redacted by dman727... Dman727 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you admire my writing, though I do not give my approval to your publishing my name on Wikipaedia, and ask you to delete it.

In the name of consensus.

Let's us try to build a little consensus on whether "his facts above appear to be accurate."

Are you ready for a little consensus building?

Great. Let's look for facts!

I'm glad you have the PACER access to my case. Would you look at the Docket Report and tell the viewers what the cause of action was? It appears right after the words "Cause: 28:1332". Check you later. Eschoir 02:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir, respectfully I am not interested in furthering the feud between yourself and DeanHinnen, especially now that you have confirmed your identity. In fact from what I can tell, there might even be legal liability for me do so. In any event, Wiki is not the place for this nonsense. However, PACER is a public service which allows anyone access to public court documents. The document above which faafa edited is a public document. Anyone, including yourself may access these public documents, so you really don't need me to do this for you. Finally, I regret even getting involved in this squabble. I apologize to the entire wiki community for feeding the squabble between deanhinnen, eschoir, faafa and Benburch. Dman727 03:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry. You make a mess and then just leave it without cleaning it up. You should perhaps think about reverting to status quo ante rather than leaving up your work and then apologizing for it.

For the sake of those following along at home, the answer to the question I proposed about the Cause of Action identified in FR's lawsuit against me listed in the PACER docket report was this:

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

The next question would have been "What was the relief sought?"

The answer would have been "Demand: $950,000"

Next, does the term Injunction appear in the Docket Report before the settlement (consent order of dismissal)?

The answer is no.

Next, was there any testimony taken according to the Docket Report?

No.

Was there any occasion, hearing trial or deposition referenced in the Docket History wherein Defendant had the opportunity to refuse to answer any questions even if he had wanted to?

Answer, no.

Next, was there a jury or even jury request?

No.

Was there any occasion referenced in the Docket History wherein any judge had the opportunity to instruct a jury on inferences even if he had wanted to?

No.

Was the name Brian Buckley among any of the attorneys listed?

No.

How about Dean Hinnen?

No.

Do the words "adverse inference" or "Fifth Amendment" appear in the Docket Report?

No.

So, are we building a consensus that the following assertions are non-factual and unsourced:

Eschoir was sued for trespass by FR

He was sued for breach of contract

he was asked some questions concerning his counterclaim and he refused to answer, citing his privilege under the Fifth Amendment.

Made up.

FR was seeking a permanent injunction

FR was seeking $950,000.

due to the fact that he had been permanently banned for trolling and had created more than 80 sockpuppets to evade the ban and disrupt the site.

Unsourced, made up.

Eschoir was subject to what's known as an "adverse inference" in that suit. Since he refused to answer, FR's counsel was allowed to draw an inference that if he had been compelled to answer truthfully, he would have shot himself in the foot (figuratively speaking, of course).

Made up.

As Buckley said, "the judge will ordinarily instruct the jury that it may infer the party would have admitted the truth of the allegations against him had he been compelled to answer them."

Made up.

Within a week, it was Eschoir who collapsed like a house of cards and settled out of court.

Once my counterclaim was dismissed (with 14 days leave to amend) FR could then leave the scene of battle unilaterally. The same day of the hearing to dismiss, counsel for FR faxxed me an offer to settle on the same terms I had offered on February 1, before having to spend the $150 to remove. FR had refused, choosing to spend $100,000 more dollars before folding.

FR got its permanent injunction instead of the $950,000 it sued for

forbidding Eschoir from ever darkening its doors again a task which is now accomplished far more cheaply by heavy moderation.

I wrote the injunction. I patterned it after model orders the right wing purported to hate, the notorious 'prior restraint of speech' orders drafted by Pro Choice legal groups in their efforts to stifle protest of Right to Lifers outside abortion clinics. The humor was lost on FR. Too hip for the room.

It's most peculiar how you can't find the words "adverse inference" or "Fifth Amendment" anywhere in that "Clarity Hilarity" story.

Nor in the PACER docket report.

Some people only seem capable of telling half of the truth; others even less.

What do they say here? Pot calling the kettle black?

What's the consensus on including an "Adverse inference against Eschoir" section in the article?

I think it would be difficult to source. Eschoir 05:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a soapbox or a blog

If you guys have some issues, please settle them elsewhere. You are cluttering up the talk page about this article. The information about injunctions etc is not important for this (what should be) small, informative article on a website. --PTR 15:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, I agree and apologize. As I mentioned above, I regret stepping into the middle of the squabble and I decline to participate further in that issue. Dman727 16:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you decline to remove the clutter you apologize for posting. Eschoir 16:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir, it is normally improper to remove talk page content that is actively being discussed (or even old content for that matter). Some people will attribute blanking of talk page content to hiding, covering up or other nefarious things..all of which would simply further feed the squabblers. With that understanding, if you, DeanHinnen or anyone else feel it necessary or proper to remove the text of the public document being discussed, I encourage you to do so with no complaint by me. Dman727 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty new here, and as loth to remove another editor's copy as I am loth to allow lies about me to go unrebutted and unremarked upon. But I have been trying to get someone to delete all the guideline-violative posts for days. I say redact back to Dino's comment about the Free Republic logo. Eschoir 17:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. You've requested it, I see that DeanHinnen attempted (although it was reverted as overreaching). I'll remove the portion that I posted. Dman727 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Eschoir 17:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that deleting other editors' copy is overreachinig and a no-no. I have a solution. If you and Bryan will revert your own postings back to the Logo mention, I will revert mine. Eschoir 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BFP isn't here, and claiming that he is here would be what we call "trolling," but I'll delete mine, back to where the discussion went astray. Dino 19:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]