Not a political poast, but a poast about a political blog
James Schrumpf
link to another report (Matt WelchīŋŊs at
http://reason.com/blog/show/136041.html) from the march.
LGFīŋŊs report focused on the crazy signs -- Hitler, what have you -- and
claimed that they were representative. I posted MattīŋŊs link, with a few
quotes from it as to his view of the march. I was immediately challenged by
another poster as to whether I did the same for lefty marches with crazy
signs. I replied that this wasnīŋŊt about me, I wasnīŋŊt providing the news,
that signs like this were reported as being in the vast minority.
LGF deleted both my posts -- and a post after mine that worried about the
comments in the thread being rather extreme -- with the following comment:
"So long, haters. Whatever you do, donīŋŊt look at the extremists who run the
tea parties. Reality must be kept at bay."
My account has been blocked; I imagine the other posterīŋŊs has been as well.
LGF later started a thread showing all of 12 crazy signs, and claimed that
rightwing blogs were claiming that "Hitler-Nazi imagery was hardly even
visible." None that I saw claimed there was none there, just that it was a
very minority presence.
IīŋŊm surprised. I thought LGF was a pretty upright blog, but I guess I was
wrong. No tolerance of differing opinion there. Neither of us who were
deleted and banned used any kind of inflammatory language, we just didn't
agree with LGF's "all tea parties are run by crazies" line.
Bye-bye LGF; begone from my bookmarks.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
DanS.
<Xns9C85C5336E743ja...@188.40.43.213> this nonsense:
> I’ve been banned and deleted over at Little Green Footballs for posting a
> link to another report (Matt Welch’s at
> LGF’s report focused on the crazy signs -- Hitler, what have you -- and
> claimed that they were representative. I posted Matt’s link, with a few
> another poster as to whether I did the same for lefty marches with crazy
>
> LGF deleted both my posts -- and a post after mine that worried about the
> comments in the thread being rather extreme -- with the following comment:
>
>
> LGF later started a thread showing all of 12 crazy signs, and claimed that
> rightwing blogs were claiming that "Hitler-Nazi imagery was hardly even
> visible." None that I saw claimed there was none there, just that it was a
> very minority presence.
>
> deleted and banned used any kind of inflammatory language, we just didn't
> agree with LGF's "all tea parties are run by crazies" line.
>
> Bye-bye LGF; begone from my bookmarks.
I'll post up for you. What do you want to say?
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> I’ve been banned and deleted over at Little Green Footballs for posting a
> link to another report (Matt Welch’s athttp://reason.com/blog/show/136041.html) from the march.
>
> LGF’s report focused on the crazy signs -- Hitler, what have you -- and
> claimed that they were representative. I posted Matt’s link, with a few
> quotes from it as to his view of the march. I was immediately challenged by
> another poster as to whether I did the same for lefty marches with crazy
> that signs like this were reported as being in the vast minority.
>
> LGF deleted both my posts -- and a post after mine that worried about the
> comments in the thread being rather extreme -- with the following comment:
> tea parties. Reality must be kept at bay."
>
>
> LGF later started a thread showing all of 12 crazy signs, and claimed that
> rightwing blogs were claiming that "Hitler-Nazi imagery was hardly even
> visible." None that I saw claimed there was none there, just that it was a
> very minority presence.
>
> wrong. No tolerance of differing opinion there. Neither of us who were
> deleted and banned used any kind of inflammatory language, we just didn't
> agree with LGF's "all tea parties are run by crazies" line.
>
> Bye-bye LGF; begone from my bookmarks.
Liberals are like that ... way out of whack. They'd even go so far as
to do something really f*ing stupid like calling a message to "stay in
school" socialist propoganda. To suggest something such as a look
toward reality is completely off-base and foreign to them. I'm not
sure why you even associated with the blog in the first place.
The site itself seems normal enough. Very level-headed.
James Schrumpf
Nah, that's not necessary. I'm just surprised at the response from LGF.
Johnson seems to really believe that the "tea parties" are the brainchild
of some kind of evil organization. Come to think of it, he may have had me
marked since the AGW thread I participated in a while ago where I pointed
out that there were indeed lots of "real" scientists who didn't buy into
the AGW meme, and that there was indeed lots of "real" evidence on that
side.
What totally surprised me is that I have been blocked for my opinion, not
my language. I can see where if posters start ranting and using bad
language they might be cut off, but retroactively deleting posts makes it
impossible for others to see what was "so bad" about them that they had to
be supressed.
LGF is listed as a conservative blog, but no blog that bans perfectly
polite differences of opinion can possibly be considered either
conservative or liberal.
James Schrumpf
transmitting rage.
> On Sep 13, 7:21 pm, James Schrumpf
Attempted satire aside, do you think that mere differing opinions are a
good basis for banning from a supposedly conservative blog?
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> Quiet, DanS. <dsla...@yahoo.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>
>
>
> > James Schrumpf wrote on 9/13/2009 at Sunday in message
In your defense, many "conservatives" nowadays have a major problem
with real science, reality and opinions that may not directly benefit
them in some way.
Don't take the ban personally, especially if you know that it was
because you had an opinion. They're like that now.
Joe
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> I’ve been banned and deleted over at Little Green Footballs for posting a
> link to another report (Matt Welch’s athttp://reason.com/blog/show/136041.html) from the march.
>
> LGF’s report focused on the crazy signs -- Hitler, what have you -- and
> claimed that they were representative. I posted Matt’s link, with a few
> quotes from it as to his view of the march. I was immediately challenged by
> another poster as to whether I did the same for lefty marches with crazy
> that signs like this were reported as being in the vast minority.
>
> LGF deleted both my posts -- and a post after mine that worried about the
> comments in the thread being rather extreme -- with the following comment:
> tea parties. Reality must be kept at bay."
>
>
> LGF later started a thread showing all of 12 crazy signs, and claimed that
> rightwing blogs were claiming that "Hitler-Nazi imagery was hardly even
> visible." None that I saw claimed there was none there, just that it was a
> very minority presence.
>
> wrong. No tolerance of differing opinion there. Neither of us who were
> deleted and banned used any kind of inflammatory language, we just didn't
> agree with LGF's "all tea parties are run by crazies" line.
>
> Bye-bye LGF; begone from my bookmarks.
LGF is pretty right wing. It sounds like they didn't understand your
point.
James Schrumpf
I thought LGF was right wing at first, but their strong AGW stance,
banning a perfectly polite poster (me) for pointing out that the twelve
photos of Nazi signs they posted (and were the _only_ signs they posted)
were perhaps not indicative of the majority view of the marchers, and
their general intolerance of any opposing viewpoints does not strike me as
neither conservative nor liberal.
What is so hard to understand about "Hey, other eyewitnesses have said
that Nazi signs were a very small minority. Why don't you mention that?"
as a POV?
Joe
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> Quiet, Joe <at_h...@windstream.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
I had to read your post several times to understand what it was you
were saying. I'm guessing that they actually agreed with you but read
your post quickly and thought you were saying the opposite. If having
a voice in the forum matters, write to the guy who runs it.
AGW isn't right or left wing. Alexander Cockburn, an old-fashioned
Stalinist, is an AGW denier. Many conservative scientists support AGW.
James Schrumpf
> On Sep 13, 8:30�pm, James Schrumpf
> <jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
>> Quiet, Joe <at_h...@windstream.net> -- I'm transmitting rage.
>> > On Sep 13, 7:21�pm, James Schrumpf
>> > <jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
>> >> I�ve been banned and deleted over at Little Green Footballs for post
> ing
>> > �a
I would have posted my original posts, but LGF deleted them. However, it
was very clear in my original that I was saying "You make it look like the
crazies dominated, but this guy (Matt Welch) was there and he says they
were a tiny fringe." It's not a very hard point to get. How that comes
off as a "hater" who refuses to "look at the extremists who run the tea
parties" is beyond me.
Eric Ramon
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
>
> Attempted satire aside, do you think that mere differing opinions are a
> good basis for banning from a supposedly conservative blog?
>
for what it's worth, Daily Kos bans what they call "truthers", the
people who say 9/11 was an inside job either pulled off or approved by
or allowed to happen by the Bush administration. And that's regardless
of how polite someone is about it. So it can be said that "differing
opinions" encompasses a lot, anywhere from "Oh, I must disagree with
you" all the way to "and here's an insane theory that is so crazy it
will make the entire site look nuts".
James Schrumpf
Well, sure. But I think I was way on the side of "I disagree with you."
After all, if you show 12 photos from a crowd of over 100K and say "That's
how crazy all those people were," you should expect that someone might say
"But there were only a few of those and a lot more ordinary signs you never
showed."
Eric Ramon
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> Quiet, Eric Ramon <ramon.e...@gmail.com> -- I'm transmitting rage.
true, and in a big crowd those are easy to laugh off.
1100GS_rider
> Nah, that's not necessary. I'm just surprised at the response from LGF.
Charles Johnson has gone off the rails entirely. He's being a petty
tyrant, and if you post something he doesn't like, you're gone. You are
in good company.
Other blogs are starting to drop him from their blogroll lists.
Tom Enright
<jaspammenotschru...@gmail.nospamnet> wrote:
> I’ve been banned and deleted over at Little Green Footballs for posting a
> link to another report (Matt Welch’s athttp://reason.com/blog/show/136041.html) from the march.
>
> LGF’s report focused on the crazy signs -- Hitler, what have you -- and
> claimed that they were representative. I posted Matt’s link, with a few
> quotes from it as to his view of the march. I was immediately challenged by
> another poster as to whether I did the same for lefty marches with crazy
> that signs like this were reported as being in the vast minority.
>
> LGF deleted both my posts -- and a post after mine that worried about the
> comments in the thread being rather extreme -- with the following comment:
> tea parties. Reality must be kept at bay."
>
>
> LGF later started a thread showing all of 12 crazy signs, and claimed that
> rightwing blogs were claiming that "Hitler-Nazi imagery was hardly even
> visible." None that I saw claimed there was none there, just that it was a
> very minority presence.
>
> wrong. No tolerance of differing opinion there. Neither of us who were
> deleted and banned used any kind of inflammatory language, we just didn't
> agree with LGF's "all tea parties are run by crazies" line.
>
> Bye-bye LGF; begone from my bookmarks.
I gave-up on that blog a year or so ago. He had lots'o good stuff
after 9-11 but he started some dumbass war with Gates of Vienna and he
seems to have gone a bit nutty.
-Tom Enright
James Schrumpf
That seems to be the consensus now: Charles is nutty. I've also seen
"off the rails" and "petty tyrant" as well.