Please stop doing this when other RPF members disagree with you!

[SilentBull]

We are all here because we want Ron Paul to be president, and most importantly, we want to see the ideas he represents, adopted by more than just the tireless minority.

This is a forum. We have discussions here. When someone supports a project that others think could hurt Ron Paul, should we not be able to have an adult discussion about whether the project could hurt Ron's chances?

Here's what I see every time this happens. Those who disagree:

1) get told to shut up or come up with a better project of their own.

2) get told this is a free market and everyone should pursue whatever they want.

3) get told they are attacking a project that awesome supporters put a lot of time into.

4) get called "trolls."

The problems with the above responses are the following:

#1 - This is irrelevant and is only used to make those who disagree shut their mouths, even if they have a good point.

#2 - Sure, you are free to do whatever you want, but the point of us being here is so we can have discussions about how best to help Ron Paul. If some believe something is not a good idea, should they just keep their opinions to themselves, even if they really believe it could hurt Ron's chances? Are you not allowed to at least let others know why you think it's not a good idea? Should you not be able to do this without being personally attacked? No one is trying to physically prevent others from doing what they want. A person should be able to make their case in their attempt to get others to understand why they feel the way they feel about a project.

#3 - This is another irrelevant point. When someone disagrees with a project, their intention is not to hurt anyone's feelings. Just because a lot of time was put into something doesn't make it effective. And there is a difference between projects that are just not effective and the ones that actually could hurt the campaign.

#4 - The members who say this are assuming that only they understand how to get Ron Paul elected. Anyone who disagrees must not want Ron Paul to be president.

Can we please agree at least on this? We don't like when demagoguery is used against Ron Paul. Can we try not to use it against each other? We are better than that. That's why we are here. We are here because we dared to think outside the box and challenge conventional wisdom. We are the tireless minority. Let's not act like the clueless majority.

[acptulsa]

Dear logikal:

Please shut up and tell us a better idea than this. Preferably both at the same time, as I want to see if I can understand you when you talk with your mouth shut. This is a free speech zone and I reserve the right to say what the %$#& I want when I want to say it. You are attacking attacks that a lot of awesome supporters put a lot of time and effort into, and though you put a lot of thought and care into this post I'm attacking it because I want to call someone a troll this morning, and you're handy.

Now that I've got that off my chest, I must say that...


We are the tireless minority. Let's not act like the clueless majority.

...is an awesome line.

The powers that be have put a whole lot of effort over the last thirty years into polarizing the American public over certain hot button issues so that they can keep us distracted from the fact that they're all the same, and when we go to the polls we don't have a real choice. Because if we didn't get all fired up over aborting gay marriage, we'd get mighty upset that we have the choice of a warmongering corporatist or a warmongering corporatist, wouldn't we?

If we're to pull off this revolution, we have to tap that thing which can unite people who have landed on both sides of this false left/right divide, because there are voters we need--those who are not invested in this corporatism--on both sides of it. Now, I hear a lot of 'let's concentrate on the existing Republicans until after the primaries and court the 'Blue' Republicans later' talk, and it has merit. But I don't personally think we can win these primaries without the crossover votes. And I do try to find a way to say this without insulting existing Republicans.

But at the end of the day, our path to victory is tapping that which these people can agree on, and also and at least as importantly, helping everyone we recruit find a way to be comfortable among their new allies. This is the biggest challenge we face. We must undo the damage and help people not only be proud to be Americans again, but be happy to be among their fellow Americans. With decades of purposeful division having been propigated by the 'We're uniters not dividers' crowd, it may seem an insurmountable task. But, you know, we have conquered so many insurmountable tasks so far, what's one more...?

One the one hand, we're not going to figure out how to do this impossible thing if we can't speak freely to each other. On the other hand, if we don't keep in mind how respectable we all are just for being here, we'll fall right back into the trap we're trying to help other people out of. I hope we can rise above both dangers.

'I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.''--Voltaire

[pcosmar]

We are all here because we want Ron Paul to be president,

I am sorry to inform you, but this is simply NOT TRUE.

It is the purpose of this forum to promote Ron Paul and Discuss the ideas and concepts of Liberty.
Not all who come her and join this forum do so for those reasons.
Some join because they oppose that purpose (for whatever reason).

Some do come to disrupt and to maintain the Statis quo. Some oppose for the lulz. Some to promote their own agenda.

There are some here for other purposes.

[Czolgosz]

OP is trolling.

[acptulsa]

OP is trolling.

You took the bait--and now he has you hooked.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110623042519/simpsons/images/thumb/4/40/Picture0003.jpg/180px-Picture0003.jpg

[No Free Beer]

That's it, I am voting Santorum...

[SilentBull]

I am sorry to inform you, but this is simply NOT TRUE.

It is the purpose of this forum to promote Ron Paul and Discuss the ideas and concepts of Liberty.
Not all who come her and join this forum do so for those reasons.
Some join because they oppose that purpose (for whatever reason).

Some do come to disrupt and to maintain the Statis quo. Some oppose for the lulz. Some to promote their own agenda.

There are some here for other purposes.

Ok. So are you saying that because of that, we should call people trolls who disagree? I'm amazed at the responses I got from my post.

[SilentBull]

It's funny that we get upset when liberals claim that we hate the poor simply because we disagree with their methods to help them, but we do the same thing on this forum to people who disagree with us. Awesome. Keep it up.

[acptulsa]

Ok. So are you saying that because of that, we should call people trolls who disagree? I'm amazed at the responses I got from my post.

logikal, I've got to speak up for my friend Pete here. When troll hunting, he tends to be very careful to make sure the person he inspects is, in fact, a troll before opening fire. He is otherwise as tolerant of opposing viewpoints as anyone here, and more than most of us. Credit where credit is due.

There are people who simply disagree on the best way to achieve our goal, and there are people who purposely try to stir those disagreements up to the point where they really inhibit our progress. There is a difference. It's important to call out those who are in it just to hogtie us, and that's what Pete's saying. I doubt you disagree.

And I don't think he's disagreeing with you, either. For if we let our own disagreements trip us up, though our intentions be pure, are we better than the trolls we detest? Or are we our own worst enemies?

Thanks for a great post.

[Czolgosz]

You took the bait--and now he has you hooked.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110623042519/simpsons/images/thumb/4/40/Picture0003.jpg/180px-Picture0003.jpg

http://www.codeodor.com/images/homer_doh.png

[SilentBull]

logikal, I've got to speak up for my friend Pete here. When troll hunting, he tends to be very careful to make sure the person he inspects is, in fact, a troll before opening fire. He is otherwise as tolerant of opposing viewpoints as anyone here, and more than most of us. Credit where credit is due.

There are people who simply disagree on the best way to achieve our goal, and there are people who purposely try to stir those disagreements up to the point where they really inhibit our progress. There is a difference. It's important to call out those who are in it just to hogtie us, and that's what Pete's saying. I doubt you disagree.

And I don't think he's disagreeing with you, either. For if we let our own disagreements trip us up, though our intentions be pure, are we better than the trolls we detest? Or are we our own worst enemies?

Thanks for a great post.

I completely agree. I'm not saying trolls do not exist.

[acptulsa]

http://www.codeodor.com/images/homer_doh.png

And as for you, you troll--way to bump a great thread! :D

[MelissaWV]

You might want to add, as applicable:

If you disagree with a poster, please do not edit their post and make them sound like an idiot just so that you can remove an "objectionable" point.

[pcosmar]

I completely agree. I'm not saying trolls do not exist.

I seldom fire both barrels on a minor disagreement. I was only pointing out that first statement was untrue.
There are people that come here for many reasons. And not all are good.

I agree that we should educate and debate politely as much as possible.
There are points when someone is pushing a position or idea that is contrary, or is deliberately divisive, that they should be called.

If for no other reason to make less informed folks aware that this is not Dr.Paul's or this forums position.
Only is they are truly harmful, or a deliberate distraction should they be banned.
Ignorance can be corrected,, stupidity is terminal.

And troll hunting is not my profession. It is however a hobby.