[Mr 5 0]

Originally Posted by Phillyfanfrombirth

It's worked out really well... As a Mod I've been criticized for being a communist and as a fringe right winger... and of course everyone loves to complain about "free speech". LOL!!!

If you are called a 'communist' and a 'fringe right winger' (who are the non-'fringe' right-wingers, anyway?) you must be doing something right and being extremely non-partisan. That's no fun. Seriously, you would seem to have the moderator/poster dichotomy conquered and I applaud you for that. I wish I had been able to accomplish that feat, here, 'back in the day'. Ah, well, I also wish I could have a new, blown Mustang Cobra for free.

If you want free speech, go to the town square... if you want to discuss something with members of a message board that is owned by someone else, and reflects on the host site in any way... don't waste your time thinking that you have the right to type what you want and not think there will be consequences with non-conformity... The "Terms of Service Agreement" does mean something whether posters want to believe it or not. Oh, and I really love the conspiracy theorists who love to make it a FCC conspiracy...

As far as being anonymous, really I couldn't imagine it any other way. Especially not in a large forum.

On the internet, we're all anonymous to a great degree. That's what brings out the base name-calling, 'internet tough guy' attitude instincts in some folks who, in 'real life', wouldn't even be able to look you in the eye, much less, call you names. Anonymity can breed faux 'bravery' for the otherwise timid and for those who already have an argumentative and/or belligerent nature, the 'net is just another vehicle to express their general animosity toward everything and everyone. Some do so then pretend they were 'just kidding'. I'm no longer fooled by that coy petense of jocularity that is too often used to put a fig leaf on what is really, hostility. I get it.

Free Speech is simply the well-known constitutional right to criticize the government, which we are all quite good at, I'm sure. Well, it's a constitutional right in the United States, anyway...don't try it in Iran, Cuba or many other places under the control of totaltarian 'governments'.

While we may very well all have a 'right' to our personal opinions, if we choose to post them for public display, as on an internet messageboard, such as this one, we should all expect that at least a few of the people reading our opinion may disagree with it...and 'say' so. That's always my assumption when posting almost anything. As the late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan rightly said: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts".

Unfortunately, too many folks like to post their opinions but resent having them challenged. That's unrealistic. I'm a political conservative so I'm quite used to having my views challenged and debated, if not condemned by so-called 'liberals' who, I've come to find out, tend to be somwhat intolerant of politically conservative opinions. I think that is rather informative for readers of messageboards who can read the posts for themselves and decide whether my arguments hold up or not and if my would-be 'opponent' has to resort to name-calling and wild accusations when he or she runs out of facts. It also strengthens my writing and debating skills, which is a nice bonus.

One thing I quickly learned: Avoid using absolutes; 'never', 'always' or, that old favorite: 'everyone knows'. As few things in life truly are absolute, someone will inevitably come back and question whether something is 'always' or 'never' this-or-that. Then they use the lawyers game of claiming that if you got that supposition wrong, WHAT ELSE are you wrong about, hmmmmm? So it goes. Semantics are a big part of internet debating.

As a (former) moderator/administrator, I was eventually called 'every name in the book' because I was well-known on the site and had strong political views that I didn't flinch from expressing, no matter the negative blowback I might receive. The site owner was in basic agreement with my views (although not on every single issue, I'm sure) and informed me that it was O.K for me to express them on his site.

However, after many rancorous long-running arguments I tired of seemingly always being on the defensive and carrying the water for 'my' side of any given issue. I would receive some supportive PM's, which I valued, but not a lot of online support, where it would have actually done some good. As I said, my position (as a moderator) was often used against me. I was repeatedly told that 'as a mod' I shouldn't be taking stands on inflammatory issues...as if these folks ran the website. Eventually, I decide to forego the honor of being on the website 'staff' and go back to being an ordinary member so that I could discuss and debate whatever I wanted to, without the baggage of being constantly accused of 'abusing my authority' by those who, in reality, couldn't hold up their end of a vigorous political/cultural debate. Now, here I am, four years later, a bit older and definitely a bit wiser about the vagaries, pitfalls and frustrations of internet messageboard moderating and debating. I still debate political issues on the internet when I have the time, which is less and less, these days, but hardly ever on this particular site or board. Strangly, the world seems to go on just the same. Imagine that!