NationStates Jolt Archive

While I have been one of the strongest opponents of The Red Arrow, I have decided to take a pacifist approach in order to see him leave: just ignore him. If we ignore him then maybe he'll stop creating cut and paste threads and leave Nationstates quietly.

I've said what I think of him a few times, now I just ignore his threads and leave them to die.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/propaganda_dontthink.jpg

What a stupid and spiteful suggestion.

And looks to me very much like flaming.

If you cannot debate The Red Arrow, that's is hardly his fault.

If you dislike his threads, don't read them.

But to publicly advocate that others ignore him is quite another matter.

Is this the sort of freedom of speech and concern for democratic rights that people are being taught these days?

Will you be suggesting book burning next? Or just closing down newspapers, like they do in Iraq?

Everyone has the right to express themselves, whether or not you happen to like it.

If I were to create cut and paste threads with a Libertarian bias would I also be considered to be a thinker and stimulator of discussion?

Why ignore him? Sure, TRA comes out with some teniuous(spl?) evidence, and some hard-to-believe stories, but there is usually some factual basis in a lot of his posts. I'd rather have someone rabbit on about conspiracies all the time, occasionally uncovering something highly disturbing, than ignore all their posts and miss something important.

If you don't like what he says, and can't respond without instantly dismissing it, then don't click on the thread or Reply button.

Some of what he says does make sense, so I dont know why you are asking people to ignore him.

If you don't like what he says, and can't respond without instantly dismissing it, then don't click on the thread or Reply button.

That's what I've been doing and that is what I'm suggesting.

Can't find anything so far that I agree with tha red Arrow has said. But if he wants to be a muppet let him.
I like to see what he will come up with next.
If you had entitled this thread 'should we ingnore Red Arrow and let him fade away?' that might have been better.
But as I say I like to see what the far out have to say it make me re examine my own beliefs which can only be a good thing.

If you don't like what he says, and can't respond without instantly dismissing it, then don't click on the thread or Reply button.

That's what I've been doing and that is what I'm suggesting.

For you to ignore him is your choice, not a problem.

But for you to publicly advocate that others do so, and to express the hope that this would cause him to "quietly leave NS" is another matter altogether.

The best test of free speech is not to see whether we grant it to those who agree with us, but to see if we grant it to those who do not.

DP

If I were to create cut and paste threads with a Libertarian bias would I also be considered to be a thinker and stimulator of discussion?

While I also tire of those who won't take the time to write up their own opinions, at least he has stuck fairly well to the one-link-per-day limit, and some of the links have started some good discussions....

I may not chose to debate him very often, but I have got involved with a few of the topics with other NSers.

Y'know..it would be a plausible argument to Defend Red Arrow's postings if he actually contributed anything in his posts.

He doesn't
He doesn't post at all.

He posts what other people have posts.

All he's actually done is just advertise internet columns for the purpose of enticing argumentative threads over politics which he can actually never contest against because the original thoughts weren't originally his. Thus, every post of his following the post of the column he's probably not even read (assuming he's the kind of fool who googles something like "Hate+bush" and just pastes what's under the title), is not only without any bases of intelligence or concession to bring forth to the argument he purposely began, but just debases it to begin with.

So until Red Arrow can actually write something worthwhile that he's actually originally written and not continue advertising web pages by plagiarizing their material on here, he's a sure candidate to just be ignored.

For someone we're supposed to be ignoring, he sure has a pretty healthy thread dedicated to him. :shock:

For someone we're supposed to be ignoring, he sure has a pretty healthy thread dedicated to him. :shock:

I know, that's why I am very amused right now. :lol:

Please ignore this request to ignore The Red Arrow.

The author of this thread has made a grave mistake in judgement.

It is an outright LIE that Red Arrow does not write any of his own posts.

Red Arrow does not make up the stuff he posts. He puts out information that comes from investigative journalists who try to expose some of the wrongs commited by corporations and government officials.

He cares about freedom and wishes for everyone to have it.

I may not like what he says, but I will defend to the death his right to say it.

Wait, now I'm confused. Should we ignore the request to ignore THR's ignorance, or are we ignoring the ignoring of the ignorance? Or, is it ignoring the ignorace of the ignoring ignorant ignoramouses who ignore the ignorance of ignorant ignorents?

This is dangerously close to becoming satire.

Wait, now I'm confused. Should we ignore the request to ignore THR's ignorance, or are we ignoring the ignoring of the ignorance? Or, is it ignoring the ignorace of the ignoring ignorant ignoramouses who ignore the ignorance of ignorant ignorents?

This is dangerously close to becoming satire.

Oh, its already there for me. I just love a good bit of irony like this thread.

Y'know..it would be a plausible argument to Defend Red Arrow's postings if he actually contributed anything in his posts.

He doesn't
He doesn't post at all.

He posts what other people have posts.

All he's actually done is just advertise internet columns for the purpose of enticing argumentative threads over politics which he can actually never contest against because the original thoughts weren't originally his. Thus, every post of his following the post of the column he's probably not even read (assuming he's the kind of fool who googles something like "Hate+bush" and just pastes what's under the title), is not only without any bases of intelligence or concession to bring forth to the argument he purposely began, but just debases it to begin with.

So until Red Arrow can actually write something worthwhile that he's actually originally written and not continue advertising web pages by plagiarizing their material on here, he's a sure candidate to just be ignored.Well, you're half right. Red Arrow doesn't post much, and when he does his own talking, it's often with ineffective one-liners and ridiculous statements, and this is coming from someone who agrees with a lot of the attitudes in the articles he cuts and pastes.

But he's no plagiarist. A plagiarist is someone like Panhandlia, who tries to pass off someone else's work as his or her own. The Red Arrow, despite his many (and they are many) flaws, always gives credit to the original writer.