Another way to spot a freeper on DU.

[caledesi]

I troll freeperville a lot. (Don't start). My point is that there are patterns that I have seen, which have enabled me to spot a freeper a mile away.

I was reading thru the Greatest forum just now and got really pissed. There was a post on Pelosi's tough rules from a Canadian source. One member asked whether the poster had a US source. I have seen this used over and over at freeperville - if it's not from a US source, immediately, it's junk.

The US ranks 55th in the Free Press ratings this year. 55th! Canada, uh, 18th.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

Check this out and be vigilant when you read a post about sources. Ironic part is that freepers post thread after thread with NO sources to support what they are saying. Oh yeah, must be a bitch to come to DU and post KNOWING you gotta have a link.

As an aside, all DUers and freepers must go to www.watchingamerica.com to really see what the world thinks of us.

[smirkymonkey]

1. Great link - thanks!

I always read articles from other nations to get a sense of perspective, but this is great to have a link that sums it up in one place.

[caledesi]

3. Thanks SM. I post this link about every 6 months just in case

some DUers don't know about it. It's one of my favorite. One place you can read what the WORLD is saying about us.

[txindy]

6. Thanks for that link and the information. I certainly agree about the Canadian press.

I've learned many valuable things through the Canadian media literally years before it received even a mention in the M$M here.

[Harper_is_Bush]

2. Rule

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

[caledesi]

4. HIB, my post is not to throw freepers off. This was a polite post

but having trolled, I can pick up the nuances. All I am saying is this is one example of how they work. I can deal with it. Just give them an pertinent link nicely.

Don't worry HIB, I have hit the ALERT button for slimy posts by freepers.

[OzarkDem]

19. Agree

I don't troll freeperville, but I do read "mixed" political forums where many of them post. Its true, there are certain things they do that you can pick out after a while. There are certain issues and people they jump on (Hillary, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, Al Franken) , and certain arguments they repeat over and over again. They reject any link from foreign news media. And yes, they're notorious for not posting links or sources.

[populistdriven]

28. The repukes are fedup with their GOP sexual perverts

If you accuse all GOP'rs of being perverts they freak out! /keep hammering away at em!

This is one label that they have earned, is long overdue and that they are fighting hard to avoid sticking.

[txindy]

34. Gang of Pedophiles and Gang of Perverts

That's the way I refer to them, now. They've earned both monikers. (And, no, lurking freeps, a moniker is not what Col. Klink wore on his eye. :eyes: :rofl:)

[alfredo]

36. I want US links for two reasons.

1. I want to see if the US is covering the story.

2. I want one so a reader can't dismiss it because it is not the domestic press. (I know of our low ranking in press freedom but some people are not enlightened)

[Harper_is_Bush]

50. Did you hit alert for that poster? n/t

[Vanje]

5. Poster did not accuse another member.

Poster made a generalization about citations.

[caledesi]

10. Thanks ST. Glad someone "got it." nt

[Harper_is_Bush]

42. Then you're both wrong. n/t

[Harper_is_Bush]

49. see post 46.

Now do you "get it"?

[Harper_is_Bush]

41. I was easily able to go find the post and the member in question.

So yes, the poster did.

[elocs]

11. This rule is widely disregarded.

I have many, many times seen a member who posts a contrary idea of being a RWer, freeper, or Republican. It has happened to me more than once. There are many here who are not tolerant of opinions or ideas which differ from the herd. Their last resort is not a respectful response, but an accusation of being a freeper.

[blondeatlast]

30. If you are being unfairly accused, use the alert button.

"Herd mentality?" In General Discussion? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[treestar]

7. Don't feel bad; I like trolling freeperville, too and I debate several

freeper types with regularity.

Their tactics when they have nothing to say:

1. Attack your source (I have even bookmarked the Faux News Page to see if I can find my assertion there to counter that one). They find everything left wing, including the New York Times. They actually DO consider the MSM to be liberal.

2. Attack you - you are not an expert in the subject, trying to fatigue you into compliance by the fact you don't have time to find some PhD who said the same thing - and if you do, they just google that "expert" and attack him or her. Freepers find ideas tiring and always want to change the subject to people.

3. Self pity - the poor freepers are not allowed to be racist, for example, but the left wingers can (they are racists against those poor, poor, white men, and sexist too, in that they hate men.) The religious are persecuted (defined as "not allowed to force your religion on others" and so are those who adhere to "traditional values." The fact they still can does not mean they are not persecuted when you are persecuted when you can't force everyone else to adhere to your values.)

4. Since everything is about people, the claim to know someone who is in Iraq and the apparent conclusion drawn from that is the one cannot honorably oppose the opinion of one of our troops in Iraq, on anything, and cannot apparently acknowledge that some other soldier might have a different opinion. On the other hand, liberals who even served themselves are to have their service attacked (see "swiftboating").

[caledesi]

12. Excellent post. Here are a few more.

Bring up the Clintons that usually have NOTHING to do with post.
Bring up bad stuff about the Dems from 40+ years ago. Ted Kennedy?
Ironically, the neo-cons are not supposed to use foul language at freeperville, but you get them posting on Huffpo and some of their posts are disgusting and I am not a prude.

There are so many more. Hardly an women on that site, notice that?

[treestar]

15. True, the most hilarious thing yesterday were the ones who

believed that the female general (first name Janis) was coming out against Rummy on that case in Germany as further emasculation of men, etc (and all other freeper-type whining on that subject, which never gets old for them).

[OzarkDem]

20. They've also been big on Ned Lamont lately

They're just outraged that Dems supported Lamont instead of a great guy like Lieberman. Lots of freep type references to Lamont Democrats, etc.

[williesgirl]

8. K&R

[treestar]

9. This one is interesting

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3325826,00.html

Sixth year syndrome


Tradition of punishing US president in second term continues

Eran Lerman Published: 11.08.06, 21:23

For those familiar with American political history, the Democrats' achievements in the elections for Congress in George W. Bush's sixth year in office came as no surprise. As a rule, all presidents who served a second term in the 20th century led their parties to defeat in their sixth year, with the extent of the shift in favor of the president's opposing party being on average 30 seats in Congress and six in the Senate.

The election results show that the political tradition was kept. The only anomaly was President Clinton in 1998, because he already suffered a heavy political blow at the end of his second year in office, when the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took over Congress. Now, the Republicans lost the Congress majority they enjoyed since 1994. The situation in the Senate is still unclear, and a recount is possible before the final tally is cleared up.

Many observers view the election results as a vote against the president's Iraq policy, and this claim indeed has a basis. What's more, the Administration itself has to acknowledge that the situation there is increasingly deteriorating and a change of direction is needed. Some will also interpret the achievement of former Navy Secretary Webb, who served in the Reagan Administration and turned into a Democrat and harsh critic of the president's policy, as ultimate proof that the public fury on the Iraq question weakens Republicans even at clear strongholds such as Virginia and Mid-Western states.

Still, a measure of caution is required. The two women who as of today lead the Democratic party ahead of the 2008 elections, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, made it clear in their victory speeches that a new policy is required in Iraq, but it should be a unifying policy; that is, a policy that the Republicans can also support, and mostly one that offers encouragement to US troops instead of undermining them, as the Democrats did in Vietnam.

Democratic party political home of most US Jews

Many of the new party leaders, ranging from Tammy Duckworth, the amputee officer who ran in Illinois (and eventually lost her bid for office), to three-star admiral Sestak, who beat veteran congressman Walden in Pennsylvania, are former military figures. The Democratic Party is currently adopting a strategy of a warmly embracing US troops, while hinting that the blame lies with the politicians who sent them to Iraq.

Therefore, an incisive debate is expected regarding the road ahead, but not a one-side move that will end in what can be characterized as an American defeat. There's also reason to believe, even though this has not yet faced a genuine political test, that on the question of the Iranian threat, the Democrats understand what's at stake no less so than their colleagues on the other side of the spectrum.

As to Israel, those who watched the Democratic victory broadcast from Washington, could not mistake the significance of those leading the celebrations; they included the man who led the party campaign in Congress, Rahm Emanuel (formerly Clinton's close aide,) who boasts a plainly Hebrew name and spent some time in the northern Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona, as well as New York Senator Chuck Schumer, also a Jew whose commitment to Israel is beyond any doubt.

In the next Senate, Jews will again comprise one fifth of the Democratic faction, including Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, whose attachment to Zionism is known to all. The Democratic party was always the political home of most American Jews, and it is no wonder its leaders and candidates were quick to disassociate themselves from former President Jimmy Carter's new book, while demonstrating as much as possible that their commitment to Israel was and will remain a solid bipartisan position in both houses of Congress.

Dr. Eran Lerman is the executive director of the AJC's Israel/Middle East Office

[freeplessinseattle]

14. that theory's been debunked.

read it somewhere on DU recently, maybe will find with a search.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. A key difference is the heavily gerrymandered districts this time around.

Viewed in that context, the significance of the Democratic win is magnified, not reduced.

[Ian David]

13. WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, Washington Times and CybercastNewsService are American sources! n/t

[BleedingHeartRN]

22. Don't forget Townhall and Drudgereport!

For all of your "reliable and valid" news.

[meisje]

31. often Drudge is right.

[Up2Late]

16. Yup, American Press freedom is a joke here.

It's so nice to know we have a less free press than Ghana, Australia, Bulgaria, Mali and the Dominican Republic!!!

[boolean]

17. Freepers are easy to spot

Just look for bad grammar and incorrect spelling. Also, if they use "freeper", they tend to capitalize the first two letters, as in "FReeper".

[usaftmo]

18. One thing I've noticed

is that freepers often cut and paste their entire source in a thread. It's a lot easier to surf threads if a few sentences or 1 paragraph gets the cut and paste treatment.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

21. Well, considering that DU rules prevent you from posting the whole thing,

yeah I'd consider that a clue.

I'd say that people who joined during early NOV 2004 and have posted like 23 times but have to jump in to bash some prominent Democrat usually raise my eyebrow, LOL.

[here_is_to_hope]

37. How about right before this election and

I will come out and say it, I dont care for Carville!:sarcasm:

(ok, I really dont care for Carville!)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

40. I'm talking people who have been a member for years, and appear to have joined

just to troll either before or right after the election, and then rarely post except to bring up some contrarian viewpoint or stir shit up.

Having just joined you couldn't have racked up such a record yet. Welcome to DU by the way.

I assume that the reason most people disable their profile is to hide how long they have been a member. Or if they have JUST cleared 1000 posts, and can then become "indistinguishable" from everyone else, except for having a disabled profile.

[usaftmo]

43. What are you talking about?

Joined early November 2004? 23 posts? Bash a prominent Democrat? Neither one of those are anyone in the comments I made. The thread deals with spotting freepers on DU.

However, to avoid sinking to your level I will address your comments in a professional manner.

I joined DU in January/February 2001. Stopped adding comments for a long time for the simple reason that I sometimes get flamed for no reason. I got tired of asking the moderaters/tech support to clear up my login problems, so late summer/early fall I registered all over again.

Bash a prominent Democrat? How does saying that freepers frequently cut and paste their entire source on a thread translate into bashing a prominent Democrat? You got me really confused on that one.

Quality is something I cherish over quantity anytime. Someone with 10 posts or less than can communicate in a sensible way means more to me than someone with over 1000 posts who rambles.

I've been welcomed/re-welcomed by several people on this site. For some reason(s) that are yours, I figure that won't be one of them.

On the positive side I'd like to think your mind was on something else and your comments to me was simply a knee jerk reaction.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

47. What the hell is YOUR problem. I didn't say you did any of those things. I DID say

that people who did fall into that "registered around Bush reelection and never post, except to stir things up" raise my eyebrow.

Interpret that whatever way you wish. :eyes:

I didn't say that all low post people do, or all people who signed up around election time are trolls.

[Irreverend IX]

24. Huh, from what I've seen they don't usually post links.

I sometimes read and troll over there and I rarely see them post links to back anything they say up. Probably because a lot of their discourse is simple echoes of their favorite hate radio hosts. And on that note, here's a gem of an entry from an election comment thread at Little Green Footballs:

#63 mbpaul 11/7/2006 05:45PM PST

I don't trust the American voter. We really are as stupid as the rest of the world thinks we are and I hate the rest of world. God, I really had such hopes.

Think globally, act locally. Gotta love them freepers!

[SPKrazy]

25. But, but, Do You Have A US Source?

as if a US source is going to be able to rate freedom of the press.

The reporters without borders is a group that can make that assessment accurately.

Would we want Wolf and Candy rating our press's freedom?

[Quantess]

26. watchingamerica.com

Thanks for posting a link to that site. I do like to know what the rest of the world says about the U.S. I already knew that there aren't many international Bush supporters, but our media tries to downplay the global sentiment toward current U.S. foreign policy. I am very relieved to see that most of the foreign press blames the Bush administration, and is not so harsh of the American people anymore. A lot of countries seem to have sympathy for us, for being ostensibly held hostage by the disastrous GOP policies.

[geebensis]

27. What I Want To Know...

What I want to know is how the freepers managed to spot and ban me from their lovely site.

I had an account for a year or so and posted occasionally. I was planning to save the real trolling for after the election.

A week before the election I got banned out of the blue for some comments on a Kerry bashing thread. I wasn't the only one expressing a slightly contrary opinion, but they flushed me.

Bastards.

I was SO looking forward to a little fun with them.

Oh well, I managed to string them along for over a year.

I'm considering creating a new account over there. Since some conservatives are arguing they lost the election because republicans weren't conservative ENOUGH, I think they need some encouragement. They need to be encouraged to work extra hard to get the most fanatic, lunatic wingnuts through the primaries and on the ballot next time. If I create a new account I'll be the one encouraging them to field a whole slate of clones of Rick Santorum and Ann Coulter.

That's right, freepers. America rejected republicans because they weren't conservative enough. You gotta get even more knuckle draggers on the ballot. Then you'll win. Heh heh.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

39. FR has an extremely low tolerance for any divergence of opinion, especially

if it is disapproving of Bushco policy in anyway or supportive or complimentary of any Democrat.

I had a grand total of 1 post there. There was a thread (campaign 04) where people were making wildly incorrect statements about Kerry's military service. I posted a link, no commentary, just the link, to a very good Boston Globe article covering the subject in depth. The article, while I think created an overall favorable impression of Kerry, was not overly laudatory or anything.

Post deleted and I was banned. Presumably they just decided because I posted that that they couldn't "take a chance" that I was a true freeper. Pretty much gave up on spending time there after that.

[nealmhughes]

29. Do you mean that the people at Freeperville aren't waiting on bated

wings, hovering in midair for the next day's editions of The Guardian and Independent?

I guess reading le Monde is out of the question over there....

[meisje]

32. Maybe freepers post threads on how to spot other freepers

[porphyrian]

33. I make outrages claims without links. Am I a freeper? - n/t

[Mr_Spock]

35. of couse...

:rofl:

:smoke:

[sampsonblk]

38. Good work!

nt

[lildreamer316]

44. They don't know how to spell. Or use spellcheck.

...and then ppl get irritated about being "called out" (I do not do so, but it happens a lot).

Moral of the story: USE SPELLCHECK.

[tuvor]

48. Not all DUers can string a decent sentence together.

Can YOU say "SCUMBAGE"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5830873&mesg_id=5830873

[Iris]

45. Thanks for trolling the freeps so we don't have to!

One of the things I've learned to appreciate about DU is that there are folks with tougher hides than mine who help keep me informed!

[casus belli]

46. You're calling me a FReeper? Who the hell do you think you are?

You are WAY off the mark. And you don't know anything about me.

I was simply asking if anyone had a US source for this story so I could corroborate and compare. I had not seen this officially released in any major media outlet, and wondered why.

By the way, another characteristic of FReepers, is that they love to cannablize their own based on assumptions.

Take your assumptions and shove them. Maybe instead of trolling about looking for conspiracies and enemies, you might try not alienating those who are on your side.

[Harper_is_Bush]

51. I know it was an innocent request, but I must say...

the CBC is a VERY reputable source. I cannot remember the last time they ever got anything wrong, if there ever was one. Very careful and professional...which of course causes the rightwing to call them biased!

[casus belli]

52. Thanks for the response...

I didn't mean to imply that I didn't think it was legitimate. I was just surprised to be learning about a US Congressional agenda from a foreign news source first, and wanted to corroborate the story. I hadn't seen any US reporting of it, though it appears there were already stories reporting it I hadn't seen. I've since run into quite a few, and it's very good news. It goes a long way towards cleaning up Congress. I was unaware that the CBC was targeted by the right, though I have to say they seem to be paranoid of foreign news sources in general. I didn't realize I'd be hitting a nerve with the question.

And thanks for your words of defense on the original post.

[pinto]

53. Locking.

If you feel someone is abusing their posting priveleges, please use the alert function. The moderators will be glad to follow up.

Thanks.