Let's stop perpetrating this myth: The Holocaust Museum shooter was a freeper.

Not so far as I've discovered. A freeper cut and pasted some of his crap about Obama. That's different than Von Brunn posting on Freeperville. This is not intended in any way to defend that cess pool, but facts matter and the rumor being posted over and over here, doesn't seem to have any basis in fact.

I saw plenty of evidence that freepers were posting von Brunn's writings and applauding them, but none that indicated that von Brunn, himself, was a member.

Still... RimJob wasted no time in getting those posts off of the site, and it's fun to watch them play CYA.

here is no evidence that von Brunn was a freeper but plenty of folks here are parroting the claim that he was. As I said, facts matter.

Which doesn't really help him refute charges that the guy was a member.

If he had any sense he'd take the time from posting his anti-Obama screeds to post one to his members saying that anyone who posts anything by von Brunn or says anything that can be remotely identified as agreeing with him will be "purged" from the site immediately.

But, since purging people who agree with von Brunn would practically eliminate FR from existance I guess taking a high road really won't work for him.

I am always amused at this OP's provocative posts.

In short, it appears that because Cali has no knowledge of Von Brunn posting in Freeperville, it cannot be true and therefore it has to be a myth.

I followed the links and did my own research. Now maybe he did, but as of now the evidence isn't there. that others there admiringly cut and pasted some of his shit, is clearly factual. And there's nothing particularly provocative about my OP. I'm amused that you chose to characterize it in that way. Why so angry, Vinnie? You seem about to bust a vein. try calming down. it's healthier for you.

As I stated in my other post, your posts amuse me. For example, you post with absolute certainty that it is a myth that Von Brunn was a poster in Freeperville. That unambiguous statement is followed by "Now maybe he did, but as of now the evidence isn't there". Which is it? Maybe or absolutely no?

Statements like these are mildly amusing to me.
Cheers!

cuz you're just so amused. that in itself is fairly funny. There is no evidence that he posted on Freeperville. Facts may not matter to you, but they matter to me. it's a simple little thing, honey.

Just a muffin munching, slightly amused DUer.

So which is it? Is it absolutely a myth that Von Brunn posted in Freeperville or simply unknown at this time?

to his personal computer? I only ask because how much uncovering could you do without inspecting his home and personal belongings?

If one were to compare his written works by style and content, one could surmise he were a member of that foul bunch of wretches ....

I have no problem with DUers saying he is a Freeper, because the truth is rarely discussed here anyways ...

He is a Freeper to me ...

By that logic, there is no proof Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did not post on DU so then it must be true that they are members and posting here...Geez...that logic is hard to reason with..

A lack of proof FOR something is not proof AGAINST something ...

Conversely ....

A lack of proof AGAINST something is not proof FOR something ...

I didn't definitively state that he was a member of FR who did in fact post THAT specific message ....

I stated (more or less) that; given the content, one cannot find a gnat hair's difference between HIS writings and those found on FR ...

Furthermore: There is no direct evidence that it was NOT him who posted that, or someone on his behalf .....

Because we are IGNORANT of the facts regarding whether he did or did not post that message (hence the
ad Ignorantiam "Plea from Ignorance" fallacy), one cannot definitively state 'He did NOT do this' either ....

It matters little to me whether he did it or not: That place is the disgusting home of every scumbucket right winger from a philosophical perspective ....

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#ignorantiam

The problem with reasoning from absence of evidence is that you can draw pretty much any conclusion you want. There's no evidence for the non-existence of unicorns, should we thus conclude unicorns are out there, but hiding from us? No. When you make a statement like the above you're positing a double negative, which is just an attempt to do an end-run around logical positivism.

There are times when logic ISNT required, or desired ...

I am not arguing it is logical, but I am arguing it is valid in the world of political ideas ...

I have no problems calling that vicious asshole a Freeper ....

If you feel you need to call on logic to defend him, then by all means: Do so ....

You really DONT know if I posted that message ...

Maybe I did ....

I see the point you're making, but I'll settle for calling him a freeper type rather than throwing out statements I might have to retract later. As I said downthread, I consider it quite possible that he is/was a poster on FR and wouldn't be at all surprised if a serach of his computers turned up such evidence. But that's only a hunch for now.

The repukes have been driving Liberal faces into the mud for DECADES based on nothing but bullshit propaganda ...

In a 'real' argument, any fallacy is a truth killer, and I wouldn't consider it, but political arguments aren't based on reality ... They are based on perception ...

You will note I correctly invoked the 'Ad Ignorantiam' reference, because I understand and recognize it, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful at times ...

Don't be an idiot. Until someone proves the guy was a freeper, it's not true. Simple logic...or one would have thought it was simple.

How have you been?

It would seem that the logical examination of this situation currently would be that Von Brunn may or may not have been a poster in Freeperville. It is simply unknown at this time. It is not a myth nor is it a known fact. Logic does not dictate that simply because something is not known that it is not true.

That and that alone is an admission of sorts.

I think, because of that, it is more likely than not that he was in fact a Freeper. But, as cali very carefully pointed out, we'll never really know for sure, because posts have been scrubbed.

Oh, wait. She didn't point that out.

Hhhmmmmm.

It doesn't mean they necessarily go around shooting people just as we don't.

The hostile tone gets really played out really fast.

even if he's not a member, which it may turn out he is or was.

What the hell were they scrubbing all fucking day, then?

Stop being a fucking burden and stand aside while other people do the heavy lifting of protecting your right not to be shot to death by a teabagger.

and no, sorry, I'm not a burden, and you surely aren't some heavy lifting hero.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141655/posts

This thread was NOT posted by the shooter. unless "wannabeageek" is actually von bronn.

Just because he wasn't necessarily a signed-up member, he had many of them singing his praises. Same mentality.

but facts matter to me.

was allowed to be posted, linked to and allowed to stand on the site til he murdered somebody, makes von brunn a freeper by proxy imo.

There's a genuine concern for right wing terrorism, but there also has to be some constraint in a rush in where to assess blame or guilt.

Unlike Roeder...who did post in Freeperland, von Braun's diatribes appeared elsewhere. This doesn't mean there aren't sympathisers there or those who will attempt to justify this terrorist act, just as they do with Roeder and others, but that's not to be confused with going out and actually pulling a trigger or doing some other form of physical violence.

In due time, the facts will come forward...Roeder will get his day in court...von Braun's sorid history will be made public record. Each of these acts draw more and more attention to the fringes of the right who are attempting to fill a vaccuum left by an inept and corrupt national party. It's lack of a leader or any real direction has allowed the extremists...from Faux Noise on down to fill it with the only thing that binds all on the right: hate.

Cheers...

:toast:

He didn't participate. :eyes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5818941&mesg_id=5818941

Does anyone know who I am, other than Lunatica? I could be a man for all anyone knows in spite of presenting myself as a woman.

His words were posted there by other posters, but there's no evidence (right now) that he was a poster there himself.

Sid

Why should we do their dirty work for them

to hew to the facts. there is no evidence that von Brunn was a freeper.

He had his stuff posted there and he linked to the website.

for what they are more consistently than I have. And please provide the evidence that he linked to freeperville. That someone posted his vile crap there is an idictment of the freeper mentality, but it still doesn't make him a freeper. If he linked to freeperville that is a connection.

And I posted it up thread too

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:39TdfFPiGm0J:groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaulforPresident/message/26630+site+freerepublic.com+%2B+%22James+Von+Brunn%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

It isn't him posting @ FR.

thoughts, and even creeds are able to be shared, amplified: enhanced within emotionally brittle groups with as little suggestion as taking off, if you will, (as it is possible for someone to suggest a clandestine meeting with the turning of a flower on a porch to the sun) one's left sock instead of the right one first and voila! A seemingly innocuous little message is passed. While the vehicle is understood through it's novel forms from within the likes of Snake Pit to Cuckoo's Nest to 12 Monkeys, it is there. And soon all the snakes are dancing, and so it is that...

Some people may be the snake's head, some people may be the snake's tail, or it's belly...but they are not 'lone wolves' so beware the tack that there are such creatures,

It may take time for a wave to propagate across a mountain lake...but the hate-wing of Amerika lives and responds as a single organism. There are no 'lone wolves of hate'...only one, large, blood splattered face of hatred on which these others we see clearly are shape-shifting before our eyes: Roeder, Von Brunn, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, Rove, Mujahid Muhammad, the list goes on...

The FBI has been tracking these murderers and assassins for years, oh really? They've bought weapons right out from under the FBI's nose. These violent RW respondents, taking their violent leads from wherever they may; may be the most brittle and intransigent of the lot of them, but they are not alone; they are not 'lone wolves'. More like the worms in Silence of The Lambs: they are loved, coddled, given safe-house and sanctuary

They are shape-shifting parts of the same wolf responding in what are for them organic ways, and in response to a shared psychosis of hatred they want disparately to share with the world. Which makes them more deadly than even we think they are,

The 'lone wolf' gambit is a ruse instead; designed to explain away the failures of Dept's like the FBI, the failure of American society, and the mocking death of freedom & liberty perpetrated by the RW/hate-wing of Amerika

edit for: stuff

I do see your point Cali, and although there is no evidence to link that bastard to freepland, it's enough for me that members at freepland linked to his extreme right wing logic. And that is evidence enough that at least they prescribed to his hateful words and that makes him guilty of posting on their site by association. Members on that site could have easily protested his hateful words, but did not.

This is the same as the driver of a get away car also being guilty as an accessory to a bank robbery. Freeps didn't rob the bank but they sure didn't take their foot off the peddle.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141655/posts

edited for clarity

posted by von Brunn himself.

:blush:

Truth be damned.

:silly:

There's no evidence that he himself posted, only that something he wrote was posted there.

how Cali could possibly conduct a conclusive investigation without actually investigating his personal belongs, personal computer? Too me that's a bit absurd most people post under pseudonyms.

The police could accuse me of selling drugs and it'd be impossible for me to prove that I've never done such a thing. Now, they could suspect me of selling but that's as far as it'd go until they come up with actual evidence.

Cali has not asserted that the guy was never a Freeper, no way, no how, etc. But a lot of people on DU have been speaking as if von Brunn's membership at FR was a matter of fact. Actually, nothing has been proved about that.

Until there is definite evidence of it (which is something that may well come out after the FBI have finished their work), it's just a supposition held by a lot of people. Suppositions without evidence are mythical.

The people who are saying as fact that von Brunn was a FR member are responsible for providing the evidence to back up this claim. I loathe FR, but since I also loathe rumormongering I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't use the same standards of evidence that I would for any other claim.

also work against Cali's so-called "research" because unless he/she is one of the FBI agent's currently working on this investigation who can they possibly know what websites he subscribed to? That's like me saying that because I've never seen you're screen name on other forums then surely this must be on the only forum you belong to.

But in this case it's ultimately immaterial. These types are ultimately of the same ilk. Some are more unhinged than others. Some are more inclined to act out their paranoid ideology than others. But virtually all of them, no matter which sites they do or do not post on, are drawn to the same infantile ideology that sites like FR do so much to promulgate. Sure, I'll give ol' JimRob a pass this time. Even if von Brunn had posted there, that wouldn't necessarily equate to guilt by association.

But what's being fomented in the right blogosphere sure as hell aids and abets these dangerous nuts in reaching critical mass, grabbing a gun and doing what they do, and there'll be a lot more. There are people who used to be content hunched over their computers salivating over their delusional beliefs, who now have decided to brave the light of day and start killing people, and doubtless there will be more.

Robinson and his vapid, reeking cesspool of "discussion" don't seem to bear any direct legal responsibility here, no. But in a moral sense, they're something else again. They work hard, very hard, to create the ground conditions that give rise to these obscenities.

...for having signed up for an account over there in order to troll after the election.

Not saying I don't believe it, just want to know what basis you have for making your statement.

I don't know what's wrong with people on DU (and many other sites) who love to make firm assertions but don't see fit to explain how they reached a particular conclusion. Assertions without evidence are a waste of time.

I assume you're referring to this: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141655/posts

FR, like DU, is full of cut'n'paste articles from/by third parties. If I post some article on DU with the author's name included at the end, it does not follow that the author is a DU member.

Now if you're referring to this: http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:39TdfFPiGm0J:groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaulforPresident/message/26630+site+freerepublic.com+%2B+%22James+Von+Brunn%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

That just shows an email containing and FR link. It provides no proof of FR membership either. Feel free to try again, but I recommend actually using a link (including a link to another DU post if you have one in mind), which is what's good enough for everyone else.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that he was a member of FR. BUT there's a huge difference between 'he could have been', which is a hypothesis and 'he was', which demands actual evidence.

Saying his writings have been quoted on many RW extremist websites, and a few even mention FreeRepublic.

Well, those who are more fully reporting this story anyway.

I cheer everytime I hear it too!

If i didn't see it, it must not be true.