No new accounts for a week

Time for the weeding out to begin. And it won't be between Obama and Clinton supporters either, both of whom are welcome here. It will be between those who are serious and post like adults, and those who are not, and do not have enough self-control to resist name-calling and attacking other users.

Feel free to make the job easier by putting links to offenders in the comments.



Display:


Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 3)

Good news.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:04:47 PM EST

Re: No new accounts for a week (1.00 / 8)

Armstrong, you've cemented yourself as the biggest joke in the liberal blogosphere with this move.


by sharris0512 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:07:59 PM EST

Tell me, please... (2.00 / 1)

...commenter, where'd you park your horse?

(The one you apparently rode in on tonight.)


by bobswern on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 1)

oo, oo ~

i think i found one!


by pholkhero on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:21:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope you enforce it on both sides (2.00 / 3)

Because there are people on both sides whom are guilty.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:09:08 PM EST

Agreed... (2.00 / 1)

Anyone who can't refrain from name-calling -- believe it or not, we're all on the same side here -- should get the boot.


by KTinOhio on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:01:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (none / 0)

I do not believe this is good start in adding objectivity to your rather subjective standards. Believe me, you probably should considering adding caution to the wind--or you may create another blog site that will rival or surpass your own. Please watch the aura of cockiness that your statements bring, Jerome.


by Check077 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:12:31 PM EST

Wrong-o! Given a choice... (2.00 / 5)

...between standing by and allowing "the natives" to run roughshod over the population (a la DKos this quarter), versus standing up and maintaining a position where one draws the line (and now having experienced both points of view, and on a very firsthand basis I might add, over just the past couple of weeks), I'll opt for the latter every damn time.

Jerome is doing a very responsible thing. And, IMHO, it's exactly the right thing.

(And, Jerome, as my comments on that "other" site will firmly attest to this next statement: If I did disagree with you, I'd have no reservations about letting you know about it, too!)


by bobswern on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:25:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong-o! Given a choice... (2.00 / 7)

Arguments and disagreements are half the reason to do this, to get a different viewpoint.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong-o! Given a choice... (2.00 / 4)

Thanks for doing this.  It's important not to let the site be ruined with juvenile conversation and name calling.

However, I do hope you look for a pattern of behavior, and only ban repeat offenders.  Even the best of posters occasionally lose their cool when faced with continuous harrasment.

I believe TALKLEFT has one day banning for any poster who steps out of line.  It may be something to consider here too.


I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas
by ghost 2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

arguments are awesome... (2.00 / 1)

...when they're done right.  I LOVE it when people disagree with me and argue with me.  I get to RESPOND.  I get to form a counter-argument and test my premises against adversity.  If I can't defend my positions I should reconsider why I have them in the first place.  Plus, listening to other people's arguments give you insights into their thought processes and motiviations.  It's really illuminating sometimes.

I wish more people would embrace that kind of mind set.  So often when you disagree with someone they take it personally and project stuff on you or call you wild names.  It takes all the fun out of an argument.  

Some people just don't appreciate being challenged. They equate it with being threatened.


by DawnG on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's some weeds...for sure... (2.00 / 1)

I think a diary about Pat Buchanan's a wonderful place to do a little "research." A veritable infestation of comments, surrounding this diary, if ever there was one...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/24/1710 12/310

With the following two folks' comments to this diary being fairly self-explanatory and worthy of note, for slightly different reasons; especially in the context of their other comments to this diary:

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/24/1 71012/310/5#5

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/24/1 71012/310/81#81


by bobswern on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:29:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 1)

There is no discrimination by the administration of this site against supporters of either candidate.  This seems needed.


by mady on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:14:27 PM EST

OK (2.00 / 1)

I'd like to point out this poster, who called me the "PC Link police".


by zonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:14:52 PM EST

Re: OK (2.00 / 1)

this same poster referred to me as the "tone police" and then eliminated a diary I wrote about improving the tenor of the dialogue on this site.


by wasder on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 4)

Here is one who has been trolling the site all night.  You will find most of his comments in HC.

http://munodi.mydd.com/user/munodi/comme nts


by Scotch on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST

Yeah (2.00 / 2)

The broom comment is way out of line.


Because I wont trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes! This blogger's on my... (2.00 / 3)

...top-ten list, too. Certainly worthy of a hearty nomination.


by bobswern on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:28:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 1)

(Obama supporter here) I concur. He's not doing anything to help the tone of the discussion. Sorry, munodi.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:55:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 5)

Feel free to make the job easier by putting links to offenders in the comments

MyDD user "Munodi": Repeating the same troll-rated spam over and over again.

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/64#64
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/59#59
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/48#48
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/41#41
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/24#24
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 13345/675/3#3


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM EST

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 2)

Ha.  Been bothering you too. Eh?


by Scotch on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:23:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Annoying gnats (2.00 / 2)

I've got a lovely marginata plant that appears to be infested with a fungus gnat. Fortunately, Gardens Alive has a product that effectively remedies the problem!

http://www.gardensalive.com/product.asp_ Q_pn_E_1962


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:50:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 8)

As an Edwards supporter now favoring Hillary, I applaud your efforts to save MYDD and remain, as Edwards said, "the grown up wing of the Democratic Party." It is sad what has happened to the Daily (Obama) Kos and other sites.


by Robert Spurrier on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:19:02 PM EST

WOO HOO! (2.00 / 1)

I got in just under the wire.  Can I have a prize???  I want the stuffed panda!

But, I got a message that I'm posting too many comments (I misstook the post for preview button a couple times and posted duplicate comments) and that my account has been locked from posting comments?

But I couldn't find anyplace that explains how many comments I'm allowed to post, only that if I Post my lock out time will double.

I appreciate you're trying to keep things civil, but...eh...are all these controls really making things better?  Crazies are still roaming the halls calling you facist and communist and all manner of slander.  Is locking the place down really having a positive effect on the discourse?


by DawnG on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:19:36 PM EST

Re: WOO HOO! (2.00 / 2)

How did you post this one?


by Scotch on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:22:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WOO HOO! (2.00 / 1)

I held my breath and counted to ten.

Kinda.  It took me a few minutes to write the thing, then I got up and did some stuff for a few minutes and then I hit post.  It didn't say the account would be locked out for long.  It didn't say how long.   It was a really odd error.


by DawnG on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WOO HOO! (2.00 / 4)

I have gotten the warning about "to many comments before". That warning has been around much longer than this prez race. I believe it helps stop people or machines that like to post numerous comments to try and hijack or kill a diary.

Take it slow, grab a beer and just enjoy slowly posting your comments.   :)


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:33:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WOO HOO! (2.00 / 1)

Does that happen often around here?


by DawnG on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean (2.00 / 1)

posting to many comments? Well I have gotten that warning a few times. It usually happened to me when I was happy and excited not when being angry.  :)


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean (2.00 / 2)

no, does hijacking happen often around here?


by DawnG on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean (2.00 / 4)

By spamming the same comment numerous times? I would say no, because of the control you ran into.
Hijacking a diary by posting asshole comments, yes... this happens a lot! Both here and at Dkos.. worse at dkos.
Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:58:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WOO HOO! (2.00 / 2)

Yeah that drives me nuts too.  Especially in the DEBATE open threads.  I would lOVE to see it turned off for those times.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:32:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WOO HOO! (2.00 / 2)

Me too.  And on election nights.  C'est la vie.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 1)

Three cheers for Big Brother!

    Hip-Hip...Hillllaryyyyy!

    Hip-Hip...Hillllaryyyy!

    Hip-Hip...Hillaryyyy!


"Let them eat cake"
by NCDEM29 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:21:01 PM EST

this is not the kiddie pool. (2.00 / 2)

...although it's not hard to find.


by campskunk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:21:57 PM EST

One thing that many here (2.00 / 5)

Do Not Realize. MyDD does not have the same ability to monitor the site for BS as Dkos does.
Dkos has many more admins - paid admins.
Dkos also has a huge amount of "I'm telling the admins on you!" O supporters.

I have found myself tiring of almost all the things I, a political junkie, used to enjoy.

Such as:

Dkos
Many of the host on AAR and Progressive radio.
Many of the so called "Democratic and Progressive" blogs.
... and so much more.

Yes I am a Hillary Clinton supporter but I AM a Democrat FIRST!
...

The following comes from a previous comment I made:

The popular vote count and the delegate count are slightly in Obama's favor but they are almost at a 50/50 split. The number of states means absolutely nothing.

I am exasperated with people wanting to end this when no one has the number needed and that it can still swing either way. - Yes... I know that it leans heavily towards Obama and that Hillary is fighting an uphill battle.

What I don't understand is why people like you (some Obama supporters), the ed schultz and randi rhodes types keep bashing on Clinton, when all of you think it is just a matter of time and counting before Obama takes the nomination.
If this IS what you truly believe, then WHY do you even care what Hillary Clinton does? Ignore her, marginalize her, "move on" and start running against mccain... OR is it that Obama, you and all of the others are actually nervous that Hillary Clinton has a chance to take the nomination?

Stop your whining and bashing and just Move Along.  OK? - (This last part could be directed at some of the supporters of each candidate)


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:28:01 PM EST

Re: One thing that many here (none / 0)

Um I'm going to disagree and call you on that.  Bowers did a GREAT job of moderating when he was here... and continues to do so.  So it is doable... obviously, All three are busy and makes it harder... perhaps having volunteer moderators would be a good solution.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:27:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing that many here (2.00 / 1)

This site is based on Scoop as dKos used to be. A user with enough hide-ratings should be auto-banned as they are on dKos. Even if they're not, the community does a pretty good job hiding the obvious trolls as it is.

Not everything in the world has to be a MyDD vs. dKos complaint.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing that many here (none / 0)

a problem with this is that many people will troll-rate or hide-rate you just b/c you don't agree with them.

and yes, with the high concnetration of HRC supporters, it seems that it's mostly BHO supporters are the ones getting it.


by pholkhero on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:26:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One thing that many here (2.00 / 1)

Your comment goes double for things at dkos, except reverse the percentage of candidate supporters.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:43:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

jerome- this one's a charmer. (2.00 / 2)

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/26/2 03825/617/57#57


by campskunk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:29:41 PM EST

Re: jerome- this one's a charmer. (2.00 / 1)

Seconded.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thirded. (none / 0)


by Shazone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:15:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thirded. (none / 0)

I just want to comment on the utter irony of Shazone chiming in here to poo-poo a poster for behaving improperly.

I've seen this person personally taunt and name call more than once now. Two wrongs don't make a right.


by tessellated on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you for your kind words. (none / 0)


by Shazone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:01:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps (2.00 / 2)

we could also get a warning on using obviously unacceptable sources?

How about a statement against citing Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Debbie Schlussel, Charles Krauthammer, etc for use in an attack?

There was a front page post about a month ago calling out the use of Drudge -- which I agreed with and said so -- seems that as of late, we've gotten a slew of obviously unacceptable being used for reference purposes.


by zonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:30:31 PM EST

eh. (2.00 / 1)

even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

Rather than judging statements based on who wrote them, we should judge them based on their intellegence and accuracy.  Maybe with a few points for style and diction.

Some times people can surprise you.  Granted I'm still waiting for Bill O to say something smart, but if he does, I'd like to have the sense of mind to recognize it rather than toss it out as being HIS.


by DawnG on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong (2.00 / 2)

We're not talking about a George Will - who's usually wrong, but can generally turn a phrase in being wrong.... or Broder, who's just centrist hackery... or even Brooks... hell, even Taylor Marsh.

We're talking about Jonah "Liberal Fascism" Goldberg.  We're talking Bill "Weekly Standard" Kristol.  We're talking Sean "No pithy middle name does him justice" Hannity.

If Bill O'Reilly says it's noon - I'm still using another watch.

When you legitimize such wingers, you undermine the whole of progressivism.

I'm an Obama backer, so perhaps we haven't made it clear.... Sean Hannity is NOT invited because he's got nothing to add to the discourse.  There ought to be lines that would-be progressives or Democrats don't cross.


by zonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not talking about legitimizing... (2.00 / 3)

...anything. I'm talking about not shutting out statements for NO OTHER REASON than because of the name of the person who says it.

We should judge content by the content, not by the name attributed to it.  It's just basic critical thinking.  

Right wingers dismiss stuff all the time as being from a "liberal" source.  They don't address the accuracy of what they're dismissing, they just say it's from the NYT or from CNN as if that alone is enough to judge it as WRONG.

You want to be like that?


by DawnG on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:05:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not talking about legitimizing... (none / 0)

Look.

If you honestly think there's a valid comparison to be made between FoxNews - which is nothing but a propaganda arm of the conservative movement and the New York Times, which while sometimes haughty and even occasionally hackish - is still a legitimate news source, well... geez.

Trust me.  

Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, John Gibson -- these people have no thoughts worthy of consideration.   On the rare occasion that there's some degree of truth by mere coincidence or the theory of a thousand monkeys, a thousand years, and thousand typewriters -- you can find it somewhere else.


by zonk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:11:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not listening to me. (2.00 / 1)

You made an argument that we should disallow "certain sources" from the discourse around here.

I am disagreeing.  We should not be dismissing things without addressing the accuracy and vaility of the statements themselves.  That is what right wingers do and I have always thought it a symptom of their pathological disconnect with reason.

I am not saying we should invite right wing hacks into the discourse.  I'm saying we should judge statements based on the merits of the statements themselves, not based on the name of the person who says them.

If someone says something stupid or wrong, it shouldn't matter who they are or how wrong they've been in the past.  If someone says something intellegent and right, it likewise shouldn't matter who they are or how wrong they've been in the past.


by DawnG on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:22:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are not listening to me. (2.00 / 0)

Yeah I've seen zonk whining over and over about sources, basically hijacking any thread with a cite from a source he doesn't like.

This is not how democrats are supposed to act.

Get it together, zonk.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:21:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are not listening to me. (none / 0)

One would think on a supposedly Democratic blog we could all agree that we "don't like" sources like Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, and Sean Hannity.


by zonk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (2.00 / 2)

"If Bill O'Reilly says it's noon - I'm still using another watch."

Hillarious!


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:08:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh (none / 0)

Not to start trouble, but is Andrew "Fifth Column" Sullivan acceptable?


by Shawn on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uh (none / 0)

I don't personally think he's cite-worthy; I don't read him regularly, but yeah - occasionally I check him out.

However, I think there's a fairly big gulf between him and a Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly.

I hate to use the old "I know it when I see it" -- but perhaps the line is something along the lines of whether the source thinks liberalism is a legitimate ideology against which the source disagrees (I'd put George Will, Sullivan, even David Brooks in that category) --- or liberalism is some odd form of satanism (where Hannity, Limbaugh, and company reside).


by zonk on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Its very sad that a group of Democrats (2.00 / 1)

are talking about censorship, because that is what you are talking about. You are pre-judging comments about who is making them. It does save all that time about having to think about what was actually said. As for me, I find myself agreeing with people of all sorts of political stripes, much to my surprise, but I do that only when I understand what they are saying and check out the facts. I don't give anyone a "pass" be they liberal or conservative.
by cjbardy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Censoring sources is a very bad idea (2.00 / 4)

Booting out rude, name-calling jerks is a different matter entirely.

I've had to moderate blogs before and I look at it this way. Your blog hosts PAY for their blogs. It's their house. At some point, it's really more than okay for a host to toss out the drunk who's getting into fights, breaking the furniture and puking on the carpets.


by OtherLisa on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:36:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Question (none / 0)

I have a new thing: 'write new entry' up in the toolbar.

What is the difference between an entry and a diary?


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:31:55 PM EST

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 1)

On another note, how do you post a quote and/or a Youtube and make things bold?

I can't find it in the FAQs and my ignorant mind can't get around the explanation offered on the screen before posting a diary.


by mefck on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:34:04 PM EST

Here are a few tips (2.00 / 1)

Replace ALL of these( ) with these < >

BOLD = (b)BOLD(/b)
........................................ ...

BLOCKQUOTE
= (blockquote)BLOCKQUOTE(/blockquote)


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here are a few tips (2.00 / 2)

(b)thanks!(/b)


by mefck on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:11:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here are a few tips (2.00 / 1)

whoops


by mefck on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0)

Go here:

http://www.mydd.com/write/contactus

It is from the "Contact Us" at the bottom of the site.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:41:27 PM EST

Re: Yes (none / 0)

That method isn't anonymous.


I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.
by KnowVox on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:38:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

true (none / 0)

but it is more anon then posting your complaint as a diary or comment.


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you Jerome (2.00 / 5)

I wonder if cleaning up would include folks who do not participate here - no diaries, no comments, etc., but recommend diaries by a certain well-known poster.

I listed several screennames here.  I stopped posting after 10 names because I didn't want to go overboard, but there are many other names that recommended "his" diary that never participate here, as well.

Regardless, thanks for working hard to make this a site for Democrats...real Democrats.

John


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:48:45 PM EST

Re: Thank you Jerome (2.00 / 1)

I disagree here. Lurkers may be recommending for entirely valid reasons.

They may also be sock-puppets, of course, but you'd have to prove it. Mere lack of postings doesn't constitute a foul. Unless the diaries they're recommending are themselves foul (not merely supportive of one side or the other), unless they're proven to be sock-puppets I'd argue let it go.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:58:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You've been here 15 days (2.00 / 1)

You've posted 560 comments in just 15 days.

I'll let someone else fill in the blanks.


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:05:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You've been here 15 days (2.00 / 1)

That I'm not a sock-puppet or a lurker? -grins-

Actually, I just like to argue. Ask my wife. Talk quite a lot too. I assure you, I'm not getting anything for doing this except hopefully supporting the candidate I think is the best in this election, and having fun wrangling over the issues (the issues are dead serious; the wrangling is fun, and anyone who doesn't think so shouldn't be on the blogs. This isn't supposed to be work).

I'm an Obama supporter, donor, caucus delegate, etc.; except as a part owner, I'm in no way part of the Obama campaign.

I love to argue, this is fascinating ground over which to argue; I strongly support Obama and there are things that I detest about Clinton's campaign, but if I've ever called names about her (don't think I have) I apologize in the deepest way possible.

And I'm quite sure you can find a bunch of people who've posted far more comments than I have in the time that I've been here.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh oh OH!!! (none / 0)

I love to argue too!

Quick, say something I can argue with!  Please?


by DawnG on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you Jerome (2.00 / 5)

My observation, as well.  A lot of them are from DailyKos, and who enjoyed harrassing Clinton people there, until they left.  Now they have been coming here to follow and be able to do it again. They don't like the presence of a lot of Clintonistas as they would say, here. They miss us, but won't admit it.  I recognize a lot of names.


by Scotch on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:59:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you Jerome (2.00 / 1)

I like debating with Clinton supporters. dailyKos is informative but a bit dull right now; most everyone agrees. You don't learn much that way... and it's just not fun.

I disagree with the harassment too.

I also came here first :) By a few hours, but still.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:12:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you Jerome (2.00 / 4)

John/Sluggo (whichever you prefer :) )

I recommended that diary.  I know you didn't "call" me out on your list, but I have never written a diary and I don't post many comments (what, three or four maybe?).  

I do enjoy reading here though--even the comments and diaries I don't agree with.  

With that said, I think it would be a little unfair to cull out those (like me) who haven't participated as much as you'd like.

I'm very nonconfrontational, so I kind of prefer to sit on the sidelines :)


John McCain smells like mothballs.
by asherrem on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I didn't call you out specifically (2.00 / 3)

So we're cool!

I pointed out 6-7 instances in the first 10 names on the list of screennames who do not participate here, yet came here to recommend that diary of hate and lies.

Take a good look at the comments in that diary - all of them are candidates perhaps.

Take care,

John


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:25:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you Jerome (none / 0)

Please. The problem is with trolls and disruption of threads. Someone who doesn't post, doesn't diary and only recommends is hardly causing a problem.

I think what you mean to say is that you don't want Bob Johnson's diaries getting recommended anymore.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you Jerome (none / 0)

Personally, I thought the "witch hunt" tone of your diary was rather offensive.  You posted my moniker along with a note to "feel free to check out the others" simply because I recommended a freakin' diary.  The fact that you didn't even bother to respond to a single comment afterwards speaks volumes.  Like it or not, people recommended a diary that you didn't care for, and it doesn't mean that there is some secret underground army of "rats" that are plotting to take over this site.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:26:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 1)

I assume we are to Rec this diary as well as post.


by grlpatriot on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:52:16 PM EST

Re: No new accounts for a week (none / 0)

I still love peeder's method, but that is a knife fight in a meta cantina.


"I hope the two wings of the Democratic Party may flap together." - William Jennings Bryan
by pinche tejano on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:59:50 PM EST

Yes, that should be the test (none / 0)

It will be between those who are serious and post like adults, and those who are not

Excellent. Although I don't remember it being explicitly stated in the rules, I've always thought that simply acting maturely should be a prerequesite for membership on any progressive political blog.

This diary, and the diarist's comments within it, is a recent example of extremely immature discourse that adds nothing of substance to this site, and detracts greatly from it.


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:00:34 AM EST

Re: Yes, that should be the test (none / 0)

Seconded. First half of it's great. No problem with that. Go for it.

Second part is a bunch of four-letter-word slanders and juvenile posturing. Not ok.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:10:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, that should be the test (none / 0)

Stuff like the diary written above are definately bad.  But then sometimes people do get pissed and emotional.  I would hope that emotion gets taken into account here...


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:36:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, that should be the test (none / 0)

And if along with immaturity, bald-faced lying about another member of the community is a bannable offense, I'd nominate (out of personal pique!) the person who said this...

ive read you trash hillary lots and loads of times

...about me at the end of this thread.

This poster saw fit to make up stuff about me out of whole cloth.  I've never trashed Sen. Clinton. Trashing a Democratic presidential candidate is the last thing I'd ever do on a blog. She wasn't my first pick in the primaries, but I've been a cheerleader on MyDD for Clinton and all the Democratic Party's best and brightest since before the silly primary season even began.


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:25:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what a whiner (none / 0)

First you accused Hillary on 60 minutes of saying something so awful and decietful that it made you "cringe".

Then you insulted my friend Boehlert, who the diary was about, when he showed the entire quote which negated your false and negative spin abou Hillarys "quote". Since you couldnt argue the myth about what she said - with the true facts of the dircct quote, your response was to acccuuse Eric of being unobjective and even though he's now at MMOA, say that he's "in the tank" for Hillary, In other words, that he was being deceitful.

Then  you personly tried to put me down,  put me  "in my place" like they do at Kos, with you old timer status, then you insulted me, and when I CRACKED BACK, you go to teacher to complain.

Typical net passive-aggresive malarkey and response.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 03:58:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what a whiner (2.00 / 1)

The only thing you're right about is that I'm being a tattle.

But it's you who is exhibiting extreme sensitivity ("whining" perhaps one would call it, but I'd just call it hyperpartisanship and hyperventilating).

I said there's nothing surprising about a politician who I like occasionally saying something that makes me cringe (since I do like her and she did make me cringe on this occasion).  You translate that as a gross attack on Sen. Clinton.  

Then you insulted my friend Boehlert...say that he's "in the tank" for Hillary, In other words, that he was being deceitful.

Um, no, I said no such thing.  I pointed out instances where I've found him to be arguably over-defensive of Sen. Clinton.

And for that, you went off the handle, making ridiculously false accusations about my posting history - obviously knowing not the slightest about my posting history - and about my supposedly partisan motivations.

Hyperventilating is one thing, but I think attacking, in the way you did, another member of this community, is very bad form.


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 09:35:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what a whiner (none / 0)

you just repeat passive aggressive semantics, by once again insulting and/or slanderng Hillary , Boehlert and me and then whine about my being sooo mean and unfair.

I know in your self reverential, Rob is pure, world view you truly can't even see that you do this, but you sure as hell do.

Hence, I stick to my words.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An open call to both camps (2.00 / 1)

My take on it is this: it's ok to get frustrated once in a while and accuse someone in polite language of being reading-comprehension-challenged. Some people are, or pretend to be.

It's not ok to name-call, use derogatory names, make wicked-witch analogies, accuse people of being racists or sexists (unless they clearly are -- merely supporting a candidate does not make one a racist or a sexist) or of being anti-American, post clearly trolling remarks (as opposed to unfairly troll-rated remarks, and we've seen those on both sides), etc.

As absolutely tedious as it is, I don't think it's an offense to repeat the same overly-tired arguments that have been debunked a thousand times... but I'd say it's then forgivable if someone blasts away (politely, without four-letter-words and character assassination) in reply.

I call on Obama supporters to post people who do this sort of nonsense in Obama's cause, and for Clinton supporters to post people who do this in Clinton's cause. This shouldn't just be about getting the other guy, it should be about weeding out the trolls whoever they are. I'm also asking you (whoever you're for) to stand up and agree that someone's a jerk, if they are, even if they're "on your side". Jerks who are on your side really aren't.

I would also vote for giving people a break. One rant gets you a warning. A bunch gets you toasted. This especially goes for long-timers (which I'm not) -- but at the same time, I've seen some long-timers go way off the rails too.

Just a bunch of thoughts from a self-acknowledged relative newcomer, who's trying hard not to be one of the jerks.


No Way. No How. No McCain-Palin!
by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:08:38 AM EST

Re: An open call to both camps (none / 0)

"As absolutely tedious as it is, I don't think it's an offense to repeat the same overly-tired arguments that have been debunked a thousand times"

The one about Obama being a Muslim has GOT to stop though.  Nothing against Muslims, but its a lie and middle America won't vote for him if this rumor is believed.


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:15:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 1)

What will the DKos boycott newbies do now? Or was it because too many of them were coming over as new members, but in doing so, brough over a lot of the unwanteds also?

The name calling has been getting ridiculous lately!  Hope this action helps!


by mcctx on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:08:43 AM EST

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 3)

I would suggest that most of the newcomer trolls are Obama supporters from KOS.

I came here from KOS precisely because I decided to switch to Hillary, and was ostracized for it.  

Some of the vile comments I got over there you wouldn't believe.  

I think Jerome is right with this diary.  Shut it down until the rude folks go back to KOS.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:29:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (none / 0)

Please, can we not pretend that only Obama-supporters are the one who spew filth at other posters?


by pholkhero on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:10:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No new accounts for a week (2.00 / 3)

You can pretend all you want.

However, I have been only attacked by Obama posters.  When a Hillaryite attacks me with trollish behavior, I'll let you know.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:32:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's a recommendation.... (2.00 / 2)

http://munodi.mydd.com/user/munodi/comme nts


by Shazone on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:12:14 AM EST

Jerome, I would also like to see action on this... (2.00 / 8)

Clearly, this prolific and well-known poster's first sentence in his latest diary is a lie.

He provides a link to a CBS article that states "Clinton was meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial board..."

But this diarist's headline says "Clinton meets with Scaife," and then takes off on the latest Hillary-lies with "Yesterday, Hillary Clinton met with the very rightwing lunatic who spent millions of dollars trying to bring the Clintons down..."

He didn't just distort, he flat out lied.  Nowhere in the article does it say that Hillary met with Scaife.  She is in Pennsylvania, trying to win the primary, and she met with the Pittsburgh paper's editorial board...big deal.

But this diarist makes it a huge deal, with lots of additional junk, and once again his diary is on the recommended list - no doubt aided by recommenders who do not participate here at all, except to recommend his (and perhaps others like his) diaries.

I don't think this is right.
I hope you can clean it up.

Thanks,

John


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:20:25 AM EST

I would also like to see action on this... (2.00 / 7)

Great point SluggerJD

As for that editorial board... I'm guessing we won't hear a peep out of the complainers when Obama meets with them to ask for their endorsement.


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:48:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Alegre, perhaps I was somewhat wrong (2.00 / 3)

Someone has gone into "his" latest diary and posted a you tube link (scroll to the bottom) that shows Hillary meeting in PA, and apparently the guy on her right is Scaife.

Regardless, "his" diary did not provide this link, the article made no mention of her meeting with Scaife, and the rest of his diary is an attempt to convince others that Hillary has joined the VRWC...

and that proves malicious intent on the part of the diarist.  IMO, only a troll would ever try to make others believe that Hillary Clinton is partners with the VRWC.

And that kind of stuff has to stop.

John


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:56:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre, perhaps I was somewhat wrong (2.00 / 1)

IMO, only a troll would ever try to make others believe that Hillary Clinton is partners with the VRWC.

And only a troll would try to convince people that Obama is responsible for Wright's most offensive comments, or that Obama doesn't love America, or that Obama is in league with terrorists, or that Obama "lied" about whatever someone's issue of the day is.

See, it works both ways. Supporters of both candidates are unloading with both barrels every single day. Some of it's true. Some if it's not. And much of it's somewhere in-between-- exaggerated, taken out of context, or otherwise manipulated to fit a purpose. For every Bob Johnson diary you complain about, I can show you two of Universal's.

It's tiresome to read your attempts to use this thread a convenient way to purge Obama supporters. This is supposed to be about people who name-call, insult, and act like uncivilized children--NOT those who post diaries with which you strongly disagree.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:14:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre, perhaps I was somewhat wrong (2.00 / 1)

I would take issue with this simply by reason of Bob Johnson being a much more prolific diarist than Universal.

You can't possibly in reality show such a porportion as you claim.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:21:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre, perhaps I was somewhat wrong (none / 0)

Uh...so far in March, Universal has posted 28 diaries. Bob Johnson has posted 12.

The point isn't to compare Universal and Bob Johnson. My point is that it's ridiculous to suggest that someone be banned because you think their diaries are unfair to your candidate. That's life on a political blog.

Jerome asked for names to be considered for banning. Banning should be reserved for personal insults, spamming, and repeated offensive comments like overt racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.

Aside from that, comments should be hidden on a case-by-case basis, and if a members proves themselves unable to converse with human beings, their accrued hidden comments should get them banned. (Several examples of such people are cited in this thread.)


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:31:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Alegre, perhaps I was somewhat wrong (2.00 / 2)

It is easy to show that number when referencing this site alone.  Those of us who have been subjected to Bob's 'works' over the past few years on the ornage site know a much different story.

He lives and breathes to denigrate Hillary, or so it appears, because he can write about nothing else.

Apparently, since there are now no Hillary supporters on that particular site available for him to punch in the face with his biased 'work', he has decided to come here to accost us and obtain his 'fix'.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

My intent is crystal clear (2.00 / 2)

Obama is most certainly not responsible for Wright's hate speech, and I have never supported or posted that.  So please spare the inaccurate characterization of my intentions.

Obama is plagued by Wright's speech though, and a person would have had to grow up in a closet to not know that Republicans will come at Obama with everything they have on this issue, if he is the nominee.  I, for one, believe it is impossible for him to win in November now.

As for my immediate intentions, they are crystal clear:

1.  To do what I can to put an end to people coming here only to recommend anti-Hillary diaries, and otherwise not participating.  If you cannot admit that something is very wrong with the integrity of this site (which Jerome is trying to protect), when people who have not posted since 2005, 2006, come here just to recommend a Bob Johnson diary, then that just illustrates your own character.

2.  To do what I can to put an end to people going around here posting a bunch of lies about Hillary Clinton, who has been a loyal and solid Democrat for over 30 years - since before Obama graduated from high school.  People who intentionally lie, who intentionally mislead, who intentionally try to make others believe crap, have no honor or integrity.  Do you disagree that those types of people are evil?

I have troll-rated lies about Obama.  I have posted my strong disagreement with obvious garbage.

Have you done the same thing with garbage posted about Hillary?  Shall I look?

So please don't mislead about my intentions.  If someone posts lies, they are evil.  If someone tries to make other people believe Hillary Clinton has joined the VRWC, they are evil.

I need to take a break now...I'm pretty riled up right now about all this junk.

But I do have some parting questions for you:

1.  What did you think about Obama's Harry & Louise-like flyer?

2.  What did you think about how Obama's campaign completely distorted Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment, turning "our first balck president" into a racist in the eyes of others?

3.  Do you support those types of things?

4.  Do you speak out against those types of things?

I await further discussion,

John


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:39:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My intent is crystal clear (none / 0)

Have you done the same thing with garbage posted about Hillary?  Shall I look?

Yup. Feel free to peruse my comments.

1.  What did you think about Obama's Harry & Louise-like flyer?

2.  What did you think about how Obama's campaign completely distorted Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment, turning "our first balck president" into a racist in the eyes of others?

3.  Do you support those types of things?

4.  Do you speak out against those types of things?


  1. No clue what you're talking about.
  2. I think black people are smart enough to figure out for themselves whether they're upset by anything Clinton has said. I don't really think anything of the fairy tale comment. The reference to Jesse Jackson is another story.
  3. What things? Things Bill said? Or the use of his comments against him?
  4. Yup, when I feel they're unfair. I do it here, but more frequently on dKos.

FYI, Bob Johnson being "evil" made me laugh.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:45:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well so much for honor and integrity (2.00 / 2)

No surprise.


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:51:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well so much for honor and integrity (none / 0)

Yes, but I put up with you anyway. As another member here says, I heart you Clinton supporter. I want you to know that.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sluggo, Phil Singer, Clinton's campaign spokesman, (2.00 / 1)

... distributed a hit piece on Obama today that came from the Scaife-funded American Spectator.

So, yes, the Clinton campaign is in bed with the VRWC. The very VRWC that Clinton, herself, railed against back when Bill was President.


by Bob Johnson on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's a lie and you're evil. Eeeeevil! n/t (none / 0)


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:46:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, let me get this straight (2.00 / 5)

McPeak compared Bill Clinton with McCarthy.
That's ok in your book.

The Hillary team went after McPeak.
That's "in bed" with the VRWC.

That's what you want other people to believe, right?

You know, I can easily imagine a freeper pretending to be a Democrat making this stuff up.

But a real Democrat?


Never let the bullies win.
by SluggoJD on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 01:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ok, let me get this straight (2.00 / 1)

pushing back against McPeak after he first said (which they did) was fine.

pushing AS pieces and sitting down w/Scaife ~ that's just bizarre, imo, for any clinton to do.  what's next?  brunch with ken starr??


by pholkhero on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:00:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

R (2.00 / 3)

Scaife hasnt funded the American Spectator for  years and your entire diary is amazingly just a series of ridiculous lies.

now those lies are being repeated in other diaries over and over.

Im sure it makes you quite proud.


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:10:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What lies? (none / 0)

Did caife fund American Spectator? Does he have ties to the rag's founders and editors?


by Bob Johnson on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 10:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What lies? (2.00 / 1)

1. as i wrote before, Scaife had a famous falling out with the mag's founder and spoken to him or hasnt funded the American Spectator for  years.  

2. wheres the hillary connect to judicial watch outside your  hillary  hating fantasy camp of a mind?

3. what makes you you come up with such hate filled lies?


by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:58:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, my my... (none / 0)

This is rich...

what makes you you come up with such hate filled lies?

Aren't you the person who