Vote VoteHillary2008 Off The Island

Enough is enough. Chris and Jerome have the final word in banning trolls. They also do not have the time or interest to monitor every diary and every offensive comment. Part of our responsibility as community members at MyDD is as Bruce Webb put it:

Re: Without a zero it doesn't disappear (none / 0)

Granted, when I upgraded some of the posts I had not read through the entire thread and did not realize what a putz we were dealing with here. And I lost my temper down thread. But what exactly did we gain by hiding the following inanities? Trolls roast to death when exposed to full sunlight, don't hide them away.

Attack, attack, attack (none / 0)

Come out with all barrels blazing, hammer them into the dust and then kick them in the head. But as long as they can speak you let them.

Rot, whether moral or physical, dies when exposed to strong sunlight. Let the sun shine in.

Social Security: Don't get Played
by Bruce Webb on Sat Aug 13th, 2005 at 07:21:21 PM PST

I'm just guessing, but I have concluded that VoteHillary2008 is not the female Asian G.I. that she pretends to be, but an adolescent white male. VoteHillary2008 is an overtly disruptive presence in the MyDD community and has forfeited his right to participate in civil political discusssion.

Exactly how trolls should be handled is a question subject to debate and there are several legitimate methods for dealing with them. Different circumstances call for different methods. Read the comments below and let Jerome and Chris know how the community feels by voting.

Re: Without a zero it doesn't disappear (none / 0)

When it comes to CONS I think in absolutes as well. As in every CON is an absolute waste of good air and carbon. I hate them all and I don't like to hear them utter one goddamn stupid word.

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Jul 9th, 2005 at 01:49:12 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This |   ]

He should be banning all idiot conservatives period. That's what freerepublic does to liberals. What he shouldn't be doing is deleting comments by people like me who voted for Kerry, Clinton, and are clearly on his side.

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Jul 9th, 2005 at 02:23:15 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This |   ]

Re: There are idiots (1.00 / 2)

Oh so I'm some "genocidal maniac" just because I hate conservatives so much that I'd PREFER it if they didn't exist at all? Damn right I wish there was a way to identify the "stupid gene" in our DNA that allows one to become assimilated into the values nazi doctrine...then maybe we could eliminate this disease from our society altogether.

Are you telling me that if someone somehow developed a biological carrier that could rewire this gene and remove it from the individual it infects and leave them otherwise unharmed, that you would not release it yourself? I damn sure would in a heartbeat.

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sat Jul 9th, 2005 at 02:19:26 PM EDT
[ Parent | Reply to This |    

Democrats should also bring a sense of proportion to the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. ... Yet the revelation that some U.S. troops aren't saints should not come as too great a shock, at least to grownups. By dwelling obsessively on U.S. misdeeds while ignoring the far more heinous crimes of what is quite possibly the most barbaric insurgency in modern times, anti-war critics betray an anti-American bias that undercuts their credibility.

Vote Hillary here seems to think I took this out of context. I don't know how you take those words out of context. How else can you read that?

I tend to "dwell obsessively" when my government condones torture.

There are very few things in life one should "dwell obsessively" over. That's one of them.

by cscs on Fri Aug 12th, 2005 at 07:36:57 PM PST

Re: This is the type of comment (none / 0)

Oh believe it. My genes share the trait of longevity with that of the longest lived race. I doubt you can say the same.

You logic is flawed because you base your assumptions on generalities that you are unwilling and unable to back up with facts, not to mention your perspective is limited to that of an outside observer.

Go study my links. I know you could not have read them through already.

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Fri Aug 12th, 2005 at 07:06:52 PM PST

Re: This is the type of comment (none / 0)

Answer the question. Why do you think FDR coddled Stalin?:

Bill Clinton is the greatest president.

I don't like FDR because of his conduct over Pearl Harbor when he withheld information from the Navy that an attack was imminent. I also found his coddling of Stalin particularly repugnant.

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Thu Aug 11th, 2005 at 10:15:32 AM PST

Why is a self proclaimed Naderite a homophobic admirer of James Dobson?

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 12th, 2005 at 07:09:21 PM PST

Re: Moderates, Centrists, Liberals and (none / 0)

Sure it does. I'm demonstrating this currently. There's no law that says I can't say what I want.
Adultery is illegal, it's just not punishable in the US in the same ways as more conventional crimes. Infidelity outside of legal marriage is adultery and illegal. It can result in divorce and financial repercussions.

Fine example of what's "right" to one person may not be "right" to another. In many countries today, adultery is still punishable by death.

And by the way, if I wanted to sleep with your wife I wouldn't have to ask you, I'd have to ask her. That wouldn't make it right but if she looked good enough I'd probably do it anyway.

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 04:58:51 AM PST

I have my Honorable Discharge pin (none / 0)

And the certificate, and for that matter the GI loan that got me into my Condo on a zero/zero loan. And I am not the only one that thinks you could neither spell or define a DD214.
"Actually put my ass on the line". What did you think I was doing when I was crusing forty miles from the Russian Coast during some tense times in the Cold War?

Spell it out big boy or take a little dose of STFU.

Social Security: Don't get Played
by Bruce Webb on Sat Aug 13th, 2005 at 11:52:38 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This |   ]

Re: I have my Honorable Discharge pin (none / 0)

"Honorable Discharge" Bwahahaha! Now THAT is some comic shit right there! You must be a Jr ROTC "veteran".
Ok, prove it. What does it say in Box 27 of your DD214 Member-1?

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 05:08:28 AM PST

Here is my summary of the first 210 comments.

These are some of the respected members of the MyDD community that VoteHillary2008 is incapable of having a civil conversation with:

Michael in Chicago and here as well

Bruce Webb 


Bill Felmlee

Tags: (all tags)



Mojo jar
I took some pretty good troll rating hits from VoteHillary2008 and some other trolls on the last couple of diaries. Fill up my Mojo jar or empty it out. Express yourself.

Comments welcome, good or bad. Feel free to express your opinion about me, my diary or anything else.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Mojo jar
I voted "yes" above because the record indicates that VH08 is a "troll" by the strict definition, someone who is posting in order to cause trouble and has nothing useful to say.  On the old Usenet groups I used to frequent I would killfile him/her -- this seems to be a reasonable way of inviting the powers that be to ban him/her.

Gary, since you've invited comment on your own behavior I'll oblige, bearing in mind that I'm new to commenting on this group.  While you're the best judge of whether you have the time to indulge in an all-out flamewar with the likes of VH08, I think you may have overreacted a few threads ago in the case of "pipe".  He/she gave you some unjustifiable 1-ratings, and you responded both in kind and with some personal attacks based on his/her newbie status and claimed gender.

This "pipe" seems to have disappeared after a day or two of activity.  If you've driven away a sincere but naive user who had something to contribute, that's a loss to the community.  If you've driven away a troll like VH08, it isn't, of course.  I would just ask you to consider, when you decide to attack, whether you might be going off half-cocked.

by DaveMB 2005-08-14 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Mojo jar
pipe was hardly a naive user. He or she was quite bellligerant.

After several attempts to brand me as a turncoat because, as I have not attempted to hide, I was a delegate for Bush 41 to my state convention, pipe invited me to leave the party. If that's not an invitation to a smackdown, I don't know what is.

I don't know, but I suspect pipe was a kossack who assumed his values and beliefs would carry as much weight here as they did at dkos. Maybe he's a regular somewhere else. It doesn't matter.

I've visited other sites and when I do I am respectful of the house rules and careful not to challenge regulars or be demanding. That's as basic a learning the written and unwritten house rules the first time you go into a neighborhood pool hall.

Here's how I closed my last comment to pipe:

If you plan on hanging around MyDD, I invite you to write a diary or two and impress us with your political acumen. But please sober up first. Your friends really shouldn't let you blog in your inebriated condition.

I think that was more than fair and have no apologies. How many free shots do you expect me to give newbies who think they are king of the hill on their first visit?

If pipe wishes to write a diary I can't stop him anyway, but at least he was forewarned not to attack me or any other MyDD regulars right out of the gate.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Mojo jar
I think that was more than fair and have no apologies. How many free shots do you expect me to give newbies who think they are king of the hill on their first visit?

I probably would have given one more free shot than you did.
But I asked you to think about it and you obviously did, so that's all I can ask.

What seems to have set pipe off is that you said you would support Newt over Hillary in 2008, which he/she took as a sign that you're not a real Democrat, particularly when you also spoke of your past as a Republican.  He/she didn't express that very well, I'll admit, but it wasn't an entirely unreasonable conclusion.

by DaveMB 2005-08-14 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Mojo jar
Not a problem. It was a judgment call. That's why I invited pipe to write his own diary to clarify his position.

I was quite serious about possibly voting for Newt over Hillary. I don't have a clue what Newt's position is or will be on the Iraq war, but that will be a determinative issue for me. As obnoxious as Newt is, if his position on the Iraq war is more acceptable than Hillary's, he would get my vote.

All of the front running Dems seem to be taking anti-war Democrats for granted. That would be a huge mistake on their part. That was my point, and I will probably write a diary to that effect in the near future. I don't think I will be the only disaffected Democrat, if Democratic Presidential nominees insist on running to the right on the war and social issues.

Biden was on Beat the Flesh this morning still insisting he was a viable Democratic candidate. Maybe in red states, but I doubt it. His lead on the bankruptcy bill will not go away. His insistence that we can't possibly leave Iraq until we have established "a stable government" is an invitation to fifteen more years of occupation and disaster.

At this point, I don't see Hillary or Kerry as viable primary candidates either, unless they do an about face on Iraq. Time will tell, but unless through some miracle there are dramatic improvements in Iraq, they will be running against the grain of at least 60% of Democratic primary voters.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Mojo jar
So you think the war is the worst of the many problems given to us by the criminal conspiracy that has taken over the Republican Party.  That's certainly a defensible position, but I don't agree with it.  I'm actually worried more about the prospect of fascism and/or civil war in the country with the most nuclear weapons on earth.

I want to see the current gang be repudiated and humiliated, and the Democratic Party, warts and all, is the best mechanism to do that.  This makes me pretty close to a yellow dog Democrat, at least on a national scale.

But I think the hypothetical of the Republicans nominating someone with a position on the war that you'd prefer to the Democrat's is a pretty remote one.  For that matter, lots of things could happen that make the war no longer the major issue, except that the current gang had better pay for starting it.

I suppose one can't say too many times that the absolutist opponents of this war were right in 2002.  I wasn't one of them, but they were right.

by DaveMB 2005-08-14 05:33PM | 0 recs
The war drives the Republican party
Just as the war divides the Democratic party. I suspect that at least one reason Bush's popular support refuses to fall below 40% is the war. A pro war Democrat will never peel away pro war Republicans from Bush. It is very difficult to see how a pro war Democrat will peel pro war Independents away from Bush.

The Republican candidate can co-opt any position a pro war Democrat proposes in 2007. They can run in support of the war and against Bush's policies just as effectively as a Democrat. Probably more effectively.

I don't believe a pro-war Democrat has a prayer of winning a Democratic primary. By 2007 there will be an anti-war Democratic candidate and they will get a huge percentage of votes. I strongly question if those two positions can be reconciled after the primary, regardless of which party wins. The only hope for a Democratic victory is for a strong consensus anti-war nominee to win.

Is fascism a really big problem? Of course. Don't you think the Republican nominee will be running on a liberty and freedom platform? I said the other day I thought Newt Gingrich was the most likely Republican nominee. Do you really think the Democrats have a candidate who can peel red state votes away from Newt? Is there any way a Democrat can triangulate far enough to the right to beat Newt in any Red state?

Democrats better start taking a real hard look at a blue state strategy or western strategy and start consolidating their base.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 07:46PM | 0 recs
Idea: Alcatraz
Gary, I agree with Bill Felmlee's assessment below that if you are able to establish that VH08 did indeed create that blogspot site slandering you, then Jerome and Chris may want to use their discretion to "freeze" his myDD account.

But, if otherwise, his comments here do fall under free speech, although quite unproductive, cantakerous, and does border on an abuse of that inalienable right.

I have an idea for handling trolls in general: create an Alcatraz (or a exiled, but free speech tolerance zone), and trusted users should have the ability to cast an Alcatraz vote or a negative alcatraz vote, the latter to prevent ratings abuse, and if the NET alacatraz vote is 4 or more, then the comment goes into the "Alcatraz", but viewable by everyone (not just the TUs) in an explicit FP category called "Alcatraz".
The people thus "Alcatrazzed" should have the ability to appeal their "sentence" by replying below their comment and the replies thereof.

When a member is frequently alcatrazzed and remains so, then Jerome and Chris could take up the issue and see if the collective activity of the member warrants banning from participating further at the site.

The Alcatraz idea is not too different from the current "hidden comments" category, but these are the key differences:

  1. everyone will be able to read these comments
  2. negating unfair troll-rating will be possible
  3. go from the current one zero-rating by TU threshold to 4 NET alcatraz ratings by TUs.
  4. gives a chance for the troll-rated user to make their case, and/or apologize for or mitigate the offending comments.

Any thoughts?
by NeoLiberal 2005-08-14 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Idea: Alcatraz
I don't think we need anything that sophisticated. There are plenty of other sites. The blogosphere is a big place. Nobody is being permanently silenced because they lose their privileges at MyDD.

VoteHillarious has demonstrated he is capable of creating a new screen name and a number of trolls have done that.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 11:57AM | 0 recs
I've suggested this
a couple of times -- my term for it was "Troll Hole." As far as I know (though that's not very far), it should be workable within Scoop to have a "sub-user" status, where posts are retained but automatically hidden from people who aren't looking for them.

It would be especially helpful to have access to the postings of banned users, since they're often fond of coming back here or going elsewhere and pissing and moaning about how they got the boot for no good reason.

Theoretically, it should be possible to "banish" a user to sub-user status without them necessarily realizing it, the same way that a new user has no idea that there are "trusted users" with the ability to hide posts. The interface would function the same way, and their posts would still be visible to them (and maybe to other sub-users), but not to normal users (except those who opted to view exiled comments).

The decision to banish could be determined by mojo, or simply an editorial option (which is probably a better idea) the way banning is handled now. My personal opinion is that deletion should be reserved for people who are flagrantly and deliberately just eating up server space or spamming.

by catastrophile 2005-08-14 04:09PM | 0 recs
Better things to do?
Good lord Gary, did he/she really irritate you that much?  Look at all the time you spent on this when you could have been looking up info on Huskers football(think that was you).  Serously tho, hope that Chris or Jerome can figure something out here.  I appreciate your comments but hate the Flame Wars.  
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-08-14 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Better things to do?
Gee Demo Dan in Dayton. Have you ever had anyone create a website in your honor?

You have no idea how sick, malevolent and twisted VoteHillary2008 is unless you have clicked on the links I provided and browsed the whole diary.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Better things to do?
WTF is up with that?  Really had no idea.  Sorry for the snark previous.
by Demo Dan in Dayton 2005-08-14 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Better things to do?
VoteHillary2008 is some stupid adolescent prankster who thinks he is a pretty smart fellow. He probably has serious family issues and may have a drug or alcohol problem. I don't know, but he has crossed a line that exceeds anything I have even heard of.

Not to mention the fact that I'm wondering if I have a defamation suit against the webhost for his blog.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 08:10AM | 0 recs
Doubt it
It took me five minutes to set up a website on Blogspot and I suspect I went right through a bunch of screens that totally absolved Blogspot for any responsibility for anything whatsover relating in my blog. You would probably have better luck suing the owner of a fence for libel for having an insult to your mother. Because I suspect Blogger has a pretty good lawyer.
by Bruce Webb 2005-08-14 04:24PM | 0 recs
I'm sure that's the consensus
The routine waiver's of responsibility are similar to what are known as shrink wrap licenses or click wrap contracts.

The fundamental question they raise are whether blanket waivers are a bar to responsibility. I doubt it a lot. I suspect they are not worth the paper they are not written on.

A very good example is the routine waiver of responsibility that airlines make for lost or damaged luggage. It has no legal value, but discourages large numbers of people from filing claims. The same rule applies to all kinds of blanket waivers of responsibility for accidents.

It's an interesting question, and like most legal questions there is never a black and white answer.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 08:00PM | 0 recs
Yum, yum
"like most legal questions there is never a black and white answer."

And no lack of $300 an hour lawyers that will be more than happy to hash it out in front of a judge. Or leisurely flipping through case law in their office and charging you by the minute.

by Bruce Webb 2005-08-14 08:34PM | 0 recs
Bannishing Trolls Is Not The Answer.
If you think seriously about the issue, it should occur that anybody with tons of money can simply take over a website by fielding hundreds of paid or fanatical "boots on the keyboard." I say just shrink the font size of trollish posters.

And really, the site always needs to be overseen by a board of about ten people. And that board should be smart enough to avoid what happened to the Pacifica Radio board, where covert neocon operatives were able to infiltrate and take over outright. If the board is self-perpetuating, then no one should be eligible to get in unless they have known personally to another board member for at least 10 years. It also helps if board member are recruited in a relatively secure manner -- no on who just volunteers for a year should be considered. Only folks who were invited to participate without having "offered to volunteer their services" should be considered.

by blues 2005-08-14 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Bannishing Trolls Is Not The Answer.
I would agree with you, banning trolls is not the answer.

However, if Vote Hillary really did create this website, and Gary can show Jerome and Chris that Vote Hillary did create it, then she (or he) should be punished.

Vote Hillary made us aware of this website here:

When I saw this, I started asking serious questions.  Who's next, Paul Rosenberg, or Andrew White, or you?

If I had not seen that website, I would fault Gary for this Diary.  But slander=coward, and if Vote Hillary created that website, then everyone should know about it.

Someone who retaliates by creating such a slanderous website should face some type of adjudication.

by Bill Felmlee 2005-08-14 09:03AM | 0 recs
The fakeness is pretty obvious
You get one back dated post and everything else dates from last night, and everything simply drips with slime.

The notion that Gary created this site, did exactly nothing with it until last night, and then populated it with the kind of juvenile crap that it contains, and which just happens to validate every scabrous point VH was trying to make is ridiculous.

It takes five minutes to setup a site on Blogspot and you don't have to give proof of anything.

What it reminds me of is the last weekend prior to dKos going up on Scoop. A troll got loose and was using multiple stolen identities of known major posters to stir up shit. The site was this close to total meltdown before people got a handle on what was really going on. Lucky for all Scoop was rolled out the next weekend and gave you some assurance that Meteor Blades was really Meteor Blades and not some demented 15 year old posting under his name. But it was not pretty that previous weekend, not at all.

by Bruce Webb 2005-08-14 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Bannishing Trolls Is Not The Answer.
I have no idea how I show or prove anything to Chris, Jerome or anyone else. VoteHillary referred to his practical joke website several times in your diary without linking before providing the link.

One of my reasons for this diary was so others could come forward with their own examples of being attacked and Curt has done so. I knew there were more that the ones I had noticed.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Bannishing Trolls Is Not The Answer.
You're proving it with this Dairy.  Hopefully, Jerome and Chris may take these arguments into consideration.
by Bill Felmlee 2005-08-14 04:16PM | 0 recs
"Honorable Discharge" Bwahahaha! Now THAT is some comic shit right there! You must be a Jr ROTC "veteran".
Ok, prove it. What does it say in Box 27 of your DD214 Member-1?

Well mine is titled Reenlistment Code and has RE-R1. I am not sure what it means but since I did not have a single day of "bad time" in four years, I suspect it means they would have allowed me to stay.

And I did get a pin, along with a certificate, which I have framed.

But to the point. I agree with Gary. Creating the web-site on the fly and turning around to try to use it to discredit Gary was over the top and I would fully vote to ban Vote Hillary if I had a vote, which I don't.

But I still maintain that the solution to rot is sunlight. Ignore trolls, stomp them, or in extreme cases just make them go away for good. But hiding a comment that is not rankly offensive on its face is not the way to go.

Let Chris and Jerome view these people in the full light of day and let them make the call.

by Bruce Webb 2005-08-14 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: DD214
Re-R1 is a preferred reenlistment code:

I was an Admin O for two years; I still have this crap buried in my head.  Ugh.

by Bill Felmlee 2005-08-14 09:34AM | 0 recs
My own recent brushes with VH-08
VH-08 attacked me in unrelated threads seemingly because I rated him a one sometime in the past. Here's the comment that I and 5 others rated a 1:

Thank goodness you wrote this diary and not Gary. Look how coherent and rational a diary can be when the author uses proper logic and composure! Recommended.

That comment came out of nowhere and seemed designed to start a flame war in a diary that deserved better by v2Aggie.

After that, the first case of VH-08 calling me out , was in a thread I wasn't participating in. Here's the first exchange starting with VH-08's mentioning me:

Curt Matlock deems your logic as "2-Lame" when I applied it below. Of course he totally missed the point that he is actually agreeing with me, ergo the point of my post in the first place. Therefore, I forwarded his rating to give credit to the author. Thanks Curt!

and my response:

Re: Kerry and Hillary

Although I more often than not disagree with your positions, sometimes they are coherent and worthy of hearing. So I don't troll rate you and I generally am willing to listen, skeptically, to what you have to say.

But you constantly fall into this "you liberals" crap that really pisses me off. Not to mention a nasty habit of constructing strawmen and attributing positions to people based on your "liberal" stereotype that they don't in fact hold. You're somewhat trollish in that regard.

So yes, I rated you a two when you said:

As for Kerry, nuance proved to be something that the far left and the far right have in kind: they simply fail to understand complex policy positions in a complicated world. It's actually surprising that the far left criticizes Bush's with-us-or-against-us bipolar politics when they think on the same wavelength.

This next comment of yours, which I did not rate, regarding Wesley Clark further illustrates the point about putting words in peoples mouths and attributing actions and beliefs to people based solely on their label of liberal:

You'd remember this if you liberals wouldn't so conveniently disregard all the things you were saying about him in 2004 when you basically called him a Clinton mole.

The "Lame" rating on the first comment I gave you had nothing to do with Bill or with Hillary Clinton, both of whom I consider assets to the Democratic Party. It had to do with yet another example of insulting liberals and those on the left. Somewhat smugly and arrogantly I might add. That ole' mean world is just too complicated for lefties to understand you seem to think.

That's lame.

The second instance in which VH-08 flamed me out of the blue happened when he entered a back and forth between myself and RepTroll, called me out by name again, and dropped a one on one of my posts.

Of course, as he desired, I got pissed and told him so, which bought me another 1 rating. I believe I was justified at that point in rating his two posts a 1 since they were personal attacks but I'm still stuck with two of my comments with 1.0 ratings due to VH-08.

I'll begin the transcript with RepTrolls response to my comment. RepTroll is apparently a self-professed Republican who so far as I have seen is interested in debate and not pushing talking-points. I have not rated any of his/her posts even though I don't generally agree with them.

Here's a link to the first entry of RepTroll in the thread if you want more of the context which preceded the following. I'll start with the comment immediately preceding VH-08's entry in which RepTroll quotes me in response to an earlier post of mine.

Nah. Voters for Bush in the last election were generally not mindless and certainly not robots. Just misinformed and often, deceived.

But only this last time around, right? 'Cause otherwise, it would mean I have been misinformed and deceived for like (hmmm, how many elections have I voted in?) uh, a long time now, and that would like, suck!

But hey, there's hope for me, right? After all, I am reading this fine blog here, so I won't be misinformed next time around, that's for sure!


Thanks for your polite trolling.

You're welcome.

Re: Misinformed and Deceived

Don't take it personally. Curt prefers troll rating people on his own side like me. Notice that lots of these guys despise moderate independents more than you republicans. That's why you republicans often have an edge in national elections.

by Vote Hillary 2008  on Wed Aug 10th, 2005 at 07:54:18 PM EST

Re: Misinformed and Deceived (1.00 / 0)

Such a jerk!

You've acted like a troll probably a hundred times that I've come across. Frankly, I just looked up the last time I gave you a troll-rating and I wasn't alone. 5 other people rated you a one on that one.

Is your only purpose to cause trouble? Seriously. Stop being such a jerk.

As far as RepTroll is concerned, I'd rather see his name in a thread than yours because he makes an effort to disagree with respect. You on the other hand are perfectly willing to derail any thread to stroke your ego. That's why I have yet to rate the Republican RepTroll down but am always willing to lay a one on you.

by Curt Matlock  on Thu Aug 11th, 2005 at 09:23:27 AM EST

Re: Misinformed and Deceived (1.00 / 1)

Thanks for the personal attack. I expect no less from you. I hope you don't mind I hold you to your own standards. Good day.
by Vote Hillary 2008  on Thu Aug 11th, 2005 at 01:09:40 PM EST

Ok. So calling him a jerk wasn't the most well-thought out response but, IMHO, that's what he/she had been acting like.

Is banning the answer for Vote Hillary? I'd say yes. Others may be concerned about censorship, which is a valid concern, but if anything productive is to be done then banning trouble-makers is a necessary practice. I suggest these TPM Cafe threads if you'd like to see discussion on moderating forums and banning.  

Both "Criteria for Moderating Posts at the Discussion Tables" and Discussion thread...Criteria for moderating submissions. contain good advice on keeping things civil and productive.

I'd suggest people take a look at those threads as they have much good commentary. Simply put, blogs aren't obligated to be all things to all people and if you cause trouble or try to enact a Republican agenda then they will ban you. That makes sense to me and seems to follow with what I've seen of the practice here at MyDD.

Further, I wonder if Vote Hillary is for real or if there is an agenda that is being satisfied (and quite well). If the agenda is to split moderates/liberals, to cause distracting flaming in order to stifle productive debate, and to discredit Hillary Clinton, then Vote Hillary is doing quite well.

by Curt Matlock 2005-08-14 09:39AM | 0 recs
Excellent example Curt
I didn't think for a second that I had captured or even noticed all of the transgressions that VoteHillary had committed.

I agree with you on Rep Troll. Rep Troll is honest and not misrepresenting himself. I didn't run across him or notice him, but would have no problem with him as a participant at MyDD. Everybody deserves to be judged on their own merits.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 12:05PM | 0 recs
A diary in my honor? You shouldn't have.
I take this as a surrender, Gary. I'll check back periodically but I'll keep our flames in the Felmee diary where you started it -- this will be my only post here. Let this be a lesson to you for starting flame wars with someone you can't handle.

I personally asked Jerome by email to intervene one week ago, early on in the African-American thread where you started this same crap elsewhere. I suggested he tell everyone to chill out before it got out of hand. He told me he doesn't have time to police the boards and that we should ignore each other. Which I did until you restarted this flamewar in the Felmee thread because I suspect your ego was still bruised.

Lastly, please stop accusing me of authoring your weblog. Even if I were to do that, it would be considered parody and satire, therefore completely legal.

To everyone else, I won't respond to your attacks here. You might as well keep it in the other diary and not spread the fire throughout the site.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-14 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: A diary in my honor? You shouldn't have.
Lastly, please stop accusing me of authoring your weblog. Even if I were to do that, it would be considered parody and satire, therefore completely legal.

"even if I were...parody and"

A terrible defense.  

by Bill Felmlee 2005-08-14 10:42AM | 0 recs
Admit it or deny it
VH come on. "Lastly, please stop accusing me of authoring your weblog."

Because the circumstantial evidence is 100% against you.

And thanks for the DD214 challenge. Because every bit of validation that I am actually a real person helps.

And do you really imagine that you came off as some kind of winner here? My God you came off as a pile of monkey crap, if we were French we would be "laughing in your general direction". Not everybody loves Gary but your credibility is about 100 fathoms down from whale crap (sorry old Navy term).

by Bruce Webb 2005-08-14 04:19PM | 0 recs
I'm leaving this comment up VH
But check your comment in v2aggie's Arkansas diary on the recommend list.

Oops! Bye-bye birdie!

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 11:55PM | 0 recs
Look what happend to this comment you made
Re: Asa Hutchinson, the Republican Nominee (none / 0)

Correct on Rockerfeller.
I was behind on my information.

by v2aggie2 on Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 10:04:20 PM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This |   ]

Re: governor loss (none / 0)

It's tough to replace the king.

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 11:14:58 AM PST
[ Reply to This |   ]

Re: governor loss (none / 0)

Very true.
by v2aggie2 on Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 11:28:23 AM PST
[ Parent | Reply to This |   ]

Now it looks like this:

Asa Hutchinson, the Republican Nominee (3.00 / 1)

I think Asa Hutchinson was the presumed Rebublican nominee for Arkansas Governor.   I think Win Rockefeller dropped out due to a serious blood disorder.
by robstephens on Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 04:49:30 PM PST
[ Reply to This |   ]

Re: Asa Hutchinson, the Republican Nominee (none / 0)

Correct on Rockerfeller.
I was behind on my information.

by v2aggie2 on Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 10:04:20 PM PST

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-15 12:00AM | 0 recs
Off with Both Their Heads
by ROGNM 2005-08-14 11:09AM | 0 recs
That is a weird website!
And uncalled for, quite frankly.

It is one thing to have honest disagreements.
It is quite another to go to these lengths.

Banning is hard for me to do, though I'm not saying it is uncalled for.  I lost my trusted user status at dKos in a ratings war over a weekend, and I would like to think that one weekend does not define me.  FYI -- the topic was personal to me, and I let my emotions get the best of me.

So I will abstain from voting -- at least for now.

by v2aggie2 2005-08-14 11:58AM | 0 recs
Losing TU status is no big deal
I recalled VH mentioning that he used the same name at dkos had not been banned over there. Based on the assumption that was another lie, I checked. A search didn't turn up any comments by VH. I think he has already been banned over there for similar conduct.

VH is unrepentant and unredeemable. It has never shown remorse or even the capacity for being apologetic about anything. At this point I think it has seen the writing on the wall and is seeing if it can get banned. I don't know what else it has planned, but whatever it does next will be devious.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 12:27PM | 0 recs
Here's another interesting clue
VH provided links to the centrist coalition and has pretended that is a regular haunt. It also challenged Carl to stop by and debate:

Re: Define "liberal" (1.00 / 1)

This thread is the wrong place to have a conversation and you know that, considering you're only interested in a flame war as well.

If you want to discuss centrism, come over to centristcoalition's forum and we'll talk there. If I don't see you there, I'll assume you're really not interested.

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Sun Aug 14th, 2005 at 11:06:35 AM

I stopped by the centrist coalition and their debate forum, but didn't see any sign of VH or it's obnoxious opinions from anyone else.

I suspect that VH's usual haunts are  someplace like LGF. VH may be Hindrocket or someone from Powerline in drag.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 12:53PM | 0 recs
Her number is 58324 on dkos. New in the past 3-5 mos.

Only thing that I can find is about 20 ratings on July 20, 2005.

Lists Crooks & liars as her homepage.


by ROGNM 2005-08-14 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: dKos
Thanks ROGNM. No diaries and one comment. Curious.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: dKos
Please note that while I've been on dkos (and MyDD, except for jerome's Hiatus) since June 2002, I've never posted a Diary (I'm here primarily for information and insight).

Also, dkos comments get archived into oblivion, usually after a server upgrade or massive hits.  Mine go back to late May of this year.

by ROGNM 2005-08-14 02:06PM | 0 recs
I'd ban him
I played with VH for a bit on the "flame thread" the other night as I had time to kill and was enjoying how VH continued to top the level of outrageousness in every response. I gave have him/her the benefit of the doubt and was respectful in my comments, trying to point out that his/her comments were often the cause of people's negative reactions rather than his "centrist" viewpoints. VH continually ducked my questions on how he defined what "centrist" meant, challenging me to go look it up myself, while also insulting my comphrehension, my maturity, Armando, liberals, my genes, and ultimately my wife. VH was insulting, disrespectful, offensive, and often just plain ignorant in outstanding ways.

VH is useless and should be banned.

by michael in chicago 2005-08-14 04:11PM | 0 recs
At least you exist
Because per V H I am just another avatar of Jolly Buddah.

Why show up for work tomorrow? Why continue to try to deceive my boss and coworkers that I am a real person?

Like you I had time to kill the other night. I try not to get pulled into these things and initially bent over backwards to be fair to V H but putting up the fake web site was beyond the pale.

I still don't believe in hiding commentary, but I am a firm believer in snark, smackdown and general ridicule for assholes. Particularly for assholes who insist that I don't even exist and don't have the personal history that I in fact do.

Some people at my work think I am a withdrawn, bitter, brittle person just waiting to lash out. Which is to say they are pretty good judges of character.

by Bruce Webb 2005-08-14 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: At least you exist
My multiple personalities all agree with you, but are all too lazy to cover for you at work. You're on your own there pal.
by Gary Boatwright 2005-08-14 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: At least you exist
I have work in the morning- what about me? Please
by bruh21 2005-08-14 09:07PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads