Don't be an Answer troll

I wrote about this as a comment in another diary that was deleted. The past week I been here on Mydd I watched a herd of really immature bloggers ranting away at any and all who have opposing views. You have painted everyone with the same broad brush and have inundated their diaries with foul comments, mockery and childish images.

You have in effect become the very trolls you call the other diarist. Answer trolls is what you have subjected yourselves to be now. Stop and think, if you do not comment in their diaries they won't have a crowd to rile up. Simply send the admins a private email about a particular diary.  The more you dance for them the more they will come out of the wood work and keep posting their anti Obama diaries. Do not mistake policy driven oppostion as anti Obama.

I'm appalled to see the level of immaturity here and wonder how you conduct yourself in real life and in your jobs.  You can slap each other on the back for stooping to the level of the very diarist you love to complain about.

I challenge you to go one week of ignoring a dairy that you find troublesome. Just turn the page on it. Do you think the small band of people who post such diaries are going to change anyone's mind? I ask you-- do you see anyone among you dropping and rolling into McCain's camp over any opposing view diaries. Or do you have such an egotistical view of yourself that you think your misbehavior and immaturity is actually going to convince people to alter their views of opposition.

What do you think you are achieving by behaving like spoilt brats?

In my eyes you are bringing down the caliber of bloggers and reputation of MyDD.  I ask you to think,ignore and turn the page. Don't be an answer troll anymore. I really hope you can atlest give a few seconds to think about what you have become online.

Update [2008-7-9 1:45:54 by roxfoxy]: Always nice to see the attention span among the 'Answer trolls' to grasp the message within the diary. If you were ever in doubt who they are? Come on into the diary they stand out like the beacon of hopelessness.



Display:


I (1.83 / 6)

In my heart believe 99.99% of you people are good hearted people. Don't let this election turn you into something you are not.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:38:18 PM EST

uh huh... (2.00 / 1)

...but you just had to spray the rest of us with that overbearing "you" huh?


by DawnG on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: uh huh... (2.00 / 1)

I apologize, you are absolutely right. I should said "the' people instead of 'you'. I don't mean to address everyone here with the same broad stroke.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:48:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Troll-Rated (none / 0)

Ya know .. this comment is so sweet that obviously, out of context, it doesn't deserve a troll rating. But you are obviously a troll who is clearly NOT trying to help Obama get elected so I'm going to go out on a limb here and troll-rate you. If that's ratings abuse ... so be it. I call them like I see them.


by Curt Matlock on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:18:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Troll-Rated (2.00 / 1)

Talk about sock puppet. Look at his profile.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

thank you


by NY Writer on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:43:54 PM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

recc'd


by NY Writer on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 2)

It's more like thinking their way to think is the only way to think. Seeing trolls in every diary that doesn't agree with you is just a form of narrow-mindedness by another name.


by NY Writer on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:46:54 PM EST

....... comment free here ...... (none / 0)

..........!


overthrow the government~participate
by missliberties on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:49:31 PM EST

The importance of being ernest (2.00 / 1)

...I'm appalled to see the level of immaturity here and wonder how you conduct yourself in real life and in your jobs.  You can slap each other on the back for stooping to the level of the very diarist you love to complain about...

We share our wisdom with those who seek it. It's a life of quiet dignity.

Welcome to the big leagues, grasshopper.


543,895 votes
by Michael Bersin on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:50:13 PM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 7)

Well, as for bringing down the calibre of bloggers and reputation of MyDD, that's a painful issue, as anyone still left here from the beginning of the primary will undoubtedly attest.  I am not going to touch that one.

But as for ignoring the diaries one deplores, that raises an issue of just what proportion of this site's 'bandwidth' is dedicated to knocking the presumptive nominee, and to what degree.  Is there grey area here, of course.  Is there a limit, however, to the amount of nominee bashing which is healthy or appropriate?  Equally obvious.  Having not watched the parade of diaries and the pantheon of personalities who have made MyDD a platform for anti-Obama polemics since around this time last year, reaching a crescendo as the primary elections began, perhaps you don't sympathise with the intolerance which is now shown to these attempts.  Check out the Trusted User Guidelines:


This is a great responsibility for you. It means you've earned the right to peer-review content from untrusted users, and determine if it is spam. We rely on you to rate as much as you can, and to keep the comments as high-signal as we've all come to expect.

Hmmm...  Admittedly open to interpretation, but still...  'high-signal' to me does not include repeated, Right-wing talking points posing as 'concern.'  Especially diaries of same.  There is also this part of the MyDD 'mission statement' to consider:


Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

While I will admit this is open to a wide latitude of interpretation, there are limits.  And I have been a little surprised at the tolerance for repeated, almost incessant, criticism of the nominee and, for that matter, his supporters which seems to emanate from a small but extremely active circle of posters, particularly diary authors, who seem intent on using MyDD's relatively high search-engine ratings to promote notions which seem counter-productive to the aspirations of the majority of 'progressives' if not Democrats.


by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:02:43 PM EST

I have to ignore a dairy? (none / 0)

I live in Wisconsin--that's going to be hard!

Joking aside, is it true that you are the blogger formerly known as aliveandkickin?


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:16:49 PM EST

Re: I have to ignore a dairy? (2.00 / 2)

I'm anything you perceive me to be online. Follow the herd or be a leader. Which are you going to sign up for today?


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Neither. (none / 0)

I'm going to be a lone wolf.  And anyway, "signing up" for things is for conformists.

Nice attempted dodge, though, aliveandkickin.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:23:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither. (2.00 / 1)

How do you see it as a dodge when I said I'm what you perceive me to be online?

Maybe there was a bit higher intellect in that answer.

Okay I'll break down in baby steps. Me saying I'm not A/k - will it change your mind? Or will you continue to perceive me as what you think I am?

Hey, if you get a rise out calling me A/k, whom am I to stop your adolescent moment?


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:09:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither. (none / 0)

Wait, how can you be alive and kicking, when IM supposed to be the one who's alive and kicking?

I wish they would get their conspiracy theories straight.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:46:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the CW is... (2.00 / 3)

you are all a soft cuddly pile of sock puppets.


by tonedevil on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:55:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the CW is... (2.00 / 1)

Yes we're all the same person, painted with the broad brush.

You on the other hand are a unique snowflake.


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:48:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If that's what passes for "intellectual" (none / 0)

with you, you have my pity.  I've seen puddles deeper than your "intellectual" comment.

Sadly, if you had just said "No, I am not," I would have believed you and let the subject drop.  It was an honest question.  But your response was overly defensive for such a straightforward question, which leads me to believe that I was correct, especially since your writing style is identical--and come to think of it, if you really were a new diarist, how would you know who aliveandkickin is?

I'm fine with you switching identities, as long as you change your personality to match.  If you're going to act like a troll, though, I will treat you like a troll regardless of who you are or what username you go by.  Fair enough?


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:50:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

YOU Fail (none / 0)

Are you talking to me ?

How do I know alivekickin?
Because as this paranoia started with me uprating his comment in one diary where Ms-Indie and he were going back and forth.  I did it an uprate on an HR so he could continue to see the banter extended to him. One diary- never before and never after.

But hey Sherlock Holmes keep that detective sense rolling.


He was warmly received by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called him "a leader that God has blessed us with at this time."
by roxfoxy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:21:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Neither. (2.00 / 2)

An interesting fact about a member that recced this.  Said member, that has yet to comment at least as of an hour ago, has gone back and  downrated numerous comments of a particular foe to aliveandkickin.  Suspicious work.  Plus the "herd" thing is pretty obvious as to roxyfox's identity.


by KLRinLA on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:18:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Welcome back, big guy! :D (1.85 / 7)


by spunkmeyer on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:42:59 PM EST

Boo... (none / 0)

No like photos, illustrations, etc.

Please thoughtful discussion or nada.


by susie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:26:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boo... (2.00 / 2)

Thoughtful discussion of what - the newest of aliveandkickin's sockpuppet army?

"Thoughtful" and "discussion" are two terms that don't apply to A&K, MyDD's biggest, dumbest, most socially inept, most politically retarded, most intellectually deficient troll of all time.


by spunkmeyer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:44:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boo... (none / 0)

Thoughtful discussion not possible?

Then nada.


by susie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:38:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boo... (none / 0)

Try it with these sock puppets. You'll soon see. Their one intent is trying to smear the presumptive nominee. They attack Obama from the left, but often let slip their right wing concerns. There is absolutely no point discussing politics with

a) Someone pretending to be a democrat
b) Someone whose sole aim is to sew division and dissent in democrat ranks


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:27:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boo... (none / 0)

Do you believe the pictures/illustrations etc. are effective?
Apparently not, as the problem you cite still exists.
Could we try mature responses on this site?  
Sometimes mature responses mean letting it lie, walking away from issues going nowhere.
I often feel like I'm dealing with the kids wrangling in the back seat of the car again.
We need to call in SuperNanny.

P.S.  Mom instinct requires pointing out-"Sew" should be "sow".  Not important, just trying to be helpful.


by susie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boo... (none / 0)

Helpful or patronizing? You choose.


The Moose is Loose!
by duende on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 04:59:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Boo... (none / 0)

Sorry you took it that way.


by susie on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 01:11:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Welcome back, big guy! :D (1.00 / 1)

TR'd for attempting to divert the discussion with idiotic pictures.

How long will the admins tolerate this troll?


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this a Communist State? (2.00 / 2)

And I have been a little surprised at the tolerance for repeated, almost incessant, criticism of the nominee


by NY Writer on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:53:37 PM EST

Re: Is this a Communist State? (2.00 / 9)

Of course not, but in a campaign where we can rely on our opponents to do precisely that just how much of it can we promote before we are in our familiar circular firing squad?  C'mon, it's fair game to criticise the candidate but you know as well as anyone that there are certain diarists who have made a cottage industry out of it.  The keywords in my comment, from my point of view, were repeated, almost incessant criticism.  There's a limit to just how stupid and counter-productive we can insist on being, isn't there?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:04:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a Communist State? (2.00 / 3)

I agree with Shaun. I will defend my candidate. It seems some people would like us just to sit back and let them say whatever they want without backing it up. They are continually bashing our candidate and would prefer less opposition.


by Politicalslave on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:45:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it's a privately owned website. (2.00 / 4)

And thus, it can make and enforce any rules it so pleases.  Such as this one:

* Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

which has been broken quite frequently this entire campaign season.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:27:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, it's a privately owned website. (none / 0)

Hi ragekage!

(see how easy that is?)


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:49:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, yes, very easy. (none / 0)

Only problem is, if you actually looked at my diary history, you'd see that, unlike rage, I am actually, a girl:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/25/1961 5/6386#readmore

I am also, unlike rage, a Jew:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/8/0645/ 37585#readmore

But if you want to make yourself look more ridiculous than you already do, by all means go ahead.  My name and background are no secret on this site.  Trolls like yourself, on the other hand...


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

OMGGG  Foxy lady you are sooo WRIGHT!!  Anytime anyone with smarts like engels rankles or jacob freeze comes on here and tells everyone how OBAMA is really a bad guy and how the superdelegates should do the will of Appalachian voters and make Hillary president or else we vote for McCain, we get called trolls.  By the way in case anyone accuses me of not being a good member of Democrat party, I'm voting for Obama, even though McCain is a war hero. LOLOLOL


by OMG LOLZZ on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:03:28 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 2)

Ok, I'll take your challenge. I will go one week ignoring this diary as soon as I post this comment.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:10:26 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 2)

But in posting a comment, you've become an "answer troll", thereby losing the challenge!

And I dare you to respond to this comment.

(Gosh, this is hard.)

:)


by Sieglinde on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:17:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 2)

MS01 I agree to take on the same challenge. This is my final comment concerning this diary.


by Politicalslave on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:47:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

While I have considered... (2.00 / 6)

....to "ignore" obvious troll diaries,  I keep having conflicts within myself.  As Mr. Appleby has already pointed out, Mydd is a self-monitoring site and relies on TU's to "take out the trash."  It would also be naive to not mention that a majority of the members here are spectators only.  We must make sure we do our best to provide these members with pertinent information and call-out right wing memes when we see them, IMO.  


I can see Lake Erie from where I live, so can I please run the Navy?
by hootie4170 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:14:29 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 3)

I am not going to ignore diaries, if I am logistically able, that denigrate the Nominee with half-truths, misrepresentations, and arguments made from words taken out of context.  That would disrepespect the guidelines and spirit of this community site.
I have not been overly critical of dissenters on actual policy positions, but as Shaun stated, there are grey areas that need to be analyzed from all sides.  FISA - yeah, it sucks and I agree with anyone's position that Obama the biggest leader of the democratic party, even if in name only at this time, could have done more to convince and gather members to a consensus gathering around Dodd's position.  But can't I post my opinions as to the reality of the situation?  such as, Obama didn't draft it, House dems passed it, Obama voting on Cloture alone would have raised it to a measly 16 vs 80, other senate dems cannot wait to put this to bed due to likely dirt on them, the reality of an immunity stripping amendment plaaced in the bill will be vetoed or nullified by a signing statment, and finally the reality thatO bama will be ripped and burned by McCain's 527s as a shining example of Obama wanting to help terrorists.  You see analysis of a situation without regard to the surrounding realities in an effort to promote hostility and perhaps abandonement of our nominee is dishonest or at least not solid critical thinking.  
So no, my voice will not be silenced against smears ,innuendo, and even poor analysis in good-faith.  And my tone adjusts accordingly to each situation, or at least I try.
by KLRinLA on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:07:20 AM EST

Don't be an idiot (2.00 / 4)

I take your challenge, if you take mine- don't say anything that can be interpreted as complete ignorance for one week.  Shit, I'll give you a dollar if you can do it for a day.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq.
by ihaveseenenough on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:09:34 AM EST

But that means (none / 0)

that first one must read the increasing amount of anti-Democrat propaganda that makes its way to any site. What else can they do? There aren't even any numbers in McCains ridiculous economic proposals. What else can they do but create hysteria over what has to be bruising humiliation. The RNC's latest "battleground" state ads don't even mention the Republican Party. They don't even tell the truth. I don't care what McCain or any Republican says because their ideas and their policies have led us to bankruptcy. Republican policies have not even benefitted the people who voted them into power. Millions of people now no longer even call themselves Republicans. It's really quite simple. They need to be voted out.  Frankly, I think Republicans should pay the country for their mistakes, but we know that is not going to happen. It's very simple. Vote for Democrats. The suffering will be less. We'll be able to clean up some of the mess. Republicans tried. They failed.


John McCain is a liar. Erratic, poor judgment. http://garypritchard08.com/
by Jeter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:42:37 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 3)

So now we have troll 'freedom-of-speech' meta-diaries on top of the recommended list?  Crikey.  


If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.

Tweedledum - Through the Looking Glass


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:29:34 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 5)

Don't be a "don't be troll".


by french imp on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:31:07 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

lol

recc'd


If you want Unity, nominate a Democrat
by rankles on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:51:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 4)

If this were just a difference of opinion I'd be fine ignoring your posts. But it isn't a matter of opinion, you are LYING about Obama's positions. You view on his positions are misleading and wrong.

John Kerry was brought down because he failed to answer the mischaracterizations and lies about his record, thank goodness Obama is answering all these lies head on.

Nice try, but no one here will let you have a soap box to spread your slanderous views unopposed.  


by matchles on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:38:07 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

The author says not one word about any of Obama's policy positions.  

It's almost as though you've posted on the wrong thread!

but like I said, ANY post that can in any way be perceived as being critical of Obama is pilloried, even to the point of irrationality, as your post is.

And notice you call it slander. Where is the slander in this diary????

Seeing things that aren't there.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:17:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

The author has posted more than one diary.  My response is towards the bulk of the authors work, not this one post.


by matchles on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:07:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 2)

1. it has been my experience in fifty some years on this earth that when someone labels you "immature" they are attempting to shame you into silence because they can't win their argument any other way.  

2. As stated repeatedly above, this is a progressive site dedicated in large part to seeing Democrats elected.   As McCaiin stands foursquare against progressive values, one purpose of this site would be to vigorously critique JOHN MCCAIN and further the cause of electing Barack Obama.

3. One should expect two things on this site -- if you offer informed critique of the Democratic nominee with facts and personal opinions, expect to get factual and opinionated pushback -- if you smear that nominee expect to be pounced upon as a GOP operative without mercy.

4. Acceptable critique of Obama would delve into his positions and decisions in an informed and substantive manner.  Unacceptable smears would include all degenerative labels, such as liar, flip-flopper, empty suit, manipulator, only interested in being elected and other personal attacks on the character.

5. The parroting of GOP talking points and smears should always be unacceptable within a community of progressive Democrats.  Potshot references to Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Kool-aid, hero worship, comparisons of Obama to George Bush or Hitler, terms like Obamaton will be interpretted as intended only to advance a GOP agenda.

6. There are any number of sites on the internet that either promote the election of John McCain or foster ugly unsubstantive critique of Obama.  There is no need to express such opinions here.         As such, this is not an issue of censorship or shutting down "dissent".  It's a matter of chosing the appropriate place to voice one's dissent.
I would not expect to walk into a PETA and begin publically kickign a dog without raising the ire of everyone there and being shown the door.

I have politely asked a number of such "dissentors" their rationale for coming to this site -- inarguably dedicated to the election of a Democratic president -- and recieved no response.  If anything, this site and its contributors have been overly polite and tolerant of those who come here with no other expressed purpose but to tear down the party's nominee.

If your purpose is to spread division, smears and lies -- if you are unwilling to engage in thoughtful discussion in the hopes of being talked through your issues with Obama -- if your intent appears to be only to parrot GOP smears and personally attack supporters of the party's nominee -- don't expect to be handed a forum in which to do it.

If you and your many sockpuppets -- in direct violation of the forum rules -- repeatedly uprate smear diaries, mass troll-rate those who disagree with you, engage in personal attacks and unsubstantiated hyperbole -- and then expect to shame the legitimate users of this site into silence, well, good luck with that.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:08:10 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 2)

Sorry, grassroots, but there is a problem here.

You basically lay out a script (which is what the GOP/Bush Admin. does) telling people what they may and may not say here.  The problem with this is that it's a catch-all.  In other words, many like to say that "legitimate criticism of Obama" is acceptable and will be met with counter points.

I've yet to see this happen.  Any and all criticism, even totally benign comments, anything perceived as being critical or a challenge about the way Obama is perceived, is met with attack, and always personal attack, putdowns of the author, a ganging up, etc.

I've never seen a civil, objective, fact-based response to criticism of Obama.  I've only seen attacks of a personal kind, varying in degrees of viciousness, (which again, ironically, is what Republicans do: attack the messenger).

Criticism of Obama is often met with people hitting the hide button, when in fact as the rules state, "candidates are fair game", whereas attacks on individual posters who criticize Obama are not hidden, meaning Obama supporters do not police themselves or hold themselves accountable and to standards (again, who does that sound like?).

It's easy to say that "legitimate" criticism of Obama will be respected when what actually happens is all criticism is rationalized as being not legitimate and smears.

I've actually seen very few smears of Obama here.   You have a laundry list of things you declare unacceptable or bogus, but only because you say so.  That, again, is how Republicans behave. They're judge, jury and executioner, and if you don't see things their way, you're just wrong and breaking the rules.

Some might be legitimately bothered by Obama's style and think it's an indication of bigger problems.  But you say they can't say it here.  You simply declare for them that they are wrong.

People are certainly free to ignore posts they do not like and disagree with.  That seems to me a better way than banning people.  Rules for banning should be very specific, not vague like "you may not smear Obama". They should be, simply: no foul language, no threats. Period.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:31:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 2)

I've never seen a civil, objective, fact-based response to criticism of Obama.  Surely, by any metric, this single statement disqualifies you from discourse here founded in intellectual integrity on the basis of at least one of the following:

1. Lack of attention: Is this MyDD or your ADD?

2. Cognitive dissonance: You can't believe it when you see it.

3. Dishonesty: You are making a demonstrably false assertion.

4. Cupidity: You imagine you can get away with it because you are so cute.

5. Irresponsibility: In an atmosphere of troll-induced confusion who can say?

6. Plausible deniability: I would never have said something as stupid as that!

7. Disruption: Any contentious worm-tonguing I can achieve is a victory.

8. Selfishness: Any attention is good attention.

Take your pick, that comment was demonstrably absurd.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:11:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

As I noted, criticism is met with personal attacks meant to insult or discredit the individual, never addressing the content.

As you do here.

Thank you for helping me to prove my point.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

The world is full of examples of the compassionate, tolerant and egalitarian having been wrongly used by their intemperate and polemic opponents.  It is a neat trick but a small one.  Lift your game and see what blessings you receive.  You may be surprised.  Your justification for 'legitimate' criticism of Senator Obama seems founded in a narrow purpose which has nothing to do with the 'principles' you seek to enlist to excuse them.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:22:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

See?

You can't stop.  

It's not about ME.  Get it?

(Rhetorical question. You clearly do not).


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:27:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Well, that's the interesting thing.  Inevitably it is.  Doesn't that suggest something to you?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

I think that the discourse between Juno and Shawn Appleby underscores the point of the diary. I mean really, why are you talking to each other? You really disagree, I get it. I have my own opinions, and must say conversations like this have little meaning to me, other than I must wade through them to get to something interesting. At least you aren't swearing at each other, that's something I guess. It is kind of funny when the comments begin to run off the edge of the page. Symbolic actually.

I just wonder why the same people seem to rehash shit over and over again. It seems fairly pointless to me. I kinda wish these folks would take their disagreements and accusations to another corner and leave the rest of us alone with our darn issues.


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Sorry, that's Shaun not Shawn


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 03:28:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Notice we stopped before we ran out of margin.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:55:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

This time, heh. I have seen Juno run right off the page at least once;-S


The Moose is on the loose. "And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:19:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Yeah, it's pointless but sometimes it just annoys the heck out of me.  It was a stale diary, anyhow.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

Hey, wheredja' go?  What about your original comment I've never seen a civil, objective, fact-based response to criticism of Obama?  You going to stay with that hand?  I would love to hear you expand on that in a bit more detail, while we are on the 'issues.'


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

yes, I"ve only seen critics of Obama's called "trolls", PUMAs, "McCain hacks", etc. and/or met with surly, nasty diatribes about the poster, NOT about the content of the criticism.

You do it here as well, which is, again, ironic.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:00:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Well, excuse me, but there are literally thousands of examples where criticism of Obama has not been met with accusations such as "trolls", PUMAs, "McCain hacks", etc. and/or met with surly, nasty diatribes about the poster.  Hell, the PUMA thing is only recent and these discussions have been going on here for over eighteen months.  Am I supposed to now prove this to you or is there another model for resolving this difference of opinion?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:08:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

I'll just repeat your FIRST response here today:

I've never seen a civil, objective, fact-based response to criticism of Obama.  Surely, by any metric, this single statement disqualifies you from discourse here founded in intellectual integrity on the basis of at least one of the following:

1. Lack of attention: Is this MyDD or your ADD?

2. Cognitive dissonance: You can't believe it when you see it.

3. Dishonesty: You are making a demonstrably false assertion.

4. Cupidity: You imagine you can get away with it because you are so cute.

5. Irresponsibility: In an atmosphere of troll-induced confusion who can say?

6. Plausible deniability: I would never have said something as stupid as that!

7. Disruption: Any contentious worm-tonguing I can achieve is a victory.

8. Selfishness: Any attention is good attention.

Take your pick, that comment was demonstrably absurd.

by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:11:44 AM EST


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Well, glad to see it sank in, that is exactly the point we were discussing, wasn't it?  And your statement I've never seen a civil, objective, fact-based response to criticism of Obama remains the focus of this discussion.  I tried to be helpful and parse out a number of possibilities, which you found objectionable, yet you seem to be unwilling or incapable of responding to this point.

As I said, I have no empirical way of proving you have seen such a response but I can certainly prove they exist and thereby prove the fallacy of your statement.  But I was asking you what model of proof you preferred and you declined to respond meaningfully.  In fact you backtracked to argumentation and polemic, as I mentioned before.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

You apparently don't even recognize uncivil, personal attacks.

That's a problem.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

That's it?  I ask you what model of proof you require to test your assertion, which seems ridiculous on the face of it, that you have never seen a civil response to a criticism of Obama and that's the best you have to offer?  Do you still stand by that assertion, I'm wondering, or has this become tiresome for you?  I still dispute that assertion, myself, but haven't seen a reasonable response on the issue of proof or, in fact, any other sensible rebuttal.  Are we just wasting our time here, do you suppose?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:46:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

No further comment?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Welcome to the Internets.

Sincerely,
Obamaton Kool-aid Drinker Follower of The One and former Clintonista Obushite Me


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:13:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

I"ve never used the terms "Obamaton", "Kool-Aid drinker", "The One", "Clintonista", or "Obushite".

I thought you were against hyperbole and false accusations.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:41:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Did I accuse you of anything?  where?


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Sarcasm is a tool of accusation.  Now you're just being either dishonest or disingenuous.

Either that or you are ascribing things others have said to me, which you otherwise say you oppose doing.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:58:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

okay, so now you are inadvertantly throwing your whole personal attack argument into question.  I was only attempting to press my point that the personal attacks were not one-sided throughout this campaign season here or anywhere else.  

I am being neither dishonest or disingenuous and please refrain from personally attacking my character.  I have not ascribe anything to you.  Look elsewhere for how you came to that conclusion.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:04:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

When you used those hyperbolic terms for yourself, you were inadvertently accusing me of having that attitude, which I do not, and as I said, I do not call people names.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 3)

1.  I do not lay out a script on what may or may not be said.  I lay out a scenario of what can and should expect if they denounce and flame the Democratic nominee. No one controls what can and cannot be said but the site administrators.  Users have no control beyond their ability to comment, recommend and rate.  In that way, the site functions democractically.

2.  You may have "yet to see it happen" but I have seen much reasoned sensible debate on ISSUES surrounding Obama.  Yes, there will always be knee-jerk personal attacks -- welcome to the internets.  The notion that you've never seen good behavior is moot -- perhaps you choose not to see it, perhaps the poor responses gain your attention over the reasoned ones, perhaps you don't read everything that's posted.  

3. One loses credibility when they write in hyperbole and absolutes, such as "ANYTHING percieved as being critical...is met with attack..and ALWAYS personal attacks".  

4. If you are only seeing personal attacks and not fact based reasoned responses I just have to believe your perceptions are skewed because I see both in almost every comment thread I read.

5.  You use a broad brush with "Obama supporters".  We are not a homogenous group or an organism that works in unison.  SOME Obama supporters police without bias, SOME Obama supporters do not downrate at all, SOME Obama supporters abuse their priviledges, SOME Obama supporters have good days and bad.  SOME are set off by certain individuals, SOME are utterly intolerant.  There is no one attribute you can ascribe truthfully to all of us but, at the end of the day, we support Obama.

6. The difference between legitimate critique and smears is usually quite stark -- calling the man a "liar" for example, is a smear.  Writing he does "180 on everything" is a ridiculous hyperbole and smear.  Generally speaking, labels are smears, attacking the man and not the behavior or the decision is a smear.  

7. My laundry list of potential smears is mine alone -- yet it has been my experience that when commentors do drive-bys using these terms they will get a powerful negative response and the label of "troll".  Again, this isn't policy nor is anyone executed in the process -- they only elicit a particular response.

8.  I don't dictate what others can and cannot say.  I can offer the opinion that certain comments are wrong, don't belong here and will bring down the house.  I can't control what you or anyone else posts.  I do reserve the right to react as I see fit to promote a progressive agenda.

The way I see it, this site and others on the internet are like playgrounds -- anyone is welcome, there are certain specific posted rules,  but if you come to fly kites in the middle of a baseball game expect to be shouted off the field.

Now, if you can make a rational reasoned case for kites over baseball perhaps people will listen.  IF you can't and insist on standing on the sidelines screaming variations of "baseball sucks and people who play it are stupid" expect a certain amount of blow back.  If everytime someone gets a hit you insist upon bashing your kite into the runner, expect some angry words.

I imagine you could attempt to organize enough kite lovers to take over the field, or appeal to the city to make the diamond safe for kite flying, but the smart move, and the one that assures less rancor and more kite goodness, would be to just move to the field full of kite flyers accross the street.

Unless, of course, you just really really hate baseball.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:59:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

YOu do lay out a script.  There are a lot of fallacies in your position.  

The disclaimer is in saying that reasonable criticism is tolerated, but the problem is, NO criticism is considered reasonable. ONce it actually happens, the critic is called a name or accused of deliberately being disruptive, divisive, whatever.  

Other sites literally purged themselves of Clinton supporters.  There is indeed a culture of intolerance within the Obama milieu.  I am not alone in seeing it. Something provoked this person to write this diary!

I noted yesterday that Obama supporters have taken two positions on his alleged "move to the center":  either he's not done so and is being consistent with what he's said in the past OR he's only doing what all pols do and he's right to do it because he has to to win.

They contradict each other.

I am a critic of Obama. There is a lot about him that is very unsettling for me.  I'm also a defender of him when I see erroneous or hyperbolic BS being said about him.  

I simply say it as I see it, for good or bad.  I don't like contrived criticism for the sake of it, and I don't like contrived praise for the sake of it.

I like reality, frankly.  I've had enough of the candidate as deity thing.  Obama sets people up for disappointment, and this "center move" thing is the first example.

It should be making everyone vigilant and nervous.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sheesh! (2.00 / 2)

Lay off the absolutes, mokay?  They are almost never (-: valid.

I laid out for you what IN MY MIND constitutes valid  criticism and I'm allowed to have opinions that disagree with your opinions.  

Seriously, darlin, you are criping about NAME CALLING on a political blog.  It's going to happen. And so are the smears and trolling.  You fight your battle against personal attacks, I'll fight mine against smears.  But don't think it's ever going to stop or has anything to do with support for a candidate.

I don't ever stop being vigilant or nervous -- about my candidate, about his advisors, but most of all about the low-life tactics of the GOP and rightwing hate groups.  When I see a smear comment on this blog I'm going to see a GOP troll.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

I nominate your comment as a first draft of a revised FAQ/Guidelines revision.  


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:12:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Just a dumb question here.

On other forums that I belong to, we don't have this sockpuppet problem that you all seem to be worrying about.  When we ban somebody, we install their IP address in the Troll Catcher and the Troll Catcher autobans any prospective users from that IP.  

Granted, there are ways to circumvent this, but most trolls don't bother.

Why do you have such a problem?

Also, I am surprised that the site allows you to waste bandwidth posting annoying pictures rather than just reporting the troll to the site administrators via PM.

Disagree with a commenter or diarist.  Prove them wrong.  But these silly pictures and LOLZZ comments make the site annoying to read and drive the general public away.


"There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you make up" --Rex Stout
by LIsoundview on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:15:05 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

But these silly pictures and LOLZZ comments make the site annoying to read and drive the general public away.
I believe that's the point. Thankfully, the administrator(s) are not in the business of driving people away; it's not profitable to do so. A site with high traffic is a healthy site.


by soyousay on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:44:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Assumptions (2.00 / 2)

To assume someone is a troll because they don't care for a particular candidate is ridiculous. Isn't that what this is all about? The troll accusation is always pointed at those who don't care for Obama.

So basically you're advocating ignoring a diary and if that doesn't work, privately emailing the site administrator to get rid of the diary. What's the difference? In the end the outcome is the same.


by soyousay on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:40:09 AM EST

Re: Assumptions (none / 0)

Almost every day I read a comment where someone write "I personally don't care for Obama, he wasn't my first choice, I disagree with him on this, but I still support the party nominee."

And I have yet to see a comment like that troll rated.  We all understand that there are folks here who come to Obama reluctantly or with deep reservations, after one or more other choices, even after vehemently opposing him through the primary process.

What we share is the desire to SEE A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITEHOUSE.  And it continues to confound me how this simple idea gets lost in so much muck.  Obama is the nominee.  The alternative in November is an abomination.  Working against our nominee can only be construed as working FOR the opposition.

So what you will see is troll-rating of comments that denigrate, debase, flame or negatively label the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, aka the opponent of John McCain.  IF you are not interested in seeing a Democratic administration, pray tell, why would you come to this site?


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:08:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Assumptions (2.00 / 1)

Exactly. So long as one puts the caveat in of "...but I will vote for Obama", his supporters stop foaming at the mouth.

But one MUST include that to prevent being piled on and attacked.  How many times have I either been told that I am going to vote for McCain (I'm not) or asked if I am going to vote for Obama (have said time and time again that I will because I have no choice)?  Too often to count.  And it's only when I say I am voting for Obama that the hair on their neck goes down.

I'm sorry, but Obama supporters have not behaved well at all.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:16:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There you go again (2.00 / 2)

SOME Obama supporters have not behaved well, SOME Clinton supporters have not behaved well, SOME McCain supporters actually do behave themselves but really have no place here.  

I was around when Obama supporters were routinely trashed around these parts by SOME -- told to go back to Kos, go drink their Kool-aid -- have you forgotten the days of "latte-sipping Prius driving elitist cult of personality"?

Perhaps what you re encountering here has nothing to do with (fill in the blank) supporters but persons like myself so fervently desperately agonizingly worried about the future of this country and persons we care about that we will , yes, tear off the legs of someone who appears to be working against the Democratic nominee and for four more years of crazy ass cowboy rule.

I find comparisons of us to Bushites and the GOP (not to mention Stalin and Hitler) to be so offensive as to make my blood boil through my skin.

I'm not going to jump in front of a train for Obama.  I don't dream about having his babies or excuse him anything.

I WANT TO SEE A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITEHOUSE.  TEARING HIM DOWN DEFEATS THAT PURPOSE.  YES, IT MAKES ME WILD-EYED WHEN TROLLS AND THEIR PUPPETS (and yes, Juno, there are trolls and puppets here and everywhere on the internet) SPEW LIES, DISTORTIONS AND SMEARS HERE.

If you hsve been the collateral damage in all this I am truly sorry for you.  But smears of the party candidate will never be welcome to me.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There you go again (2.00 / 2)

Sorry, but as I said, I have seen an entrenched culture of intolerance of anything negative said about Obama.  You even admit as such here, that it is tearing him down and harming his chances for the White House.

You therefore ARE saying you can't tolerate it.

Was that not my original point?

And it was Clinton supporters who were bullied off of sites like Kos and Huffington Post, with the principals laughing about it.

And I thought Obama was inspiring all this change.

He isn't.

You again resort to hyperbole, which is contradictory to what you otherwise say.  I've never seen Obama or his supporters compared to Hitler or Stalin, and if they have been, it's been incredible rare and certainly rarer than the frequency with which Obama critics are called trolls and not real Democrats, etc.

I am a philosopher. I do see a lot of similarities in the Obama CULTURE to the Bush culture, and it bothers me. I don't say it gratuitously or to insult or inflame. I say it as a warning, as a suggestion that people practice some introspection .

I see what I see.

Indeed, just about the only thing I like about Obama is his positions on issues, although I'm not happy by his recent ramblings about faith based groups, abortion, gun control and FISA. Those are not my complaints about him or why I think he's ab ad choice.

Indeed, what I see about him that bothers me runs deeper than that. IT's NOT only about issues. That is NOT the only thing that qualifies someone to be president.

He's clearly learning on the job, as he goes along.  That is nervewracking, to send a plebe into the Oval Office.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There you go again (none / 0)

Well said.

I personally believe that by not permitting other viewpoints/diaries  only confirms that the Democratic Party (at the very least, it's members) are becoming the party of intolerance.


by soyousay on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

If this is a Democratic site meant to promote Democratic platforms and positions, how about actually doing so and being consistent?

Throughout Bush's terms as president, Democrats and liberals have been hollering about the degradation of civil rights, about the dictatorial nature of the Bush Admin., ie: requiring loyalty oaths; scripted audiences; firing, intimidating and threatening people who don't tell Bush what he wants to hear or citizens who publicly criticize Bush; supporters of Bush calling people who criticize him (as a person too - dimwitted, stupid, in other words, personal smears)America haters/traitors; quashing dissent (the latest being the revelations about Cheney trying to quash testimony about global warming); begging Republican whistle-blowers to speak up about what they know, etc.

Yet they are, insisting now that only good things may be said of Obama, quashing dissent with personal attacks, not caring about Obama being held to the standards HE put forth...

Caring only about winning,and of course this all after they bashed the hell out of another Democrat in order to secure the nomination for Obama.

Who supposedly was/is the candidate of PRINCIPLES!

And that is the irony here.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 07:49:44 AM EST

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Principle?  The last refuge of the incompetent, or malicious, interlocutor.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:15:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Right.

Again, I have noted here that criticism is always met with personal attacks.

Thank you, again, for showing backing me up with evidence.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:19:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

Let's put it this way, the archives of this site are full of diaries arguing the merits, or otherwise, of Obama's positions and policies.  But you aren't interested in arguing these, I have had the dubious pleasure of engaging you in such discussions in the past and whenever it gets serious or detailed you shear off into argumentation and polemics.  Just for starters, who is the candidate we bashed the hell out of in order to secure the nomination for Obama?  Is that the kind of 'criticism' you are prepared to stand and deliver in the face of dissent?  Is that the issue here?  Which candidate are you referring to?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:35:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

You need to be told I'm referring to Hillary Clinton????

Wow.

And please, read the diary to understand what it is about.

And again, you responded to my post, which ARE about the content of this diary, with a personal attack.

You're not helping your cause at all. And as has been noted, you are welcome to ignore posts you believe are irrelevant or negative or anything you do not like or disagree with.  You can't seem to do that, though.

I'm the one here who is all for free speech, which is why I never hit the hide key and never call Clinton critics trolls, nor do I ever respond by simply attacking the person.

I stick to the topic at hand, whether it is Obama or the behavior or supporters, which is what this diary is about!

Okay?

Sheesh.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:58:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

So your position is that Obama supporters unfairly, maybe even illegitimately, unilaterally 'bashed the hell out of' Hillary Clinton?  Is that right?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:03:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

No, just that they did and are now insisting Democrats must unite and be best friends and that bashing a Democrat is treasonous.

That's all.

And Hillary never ran on NOT being that kind of pol.  Obama did. The hypocrisy was and is astounding.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:14:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

So you are saying that the 'bashing the hell out of' Hillary was fair, legitimate and bilateral?  And your objection is that now, after the conclusion of the primary, when the nominee has been selected, that Democrats are not welcoming any further 'bashing the hell out of' the nominee?  Which would be justified because Obama wasn't running as 'that kind of pol?'  Hmmm...  Are you surprised?  I really cannot conceive of why you would find this surprising.  And 'principle,' at least among Democrats would, in this case, seem to be working against your position as well.  I mean, assuming you want to win the election.  Your thoughts?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

No, that's not what I'm saying either.

Your imposing your emotional desires on what I'm saying. Another bad habits Americans have gotten into.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:29:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

You said it.  That's it?  That's your best response?  C'mon, you can't just say what you're not saying, give us a break and say what you are saying.


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:34:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

You are the one using terms like "Fair", "legitimate" and "bilateral", not I.

I'm not going to get sucked in. Sorry.


by Juno on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:37:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (2.00 / 1)

Well you certainly said 'bashed the hell out of,' which implies issues of fairness, legitimacy and unilateral or bilateral action, but fair enough.  What are you saying?  I take it you feel it is appropriate to criticise Obama now and that has something to do with the 'bashing' you mentioned earlier, would you care to expand on that?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 09:49:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't be an Answer troll (none / 0)

Hello?  Anyone home?


by Shaun Appleby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:59:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't be a rookie troll (2.00 / 4)

I don't like it when we hire new people and they tell us what we are doing wrong a week after they start.    It is possible their conclusions are correct but it is condescending and counterproductive to point out problems when you don't know the history of the issue. &nbs