HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I Have a Pledge to Make. ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:02 AM

 

I Have a Pledge to Make. Who Will Join Me?

If we want to elevate the discourse, some things need to change... from everyone. I'd Like to Give Everyone a Chance to be Clear.

I have been seeing a higher level of dishonesty here than ever before on DU. That includes the '08 primaries. I'm not whining about DU, it's a fine place with plenty of fine people. The thing is that we've crossed a line too many times and that lowers us.

I know that I come down more on one side of this issue than the other. I know that I'm going to be roundly and unreasonably lambasted for speaking my mind... as usual. I accept that as part of discourse, but the level of dishonesty that goes with it is very disheartening and robs me of my faith in what should otherwise be a body of intelligent and thoughtful individuals.

First, I'll address the Obama supporters:

Yes, I'm with you. We will have two viable choices for President and anyone who says otherwise is not living in reality. I've heard that we are 'authoritarian' and in pursuit of censorship. I have not seen direct examples of this, but I'd like to make something perfectly, abundantly, and crystal clear: Telling people that they shall not criticize the President is NEVER appropriate. To quote Roosevelt:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Again, I honestly have not seen examples of people telling Obama's critics that they are not allowed to voice their opinions, but that does not mean such examples do not exist. Therefore I will say without reservation that to state anything of the sort is reprehensible. It also plays into the contrived narrative that Obama supporters are 'authoritarian' and 'intolerant'.

To be an Obama supporter means listening to criticism, understanding it, expanding on the context where possible, or admitting to the faults or failures where they have no reasonable explanation.

It is dishonest to deal with criticism otherwise.

But speaking of 'dishonesty'...

This has become something of a problem lately among many that are highly critical of Obama. It has been made very, very clear that taking exception to criticism is intolerable to many who wish to air their outrage over Obama, his administration, and the policies that the two have enacted. This intolerance should have no place in discourse.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If you choose to be critical of Obama on a Democratic discussion board, expect people to take exception to that criticism. We Get It: You Don't Like Your Criticism of Obama Being Challenged. Now this aversion to criticism of Obama being challenged wouldn't be an issue at all if it weren't for the way it is so often handled:

Dishonestly.

This is very telling. It means that Obama's critics (not all of them, of course, but there are plenty) want to shut down any challenge to their criticism by deliberately mischaracterizing it as 'authoritarian', 'censorship', or otherwise impertinent to the criticism itself. Unless you are actually told that you should shut up, that you have to 'fall in line', that you must vote for Obama, or that you are 'with us or against us', to claim anyone has instructed you so is a LIE.

It's very, very simple: Do NOT substitute your own meanings or the voices in your head for what is actually written in black and white (or whatever color scheme you use) on the screen in front of you.

This is one of the most poisonous practices in discourse these days. It is exactly how Fox 'News' and Rush who-is-not-necessarily-a-sex-tourist Limbaugh program their brainwashed audience. It is uncivil, impolite, and ultimately dishonest to pretend someone has said what they did not. We are all guilty of this at some level, but those of us who are aware of it have the responsibility to keep it in check.

IF you are not certain what someone's intentions are from a given post, then ask them a simple yes/no question such as: "Are you telling me to stop criticizing Obama?"

That way they have an opportunity to clarify their intentions and discussion can continue on without devolving into a kindergarden playground fight.

Too many times people have made such claims about my own posts or those of other DUers without a single shred of evidence. We know why; it is because engaging in earnest on the nitty-gritty of the issues can be work and it's so much easier to end the exchange and walk away feeling righteous by lying about the other poster's intentions.

Let me be perfectly clear, again; To resort to such a tactic is both transparent and childish. I know that many people don't want to hear that and will likely throw a tantrum about it, but I would like to think we're all adults and anyone who reflects on their use of this tactic will eschew it from here on out.

As for the way many see the criticism of Obama here, I have another quote from Roosevelt:

"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger."

Many DUers are currently and actively fighting to wrest the nation out of the hands of corporate avarice and public corruption. The installment of another Republican will set that fight back another decade or more and increase our struggle as a nation. They see abject criticism of Obama as a failure to recognize that although he is not the savior we are all desperate for, he is the best possible option for us at this point in time. They have the attitude that those who refuse to help keep up the fight and keep him in office are only getting in the way and making the fight to restore the US to The People more difficult.

If that is not you, fine. If it is, then please contemplate the above and take seriously those who wish to keep the White House in Democratic hands until the fight is won.

Here is my pledge:

I am an Obama supporter,

I am aware that he is not perfect, and although I believe he has good reasons for most, if not all, of the policies he enacts, the bills he signs, the people he appoints, and the decisions he makes, I recognize that criticism of those is often valid. It is for this reason that I shall not ever tell any of his critics on DU to 'shut up' or instruct them who they must vote for. I will endeavor to listen to their honest criticism and do the work of discovery to determine the validity of that criticism before dismissing it out of hand. I understand that there will be differences of opinion on whether a criticism is valid and will do my best to recognize the point of impasse. It is at this point I may make such an observation, but I will still maintain the other poster's right to voice their opinion. I will do my best to be polite, but even failing that I will not mischaracterize a critic's position absent of evidence and reasoned facts.
Also: I will save any lectures on the foolishness of not voting for Obama only for those who have explicitly stated that they refuse to vote for him. If I am uncertain of a person's position on this matter, I will simply ask them before making such a judgment.
I make this pledge in the understanding that if we are to effect change in this nation, we must do so with our eyes and minds wide open, and we must do it together.


To the best of my knowledge, I have not violated my above pledge. If anyone wishes to accuse me of doing so, then you have my express permission to retrieve any direct quote by me that does so in exchange for an apology. Naturally, I will construe any accusation absent such a quote as a lie.

I believe discourse on DU would be well-served if Obama's critics were to make a pledge recognizing that this is a Democratic site where they can expect reaction to criticism, and not to characterize that critism as 'authoritarian' or 'censorship' where such characterization is not merited. But I won't be the one to write such a pledge.

I'll leave that up to you.

188 replies, 26677 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 188 replies Author Time Post
Reply I Have a Pledge to Make. Who Will Join Me? (Original post)
The Doctor. Dec 2011 OP
comipinko Dec 2011 #1
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #3
comipinko Dec 2011 #7
JoePhilly Dec 2011 #101
Skittles Dec 2011 #166
JoePhilly Dec 2011 #176
Hutzpa Dec 2011 #181
stevenleser Dec 2011 #104
stevenleser Dec 2011 #105
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #9
comipinko Dec 2011 #11
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #14
comipinko Dec 2011 #23
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #26
comipinko Dec 2011 #33
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #43
Aerows Dec 2011 #69
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #49
emcguffie Dec 2011 #112
snooper2 Dec 2011 #59
pnwmom Dec 2011 #86
polmaven Dec 2011 #2
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #4
comipinko Dec 2011 #12
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #16
comipinko Dec 2011 #20
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #25
comipinko Dec 2011 #29
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #44
Sheepshank Dec 2011 #109
rhett o rick Dec 2011 #106
Dorian Gray Dec 2011 #31
comipinko Dec 2011 #35
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #39
Dorian Gray Dec 2011 #89
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #93
Dorian Gray Dec 2011 #164
emcguffie Dec 2011 #114
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #151
Dorian Gray Dec 2011 #165
Sherman A1 Dec 2011 #5
Yo_Mama Dec 2011 #6
seaglass Dec 2011 #8
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #10
comipinko Dec 2011 #13
tblue Dec 2011 #97
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #15
pintobean Dec 2011 #17
comipinko Dec 2011 #21
andlor Dec 2011 #162
piratefish08 Dec 2011 #18
comipinko Dec 2011 #22
quinnox Dec 2011 #19
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #24
pintobean Dec 2011 #27
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #30
comipinko Dec 2011 #37
pintobean Dec 2011 #38
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #51
emcguffie Dec 2011 #116
piratefish08 Dec 2011 #178
pintobean Dec 2011 #179
tjwash Dec 2011 #28
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #32
comipinko Dec 2011 #40
emcguffie Dec 2011 #118
Bluenorthwest May 2012 #184
joeybee12 Dec 2011 #34
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #36
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #41
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #45
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #47
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #48
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #50
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #62
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #63
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #64
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #67
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #70
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #76
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #91
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #94
Union Scribe Dec 2011 #128
emcguffie Dec 2011 #120
Union Scribe Dec 2011 #129
Laelth Dec 2011 #42
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #46
Laelth Dec 2011 #52
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #56
Fearless Dec 2011 #135
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #53
aletier_v Dec 2011 #54
pintobean Dec 2011 #57
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #61
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #58
bhikkhu Dec 2011 #55
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #60
EFerrari Dec 2011 #65
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #66
Fearless Dec 2011 #138
Aerows Dec 2011 #68
Union Scribe Dec 2011 #72
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #74
Union Scribe Dec 2011 #71
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #73
pscot Dec 2011 #78
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #81
pscot Dec 2011 #113
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #75
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #77
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #80
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #82
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #83
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #87
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2011 #88
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #90
rhett o rick Dec 2011 #108
emulatorloo Dec 2011 #79
TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #84
deacon Dec 2011 #85
JoePhilly Dec 2011 #99
deacon Dec 2011 #139
A-Schwarzenegger Dec 2011 #92
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #95
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #96
Doctor_J Dec 2011 #98
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #102
tblue Dec 2011 #100
Zalatix Dec 2011 #103
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #107
eyewall Dec 2011 #110
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #125
Fearless Dec 2011 #136
sad sally Dec 2011 #111
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #126
eyewall Dec 2011 #143
A-Schwarzenegger Dec 2011 #144
eyewall Dec 2011 #147
A-Schwarzenegger Dec 2011 #148
cry baby Dec 2011 #115
Texasgal Dec 2011 #117
vaberella Dec 2011 #119
The Doctor. Dec 2011 #127
Fearless Dec 2011 #137
jimlup Dec 2011 #121
ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #122
A-Schwarzenegger Dec 2011 #123
tblue37 Dec 2011 #134
A-Schwarzenegger Dec 2011 #141
tblue37 Dec 2011 #142
Taverner Dec 2011 #124
Maraya1969 Dec 2011 #130
scentopine Dec 2011 #131
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #149
BanTheGOP Dec 2011 #132
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #152
Fearless Dec 2011 #133
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #154
T S Justly Dec 2011 #140
jbpdx Dec 2011 #145
ObaMania Dec 2011 #146
MFrohike Dec 2011 #150
eyewall Dec 2011 #153
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #155
MFrohike Dec 2011 #156
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #159
MFrohike Dec 2011 #180
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #157
Martin Eden Dec 2011 #158
tatfreak79 Dec 2011 #160
Jokerman Dec 2011 #161
Vinca Dec 2011 #163
Skittles Dec 2011 #167
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #168
hootinholler Dec 2011 #169
pintobean Dec 2011 #171
hootinholler Dec 2011 #173
LineLineLineLineReply .
pintobean Dec 2011 #174
hootinholler Dec 2011 #175
JNelson6563 Dec 2011 #170
pintobean Dec 2011 #172
i_sometimes Dec 2011 #177
Fearless Dec 2011 #182
UnrepentantLiberal May 2012 #183
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #185
liberal N proud Dec 2012 #186
intaglio Dec 2012 #187
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #188

Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:06 AM

1. Ooooo....A "Pledge".....how , how republican !

 

Good Democrats do NOT take pledges. Instead, they THINK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:10 AM

3. So a thoughtful pledge to be reasonable is 'Republican'?

 


That's not a very thought out response.

Maybe you should pledge to be more thoughtful and think things through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:33 AM

7. "pledges" only deter actual thought. Yup, very republican.

 

Sorry, doc, but pledges only stiffle. A pledge is only a promise not to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:46 PM

101. I just tried to tell my wife that the pledges we made when we got married ...

... deterred actual thought.

She hit me with this ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:48 AM

166. MRS. JoePhilly IS MY KIND OF GAL

yes INDEED

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #166)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:33 PM

176. NEVER, NEVER ... mess with Mrs. JoePhily ... trust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #101)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:45 PM

181. You're lucky she didn't put any grits in there for you

she still loves you imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:09 PM

104. Pledges stiffle? Is that because of the pledge or because the pledgee took viagra? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #3)


Response to comipinko (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:34 AM

9. It also occurs to me that you must believe all physicians are 'Republican'.

 


They take the "Lasagna Oath", which is a pledge to do no harm.

Wait, I just realized that everyone in every political office across the US must also be Republican for pledging to uphold the Constitution.

Knee-jerks can be just so ridiculous. Thanks for the laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:37 AM

11. Your silly pledge can not be compared as you have done.

 

Nope your "pledge" is just a promise not to think. That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:43 AM

14. How disappointing.

 


From the OP:

"It's very, very simple: Do NOT substitute your own meanings or the voices in your head for what is actually written in black and white (or whatever color scheme you use) on the screen in front of you."

From the pledge:

"It is for this reason that I shall not ever tell any of his critics on DU to 'shut up' or instruct them who they must vote for. I will endeavor to listen to their honest criticism and do the work of discovery to determine the validity of that criticism before dismissing it out of hand."


It would seem the voices in your head are apparently at odds with reality. Can you explain how the promise to listen and do research before dismissing something is a 'promise not to think'?

I'd love to see that explanation. I'm having a pretty good laugh so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:01 AM

23. Now you resort to personal attacks??

 

That behaviour is even MORE republican than are "pledges" .

You have already broken your "Pledge".

I believe this amounts to: EPIC FAIL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:08 AM

26. What personal attack?

 

You are very amusing, I'll give you that.

Your hysterics are only rivaled by your irrationality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:14 AM

33. Typical.

 

blind to it's own transgressions. I find it interesting that your "pledge"
did not even survive the thread in which you made it. See, that is the problem with "pledges".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:25 AM

43. This really is amusing.

 

You still can't show how I've violated my own pledge.

Instead you resort to everything, baseless accusations, insinuations, strawmen, everything I pointed out. Why are you so intent on proving you are dishonest?

Are you really an Obama supporter trying to make his critics look bad?

I really can't think of a better explanation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:27 PM

69. While I fully support your pledge

And appreciate the sentiments behind it, you did rather leap right into the realm of ad hominem attack on comipinko by calling posts "hysterical" and implying that comipinko was mentally ill (voices in your head).

I'm not trying to be rude, just pointing it out to you so that in the future you exercise a bit more restraint. In any case, I hope something positive comes out of people reading your original post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:42 AM

49. I am laughing because

 

Its painfully obvious to any one but....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:37 PM

112. That was hardly a personal attack.

On the contrary, it seems to me your comment was much more of a personal attack.

This is a directly stated question regarding statements made in the OP, which you have responded to in a knee-jerk, one note response, saying that all pledges do is shut down thought. Seems to me the point of the OP was precisely the opposite.

Well, I've said enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:18 AM

59. I took a pledge to my cat

I will never feed you that shit can food again, only the good stuff


Does that make me a repuke?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:49 PM

86. So you think you can speak for all "good Democrats"?

Think again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:07 AM

2. I will join you in that pledge.

Thank you for posting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polmaven (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:16 AM

4. You'd think it wouldn't be necessary.

 


I put it up because I'm sick of the BS coming from so many Obama critics. I'm just sick of the lying.

I figure if this is out there it makes a fair metric by which to measure the lies. If someone accuses me of something, I can just ask them whether and how I violated a reasonable rule of discourse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #4)


Response to comipinko (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:49 AM

16. Wow. I could not have asked for a better example of thoughtless belligerence.

 

Just blindly attacking something you don't like without reason is exactly the issue I have with so many people. You have provided a perfect example of this. Also, the deliberate editing of my words is exactly proof of the "BS from Obama critics" I was talking about.

Thank you for that indisputable proof of my observations.

Just to make sure that you're really not capable of reasoned criticism, I'll gladly take back my assessment of your 'contribution' here if you can excerpt a portion of the OP you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it.

If that's beyond your capabilities, then you've done a marvelous job of proving my point here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:55 AM

20. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning!

 

"pledges" are for the weak minded. What part of that is unclear to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:06 AM

25. Yep. That's the stuff.

 


Thanks for providing a perfect example. I'll keep it bookmarked for any time someone tries to claim that all Obama critics are substantive and reasonable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:11 AM

29. Again, it breaks it's own pledge.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:28 AM

44. Again, "How?"

 


That's the funny thing about 'reason'... when you don't use it, you can't be taken seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:23 PM

109. Where is a pledge weak minded?

I'm not sure I understand?

Pledges are received and tend to build trust and discourse. One can count on the way a discussion will unfold, but not necessarily the content and the ideas that will flow within that discussion. Admittedly there are different types of pledges but in the context of this thread, I don't see why the vitriol against someone wanting to create honest debate and discourse? Specifically how does laying a personal standard (ground rule or pledge), in the context of DU weaken anyone except the liar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:12 PM

106. You are calling a poster "thoughtlessly belligerent"? Is that within community

standards?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:13 AM

31. I am NOT overly critical of President Obama

but this is the type of post that immediately negates what you wrote in your pledge. It seems as though you want them to pledge to open discourse and not insulting, and in post FOUR of your own thread, you slam THEM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dorian Gray (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:15 AM

35. you noticed that , too?

 

Yup it's pledge did not last the thread! LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dorian Gray (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:16 AM

39. Post the pertinent excerpt.

 


It's exactly the sort of deliberate misconstruction you and those like you engage in that prompted me to post the OP.

I never pledged not to slam people for making shit up or being unreasonable. That part is in your head, not in print on this screen.

Otherwise you could post the pertinent excerpt instead of making shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:12 PM

89. "Those like you."

You don't know my history here. You don't know who I am like. I don't dislike the president, and I'm hoping for his presidency to continue after the next election. I just think that your pledge was full of shit. You seem to want others to pledge to a certain discourse, then you immediately insult those others.



I am an Obama supporter,

I am aware that he is not perfect, and although I believe he has good reasons for most, if not all, of the policies he enacts, the bills he signs, the people he appoints, and the decisions he makes, I recognize that criticism of those is often valid. It is for this reason that I shall not ever tell any of his critics on DU to 'shut up' or instruct them who they must vote for. I will endeavor to listen to their honest criticism and do the work of discovery to determine the validity of that criticism before dismissing it out of hand. I understand that there will be differences of opinion on whether a criticism is valid and will do my best to recognize the point of impasse. It is at this point I may make such an observation, but I will still maintain the other poster's right to voice their opinion. I will do my best to be polite, but even failing that I will not mischaracterize a critic's position absent of evidence and reasoned facts.
Also: I will save any lectures on the foolishness of not voting for Obama only for those who have explicitly stated that they refuse to vote for him. If I am uncertain of a person's position on this matter, I will simply ask them before making such a judgment.
I make this pledge in the understanding that if we are to effect change in this nation, we must do so with our eyes and minds wide open, and we must do it together.




Your pledge. And you immediately call BS and accuse the critics of lying.

You're not helping with the discourse. I was with you in your original post and was curious why people were argumentative with you about it. Then I got to your post #4 and realized that you have a history of accusing people of BS and lying.

It's clear now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dorian Gray (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:54 PM

93. So what you're saying is that it's wrong to point out when someone is lying.

 

Got it.

But then I never pledged not to do that. Sorry bub, but I'm going to point out when people are making shit up whether you like it or not. If they want 'civil discourse', then they should probably start by being honest.

I always begin civilly, but if the people that I'm dealing with don't want to have it that way, so be it. There is nothing uncivil in the OP, but many of the first responses to it were deliberate lies, mischaracterizations, or just plain ignorant.

If people don't want to be condescended to, they shouldn't act like children.

The reality here is that no matter what I said or how 'civil' I was, these people would still be dishonest about what I said. The only difference is that no one would be challenging them on it.

That's the same reason that our nation is a fucked up as it is. The media's dishonesty goes unchallenged as well. I do not tolerate dishonesty. If you don't like that fact, then put me on 'ignore' before you post something that is not honest.

I will point out that I have not accused the critics of lying, I have accused the dishonest of dishonesty and the ignorant of ignorance. To claim that I have 'accused the critics of lying' is also dishonest of you. Some Obama critics have certainly lied, but that doesn't make them all liars.

So are you saying that when someone is dishonest, I should refrain from pointing it out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #93)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:25 AM

164. Okay...

I get it. You don't want to elevate the conversation to make it more conducive to understanding the POVs of both sides.

I have not insulted you, but I did point out where you immediately insulted a whole group of people... in post FOUR of this thread.... before the conversation would have gotten anywhere.

I don't really care. I see both sides. I'm going to vote for Obama, and I hope he wins. But I understand why people are frustrated with him as well.

And I was with you and your pledge, until I got to post FOUR of this thread and saw you insult people who had a problem with Obama. That immediately made me think you didn't mean anything you said in your pledge.

(And yes, I saw other people attacking you in this thread. I immediately thought it was unprovoked, until I got to post FOUR, where you seemed to think a whole subgroup of people were liars. Your prejudices are just as ingrained as theirs, and because of that, you'll (both sides) never be able to have a communicative conversation in which anything is accomplished.)

You can point it out. I'm just pointing out what I see. The nature of discussion boards.

(And you can call me bub, if you like, but I'm a female. Bub makes me giggle, though, so keep using it.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dorian Gray (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:48 PM

114. Do you honestly not see that --

-- someone else here might have been being deliberately disruptive?

I don't have a horse in this race. But it struck me right in the face that some of those posts were just trying to pick a fight. They were not looking for a discussion.

And that is what the OP was responding to. So, yeah, if you say, okay, I promise to really listen to your concerns and do some work and make some effort to have a real discussion with you, and then the other guy throws a pie in your face, then you have to not respond to that thrown pie but must go do some research on -- what? Because there was no content in any of those comments, just straightforward disparaging attacks.

I'm not interested in the Obama argument, but I am interested in what makes a discussion a discussion rather than a mudfight.

This turned into a mudfight pretty quickly, and personally I do not think it was the fault of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emcguffie (Reply #114)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:36 AM

151. My thoughts exactly.

The Doctor made a very thoughtful and sincere point about mutual respect on a topic that is creating a lot of divisive threads here. The 1st response adds nothing but a silly comment meant to bait and distract away from the OP. Kind of corroborates the whole point of The Doctor's post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emcguffie (Reply #114)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:30 AM

165. No, I saw that

and I was with The Doctor until I saw POST FOUR of this thread, in which he called most people who have a problem with President Obama liars. He did that so early in the thread, that it made me realize that PART of the problem and what people were rudely reacting to was his prejudices.

POST FOUR happened before most of the other contentious posts were written. I think that Post FOUR shows that his pledge wasn't in good faith. Maybe it was. If it is and he wants to elevate election conversation, good for him.

You are right it turned into a mudfight prety quickly, and that's a shame. But he had a part in it. Post FOUR was early in the thread, too.

This is really all I have to say about this thread. I don't like to argue or sling mud myself. I just felt like it was such an egregious disconnect from what he originally said that I wanted to point it out. I hope his first post was sincere and he'll do that without calling the other side of the fence liars. The election season is going to get very contentious soon. It's not a fun time for democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:19 AM

5. Pass

but, thanks for the offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:22 AM

6. Applause. Major Cheers. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)


Response to seaglass (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:36 AM

10. And when it is, it should be pointed out.

 

We are in agreement. Thus the pledge.

Now if only his critics would commit to some similarly honest disposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:41 AM

13. Have you read "Catch 22"?? Lately?

 

LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:38 PM

97. +1 It feels like bullying to me.

It certainly does not enamor me of working in his campaign. I couldn't bear to work side-by-side with bullies. Won't do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:49 AM

15. I pledge to speak freely.

 

You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:51 AM

17. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:56 AM

21. Now THERE is a pledge !! LOL

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:37 AM

162. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:51 AM

18. a pledge?

a pledge!

oh my goodness. it's come full circle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to piratefish08 (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:58 AM

22. Take the damn pledge.

 

EVERY "good" Democrat has!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:54 AM

19. K&R

 

This makes a lot of sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:03 AM

24. It's very interesting to see

 

how many people cannot even commit to this admittedly low bar of civil discourse.

I'm glad to know who they are, at least. It's a good reference point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:09 AM

27. Civil discourse?

Is that what the OP is about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #27)


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:16 AM

37. CRASH goes the "pledge"

 

You are too funny!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:16 AM

38. Reading comprehension fail.

You make that claim quite often. Perhaps the problem isn't with the readers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:53 AM

51. Given that it's the same set of readers

 

over and over, it's a pretty safe bet it's the readers.

Otherwise so many others would be having a problem understanding it as well. Add to that the fact that I can explain exactly how that 'reading comprehension fail' was arrived at, and there is left no doubt where the problem is.

So yes... it's you not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:53 PM

116. What? Seriously?

You read the OP? You are responding to something in it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #24)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:58 PM

178. i pledge to not commit to civil discourse regarding the taking of pledges.

even though i'm against pledges.


will you pledge to agree to disagree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to piratefish08 (Reply #178)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:06 PM

179. He can't answer you

He broke the pledge and is banned from this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:10 AM

28. Ahh....so nice to see you again...massive wall of text...

...I thought that you had died in Calcutta...so nice...to see you....alive

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tjwash (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:13 AM

32. Keep smokin'.

 

Maybe you'll start to make sense one day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:17 AM

40. Again with the personal attacks.

 

Please re-new your "pledge" and start over. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to comipinko (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:59 PM

118. So, you are suggesting the post to which he was responding is...?

So, what was this? This was not some kind of a personal attack?

Ahh....so nice to see you again...massive wall of text...

...I thought that you had died in Calcutta...so nice...to see you....alive


Maybe I honestly don't understand. I just keep seeing threads go down the tubes like this, and I am truly wondering, what the hell is going on? It just finally seems to me that there's a group of folks who jumped on this thread who do not want to see any discussion. It seems like, and I could be wrong, they just want to disrupt it and shut down any real conversation.

Am I wrong? Are you on this thread because you want to communicate with someone, or are you trying to do something else?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #32)

Thu May 10, 2012, 08:51 AM

184. Wow.

The folks who come with oaths and pledges historically in our politics also come with a certainty that they are the judges of all others, they often claim to 'know who they are' or to have 'a list'. And always, always, they wind up showing themselves to be the opposite of that which they claim for themselves.
It is sad to see such things done by posters using the President as their rhetorical wrapping paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:15 AM

34. Nope, because I'm not an Obama supporter...third party...

We have a very competitive Senate and House race here in 20102 and I will be voting and working Dem, but Obama has neither earned my support or trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:15 AM

36. ....

 

This, from you, wow.
Civility?
Damn, my sides hurt, eyes are getting blurry.


I respect your opinion but know that it made me sad to read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #36)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:18 AM

41. Post it.

 

Anything that I've posted that contradicts my pledge. Post it and I'll offer an apology.

Barring that, you're just facetious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:29 AM

45. Stop it. You're killing me.

 

My sides a literally hurting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:37 AM

47. Amazing.

 


I'm always amazed that people can ignore empirical reality in favor of their own biased and unfounded interpretations of their environment. What I do truly appreciate is how, when asked to put up the evidence for their delusions, they fail utterly at providing even a shred of substance.

Like I said, post it.

But you have nothing but delusion-based derision, do you?

Keep laughing, it says far more about you than it does me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:40 AM

48. Lol...

 

The Doctor, now with twenty percent less snark!
Did it hurt when you bit your tongue writing that response?


I do not have to post anything, just look at your responses in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:48 AM

50. Pick one. Post it.

 

Why is that so difficult for you?

I actually know why. It's because that's how you operate. Insinuation, allusion, conflation, never ever anything factual or explicit. I simply don't take people like you very seriously. You make it impossible to do so. Anyone who has an opinion such as yours, but fails utterly to make any kind of case for it beyond "You just ARE!", can be taken no more seriously than a child on a kindergarden playground.

See here:

"Too many times people have made such claims about my own posts or those of other DUers without a single shred of evidence. We know why; it is because engaging in earnest on the nitty-gritty of the issues can be work and it's so much easier to end the exchange and walk away feeling righteous by lying about the other poster's intentions.

Let me be perfectly clear, again; To resort to such a tactic is both transparent and childish.
"


Insinuation is easy. Proof is hard. Stick with what's easiest for you. And thank you for being a perfect example here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:36 PM

62. Huh?

 

I have no need as you are doing the thinking for me...


"I actually know why. It's because that's how you operate. Insinuation, allusion, conflation, never ever anything factual or explicit. I simply don't take people like you very seriously. You make it impossible to do so. Anyone who has an opinion such as yours, but fails utterly to make any kind of case for it beyond "You just ARE!", can be taken no more seriously than a child on a kindergarden playground."


You seem to be the the definition of passive/aggressive.

You have yet to respond to those posters who disagree with you without a snarky sentence or three.

And, you don't know anything about me. Not a thing. But go on thinking that you do, as powerful and all knowing as you are, it seems you could do nothing else but thanks for the laughs.
Still makes me sad to read your opinions so I will stop doing that.

Have a wonderful day full of surprises and glee!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:46 PM

63. The request was in English.

 

Is that not a language you are used to?

It's not 'all powerful' or 'telepathic' to see very clearly why you can't meet a simple request. I'm obviously correct, otherwise you'd be able to show otherwise. There is nothing 'passive aggressive' about calling you what you are.

You have no substance, only derision. You have no point, only denials. You have no case, only insinuation. Those aren't merely opinions, they are opinions you have proven out. Otherwise, why did you post here?

That's what's sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:51 PM

64. Nope...

 


You have no substance, only derision. You have no point, only denials. You have no case, only insinuation. Those aren't merely opinions, they are opinions you have proven out. Otherwise, why did you post here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:17 PM

67. Bwhaahahahahaaaaa! The 'copycat game'??!?

 

Oh, that put a HUGH smile on my face!1!11!

I'm SERIES!

When I was ten my little sister would try to play that game with me. So I'd say "I have a penis", and that would stop her cold.

You've hit the same wall here, you're just not aware of it. (That's amusing too!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:28 PM

70. Try harder.

 

Those are your words, right back at you and honestly, it made me ill to post them.

I can't be an asshole, it's not in me to be mean and try to hurt others with words and ridicule no matter how much I disagree with them.

I left DU in 08 because it had become so toxic. I came back to find nothing had changed.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:59 PM

76. I think I know why you found DU 'toxic'.

 


It might help if you refrain from posting insubstantial insinuation, derision, and instead start engaging in earnest dialogue.

I've given you every opportunity to do so, and you've chosen every excuse not to.

Here's another chance, if you want to 'stop the toxicity', you can start right here and now.

If you have a problem with the OP, state it clearly, reasonably, and with excerpts if possible. I'm not 'being mean', I'm merely asking you to be honest without the need for derision or insinuation.

If you can do that, you'll find I deal in earnest with people that make the effort to apply reason. And yes, I am 'toxic' without apology to those that refuse to even try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:37 PM

91. Ah, no.

 

You creep me out.



edit for some weird link thingy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #91)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:01 PM

94. Whatever excuse you need to avoid any kind of substantive discussion.

 


Don't fart in an elevator and blame the walls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:18 PM

128. So true.

"You seem to be the the definition of passive/aggressive.

You have yet to respond to those posters who disagree with you without a snarky sentence or three."

And it's always either: you're childish, you don't read well/other insinuation you're dumb, you're dishonest, etc etc. It seems no one can ever disagree with that poster without it being their inherent faults that make them do so. What a tremendous burden it must be for them to be, alone, perfect in a world full of inferiors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to i_sometimes (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 07:08 PM

120. But you've said plenty, in your short little post.

But none of it has anything to do with -- any content. What you've said is all quite personal. There's nothing I can find in your posts that isn't personal. With a little sarcasm for flavor.

I'm unfamiliar with this argument, I am not familiar with any of these posters, so I am not on a side here. But I am astonished at the ugliness and refusal to engage in any real discussion by so many, all of whom are busy pointing their fingers at the OP, and insulting him, making fun of him, being sarcastic and/or snide about him, without addressing anything he said in the OP.

What is the point? Am I crazy?

Is there an established war going on between those who like Obama and those who don't? If there is, what is wrong with doing what the OP said and addressing issues and facts with shared information?

This is pretty amazing. You know that saying about that finger you are pointing come back at you? Has anything poked you in the eye yet? And -- although I'm not at all sure about this, as I've been so distracted by the nasty back-and-forth over nothing but personalities here -- I think I might actually belong more in your camp than the other camp. But I'm not sure you are really in a camp. I can't tell from what you've been saying, that's for sure.

I guess now I'll be made fun of and insulted, or, more likely, ignored.

Dear OP, if you read this, I appreciate what you are suggesting. Sounds good to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emcguffie (Reply #120)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:20 PM

129. Nope.

"Is there an established war going on between those who like Obama and those who don't?"

No, there isn't. There's a "war" going on in the minds of people who take criticism of Obama so personally that they've made enemies of everyone around them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:23 AM

42. I judge Obama on his actions, not on what he says in "black and white" print.

Therefore, I can not take your pledge until Obama's actions and words match (at all times, on every issue). That, of course, is an impossible standard for any politician. I don't expect that of Obama.

However, I am not "lying" when I point out that a politician's actions and rhetoric do not perfectly correspond. In fact, I would take offense at being called a liar under such circumstances.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:32 AM

46. Again I have to encourage someone to read for meaning:

 

"Do NOT substitute your own meanings or the voices in your head for what is actually written in black and white (or whatever color scheme you use) on the screen in front of you."

That is not even remotely related to your point about Obama's 'words and actions'. I'm talking very specifically about the interactions on DU. If you had read and comprehended the OP, you would have known that.

I'm not saying this to insult you. Just please... pay more attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:55 AM

52. Sigh. I suspected you were asking for careful, literal readings.

Though that was not entirely clear from your OP. And I can recall from my own posting experience many times when I had hoped to be read quite literally and very carefully.

That's a very high standard to set for your fellow forum members--a very difficult task indeed. I fear you will be disappointed.

But, principally, I was noting that people who react blindly or carelessly to a given post are not really being dishonest--careless, perhaps; unthoughtful, perhaps; prejudiced, perhaps; but not dishonest.

I hope you can see the difference.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laelth (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:11 AM

56. If that's too much to ask, then I am most certainly disappointed.

 


When you put 'unthoughtful' and 'prejudiced' in a blender, you invariably wind up with 'dishonest'. It may be incidental, but it's the reality.

To me, reading for insinuation, double intentions, ulterior motives, and other interpretations of the words on a page is both more difficult and pointless than simply reading what is written.

It fascinates me to no end that so many people are incapable of reading and comprehending the words in front of them. Life would be so much simpler and less stressful if people with earnest intentions were not deliberately misrepresented by the prejudiced perceptions of others.

I'm finding it very sad that so many people expect that others are so full of ulterior motives that people who say what they mean and mean what they say can't be trusted either. It's just so very sad to feel like I'm an endangered species in a world full of liars and insinuators. I'm not saying that I can't or don't use insinuation, but I at least make my insinuations overt so as to avoid leaving questions. When I write something straightforward, it shouldn't be too much to expect people to take what I've said as my literal meaning.

The OP means exactly what it says. Trying to add meaning or motive beyond that is the real chore. Why people do it is not a mystery to me. People expect of others what they expect of themselves. Liars believe everyone lies, thieves believe everyone steals, and the duplicitous believe everyone has ulterior motives.

It is a sad commentary on the state of discourse.

I get your point, I hope you can understand mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #56)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:47 AM

135. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?

On what grounds can you claim that your post is free of ulterior motives? Must we infer this too? Or do we, like the above apparently, infer that you have ulterior motives?

It has to be one or the other now doesn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:00 AM

53. Mwen pral pran angajman an

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:06 AM

54. so anyone who criticizes obama is dishonest.

You didn't have to write three pages of text to disguise that, sir.

Your posting strikes me as dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:15 AM

57. Illiterate liars suffering from paranoid schizophrenia

appears to be the diagnosis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:27 AM

61. You're being too hard on them.

 


They're not 'illiterate', they're just not deliberate readers.

Big diff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:18 AM

58. Another one who simply 'makes shit up'.

 


Please show me where in the post I said that.

It is not the critics of Obama that are necessarily dishonest. It is people who make stuff up.

See here:

"It's very, very simple: Do NOT substitute your own meanings or the voices in your head for what is actually written in black and white (or whatever color scheme you use) on the screen in front of you.

This is one of the most poisonous practices in discourse these days. It is exactly how Fox 'News' and Rush who-is-not-necessarily-a-sex-tourist Limbaugh program their brainwashed audience. It is uncivil, impolite, and ultimately dishonest to pretend someone has said what they did not. We are all guilty of this at some level, but those of us who are aware of it have the responsibility to keep it in check.

IF you are not certain what someone's intentions are from a given post, then ask them a simple yes/no question such as: "Are you telling me to stop criticizing Obama?"


Instead of making an assumption with *zero* evidence, what you should have done if not clear about my intentions was ask me, "So is anyone who criticized Obama 'dishonest'?"

To which my answer would have been 'no'. I perhaps would have even elaborated.

I'm getting very tired of trying to teach reading comprehension to people around here. If you want to believe a post says something that it does not, I really can't stop you from substituting your own meanings. But please, realize that it's quite possible you're making a fool of yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:11 AM

55. Thanks you - and I agree

Anyone who's been around the boards for awhile would probably say that it gets very dull when everyone just agrees with one another, and debate is often an indispensable way to work through one's thoughts. It is one thing to be correct, but it is better to be effective - and debate tends to lead to that.

What I dislike is derision, which is all too common here. Its easily avoided and easily responded to, if one has skin of a decent thickness, but basically derision is an attempt to silence an opposing position - which is a bad thing. As a rule, a position advocating openness, democracy and civil rights, should probably not be defended with derision of others...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #55)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:24 AM

60. Yes, and just look at all the examples in this thread.

 

I'll admit to a small ulterior motive here. Make no mistake, the OP is exactly what it is. I said what I meant and I meant what I said. But the incidental effect of the OP was to prove how derisive and dishonest so many can be by bringing them out into the light of day.

My skin is pretty thick, so they really don't bother me and they are indeed 'easily handled' due to their insubstantial nature. But what truly amazes me is how strong their opinions are about things they have no material support for.

Just look at how many say things like "it's everywhere", "You violated your pledge" or "you know it's true" without one single shred of evidence. I can't imagine having such strong opinions based on virtually nothing. They don't link, they don't post excerpts, they don't give reasons... just blind derision.

I'm very glad that threads like this one expose these tactics.

Thank you much for chiming in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:54 PM

65. Yes, you are whining about DU. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EFerrari (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:12 PM

66. By that standard, so is every post

 

about how 'oppressive' Obama supporters on DU are.

Nice try though.

If you decide to actually read the OP, understand it, and offer a relevant and intelligent point about it, then there might be a reason to have a discussion. That little pot shot just doesn't hit the mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #66)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:11 AM

138. Whine: "To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound...

as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint"

By this definition there is a lot of whining going on on DU from all sides of all issues. In my opinion, written whining takes on the form of hyper-dramatized statements, long-winded hyperbole, and generalities lacking fact possibly containing one or both of the previous two qualities. Of course that's more of a starter defintion as I'm sure that many other posts on DU will qualify if I were to dwell on it for a while. Of course I won't, as to plot the infinite tends to heftily dent the finite qualities, most especially, time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:21 PM

68. K & R

I think the problem isn't that people criticize or get upset when other people criticize the president, it is the manner in which the dialogue takes place. Some people just can't agree to disagree and bicker back and forth over fine points when it is clear that they aren't ever going to agree. Disagreement is good, and healthy for any community, but sometimes, you have to let it go.

Thanks for a good post, Doctor. We all benefit from reasoned discourse free from pettiness and anger. You and I might disagree from time to time, but as long as we do it respectfully, we both walk away having benefited from good conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #68)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:36 PM

72. Please read post 60 and reconsider that rec.

There's nothing genuine, respectful or beneficial about the motive expressed there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:53 PM

74. It's just an interesting side effect. Not really much of a 'motive'.

 

I call it one because I knew that it was unavoidable and I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that people will refrain from scrabbling together any excuse they can to be offended. Like you have.

I know this might be too much to ask, but actually look at the 'indignant' posts about how 'awful' I am and you'll see that something it completely absent from them:

"Substance"

So, the fact that I have no problem with bringing people out who deliberately mischaracterize, misrepresent, and are hell-bent on being angry over someone having the audacity to stake out a reasonable position and ask others to do the same is the problem?

That's like blaming all the video cameras for the bank-robbery. Hey! I have a thought!

How about people stop making shit up, mischaracterizing, misrepresenting, and otherwise looking for excuses to hate on Obama supporters?

Is that too much to ask?

If you have a problem with the OP, then post the part you have a problem with and explain why. Failing that, you're just another rage-aholic looking for an excuse to look down on someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:33 PM

71. So, you've taken a pledge to insult the hell out of people.

That's fine, but maybe you could lay off the "voices in your head" shit out of respect for those with mental illness. Disagreeing with you is not a mental illness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:42 PM

73. If you would bother to read it, you'll see that's not the point.

 

But I never pledged to refrain from pointing out when people are lying, making shit up, being ignorant, or otherwise deliberately misrepresenting my intentions.

Which you just did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #73)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:32 PM

78. Your OP and this entire conversation

remind me of one of those Monty Python skits where the Ladies Society for the Improvement of Literacy in the Nation re-enacts the Battle of Blenheim by getting down in the mud and slamming one another with their pocketbooks. I agree we could all be a lot nicer to one another, but getting down in the mud just reveals your own confirmation bias. There's a powerful tendency to not hear what others are saying. You don't seem to be able to detect this propensity in the Presidents most ardent supporters, but I would argue that it's a lot stronger among them than it is among his critics. Of course that reveals my own bias. But any pretense of objectivity on your part just flies out the window when ypu strt calling people idiots. Not that i would have signed your tendentious plege anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:15 PM

81. What you're saying would have validity if I called anyone an 'idiot'.

 


No, what I do is point to the very clear examples of dishonesty by people that can't seem to encompass the reason of the OP.

You can interpret that as 'calling people idiots', but I'm simply not. Like the Senator said; "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

I made little 'pretense' of 'objectivity' to begin with. The clue was here:

"I know that I come down more on one side of this issue than the other. I know that I'm going to be roundly and unreasonably lambasted for speaking my mind... as usual. I accept that as part of discourse, but the level of dishonesty that goes with it is very disheartening and robs me of my faith in what should otherwise be a body of intelligent and thoughtful individuals."

What I am 'objective' about is that very dishonesty. One poster called the OP a 'loyalty pledge'. This means that they either did not read it, or they are being deliberately dishonest. It is perfectly within the realm of 'objectivity' to point out such deliberate dishonesty. I'm sorry that you can't appreciate that, but that isn't my concern anyhow. I notice that you consider the 'pledge' 'biased', but you cannot say how it is so.

Or can you? Will you disappoint as so many others have when asked to apply the rule of reason? I expect so, but I still give the benefit of the doubt.

Also, it may not bother you to notice, but every every single response I have given was elicited by each individuals own dishonesty, lack of substance, or deliberate ignorance. I never, ever promised to be 'nice' to people whose very first response to the OP is rude, dishonest, derisive, or ignorant. I never will. Period.

You have also obviously missed the point of the 'pledge' which is to make Obama supporters think about the criticisms before dismissing them.

Once again it appears I'm dealing with someone who could not be bothered to read the OP, otherwise you would have realized that this accusation: "There's a powerful tendency to not hear what others are saying. You don't seem to be able to detect this propensity in the Presidents most ardent supporters," was blown clean out of the water before you formulated it by this:

I will endeavor to listen to their honest criticism and do the work of discovery to determine the validity of that criticism before dismissing it out of hand.

That's there for a reason. That reason is that I realize Obama's critics see his supporters that way, and that there are indeed supporters who may fall into the category you describe.

To accuse me of 'not detecting this propensity' is ignorant in the face of that.

I'm really quite astonished at the relative literal torpor on DU these days. Please, re-read the OP, and if you really have an issue with it, be specific about what and why. I am bound by reason, so if you are reasonable I will listen.

As it stands, I'm finding it more and more difficult to take some people seriously. This thread has become another monument to the deliberate ignorance and dishonesty of some people. I hope not to count you among them, but you don't have too good of a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:47 PM

113. It was your 1st sentence

that set me off, but having parsed it more carefully I see that the last clause provides an escape hatch. My apologies for a leap to judgement and I now pronounce you fair and balanced. As for the rest of the thread, the insults were flying so thick and fast I have no idea who called who what. I would just observe that the President's supporters have been dismissive of any and all criticism of Mr. Obama pretty much from the beginning. The "pony" meme appeared very early on, when critics were still making an effort to keep it civil. Labeling everyone who disagrees with one as a "hater" isn't the best way to promote reasoned dialogue. Presenting a list of the President's accomplishments is not an adequate response to the charge that he has a cavalier attitude toward civil liberties or the corporate domination of government, and as someone pointed out upthreadn nobody forced him to pt Arne Duncan in charge of education policy.. There's a strong perception out here that as the Republicans move farther right, so does the President. I live in a moderate area of a liberal state and don't hear anyone voicing enthusiastic support for his re-election. We've been trying to deliver that message for some time now and chanting "84% of liberals sopport him" really doesn't address the issue. Of course I'll vote for him. What choice do I have. But I fully expect his second term to be even more disappointing than his first, since he won't have to worry about re-election. And if he has a republicsn House and Senate to deal with, I expect he'll just roll up in a ball and let them kick him whereever they like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:57 PM

75. Jesus...that's a really fancy way to start a loyalty oath

But no thank you, this completely goes against my grain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:17 PM

77. Wow, another one who doesn't bother to read or understand an OP.

 

What 'Loyalty Oath'? Where? Can you post this fictional thing without making something up that isn't there?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Yours is exactly the sort of dishonesty among the Obama critics that I was referring to.

Serious question: Why do you do it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:57 PM

80. Just to watch the hypocrisy spew from your keyboard, in direct contradiction to your OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:21 PM

82. Yet you can point to no such hypocrisy or contradictions.

 

I was very express in inviting anyone to point to any quote by me at all that violates my own pledge. Since you obviously cannot do that, the only conclusion is that you are being dishonest.

That would be twice now since your supposed motive is to see something that isn't there.

So again, what's the real reason for your dishonesty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:40 PM

83. Run along. I believe we've concluded any useful discourse.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #83)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:03 PM

87. It never began. But at least I tried.

 

Shame you can't say as much.

Bye now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #87)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:04 PM

88. Yes, and you got all the material you were trolling for

Now you can start that post in a week or so, the one you've always intended on writing, about how you tried, but these liberals were just not receptive to your overtures, blah, blah.

Have fun with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #88)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:33 PM

90. You mean the proof that so many

 

can be so deliberately dishonest when it comes to Obama supporters?

I really wasn't 'trolling' for it, but I suspected there would be a few. Turns out there are far more than I expected. I really find it very sad, not what I like seeing around here.

So... weren't you leaving or 'done' or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:22 PM

108. Here are a couple of your posts that I believe push the community standards envelope.

They dont appear intended to encourage civil discourse:

In post 26: “You are very amusing, I'll give you that. Your hysterics are only rivaled by your irrationality.”

In post 47: “But you have nothing but delusion-based derision, do you?”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 02:48 PM

79. Good post, I appreciate it. I would like to

see away out of this morass that DU is in, and this seems to be a step in the right direction. I hope that more people will actually read your post, so that is why I am recommending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:42 PM

84. What are we a Republican primary?

I'll say what I think, expect others will too, that I will disagree with some of those reactions and thoughts while being offended at others, someone will disagree with my reaction or maybe take offense.

It'll work its self out. Start with you, if it means so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 03:45 PM

85. If DU is about seeing Democrats and getting Democrats elected, it can't be one big steady Obama or

democrat bash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deacon (Reply #85)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:43 PM

99. Good point ... Getting Dems elected is the 2nd section of the DU ...

Terms of Service.

Here is a side note that you may or may not have seen me post in other threads, if you have, sorry to repeat ...

Recently in the Barack Obama Group (BOG), a self proclaimed "newbie" to DU asked if they could join the BOG. They received a nice welcome.

In the thread of welcomes, the "newbie" said that they were happy to have found the BOG because on first entry to DU, they were surprised about how hostile the site seemed to be towards Obama. I think they even commented that it seemed strange that "Obama Supporters" had needed to carve out a small niche to avoid having every thread become a thread about why Obama is bad.

And this makes me wonder ... how many potential new DU members, stumble in, click around, and decide that DU is NOT a sit interested in getting more Democrats elected.

Criticism is fine ... but if that's what predominates a site that is supposed to have as one of its goals, electing more dems ... then there is a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:18 AM

139. Definetly. And that really defines the problem, a site identity crisis. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 04:48 PM

92. I Pledge to remember to not be as full of myself

today as I was yesterday
and to do what I suggest others do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A-Schwarzenegger (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:03 PM

95. Now you done it.

 

Massive wall-o-text coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A-Schwarzenegger (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:05 PM

96. Good for you.

 


I can agree with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:41 PM

98. Yeesh. It's really getting weird around here

Loyalty oaths.

How about a pledge to not praise Obama when he takes an action the Ronald Reagan wouldn't have gotten away with because it was too Republican?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #98)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:59 PM

102. What "Loyalty Oath"?

 


There really is something 'weird' around here. Probably the weirdest is how this:

"It's very, very simple: Do NOT substitute your own meanings or the voices in your head for what is actually written in black and white (or whatever color scheme you use) on the screen in front of you.


Seems to be exactly what everyone is doing.

I really want to know how you arrived at 'loyalty oath' from reading the OP. So do you guys have a quilting circle that invents talking points about posts on DU without reading them?

This has been bizarre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 05:43 PM

100. Dear The Doctor,


I have great regard for anyone trying to get us all to work together. Really. Happy holidays, my friend.

xox,
tblue

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:04 PM

103. K&R because of your good intentions.

 

Time will tell if it ends well!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zalatix (Reply #103)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:14 PM

107. Thanks Tblue and Zalatix.

 


I'm very disappointed that so many people are so uninterested in reason that they can't even be bothered to read the OP, but it's nice hearing from reasonable people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:24 PM

110. having read this entire thread

the words pompous and arrogant spring to mind.

Sorry Doctor but I don't think you read your own posts with any objective comprehension either.

Flame away...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eyewall (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:00 PM

125. Yet nothing specific to point to.

 

Yeah, I've been hearing a lot of that.

Like I say, if people don't like being condescended to, don't be dishonest or deliberately ignorant. Not a single person in this thread didn't deserve to hear exactly what I said to them.

If you think that's pompous I really don't give a damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #125)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:54 AM

136. Why are you right?

I mean to say, what makes your point of view right and that of those who disagree with you wrong? You give no facts to back up your words. Beliefs yes. Facts none.

Yet you tell your detractors that it is they who are without specific examples when you yourself have given none off of which to base your points. Does that not make you in the same right equally "dishonest or deliberately ignorant?" Does that not give credence to the possibility that you too are identical from your detractors save the direction from which you come?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:37 PM

111. Asking others to take take your solomn pledge

sounds like an attempt to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure if this is the best method for solving the problems you've identified by forcing them to alter their speech or thoughts to fit the pledge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sad sally (Reply #111)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:05 PM

126. Yeah, asking people to be honest and open is certainly a form of censorship.

 



Quite a few people reject those notions around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #126)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:04 AM

143. God you're an ass

no offense intended

You must have been here a really long time to be so omniscient.

Here are some references for you to pick apart since you demand people in this thread give you examples of your own statements so you can make everyone play a game according to your rules. I'm not going to bother reading your analyses of all the posts, but feel free to respond to each of your statements I've pointed out as examples to back up my claim (that you're an ass, or pompous or whatever).

Your comments, #'s
3
16
25
46
47
50
56
60
63
94
126

There are more but these were a quick rescan of the thread. And don't ask for copy and paste, that's demanding too much, surely you can remember what you said in each of these posts.

Seriously, I'm sure you're a cool guy but I'd like to be a member of DU, not of your Sunday school.

and yes, I'm new here.

oh, I almost forgot, I'm way out there on the pro Obama, would never vote for a repub, and all that other loyalty stuff. Have been a liberal literally all my life and so dedicated to it that I was a bit put out by your wanting me to prove it with a pledge. Also, I'm always civil ¦P

However, truth is --> I should have just ignored this thread.

oh yeah, one more thing, please post examples of "Quite a few people reject those notions (being honest and open) around here." It would be nice if you included thread links and post numbers.

and thanks for the lively discussion!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eyewall (Reply #143)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:34 AM

144. Does that mean you're not taking the pledge?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A-Schwarzenegger (Reply #144)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:10 AM

147. Pledges? We don need no stinking pledges.

sorry, I couldn't resist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eyewall (Reply #147)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:21 AM

148. Muy bueno.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:51 PM

115. sounds reasonable - count me in, although I try to do those things all the time. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 06:58 PM

117. No thank you.

I'll discuss Obama in my own words. I don't need a "pledge".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 07:00 PM

119. Hey Doc... I take this pledge.

I, VABERELLA, am an Obama supporter,

I am aware that he is not perfect, and although I believe he has good reasons for most, if not all, of the policies he enacts, the bills he signs, the people he appoints, and the decisions he makes, I recognize that criticism of those is often valid. It is for this reason that I shall not ever tell any of his critics on DU to 'shut up' or instruct them who they must vote for. I will endeavor to listen to their honest criticism and do the work of discovery to determine the validity of that criticism before dismissing it out of hand. I understand that there will be differences of opinion on whether a criticism is valid and will do my best to recognize the point of impasse. It is at this point I may make such an observation, but I will still maintain the other poster's right to voice their opinion. I will do my best to be polite, but even failing that I will not mischaracterize a critic's position absent of evidence and reasoned facts.
Also: I will save any lectures on the foolishness of not voting for Obama only for those who have explicitly stated that they refuse to vote for him. If I am uncertain of a person's position on this matter, I will simply ask them before making such a judgment.
I make this pledge in the understanding that if we are to effect change in this nation, we must do so with our eyes and minds wide open, and we must do it together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #119)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:12 PM

127. Making an open committment to be *honest* and open

 

Only gives others something to hold over our heads.

It means we choose to hold ourselves to a higher standard and not be what they wish to characterize us as. It also means we expect to be held to that standard.

Normally, one would imagine they would love to be able to bludgeon someone they don't want to hear with such a promise, but then why this intense aversion by critics to supporters promising to be more receptive and thoughtful?

I know the answer, but I'm curious if you have an idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #127)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:03 AM

137. Can you quote a specific instance where there has been...

"intense aversion by critics to supporters promising to be more receptive and thoughtful?"

As you use the word "normally" am am lead to believe that you think that this condition of "aversion" is in the majority opinion amongst "critics to supporters" in that for a belief to be "normal" it must, by definition, be held by somewhere between a vast minority and a majority of people holding that particular "aversion". Or do you mean to infer a non-literal meaning of the word "normally" so as to further your opinion using restrictive language or else for some other heretofore unknown reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 08:40 PM

121. Grammar police here - "...affect change" not "...effect change"

Sorry I couldn't help myself. I guess I do also agree with the post suggesting that pledges are "reptilian". But yeah - the idea is right on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jimlup (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 09:32 PM

122. Actually, no.

"Effect," when used as a verb, means to create, start, or cause something.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect

The usage in the OP is entirely proper.

Also this:
http://xkcd.com/326/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ChadwickHenryWard (Reply #122)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:06 PM

123. I didnt even know effect could be a verb.

Effect and affect are often confused
because of their similar spelling and pronunciation.
The verb affect usually has to do with pretense
<she affected a cheery disposition despite feeling down>.
The more common affect denotes having an effect or influence
<the weather affected everyone's mood>.
The verb effect goes beyond mere influence;
it refers to actual achievement of a final result
<the new administration hopes to effect a peace settlement>.

Thanks!

I pledge to try to remember that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A-Schwarzenegger (Reply #123)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:39 AM

134. It can. I have an article on my grammar & usage site

about the difference between "effect" and "affect":
"Learn the Difference Between AFFECT and EFFECT"
http://grammartips.homestead.com/affect.html

To save you the trouble of going to my site, I will post the whole short article here. The second to last paragraph explains the situations when "effect" is a verb and "affect" is a noun. Those occasions are relatively unusual in modern American usage, so most people should probably just use "effect" as a noun and "affect" as a verb. Only people who are very confident about the words should use them in those less common ways.

Confusion between the words "affect" and "effect" is so common that I almost never see either of the words used correctly. Since I read anything that doesn't move fast enough to get away from me, and since I read hundreds of essays by college students each semester, I have reason to believe that this error is not just a misspelling, but an actual misapprehension of the two words and how they are used.

Generally speaking, "affect" is a verb and "effect" is a noun. When you affect something, you produce an effect on it. Even in the passive voice, something would be affected, not effected.

There are certain situations where "effect" is used as a verb and situations where "affect" is used as a noun, but very few people ever have a need to use them thus, so unless you are already confident of your ability to use these words correctly, just treat as general the rule that "effect" is a noun and "affect" a verb.

If you feel the need to get fancy, however, here are the meanings of "effect" as a verb and "affect" as a noun. As a verb, "effect" means to execute, produce, or accomplish something; as a noun, "affect" is used primarily by psychologists to refer to feelings and desires as factors in thought or conduct.

If you find that you have sometimes made the mistake of switching these two troublesome words, you probably should proofread specifically for them until you have formed the habit of using them correctly without having to think about it.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue37 (Reply #134)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:09 AM

141. Hey, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A-Schwarzenegger (Reply #141)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 03:29 AM

142. You're welcome. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 10:49 PM

124. Gimmie the gist...

 

I am attention limited

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:28 PM

130. Well this paragraph is very well said and I'd like to

repeat it.

"Many DUers are currently and actively fighting to wrest the nation out of the hands of corporate avarice and public corruption. The installment of another Republican will set that fight back another decade or more and increase our struggle as a nation. They see abject criticism of Obama as a failure to recognize that although he is not the savior we are all desperate for, he is the best possible option for us at this point in time. They have the attitude that those who refuse to help keep up the fight and keep him in office are only getting in the way and making the fight to restore the US to The People more difficult. "

I would like to add that no one would be the savior that we are looking for because that would mean we would be looking for a king and we do not have that type of society. Our society is influenced by all sorts of people, not just our President.

And a criticism stated like, "I believe the President should have proceeded differently in this situation" and then continuing on to explain yourself is much different than to make a blanket statement like, "He is a miserable failure", (which was made yesterday on this forum). The first one is legitimate. The second one is rethuglomatic and doesn't deserve the space on Democratic Underground in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 20, 2011, 11:39 PM

131. I think democratic party has decided that the a-hole "independent" who voted for McCain

 

is less likely to complain about the corporate take over of Washington and the corporate objectives of the new dem party. So the "independent" aka republican voter has become Obama's vital core constituency. Obama and Romney are trying to out republican each other.

That's why conservadems here are telling the liberals to shut the fuck up when Obama de-criminalizes torture or stuffs the exec office and cabinet with CEO and MBA douchebags.

Republicans move more and more to right, democrats move more and more right to meet them in the "center". They see the "independent" as easy money. So, Obama is trying very hard to please right wingers.

Fuck that shit. Liberals need to form their own party and run ballots or democrats need to start representing us.

If you don't give a damn whether Obama gives our taxes to CEOs as bonus money for outsourcing jobs to Asia, or uses drones to continue to slaughter civilians - then you are perfect for new corporate model dem party. War spending is high, civil liberties are low - a centrist conservadem is solidly behind this shit. For these right wingers, there's Obama.

For the other million or so, we have taxation without representation. This disparity of representation is growing and cannot stand forever.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scentopine (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:23 AM

149. A big +1

 

You summed it up perfectly.

I would argue that Obama and the Dems have it completely wrong. Obama didn't win the Independent vote by pretending to be a conservative. They wanted the "change" he promised. I know this because I talked to them when I was canvassing for Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:00 AM

132. Let me put it more succinctly

 

You tried to put a lot of verbiage into something that should remain fundamentally simple.

If you don't vote for Obama, then you give half a vote for the GOP.

If you don't vote for Obama, you are a moron.

If you don't vote for Obama, you half agree with Bush, Reagan, corporate terrorists, the 1%'ers, etc.

If you don't vote for Obama, you half agree that we should be diverting the vast majority of our productive wealth to the republican elite rich bastards while we suffer.

If you don't vote for Obama, GET THE HELL OUT OF DU!!!

Plain enough for you??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #132)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:44 AM

152. You left something out.

 

If you feel the need to criticize Obama, GET THE HELL OUT OF DU!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:35 AM

133. Maybe I just want my pony but...

Last edited Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact is that people have a right to be angry at all politicians right now, to be critical of them all. Not critical as in overly sensitive without evidence. The evidence of the ineptitude of BOTH Republicans and Democrats is widespread. Look at ANY attempt made to alleviate the suffering of the working and middle class of this nation and you'll see what obstructionist, politicking, special interest backing people they are. All of them. Not some. All. Too often we expect our politicians to be activists for our causes. They are NOT. They are paid representatives of positions. Whoever pays them is who gets lip-service.

Being critical of the president for his actions or inaction is the natural precipitate of the disappointment of people who thought he was in fact their activist for their ideas. So is it of being critical of any politician. He is labeled as pro-corporate for backing the bailouts of the big banks but balking on providing true relief to the masses. He is labeled as anti-LGBT for his choice of Rev. Wright and for his publicly stated belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. Just to name a few.

But to be fair, the list is pretty damn long for John Boehner too, or Harry Reid, or Mitt Romney. We are critical of them too, for the same reasons. They are all owned, their political lives funded, primarily by wealthy conservative or corporate special interest groups. To say they are different is an order of magnitude and nothing more.

Some will say, but really President Obama or John Boehner (or whomever) REALLY believes X Y and Z, but they have to say A, B, and C to be taken seriously. This is the last resort of the desperate fool. Hoping that a candidate or current politician actually holds the opposite view regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Polling shows that people will vote for X Y and Z dependably, but it doesn't matter. Money comes from supporting A B and C and in the end, you'll vote for them anyway if they can get you to believe that they're still on your side-- regardless of the fact that they are hurting you.

If you want specific legislation passed find your activists. Politicians only listen to you if you pay them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fearless (Reply #133)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:49 AM

154. Wonderful.

 

That explains the reason OWS is happening better than anything I've read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:43 AM

140. Funny stuff, but I'll decline. (nt) (nr)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 04:54 AM

145. Damn!

 

I just missed Outer Limits. And it was a good one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:07 AM

146. Nice idea but pass.

I take no pledges and will continue to call things as I see 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:35 AM

150. I have a suggestion

How about everybody drop the passive-aggressiveness and the never-ending lists of what Obama has/hasn't done? If you have an argument to make in favor of him, make it the old fashioned way: write an actual argument and support it with facts. Cutting and pasting propagandistic links from campaign organizations is not the same thing at all. The same goes for those who want to make arguments against him.

Oh, I have a request. Could we maybe cut out all the stupid fucking poll results? Seriously, in a two-party system with such an obvious grab bag of nuts on the other side, no poll showing all this amazing support for the president is worth jack shit. Seriously, if I have a problem with Obama, and I've got plenty of them, am I going to consider voting for one of the idiots on the other side? Maybe if I had a complete brain removal and made sure to poke out my eyes so I couldn't see those idiots anymore. If you're seriously going to trumpet a poll showing how x amount of "liberal Democrats" support the president, I hope your poll transcends the two-party system and asks about Obama compared to either an ideal candidate or some real world possibility (however remote). Anything else is simple passive-aggressive appeal to authority (I hate using debate terms, but this is accurate) with no relevance to the topic at hand.

Oh, kill the word strawman. Seriously, I quit reading threads because that word is waaaaaaaaaaaaay overused. It was pretty bad when I started reading this site in 05, but it's gotten all kinds of ridiculous lately. Honestly, I haven't seen someone properly use that word in years. It's slung around like Limbaugh uses liberal and Beck uses progressive. It's meant to be a nuclear response that removes any vestige of credibility from the other person without having to actually do the work of disproving their argument. It's lazy and irresponsible. Thus, I'm asking for a moratorium on that word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #150)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:44 AM

153. I pledge to never use the word "strawman"

in any post except this one. ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #150)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 05:55 AM

155. Well,

 

what is the correct usage of "strawman"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #155)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 06:41 AM

156. My understanding

It's a caricature of an actual argument made by an opponent. It intentionally misses the point so as to make it easier to defeat the opponent. The GOP debates are FULL of them, especially when the others talk about Ron Paul on foreign relations. I've never heard old Ron talk about surrendering or bowing down to anyone, but to hear the others tell it, Ron would sign away the Declaration in order to make foreigners happy. It's a very dishonest form of argument that is all about missing the point in order to avoid addressing difficult realities. Incidentally, please don't read this as a defense of Ron Paul. The most recent debate was only a few days ago and it's fairly fresh in my mind.

The word strawman is bandied about a lot on this site. It isn't used to refute actual strawmen, it's used to shut off debate. Honestly, if someone feels they've argued a given point enough times and don't feel like doing it again, just say that. I don't think we can ever ask for civility in debate without honesty. I don't mean that masters' theses need to be written for each post, I just mean that the writer should be honest in their writing. I'm getting vague here, so I should stop. I'm a big believer in honesty and courtesy. My plea is for people to be courteous and honest when they write, not simply dismissive in order to reduce the opponents' credibility and avoid having to make an actual argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFrohike (Reply #156)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:21 AM

159. I see what you're saying.

 

You're saying they throw that out there when they get frustrated and angry. (I walk away when it turns into a "get the last word in" argument. It's pointless.)

I always took "straw man" to mean that someone mischaracterizes your point of view and then begins debating that point of view. I use it sparingly though and usually about the OP.

I can see how that would be a trite internet flame war weapon that has become annoying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UnrepentantLiberal (Reply #159)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 02:24 PM

180. Actually, you're right

You nailed it. If that's not what I said, consider me wrong and you right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:00 AM

157. Nice try Doc.

But the intent of many of these "progressives" and "free thinkers" is anything but rational discourse about Obama. It was the same in 2004 with Kerry. Had DU been going in 2000 they'd have lit it up against Gore, as well. That's the way it is and that's they way it will be until the DU administrators decide we really are a board devoted to getting more and better Democrats elected. There is no Democrat that I know of - here or in the real world - who believes Obama is perfect or is totally delighted with every facet of his record. Don't have to be. We're pragmatists that know what the options are. The sincere ones who want to waste their vote chasing the illusion of perfection, will. Obama didn't magically fix everything Bush broke in 3 years, so they can't, in good conscience, vote for him. The ones employed to disrupt and discourage, will also continue. Neither will accept the role Congress plays in making or breaking a Presidential vision. Sorry Doc, no sincere attempt to reach mutual respect or common ground or even common sense on this issue will be entertained.

A+ for for the effort and willingness to subject yourself to the insults, ridicules, incivility, and group gangbang by our moral and intellectual superiors.



YOUR NOT THE BOSS OF ME

Yes, no, maybe
I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big

Life is unfair, so I just stare at the stain on the wall where
The TV'd been, but ever since we've moved in it's been empty

Why I, why I'm in this room
There is no point explaining

You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big

Life is a test, and I confess
I like this mess I've made so far
Grade on a curve and you'll observe
I'm right below the horizon

Yes, no, maybe, I don't know
Can you repeat the question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:19 AM

158. I am not an Obama supporter

I support policies that promote social & economic justice, civil liberties, economic opportunity for all (which includes a good education), and environmental sustainability.

I fully understand that in the next election there will be only two viable candidates for president, and that a Republican victory will be a severe setback to the policies I support and will cause real harm to our nation and its people.

Therefore, I will vote for Barack Obama in the general election.

I don't know for certain he has good reasons for all the choices and decisions he has made. I disagree very strongly with some of them, but admit I am not in his shoes and don't have all the information he has.

Other than what I've outlined above that doesn't conform to your pledge, I like it very much.

Your call to civility and honesty is very much in need here at the Democratic Underground.

Overall, Great Post!

Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:35 AM

160. Mission Impossible

 

Looking for civil discourse on the internet is a lost cause. The internet allows anyone to spout out things they would never say in person to a stranger. It was on a forum that I heard a person say my mother was a "dumbass whore, who shit me out when I shoulda been aborted...." Understandably so...as I dared suggest Obama has filp-flopped a few times and has fallen short on some expectations. That being said, I find myself avidly reading forums looking for the most outragous posts. Its kinda a guilty pleasure to read em. Just can't get sucked in, ya know??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:35 AM

161. Damn, I miss the "unrec" feature.

This one cries out for it as much as anything I've seen on DU3.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:08 AM

163. Grover . . .is that you?

Dems don't "do" lemming pledges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 08:49 AM

167. I PLEDGE TO SAY IT LIKE IT IS

AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE WHO WHINE AND CANNOT TAKE IT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 09:37 AM

168. Sorry I missed this one yesterday.

The Festivus Airing of Grievances is here and very well carried out in the true spirit of the day, a virtual Feat of Strength!

Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:48 AM

169. Are you saying the voices in my head are telling me you think I'm a liar?


How about we do our best to avoid charged phrases?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #169)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:05 PM

171. Don't sweat it, hoot. I got the key.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #171)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:52 PM

173. I was wondering how the OP could hear my voices. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hootinholler (Reply #173)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:04 PM

174. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #174)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:13 PM

175. They don't like eavesdroppers

Not at all! You should hear them arguing about it. I hope they don't start shouting. That would be hard on the Dr's ears.

Damn them! It's giving me a headache!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 11:56 AM

170. Only read the first few responses of clusterfuck replies

How telling that those I read so far are knee-jerk reactionary nonsense. A plea for thoughtful discourse and a pledge to not be an asshole is, apparently, asking too much.

Perhaps, good Doctor, you have over-estimated your audience's capacities and/or missed the mark on their actual intentions.

Julie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #170)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 12:15 PM

172. I think he got the reaction he was looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #170)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 01:39 PM

177. Yes, especially coming from

 

such a poster as the op. Perhaps you skipped his constant attacks trying to defend his bullshit 'pledge', the one he breaks by post number 4?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JNelson6563 (Reply #170)

Wed Dec 21, 2011, 07:17 PM

182. That presupposes the OP is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Thu May 10, 2012, 02:50 AM

183. Bumpsky

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:34 PM

185. You're a very silly man.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 12:51 PM

186. Pledges are either for holding or breaking

If you pledge to something, you will either hold that pledge and be trapped by it or you will break that pledge and suffer the consequences.

Better not to pledge, except on furniture, and make judgments on each and every separate case as it arises. It makes for a much more open and thoughtful response to what ever situation and doesn't get one into a bind with values.

I will pass!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)


Response to The Doctor. (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:00 PM

188. I wish I had so much time on my hands

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread