Just can't seem to find a problem with that.

===========

Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

At Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:15 AM you sent an alert on the following post:

Just heard on the radio station that Merle Haggard has passed away...

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Merle Haggard is not dead and the OP posted it and carelessly didn't bother to fix it later on to correct it.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Jan 19, 2012, 11:23 AM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Is being wrong a reason to hide a post? A reply can easily show that the singer is not dead.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sometimes we hear things reported on the news and they turn out to be untrue.

It wasn't disruptive.. the person heard it early this morning is more than likely at work and can't respond.

I checked and he's still not dead.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: I assume the OP isn't aware of his mistake.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Ugh. I hate that this was the given reason, but I cannot verify that Merle Haggard is dead, only in hospital. If the OP won't edit for correction, then the post should be hidden.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: I am voting to hide it but isn't this the responsibility of the forum moderator? Just asking...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't know whether he's dead or alive but being INCORRECT is not the same thing as being "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate." This is abuse of the jury system, IMO.

Thank you.


=================

edited to link to OP that was alerted: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184981

edited 2nd time to add: The OP updated the post late yesterday.

talking about who's winning, who's losing, who campaigns well and who doesn't.

and like usual, not a care about what any of them would do as President, what their policies are and what their words mean in terms of what they would do as president.

Chuck is all about optics.

He has his money, he has his health insurance, he has his job.

And if he can get paid to keep score, why should he have to talk about policies and positions and what particular candidates would likely do as head of the government?

That doesn't matter.

How many marriages Iowa voters think is too many in one's past is what Todd cares about.

Because he has that luxury, as do almost all the mainstream talking heads in DC.

Now the Kennedy's had all that power, money, luxury and more, but for some reason they actually cared and spoke about policies they cared about because it mattered to people besides themselves.

But not most DC punditry, and worse, not to most mainstream DC journalists, who aspire not to educate and inform about the fate of the nation --but actually many aspire to recount the score among candidates many of their viewers know precious little about, in large part, because those same people aren't telling them.

When he said the US Civil Rights Act of 1964 affects people's ability to discriminate based on race, he's correct, it does.

Unfortunately, there's a widespread misunderstanding, where many people think that if someone wants to not teach people who are of a different race in their business, or not serve a person of a certain religion at their restaurant, that they are allowed to discriminate that way.

That law Ron Paul is talking about and the court's application of it say "no". You may not discriminate on the basis of race and religion, among other things, in your business.

And that still applies even if the business has one of those signs, perhaps you've seen them: