You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #91: With respect. I find these rule proposals offensive and alarming. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
Code_Name_D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-29-03 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
91. With respect. I find these rule proposals offensive and alarming.

The admin is not above making mistakes. But they have shown to have the power to learn from those mistakes in an objective manner.

However, this can not be said of the DU community at large. Especially when it comes to issues of maintaining the integrity of the debating environment. And even more so when the DU community dose not have sufficient time to weigh the arguments revolving around the issues.

I applaud the mods final action to bring the General discussion room back into sanity. I myself have been one of the voices demanding action. However. The rules changes proposed her will not address the issues at hand, and risk the General Discussion board into a "Clark only" board.

I am out right alarmed by the probation. For these issues are in fact at the vary heart of the manner of the integrity of the United States of America. Such prohibitions of topics IS censorship of the worst order for they directly attack the point of many arguments. They also seek to force an ignorance of current political realties.

I wish the mods to heavily consider the issues currently being debated in the GDB. Currently, Wesley Clark's past is beginning to show numerous connections and dealing with the Republican party. He has been invited to, and has accepted, opportunities to address an official Republican forums. He has raised money for Republican candidates, and has spoke in praise of seated Republican officials. It is the conclusion of many that this demonstrates a pattern of allegiance to the Republican party. A logical conclusion, and a natural summery of these points, is to charge Wesley Clark of being a republican.

But rule number 3;
Discussion topics about whether a Democratic candidate is actually a member of the Democratic Party are forbidden. Discussion topics which argue that a Democratic candidate is actually a stealth Republican or a secret friend of George W. Bush are forbidden."

Specifically forbids the expression of this vary conclusion. Even though the supporters of the Clark Campaign do not dispute these things have taken place. But their implications are clear, shall the mods thus forbid expressions of knowledge or evidence of such actions? If not, will this not create a silk screen, through which critic's of Clark must dance behind? Where we can see the slowest of facts, but are not permitted to see the facts themselves? We hear swore words bleeped out all the time. But if I say type f---, is this censor truly successful, or becomes its own reducible?

If these arguments are the thrusts and conclusion of Clark's critics, than shall not probation #3 be interpreted as an informal endorsement of the Clark campaign? Is this the intentions of the moderators, to security indorse, through action, a specific candidate? Clark's critics ARE places at a real and present disadvantage by this probation. So to would the critics of Joe Leabermen, as well as the critics of the Texas state senator who broke ranks with his party, and has essentially handed five seats to the Republican party.

If this is left up to the members of the DU. I fear that the Clark supporters are numerous enough to call for, and enforce this probation. They no doubt cheer the moderators move to silence Clark's critics. They will no doubt celebrate the silencing of my voice, as I have made this vary argument, and work to support it. I am not the only one. Mike Maloy has made this vary same claim as well, shall the DU dismiss his stated opinion as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -Proposed rules to start threads in the General Discussion forum. (#3) Skinner  Sep-29-03 06:04 PM   #0 
  - Restating my earlier question...what will be the policies regarding polls?  goobergunch   Sep-29-03 06:06 PM   #1 
  - Don't know.  Skinner   Sep-29-03 06:13 PM   #6 
     - Thanks  goobergunch   Sep-29-03 06:15 PM   #8 
  - Thank you, thank you, thank you  mcar   Sep-29-03 06:07 PM   #2 
  - these rules are startin to suck up valuble above-the-fold real estate ;-)  bpilgrim   Sep-29-03 06:08 PM   #3 
  - I support the rules  jiacinto   Sep-29-03 06:09 PM   #4 
  - DU's Patriot Act?  stickdog   Sep-29-03 06:12 PM   #5 
  - #3 is a bad idea  imhotep   Sep-29-03 06:16 PM   # 
  - Ah, yes. The obligatory Patriot Act comparison.  Skinner   Sep-29-03 06:16 PM   #9 
  - Nitpicky question regarding Zell Miller  goobergunch   Sep-29-03 06:20 PM   #14 
  - Fair enough. I just think it's going a bit too far.  stickdog   Sep-29-03 06:32 PM   #24 
  - Skinner then why not  Spentastic   Sep-30-03 04:26 AM   #162 
  - I think #3 also deals with Lieberman  jiacinto   Sep-29-03 06:17 PM   #11 
  - speaking of unfair maligning  Iverson   Sep-29-03 06:20 PM   #15 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Sep-29-03 07:01 PM   #39 
  - I changed my mind. n/t  newyawker99   Sep-29-03 06:18 PM   #12 
  - I think of it as DU's Fluffy Bunny Act  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 08:38 PM   #66 
  - Yes, hands off Clark.  Why   Sep-30-03 09:08 AM   #188 
  - Thank you..................  DumpGump   Sep-29-03 06:14 PM   #7 
  - I totally understand, DumpGump  DulceDecorum   Sep-29-03 06:24 PM   #18 
  - Thanks! I've read it! And am looking forward to voting on them...  zidzi   Sep-29-03 06:16 PM   #10 
  - Re: the vote--are you looking for a mandate? (repost from last thread)  catpower2000   Sep-29-03 06:19 PM   #13 
  - We're just looking for a majority.  Skinner   Sep-29-03 06:24 PM   #19 
     - Just curious  zeemike   Sep-29-03 06:33 PM   #25 
        - The software only allows one vote per username.  Skinner   Sep-29-03 06:40 PM   #31 
           - That is good  zeemike   Sep-29-03 06:53 PM   #36 
  - Just want to reiterate my no vote  quinnox   Sep-29-03 06:21 PM   #16 
  - Bribes like this  stickdog   Sep-29-03 06:37 PM   #28 
  - Just want to reiterate my yes vote  Booberdawg   Sep-29-03 06:49 PM   #33 
  - Another Question  imhotep   Sep-29-03 06:23 PM   #17 
  - We vote because we are democratic  DulceDecorum   Sep-29-03 06:26 PM   #21 
  - the question  imhotep   Sep-29-03 06:31 PM   #22 
  - Good question.  Skinner   Sep-29-03 06:38 PM   #29 
     - thanks  imhotep   Sep-29-03 08:03 PM   #53 
     - Yes, it will be ugly but...  Romberry   Sep-29-03 08:36 PM   #63 
  - Repost: Vote to keep the GD we all love, vote NO on the new rules!  Devils Advocate NZ   Sep-29-03 06:24 PM   #20 
  - on your first response, (re: let the threads die)  starscape   Sep-29-03 06:35 PM   #26 
  - I have never seen a thread with only "kicks" in it.  Devils Advocate NZ   Sep-29-03 06:49 PM   #34 
     - well, it happened.  starscape   Sep-29-03 06:55 PM   #37 
        - I understand - being from NZ I miss some of the afternoon stuff  Devils Advocate NZ   Sep-29-03 07:12 PM   #44 
  - You are indeed aptly named....  Ardee   Sep-29-03 07:10 PM   #42 
     - Thank you.  Devils Advocate NZ   Sep-29-03 07:30 PM   #46 
  - Why I cannot vote for these rules....  kentuck   Sep-29-03 06:32 PM   #23 
  - but...  starscape   Sep-29-03 06:38 PM   #30 
  - I generally am reluctant to support additional rules. However:  TennesseeWalker   Sep-29-03 06:37 PM   #27 
  - I have been thinking that the transition to the new rules  newyawker99   Sep-29-03 06:48 PM   #32 
  - Interesting...  rasputin1952   Sep-29-03 06:51 PM   #35 
  - I guess I don't mind profanity  eleny   Sep-29-03 06:59 PM   #38 
  - I'm Voting "NO" to Censorship on DU  welshTerrier2   Sep-29-03 07:02 PM   #40 
  - Tough call. But when in doubt, I say  Brucey   Sep-29-03 07:04 PM   #41 
  - I support the proposed rules  quaker bill   Sep-29-03 07:11 PM   #43 
  - a question Skinner  IkeWarnedUs   Sep-29-03 07:18 PM   #45 
  - thread # 3 and post #3 urging everybody to vote against these rules  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 07:31 PM   #47 
  - Huh?  goobergunch   Sep-29-03 07:35 PM   #48 
     - My third post saying "vote no"  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 07:36 PM   #49 
        - Ah  goobergunch   Sep-30-03 06:22 AM   #173 
  - Something must be done, but this draft is too heavy on censorship.  RichM   Sep-29-03 07:48 PM   #50 
  - this really is the problem with the rules  welshTerrier2   Sep-29-03 08:01 PM   #52 
  - I agree.  Suspicious   Sep-29-03 08:58 PM   #76 
  - dupe  roughsatori   Sep-29-03 10:42 PM   #118 
  - 3,4,5 seem like a "protection program" for Clark and his supporters  roughsatori   Sep-29-03 10:43 PM   #119 
  - Well, I dunno. I think I'm with Walt here.  DrBB   Sep-29-03 07:55 PM   #51 
  - I intend to vote "NO".  Spider Jerusalem   Sep-29-03 08:03 PM   #54 
  - Politics is war....? and war is hell ?  kentuck   Sep-29-03 08:07 PM   #55 
  - If this doesn't get voted down, I'm outta here  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 08:25 PM   #60 
     - I like the fluffy bunny  Stevie D   Sep-29-03 09:07 PM   #82 
        - Probably not many  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 09:21 PM   #90 
           - I've got a feeling  Stevie D   Sep-29-03 09:32 PM   #97 
           - I predict 72% in favor of the Fluffy Bunny Act  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 09:40 PM   #100 
              - latest poll results  Ardee   Sep-30-03 06:10 AM   #170 
              - Since my post was a *prediction* and not *poll results*  Walt Starr   Sep-30-03 07:55 AM   #179 
              - the problem is we need warriors..not fluffy bunnies  bearfartinthewoods   Sep-30-03 07:13 AM   #177 
           - Why would it "win in a landslide"...?  JDWalley   Sep-29-03 09:59 PM   #105 
  - Excellent and reasonable if you ask me.  Romberry   Sep-29-03 08:12 PM   #56 
  - Well, at least people wouldn't be allowed to accuse Kerry of being BFEE  curse10   Sep-29-03 08:15 PM   #57 
  - with all due respect  Ardee   Sep-30-03 06:14 AM   #171 
  - not crazy about it  GreenArrow   Sep-29-03 08:18 PM   #58 
  - Thank God! Maybe I will venture back into GDF after these are enacted  jchild   Sep-29-03 08:23 PM   #59 
  - I support these fair rules 100%...  Dr Fate   Sep-29-03 08:27 PM   #61 
  - Where can I vote on these piece of trash "rules"?  Enraged American   Sep-29-03 08:28 PM   #62 
  - Only the government can restrict your speech...  Dr Fate   Sep-29-03 08:37 PM   #64 
  - I think you should read the original post again  Booberdawg   Sep-29-03 08:53 PM   #73 
  - I will vote "no" despite my agreement with most of these rules....  mike_c   Sep-29-03 08:37 PM   #65 
  - I intend to vote 'yes'  inthecorneroverhere   Sep-29-03 08:39 PM   #67 
  - Vote no!  philosophie_en_rose   Sep-29-03 08:39 PM   #68 
  - The candidates themselves  gate of the sun   Sep-29-03 08:42 PM   #69 
  - Isn't "inflammatory rhetoric" in the eye of the beholder?  LalahLand   Sep-29-03 08:43 PM   #70 
  - Thanks, but no thanks  SWPAdem   Sep-29-03 08:44 PM   #71 
  - Hard to remember?  Dr Fate   Sep-29-03 08:48 PM   #72 
     - Gee,  SWPAdem   Sep-29-03 09:02 PM   #78 
     - The rules are more specific than that.  philosophie_en_rose   Sep-29-03 09:05 PM   #80 
  - Hypotheticals: LaRouche, Trafficant, Jeffords, etc.  rsammel   Sep-29-03 08:55 PM   #74 
  - That's a heck of alot to remember. IMHO, it might be best to either phase  w4rma   Sep-29-03 08:58 PM   #75 
  - Question on....  DemVet   Sep-29-03 09:00 PM   #77 
  - Skinner - Follow up to Same Question Different Angle  Tinoire   Sep-30-03 01:56 AM   #139 
  - I'm also concerned with..  DemVet   Sep-29-03 09:04 PM   #79 
  - Here on DU just as in the rest of the country,  Liberal_Guerilla   Sep-29-03 09:07 PM   #81 
  - I agree with you, the DU Fluffy Bunny Act of 2003 will win in a landslide  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 09:10 PM   #83 
     - Yeah me to.  Liberal_Guerilla   Sep-29-03 09:16 PM   #86 
        - I only ever pay attention to LBN and GD  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 09:19 PM   #88 
           - lol..Fluffy Bunny GD  Liberal_Guerilla   Sep-29-03 09:26 PM   #93 
  - Rule #5 for GD seems  jfxgillis   Sep-29-03 09:12 PM   #84 
  - Sounds good to me, although I would add one thing  KaraokeKarlton   Sep-29-03 09:14 PM   #85 
  - Why not start a "candidate review" forum?  hobbes159   Sep-29-03 09:18 PM   #87 
  - I'm ambivalent.  LWolf   Sep-29-03 09:20 PM   #89 
  - With respect. I find these rule proposals offensive and alarming.  Code_Name_D   Sep-29-03 09:22 PM   #91 
  - Sad, but true  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 09:26 PM   #94 
  - Very well stated. The rules annoint & protect Clark, & forbid criticicism.  RichM   Sep-29-03 09:58 PM   #104 
  - You have my yes vote  Clark Can WIN   Sep-29-03 09:24 PM   #92 
  - Just for edification- since I brought this up in a previous post  Tinoire   Sep-30-03 02:04 AM   #141 
  - What some of you aren't considering  Cappurr   Sep-29-03 09:29 PM   #95 
  - Sorry Capurr, I disagree vehemently  Walt Starr   Sep-29-03 09:30 PM   #96 
  - Well Walt......  Cappurr   Sep-29-03 09:56 PM   #103 
     - It works well, for he who controled the toll booth. N/T  Code_Name_D   Sep-29-03 10:26 PM   #114 
     - GD and LBN are the only forums I pay attention to  Walt Starr   Sep-30-03 07:50 AM   #178 
  - A mark of sencorship.  Code_Name_D   Sep-29-03 09:42 PM   #101 
  - Well gosh then with NO rules of this sort, the open exchange of ideas  nothingshocksmeanymore   Sep-29-03 10:09 PM   #110 
     - They are TARGGETD restrictions.  Code_Name_D   Sep-29-03 10:43 PM   #120 
     - I really don't think so  nothingshocksmeanymore   Sep-29-03 11:39 PM   #130 
        - These rules are specifically tailored to prohibit the most common criticis  Code_Name_D   Sep-30-03 12:34 AM   #135 
     - As I was googling seaching for DU + Wesley Clark campaign  Tinoire   Sep-29-03 11:44 PM   #131 
  - I/P isn't a good example  Tinoire   Sep-30-03 02:12 AM   #145 
  - Yes  union_maid   Sep-29-03 09:36 PM   #98 
  - I was with you until I got to #3  E_Zapata   Sep-29-03 09:36 PM   #99 
  - Then the name of the forum shoud be changed...  JDWalley   Sep-29-03 09:54 PM   #102 
  - Should DU become a Green board then?  jiacinto   Sep-29-03 10:06 PM   #108 
     - he must know he's free to leave  Terwilliger   Sep-29-03 10:09 PM   #111 
     - this hysteria actually illustrates the need for more rules...maybe?!  noiretblu   Sep-29-03 10:32 PM   #115 
     - Of course!  JDWalley   Sep-30-03 02:08 AM   #143 
     - contrived outrage...  Iverson   Sep-29-03 11:02 PM   #126 
     - Oh, cut the crap, Carlos...  JDWalley   Sep-30-03 02:05 AM   #142 
        - You cut the crap  jiacinto   Sep-30-03 09:09 AM   #189 
  - The way many people here are acting  Carmerian   Sep-29-03 10:02 PM   #106 
  - So where does it stop?  Liberal_Guerilla   Sep-29-03 10:36 PM   #116 
  - my picks:  MisterP   Sep-29-03 10:05 PM   #107 
  - I applaud Skinner's thoughts and actions  Terwilliger   Sep-29-03 10:07 PM   #109 
  - comments on the "candidate" rules  noiretblu   Sep-29-03 10:17 PM   #112 
  - It's not about Clark...  JDWalley   Sep-30-03 02:12 AM   #144 
     - like i said...  noiretblu   Sep-30-03 03:05 AM   #151 
  - re: Section three, number five (maybe this has been covered already)  Wonk   Sep-29-03 10:19 PM   #113 
  - a big phat juicy on the i can believe the hipstyle of NO!  gate of the sun   Sep-29-03 10:36 PM   #117 
  - hey that post belongs to HEDGETRIMMER!  hedgetrimmer   Sep-29-03 11:00 PM   #124 
  - ATTENTION  hedgetrimmer   Sep-29-03 11:03 PM   #127 
  - I will second that and raise it to a NO *, I do this under the pretense  nolabels   Sep-30-03 01:40 AM   #138 
  - Like all rules except #5 - will have some long-ass threads....  janekat   Sep-29-03 10:47 PM   #121 
  - My Vote Will Be Yes  The Magistrate   Sep-29-03 10:53 PM   #122 
  - Overall I will live with the rule changes, but if I may rant:  FubarFly   Sep-29-03 10:57 PM   #123 
  - Question: why do we censor conservatives?  Dob Bole   Sep-29-03 11:00 PM   #125 
  - My rules for a good post.  hexola   Sep-29-03 11:18 PM   #128 
  - Bravo! Looks good, save this one:  leanings   Sep-29-03 11:31 PM   #129 
  - I think GD has been used...  Hell Hath No Fury   Sep-29-03 11:45 PM   #132 
  - I agree with that  Carmerian   Sep-30-03 12:33 AM   #134 
     - I third that  smallprint   Sep-30-03 12:40 AM   #136 
  - I'll vote NO!  Oracle   Sep-30-03 12:11 AM   #133 
  - I vote NO - No on the Recall and No on these new rules  Tinoire   Sep-30-03 12:58 AM   #137 
  - No No NO  whirlygigspin   Sep-30-03 01:59 AM   #140 
  - That's just the problem...  JDWalley   Sep-30-03 02:15 AM   #146 
  - If these rules pass here- the DLC will be one step closer  Tinoire   Sep-30-03 02:30 AM   #148 
  - I'm not 100% sure why, but I find your post utterly persuasive.  stickdog   Sep-30-03 02:25 AM   #147 
     - Maybe they should just censor disscussions about the ...........  nolabels   Sep-30-03 03:00 AM   #149 
        - there is absolutely no censorship...  Dookus   Sep-30-03 03:05 AM   #152 
           - apparently, you haven't read all the rules  noiretblu   Sep-30-03 03:11 AM   #153 
              - yes...  Dookus   Sep-30-03 03:13 AM   #154 
  - YES! Rules of behavior,discussion - not censorship.  DemEx_pat   Sep-30-03 03:03 AM   #150 
  - rules of behavior are not about content  noiretblu   Sep-30-03 03:16 AM   #155 
  - Actually this thread proves that NOTHING can stop an antagonist  nothingshocksmeanymore   Sep-30-03 03:27 AM   #156 
  - and...he failed to mention which candidate he supports  noiretblu   Sep-30-03 03:32 AM   #157 
  - I have a huge problem with group 2,#1 and a lesser one with group 2, #5  PurityOfEssence   Sep-30-03 03:56 AM   #158 
  - "No".  Mike Niendorff   Sep-30-03 04:09 AM   #159 
  - I'm ready to vote a resounding NO on these rules  Cronus   Sep-30-03 04:16 AM   #160 
  - No way - Really no way  Spentastic   Sep-30-03 04:24 AM   #161 
  - gee whiz  Iverson   Sep-30-03 05:36 AM   #165 
  - brilliant.  Jen72   Sep-30-03 04:39 AM   #163 
  - Why is it that when any new rules are discussed that  newyawker99   Sep-30-03 05:49 AM   #166 
     - What amuses me is that most of the people who complain about these  Devils Advocate NZ   Sep-30-03 08:01 AM   #180 
     - Easier Said Than Done. --- Your Reasoning Is SO CORRECT...  arwalden   Sep-30-03 08:32 AM   #182 
     - They may have no validity but they have a purpose  Tinoire   Sep-30-03 09:24 AM   #191 
  - I think 90% or more could be solved with two new rules  Mairead   Sep-30-03 05:21 AM   #164 
  - All Seems Fine With Part One EXCEPT...  arwalden   Sep-30-03 05:52 AM   #167 
  - Absolutely, Yes.  MarkTwain   Sep-30-03 06:04 AM   #168 
  - i really don't understand why we must vote on both  bearfartinthewoods   Sep-30-03 06:10 AM   #169 
  - You Know What's Funny?  arwalden   Sep-30-03 06:18 AM   #172 
  - a hesitant No vote here  Lexingtonian   Sep-30-03 06:34 AM   #174 
  - forbidding discussion of "third parties and such"  Iverson   Sep-30-03 07:02 AM   #176 
     - and other progressives who will work with us to achieve mutual goals  Cheswick   Sep-30-03 09:06 AM   #186 
  - re: stealth republicans/friends of GWB:  emad aisat sana   Sep-30-03 06:54 AM   #175 
  - Great! The rules seem fairly doable to me.  MUAD_DIB   Sep-30-03 08:04 AM   #181 
  - I love it!  Gman   Sep-30-03 08:32 AM   #183 
  - I'm glad we get to vote on it  latebloomer   Sep-30-03 08:41 AM   #184 
  - After reading the rules  CheshireCat   Sep-30-03 08:53 AM   #185 
  - Rename GD as "Right-wing Democrat circle-jerk" if you pass these rules.  JVS   Sep-30-03 09:08 AM   #187 
  - I'm locking this thread  Skinner   Sep-30-03 09:09 AM   #190 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC