So, someone from DU contacted my boss at truthout

[WilliamPitt]

Here are a couple of portions of the email he was sent:

---

Marc, I am unable to continue supporting Truthout at the level I am. I am giving more money to you guys than I am to Dean, and since I am not a person of great resources, I cannot continue to do that.

(snip)

If Pitt continues this vendetta against my candidate, Dean, I will discontinue support for Truthout totally.

---

This is a search string for my name in google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22william+rivers+pitt%22

Take some time and go through that, and see if you can find one instance anywhere in my published work where I said one bad thing about Howard Dean.

The one place you will find mention of Howard Dean in my published work is the long, luxuriant backrub of an interview I gave Dean back in May. This interview ran on the front page of his website for days on end, and is at least a small reason why his internet outreach was as successful as it was last spring and early summer.

The only place I have spoken negatively about Howard Dean is right here, in this forum. Not on the street, not in truthout, and certainly not in front of the thousands and thousands of people I have spoken to across the country over the last few months. I was always, in fact, quite filled with praise for the man. Many DUers have seen me speak, and if any of them can bear witness to my speaking a bad word about Dean on the stump, I will publicly eat my words.

So, my "vendetta" has been pretty limited, wouldn't you say? It's pretty hard to run a "vendetta" using only one forum on a web board.

No, some Dean supporter from this forum reached out and attacked me in my place of work, a place where no harm has ever or would ever come to Mr. Dean from my hand. We were, in fact preparing to organize another interview with him, a follow-up to the previous love-fest that would surely have been at least as friendly. I'm sure I'll still do it, but I sure won't post it here.

truthout is a non-profit organization that survives on donations. This person knew exactly, precisely where to hit my boss. She used the word "vendetta" and then said "I ain't paying." It was perfect.

I have not yet spoken to my boss about this, but since he forwarded the email to me with the note "We have to talk tomorrow," I can guess the content. I'm going to have to defend my ability and right to argue my views on an internet forum that I have been participating on for more than two years. I'm going to have to do that because someone could not leave it here, but had to go after me at my place of business.

I've decided not to bother. In a way, this is surely just another lame variation of the standard "I'm leaving DU" threads that pop up from time to time. I posted one or two of my own way back in the day. But this one is pretty much solid.

I suppose I could just stay out of this forum, but that would not solve the larger issue. Now, I have to wonder if anything I post here might get used against me with my employers by someone here who doesn't like what I have to say, or can't defend against what I am saying.

Anyone who thinks, "You should have known" should know that I have posted here, at length, every day, for almost a thousand days straight; I've been a bestselling author for over a year; I've been writing for truthout for over two years, and this is the first time a fellow DUer has used my statements here to attack me with my employer.

The idea that one can wage a "vendetta" against a national candidate from within a web forum within a web forum is pretty out to lunch, as far as I am concerned. That one is so absurd it really doesn't need to be elaborated on.

But now I have to worry about that. I hope this particular person is quite proud of her work. "Vendetta"? Attacking someone at their place of work is a vendetta. This is a web forum.

So that's that. I'll be lurking, because I'm not going to abandon the news source this place is. But don't expect to see my name popping up here anymore. I'm totally bummed and angry about it, but that's the way it has to be.

My friends know how to get hold of me, and so does anyone else who wants to. I offer you two toasts:

May the road rise to meet you, may the wind be at your back, and may the devil chase you every day of your life, and never catch you.

And my favorite:

Confusion to the enemy.

See ya.

---

I have edited this post to remove some pointed and unnecessary references to 'Dean supporters.' I don't think 'Dean supporters' are responsible for this. One person is responsible for this. I'm sorry for using the broad brush.

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Are you fucking kidding me??

That is so seriously fucked up...Cheers Will, I can imagine how you're feeling right now. People suck. x(

[OrAnarch]

280. Its not that fucked up...

What is fucked up is using a media position as a journalist (which suggest impartial reporting of the news and facts) to quietly promote one's agenda and preferred candidates, while feigning a neutral stance. And then furthermore, using such an event as this opportunistically to even further push one's agenda.


Im at a loss for words by people's response, which in my opinion, is quite hypocritical. When right wing pundits take advantage of their journalistic position to start pushing their views on the public while acting neutral, we at DU are up in arms. So it is OK for this person to do this, but we will write Fox News and demand Bill O'reilly is removed immediately when he promotes his shitty views and candidates. I read bitching ALL DAY LONG regarding right-wing journalists manipulating people instead of presenting factual evidence in a non-biased manner. All day long, I see threads suggesting that people should contact the networks and give them a piece of their mind. But when the tables are reversed, it is somehow different.


I know little of WilliamPitt. I do know, right off the top of my head, from the very little Ive read, that he supports John Kerry. In truth, to read a journalists work, that is done in the spirit of journalism, you should not neccessarily be able to know, after very little reading, what candidate they personally think is the best and those they dislike. Save such blatent chatter for endorsements, editorials, and opinion pieces. But to use such a position to present "facts" in order to manipulate people's position is as bad, regardless wether I agree with your agenda, as the next person doing it.


Just as WilliamPitt has a right to, as a human (not as a journalist so much IMHO), to express his views and beliefs in the proper forum, everyone else has just as much of a right to complain about such, as you all do here everyday. As citizens of a country where the media is on the verge of controlling our every thought, it is our RESPONSIBILITY to contact networks and outlets when we feel their workers are taking advantage of their positions to "impartially" push agendas and influence politics.


Maybe Im just sick and pissed off whenever I flip by Fox and see pudits strech the barriers of their job, so forgive me in advance for seeing a parallel.


With that said, in this case, I had neither the motivation, concern, or time to write anyone, so steer the witchhunt away from me please. Thanx.

[bearfartinthewoods]

291. you are confusing his JOB with his private life.

you are saying that because he is a journalist, he is not allowed freedonm of speech in his private life.

you are saying that because he is a journalist, he is not allowed
to work for the candidate of his choice in his private life.

YOU CONFUSE THE ON-AIR BEHAVIOR OF THE NUTS AT FOX WITH OF AIR PARTICIPATION IN THE SYSTEM. how in the hell can you make that leap?

you are also saying that you don't agree with the rules of this forum:
"Do not take your disagreements off the message board and into the "real world," and do not do anything to try to harm or harass any member of this message board in the "real world."

IMHO, all that you said above is crap. there is one thing you said that is obviously true: "I know little of WilliamPitt."

[OrAnarch]

292. It is he who has confused his job with his private life

The line between his job and what he does here are very blurred, as he links to his articles and clips, uses excerpts, promotes his media outlet, etc. This is, in a very true way, a branch of free advertising for his outlet and a forum to launch his views as a journalist. It is him I fault for blurring those lines (which become more blurred as he uses this particular forum to post this thread and counter-attack; a post irrelevant to the Campaign 2004 if one ignores the undertones). But I would assume there would of been no other way for him to obtain "celebrity" status here and have his words weighted higher.


Secondly, yes. I do disagree about the rules when it comes to the real world. If Rush Limbaugh and Novak came on here starting arguments and using such a forum to promote their shows and networks, as well as their views, all such hypocrisy would be displayed. Black and White rules do not conform to the gray reality around us.


With that being said, we are both entitled to our views, as much as he is. Fortunately Im not pushing a media outlet, an agenda, and a candidate at the same time as an employee of that outlet. Im sure whether people percieve that as wrong or right will be done regardless of the black and white rules you refer to, as such a scenerio may definately not mesh with such simplistic guidelines.

[never cry wolf]

350. And you are confused about a journalist's role

A reported is supposed to impartially report the news and events, a columnist or essayist is supposed to express his/her opinions and analysis. Will has every right to support any candidate he chooses both here and in public. It just so happens that in his public works he has chosen to be extremely impartial and bi-partisan. For that matter, here on DU despite backing Kerry he has been a great voice of reason and has written wonderful things about ALL the candidates. There are not many partisan backers here that can say the same!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=227780

Yes, the roles are enmeshed but that is as it should be. Will is devoted to ABB and is a marvelous voice. I, for one, would hate to lose it over a petty in fight and a letter by someone who just doesn't "get it."

[Jackhammer Jesus]

2. Say it ain't so, Mr. Pitt!

Very sorry to hear that you've been driven to abstain from posting just because of a differing opinion from some DUer. God forbid you post your damned opinions on an internet forum.

Oh, wait. You weren't complimentary of Dean. That explains everything.

EDIT: If I may add the following: Whoever complained to your employer is pure SCUM. I hope they see fit to reveal their identity so that I may mock them at every possible opportunity.


:D

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I don't know what to say

I am fairly new to DU as I am sure you know. It did not take me long to attain the highest regard for your work, and for the thoughtfulness of all of your posts. It didn't matter to me if it seemed you were supporting a candidate other tnan mine (Clark - for the record). I hope something very surprising and positive somehow comes out of your meeting with your employer. I wish you only the best.

[La_Serpiente]

4. Contacting a user's workplace is a low down dirty shame

I never thought something like that would happen here. All this does is stifle dissent and prevents the dissemination of ideas.

Whoever it was, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[salin]

359. Sadly, this is not the first time

I have heard of such behavior (taking anger from the DU boards to action at someone's work place.) Pretty screwed up, eh?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. How much does that fucking TYRANT send to truthout?

You stay and I'll match it. The acts of some Dean supporters are no less authoritarian than the Bushies running the media if this is the cheap fucking shots they will take at you.

This should be a POX on Howard Dean if he is willing to let his supporters silence his critics by threatening their livelihoods.

Really I don't even care if this is a DU'er I may have liked in the past.

To threaten a person's livelihood over posts they made on a web-site NOT in their articles nor professional editorials is CHICKENSHIT OF THE LOWLIEST KIND!

I could understand a boycott of sorts if it was in your writings on TRUTHOUT's site...but to withhold support from Truthout to silence you here is SO FUCKING low..I really hope the DU'er that did this reads this post and can tell they are now considered the scum of the fucking earth.

[dsc]

8. Let's blame every Dean supporter

for what one Dean supporter did. That seems fair.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. Nowhere did I say that but there is a pattern with quite a few

I did, however, modify my original post to say SOME so that reasonable supporters like yourself are not implicated. Sorry.

[aquart]

63. Let's blame every Dean supporter who supports this

ratfucking. Because that is what it's called. By whom?

By the Nixon campaign aids who coined it to describe their campaign behavior. And we do know what that led to in office, don't we?

[calimary]

123. Shoot - VERY sorry to hear about all this. For MANY reasons.

Hey, we're all supposed to be on the same team, aren't we? This is the kind of crap that republi-CONS would do. And when I said we all ought to stop making nice-nice, I meant - AIMED AT THE ENEMY! Not one of our own!

On behalf of - well - whatever Dean supporters I can speak for, like me, myself, and I, I apologize. This is scummy. It DOES reflect poorly on us Deanies, AND Dean. I REALLY hate that.

We should not be stooping to the "I'm a uniter, not a divider" crap. There's enough of that already from the Schmuck-in-Chief.

I am sorry this happened to you, Will. I hope the person comes forward and at least admits it if not to apologize. I sure hate seeing stuff like this, especially if it escalates. Still like your stuff, Will. I hope Marc doesn't give you much crap about it... I've had that happen, too, where somebody decided to turn my boss against me. And not satisfied with that, she even went up a level. It's shitty. I hope some day you feel comfortable about participating more actively again.

Otherwise, I'll still enjoy reading you, and seeking out your stuff, in Truthout (we get it through the Dem-CA groups), and saying so. You can use this testimonial in your arsenal if you like.

[dsc]

163. and I supported this where?

Please site where I did or I will ask your post be removed.

[GalleryGod]

264. Aides is indeed a NOUN,needs an "e",

:shrug: Glad to be of help!
:pals:

[regnaD kciN]

211. No, actually, let's blame Dean himself...!

That really is more in keeping with the current rhetoric in the GD204P forum, or, as it might more accurately be described, the "Anybody but Dean" forum...or the "Democratic Circular Firing Squad" forum.

P.S.: What happened to Will truly sucks, and I hope the perpetrator can be identified and banned. But blaming Dean or his supporters as a whole for this is about as absurd as claiming that every Jew in the world is responsible for the actions of an extremist settler like Baruch Goldstein.

:eyes:

[HFishbine]

308. How do we even know it was a Dean supporter?

Anybody could have written that.

[bicentennial_baby]

9. You got that right

As always nsma, much more articulate than I, but on the same page.

[AP]

10. I think I'd contribute to that fund too, especially if it kept you talking

at DU.

[sandnsea]

31. I'll match it too

This is the lowest thing I have ever heard. And it's such a blatant lie on top of it. Disgusting.

[alwynsw]

156. I'll second that!

With enough of us, we can make you the moneymaker for truthout.

Count me in.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

157. Great Idea NSMA, I'm In as Well

Don't let the haters get you down, Will!

DTH

[Hillsey]

246. I'm always suspicious when someone says they will match the "price"

It always leads me to believe I'm still dealing with the same mentality.

So many statements in this post it's hard to know which one to comment on.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

251. How so?

How is defending one's right to be themselves and post and speak freely the same mentality as one who would go to great lengths to silence them? I'm a bit perplexed by the mentality that would equate the two. :shrug:

[Hillsey]

268. You went far beyond what I was saying. I don't disagree with the point

of this thread.

You initially said in so many words you would "pay off" the tyrant that did this. What I said was that I wondered is if that was dealing with the same mentality that caused the problem to begin with. I made no comment on the rest of your opinions.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

385. NO I never said that. I said I would contribute to make up what that

person sends since they have used their contribution to an org called TRUTHOUT to silence Will. I find it a bit ironic that someone would pay maney to a place called TRUTHOUT, and then withhold funds if one spoke less than glowingly about their candidate (even if it may be grounded in FACTS)

[hackwriter]

346. Who needs Republicans?

We're so good at eating our own. :eyes:

[hackwriter]

347. Who needs Republicans?

We're so good at eating our own. :eyes:

[AP]

6. But isn't that letting the terrorists win?

Of course the threat was an attempt to silence you at truthout. However, you didn't say the things they wanted to silence at truthout. You said them here. So you're abandoing DU. Terrorists win.

Does that make sense?

[stickdog]

297. Not if you just fire up another alias. (nt)

[clarknyc]

7. Will

I think it's not possible to separate your public persona from the private one. The internet doesn't allow that kind of differentiation. Sorry you find the kitchen so hot.

[mikehiggins]

65. More to the point

its sorry that there are sorry sob's like that on DU who would even consider attacking a man's livelihood because of a political difference. Is that how confident that sorry sob is about his/her candidate that he/she tries to shut up someone who doesn't worship him as the second coming of the Messiah?

Great call for political freedom and free speech.

[clarknyc]

117. I think that you missed my point

William Rivers Pitt is a publicly recognized name. By his own admission, he's "been a best selling author for over a year". He can say whatever he wants, but there are unavoidable consequences to whatever he says, anywhere. He should know that. And I think he does...

[IndianaGreen]

11. What crap!

How do we know this person is legit?

All I know is that you, Will Pitt, have performed a valuable service to the country in the work that you have done to bring the truth out (no pun intended).

Your Kerry interview, which was done under rather trying conditions and with great time constraints, was as good as the ones I have seen in the larger mainstream magazines.

To your immense credit, you were able to separate yourself in the Kerry interview thread from the journalist that conducted the interview.

I personally take a very dim view of people that take the trouble to contact someone's employer because they have a gripe about a person's political views. That's the sort of thing that Freepers usually do, as we saw in the case of the Chuy's waitress that refused to serve liquor to Jenna Bush.

I join you in the strongest condemnation of the person that did this dastardly deed, and I expect other DUers to join me in this condemnation.

I also beg you Will, to reconsider your decision to stop posting your opinions in DU. This would be a loss too great at a time in which we need to hear voices such as yours, more than ever!

IG

[mdmc]

25. This is why the Democrats will lose in 2004

All it takes is one freep to cancel a payment to end the input of one of our better guys. You think Clear Channel would give a fuck if I complained about Rush L (I'm not sure if he is on clear channel, but I hope you get my drift). Pitt, don't leave.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Ok....so where do I donate to Truthout...

and write an email letter saying how much I appreciate Will Pitt. Just pass an email address and I'll get right to it. Was going to donate to Clark before 12/31....but I guess I shall do both and have less to purchase those last few gifts.

It's worth it! I want to support what my candidate says about dissent. That we should be able to dissent without fear of retribution.

It's a shame that those kind of tactics were used. It's downright McCarthyish!

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Actually we should hold those donations

Untill we know how Truthout handle's this issue with Will. I'm not saying pull back previous levels of support, I mean hold off on increasing levels of support untill we know if they are backing Will on this essentially free speech issue.

The Carrot, not the stick.

[quinnox]

13. This is disgusting

I knew Dean supporters go after those in the media for stories that they feel are inaccurate, but to organize against a fellow DU member is extremely low.

I wouldn't stop posting if it was me, and give them the satisfaction of thinking they succeeded.

[dsc]

26. Maybe if Gore supporters had gone after inaccurate

media stories we wouldn't be in this mess. I don't agree with what was done to Will but if a reporter lies to my face about any Democratic candidate his or her boss will and does hear from he and I make no apologies about that at all.

[WilliamPitt]

28. On a web forum?

[dsc]

33. what part of I disagree with what happened to Will

was in any way unclear? That is why I disagree with what happened to you. But to be blunt if a agent of the press lies about any Dem his or her boss will know it. I saw the Gore lies go unchallenge and it won't happen again.

[aquart]

40. Not to mention, when has Pitt lied?

There are a lot of different perfectly truthful ways to see something. A lot of different truthful approaches to take to solving problems. A lot of different views on how to win the coming election.

Are we not allowed to hear different viewpoints now? Doesn't that make us......Republicans?

[LiberalBushFan]

303. when he said something that implied Dean was not the messiah!

However, Dean is the messiah.
Therefore, statement implying Dean != Messiah is a lie.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Well, first, you have to demonstrate that Will lied about anything

Second, if he did it here and NOT in an article at Truthout, it should have NO bearing.

[dsc]

I give up

I obviously just don't speak English. THat has to be it. I write I disagree with what happened to Will and it become I agree with what happened to Will. Quinox was equating the legimtimate and necessary work that people on the Dean campaign did with this shit. But I guess it is I who needs to learn English.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. Sorry my friend. I agree that what Counter punch and others did to Gore

was crap but the inference that Will had stated or published lies could be drawn from your post a few posts up prior to the time that you clarified your response.

Not saying you INTENDED for that inference to be drawn, just saying that is what I was left with until you clarified.

OK?

[dsc]

64. The very first line of the post

was I disagree with what happened to Will Pitt. That seems very clear to me.

[AP]

72. I read your posts and was under impression you're implying Pitt lied about

Dean.

To be clear, you're not accusing Pitt of lying?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

100. You read this:

"I don't agree with what was done to Will but if a reporter lies to my face about any Democratic candidate his or her boss will and does hear from he and I make no apologies about that at all."

That reads very ambiguously. If you don't believe me, read the several other posts in which smart people were under the same impression.

[dsc]

108. In response to this not Will's Post

knew Dean supporters go after those in the media for stories that they feel are inaccurate, but to organize against a fellow DU member is extremely low.

That poster was equating what we do to reporters to what was done to Will. I was pointing out that they were different things. Hence the first line of my post which stated "I don't agree with what was done to Will". That is clear, unambiguous, and not open to interpretation. I then stated I did agree with going to the bosses of people who did lie. Now maybe you treat people doing the same thing differntly but I don't. Thus I must have felt they were doing differnt things. ANd I posted two clear followups before you posted.

[AP]

116. Your post was ambigous.

I read it thinking you were calling Pitt a liar. I didn't quote the subject line and first sentence, and can't remember now what they were, but I thought they were also very ambigous.

[dsc]

134. Here it is

Maybe if Gore supporters had gone after inaccurate media stories we wouldn't be in this mess. I don't agree with what was done to Will but if a reporter lies to my face about any Democratic candidate his or her boss will and does hear from (m)e and I make no apologies about that at all.


The () contains an edit for typo reasons. It had not one whit to do with meaning. Remember the prior post mentioned reporters. The first sentence has nothing to do with Will. The second sentence does. The part having to do with Will states that I don't agree what happened. The but clearly goes back to the other poster's compaint. Otherwise it makes no sense. What other sensible thing could the sentence say? Will is clearly a reporter we all agree on that. I distinguish between Will, who should not have been reported to his boss, and reporters who should. I spell out a difference (the ones who should were lying). Maybe the word but doesn't mean what I think it does. Mabye don't doesn't mean what I think it does. But if they do the only sensible interpretation is that one person Will shouldn't have been taken to his boss and other people (reporters who lie) should.

[regnaD kciN]

227. As someone who is not anti-Dean...

...I would point out that, while what you wrote became clearer as you defended it, it started out sounding rather ambiguous.

Maybe if Gore supporters had gone after inaccurate media stories we wouldn't be in this mess. I don't agree with what was done to Will...

That much is clear.

...but if a reporter lies to my face about any Democratic candidate his or her boss will and does hear from (m)e and I make no apologies about that at all.

It is possible to read the second part of this in two ways. The first one (with my clarifications added) would be:

...but if a reporter (does what Will didn't do, and) lies to my face about any Democratic candidate...

But the second one reads:

...but if a reporter (as opposed to Will, who's a opinion writer) lies to my face about any Democratic candidate (as opposed to what Will did, i.e. lie about Dean on a web forum)...

I think you can see where the misunderstanding might come from. I understood it right away, but was expecting that some were going to call you on it.

[dsc]

238. Will is not an opinion writer

he is a reporter. He clearly calls himself one and wrote two books that were not opinion. If readers didn't know that then I don't think that is my fault.

[Tatiana]

229. I thought the person was calling Pitt a liar too. N/T

[dsc]

239. Then you need to learn to read

I think of all the many faults I have not calling a liar a liar in clear unambigous terms isn't one. I probably have the record for having done so on this forum or come close if I don't.

[mikehiggins]

68. noted eom

[Skwmom]

293. Inaccurate? This is no better than Bush

trying to silence anyone who dares to speak the truth.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RetroLounge]

365. No, but your post is sorta disgusting

Come on! Dean supporters did NOT "organize" against Will. One person did. One petty, a**hole of a person. One idiot, who needs to be taken out behind the woodshed and beaten with a rolled up copy of the constitution. Bur it ws ONE PERSON. So please drop the broad brush and stop using every f*cking opportunity to bash Dean and his supporters. It is truly pathetic and just plain wrong.

and Will, what that one person did sucked ass, and I am truly sorry someone dropped to the Freep level and attacked you through your employer. I hope Truth-out tells this person to f*ck off. It was wrong, and the bullshit attacks here are bad enough, but that just takes it all to an incredibly immature and stupid new level.

Although I disagree with you on Kerry vs. Dean, it's been one of the few areas where I have disagreed with you. So I would like to suggest you do not leave DU, nor stop posting, and don't let the bastard(s) win.

As a Dean Supporter, I repudiate this person's techniques, and officially regard them as NOT ONE OF US (Dem, Dean Supporter, Human Being, take your pick).

and to the person who dropped the dime on Will to his employer:

You suck. _|_

[regularguy]

401. What he said!

.

[sleipnir]

14. Sorry to hear Will...

This sucks...

It's totally inappropiate for a op-ed website to bother someone so much that you write to your employer...

I'm sorry, but that's lower than low. I don't always agree with you, but I'll never take it outside of DU.

What's happened to you is tantamount to a DU'er finding you on the street and trying to beat the crap out of you for a few words you posted, honestly expressing yourself.

Censorship is horrible, especially when you must self-censor yourself due to outside concerns.

Best of luck fighting this! I wish I had the money to tell that DU'er to fuck off and match his/her donations to TruthOut! Do I smell a fundrasing drive???

This reeks of a neo-con bushie-style attempt to silence political debate though capitalist means. If we can support you in any way let us know,

Until then I look forward to reading posts from "Twill Pt" :evilgrin:

[Wonk]

15. Sure you want to post this here? I'd bet your boss has some background

on this based on what you wrote. It doesn't sound like an anonymous e-mail, iow.

p.s. This is the first I've heard of this particular tiff. I have no idea what the real story is or who (other than you) is involved.

[WilliamPitt]

18. It wasn't anonymous. I have the name.

No way in hell I'd post it, of course. But it wasn't anonymous.

[IndianaGreen]

36. You have an obligation and duty to report this to Skinner

According to DU rules:

Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone, threaten the livelihood of anyone, or otherwise harass anyone. Do not send email, snail mail, phone, fax, or other messages to anyone if your intent is to threaten or harass, and do not encourage others to do the same. Do not take your disagreements off the message board and into the "real world," and do not do anything to try to harm or harass any member of this message board in the "real world."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#civility

We cannot allow this sort of behaviour to take place in DU! If it can happen to you, it can certainly happen to me, or to anyone else that posts in DU.

You have an obligation and duty to report this to Skinner! Let Admin enforce the rules and take appropriate action against this individual.

[Fenris]

43. BINGO

Take 'em out, Will. They broke the rules.

[BurtWorm]

45. Good call, IG.

:toast:

It probably feels a little awkward to tattle, but, the rules are the rules. (I wonder how much this person donates here, though...)

[IndianaGreen]

59. It someone can do this to Will Pitt today, someone else can do it to you

tomorrow.

This is the most egregious violation of DU rules that can possibly take place, because it puts everyone that posts in DU in potential jeopardy.

If someone can do this to Will Pitt today, someone else can do it to you tomorrow. What if your boss is a Freeper and he were to find out you are one of those gay-loving, communist chanting, liberals that post in that DemonRat DU?

[BurtWorm]

86. Exactly! The rule should be enforced for just that reason.

I once subscribed to a Usenet group in which arguments several times devolved into just these sorts of attacks. One political science professor's department chair was contacted by a complete fascist "anarcho"-capitalist loon who composed a proof of why the prof was unworthy of being tenured, complete with a digest of snippets from his posts on the group. When confronted in the group, the jerk claimed he was only acting consistently with his "principles;" as a capitalist, he said, he was merely operating on his freedom to exchange information in the marketplace. And this same asshole constantly harped about posters who didn't use their real names, even making a game of hunting them down outside the group and outing them.

Oy, I'm getting sick just thinking about it. :puke:

[aquart]

51. IndianaGreen is right.

This is an egregious violation of the rules. It threatens the jobs of everyone here.

This is about the safety of all of us.

[sistersofmercy]

85. Completely agree

Skinner should absolutely be informed and I think the person should be banned.

[KaraokeKarlton]

112. This person didn't post anything here

They felt Will was doing something wrong and wrote to his boss. Also, if you want to get really technical about the rules, Will is breaking them by posting an e-mail that was forwarded to him by his boss. I'm sure the person sees this and has probably already fired off another angry email to the boss for forwarding their first email to him. So now he's managed to probably get his ass in even a tighter sling than it was already.

Yes, it sucks what happened to Will, but at the same time, he is a public figure who is posting here as himself. There are many who respect him who post here and if he takes part in the nonsense going on here in any way at all he puts himself in a very precarious situation. Bottom line, he should NOT be posting under his real name in heated discussions and ultimately, he should already know this.

[BurtWorm]

121. I disagree.

The principle at issue here is whether the arguments that take place in this forum remain in this forum. This person is using Will's DU life against him in his truthout workplace. That's a clear violation of the rules.

[KaraokeKarlton]

141. Go back and read the rule again

It's not a clear violation of the rule. Here's the thing. Will is a public figure. He knows that. As unfair as this is, he should have seen it coming and done more to avoid it by not posting under his real name. I don't agree with what this person did at all. I'm not saying that I do. What I am saying is that Will is a public figure and a smart person. He did not cover his ass as well as he could have.

[sistersofmercy]

147. Why Are You Defending The Actions Of This Person????????

[KaraokeKarlton]

165. Read much?

n/t

[sistersofmercy]

173. Obviously you are having trouble comprehending the rules

What about "do not do anything to try to harm or harass any member of this message board in the 'real world'" do you fail to understand? Contacting Will's "real world" boss is a form of harassment.

[IndianaGreen]

153. The rules don't make a distinction about "public figures" that post in DU

It applies to all DUers equally!

Read the rule again!

[KaraokeKarlton]

179. Okay, let's first calm down and then break it down...The Rules

Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone, threaten the livelihood of anyone, or otherwise harass anyone.

The person in question did NOT post ANYTHING on this forum. This one doesn't apply.

Do not send email, snail mail, phone, fax, or other messages to anyone if your intent is to threaten or harass, and do not encourage others to do the same.

The person in question did NOT send anything to Will, so this one doesn't apply either.

Do not take your disagreements off the message board and into the "real world," and do not do anything to try to harm or harass any member of this message board in the "real world."

The person in question appears to be a regular and significant contributor to Will's paycheck. As a result, they DO have the right to contact his boss if they see him doing or saying something they don't like, here or otherwise. Was it kinda dirty and low? Yes, it was. Does it qualify as harassment or trying to do harm? Not really because they are supporting the Truthout site and because of that they do have a vested interest in it. Is this person being miserable and rotten? Absolutely. Are they clearly breaking any rules? I don't think so.

Now, Will isn't supposed to post e-mail on here. Also, the impact of him posting it is that the whole damn place wants to lynch this one individual. If this person who sent the e-mail to Will's boss ends up being banned, the admins need to ban Will right along with him/her, because he should take this up with the admins rather than airing it on the forum and getting the whole place riled up.

[IndianaGreen]

186. Don't confuse a misdemeanor with a felony!

Taking this disgreement into the real world is the equivalent of a felony, for it threatens all of us that post here. It is not just Will Pitt that is impacted by this.

Will's airing this in the GD-2004 forum may or may not be the equivalent of a misdemeanor. The fact that the thread has not been locked, tells me that it isn't.

I personally think that Will should have gone to Skinner directly, but if this had happened to me, you ain't since the level of Latina rage that I am capable of.

[KaraokeKarlton]

191. The person donates to Will's pay

which makes them an interested party in what he is saying, be it at Truthout or on a publicly viewable web forum. If they didn't like what he was saying, they did have a right to tell his boss they didn't like it. It's NOT a violation of DU rules. That's not saying it wasn't wrong, mean, hateful and miserable to do, because it was. It just wasn't a violation of the rules. Will's post IS a violation, though because it posts parts of a private email from someone who I'm sure didn't give him permission to post it. On top of that, it wasn't even sent to him. Neither on of them should be banned but neither one of them should be proud of their behavior.

[IndianaGreen]

200. Okay, let's take your logic a step further

Assume that a DUer is in the military or in the defense/intelligence establishment. Our tax dollars pay for the DUer's salary. Does this give any of us the right to approach this DUer's boss and tell him/her that so-and-so is posting anti-Bush and antiwar stuff in DU? Do you think that the fact we pay taxes, our "donation" to the person's pay, makes us an "interested party in what he is saying"?

I think not! This is the kind of logic that people like convicted spy Jonathan Pollard used to rationalize selling America's secrets to a Middle Eastern country.

[KaraokeKarlton]

207. That's where the public figure comes in

and really the only place it does in the argument, and only because he's a journalist. Will is a respected journalist who is well known by people who would be reading this forum. As a result, anything he writes that is attached to his real name is going to be viewed by many people as "gospel" even if it's bullshit. (And yes, I've seen him post a fair share of that lately) If he was an accountant or an actor it wouldn't matter what he wrote. Since his job is to write, it's an issue and it's why it's far different than the example you cited.

Remember, I am NOT saying I agree with what the person did. All I'm saying is that I don't feel they broke the rule being cited. It was a shitty thing to do, undoubtedly, and none of it would have happened if Will didn't post under his real name. :shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

210. The rules make it clear that his status as a public figure does NOT

make him an exception NOR fair game...btw...your post IS a personal attack on him right about here:

As a result, anything he writes that is attached to his real name is going to be viewed by many people as "gospel" even if it's bullshit. (And yes, I've seen him post a fair share of that lately)

[KaraokeKarlton]

216. he's a famous journalist

which does make all of his writings relevent to this argument.

It wasn't an attack...Will has gotten caught up in all the flame baiting here as well, which is most likely what pissed this person off in the first place.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

224. Doesn't matter. They TOOK it from here and used it against him personally

They did not handle it within the rules of this forum...they used something he said or didn't say (since we don't know what they used) to exact a consequence against him in his personal endeavors.

There is no justification for it. You are merely suggesting that Will is BELOW the standard applied to everyone else at DU. HOw about if we call your boss? Is it then fair game?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

204. Pitt's post is NOT a violation of the rules because it wasn't a DU PM

So you are comingling DU rules with your own interpretation of them. If the person wanted to withhold support from Truthout for something he DID at Truthout, that would be fair play. Same if they wanted to withdraw financial support from DU for something he did at DU.

YOu are simply attempting to apportion some of the blame to Will, when in fact, none should be.

[Desertrose]

219. do you seriously believe the

crap you write?

I mean...do you?
..and don't threaten me with a timeout for calling what you write the same damn thing you call what Will writes.

Someone went behind his back and attacked him falsely and you are trying to defendthat person....I'd like to know why...well ,on second thought, not really... not worth my time.

DR

[GalleryGod]

265. Rock-on, Rose!

:yourock: :pals: :donut: :grouphug: :hug:

[sistersofmercy]

188. It is harassment but again you claim it is ALL WILL'S FAULT!

I have no use for superfluous babble, sounds to me that you may very well know who did this and are advocating Will being banned if this other person is banned.

[IndianaGreen]

193. KaraokeKarlton is presenting a counter argument, that is all

We must resist the temptation to "find out" the culprit. That's the sort of thing that lynch mobs do, and it is what happened right after 9/11 when people were assaulted and some murdered in our rage to avenge the WTC.

KaraokeKarlton is presenting a counter argument, that is all.

I am glad I don't know who did this. If it was someone I knew from DU, I might argue for mercy for her, and for a public apology on her part to Will, Truth Out, and DU.

This would not have anything to do with the rules. They still would have to be enforced to protect all of us!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

206. No he's really attempting to apportion blame to Will for another's

actions..as another poster said, it is like blaming one who was raped for being raped. What Will does here and what he does at Truthout are separate entities.

It is a shame he no longer can post here as himself.

[sistersofmercy]

225. I almost used

it's similar claiming a rape victim who had been dressed in provocative clothing brought the rape upon herself.

[sistersofmercy]

222. I believe there is no excuse for the person who did this and

I refuse to believe that Will brought this upon himself by using his real name. Putting it in flowery language is not going to get me to agree. It is harassment and the person who did it should never have done such a thing.
So if someone on the forum reveals personal info that would allow another to harass him or her in the workplace, the person being harassed deserves it because he or she should have known better?
Whoever did this did so with the intent to stop Will from expressing his views here, it was not a legitimate complaint about his conduct in relation to Truthout.

[KaraokeKarlton]

194. kindly be quiet

and stop tossing around silly accusations. You're liable to get a time out if you keep it up.

[sistersofmercy]

202. Excuse me, do you not understand the concept of

harassment? Not sure what your "time out" reference is meant to imply but it is very typical of you to change the subject.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

208. It was a threat

and I knew that some posters would use the new rules to wax schoolmarmish on others when convenient.

Unfortunately, admin didn't have the same foresight when dreaming them up.

[KaraokeKarlton]

212. it wasn't a threat

I was simply reminding her that if she kept attacking me she would be breaking the rules and could end up getting one of the time outs as a result.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

214. That is a threat

Interesting that you can't recognize it as such.

[sistersofmercy]

236. You are right it was a threat

Honestly I thought she was talking about the ignore feature but that fact that she stated a "reminder" for attacking her which I was not I was debating her argument.

[KaraokeKarlton]

242. Actually, you were tossing out all kinds of accusations

which is a personal attack. But hey, if you want to break the rules and end up getting your posts deleted it's no skin off my butt...

knock yourself out. I won't bother remind you of the rules again.

Carry on...

[sistersofmercy]

244. No I was not "tossing out all kinds of accusations"

I was questioning why you are defending someone who violated the rules in a petty, vindictive manner that equates to harassment according to DU rules. You are implying that Will somehow brought this upon himself and I disagree, there is no excuse for what this person did.
If you post an argument I have a right to dispute and question your argument. I did not personally attack you. For the record, I have never had a post deleted.
But see there you go again.

[KaraokeKarlton]

248. Wrong

I was stating that technically, the person who sent the e-mail did NOT break DU rules and I spelled out, line by line, my argument. I did NOT say Will brought it upon himself. I said he simply made it easier for someone to do this by posting under his real name.

And yes, you accused me of blaming will for this and knowing who sent the e-mail to his boss. Neither of which are true.

And in the post I'm responding to you are calling me vindictive, again accusing me of blaming this on Will and claiming that I am making excuses for the person who wrote the e-mail when I have repeatedly said it was a shitty thing to do.

I hate to break it to you, but you ARE making personal attack posts.

[sistersofmercy]

260. I wrote the person who did this to Will is petty and vindictive

I never called you either. In effect by your argument you are implying a certain amount a culpability on Will's part. Furthermore, you have been claiming the person, as a contributor to Truthout, has a right to use something from this forum against him at his workplace in reference to conduct. I disagree with your position and I am trying to understand why you would even attempt to defend such actions.

[TLM]

270. This sure looks like an accusation to me...

"you may very well know who did this"

[sistersofmercy]

275. Don't take my reply out of context

in reference to her reply. I said it sounds to me that she may very well know because of her previous response. Because she was stating that if the person who did this to Will gets banned then so should he for posting an email. I never stated that she did know and did not accuse her of doing it. But I do find it interesting that anyone is defending what the person did on any level. What they did was wrong, no excuses.
I will say this to end the discussion, I used to say if Dean gets the nod, "I'll vote, contribute time and donate" but now I'll just vote and that's it. If this is any indication of typical behavior of his supporters, I don't want to be involved. The truth is I have nothing against Dean at all and have never even come close to bashing him.

[never cry wolf]

366. But your argument is flawed and incorrect

As a matter of fact, what this person did is quite against the rules.

Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone, threaten the livelihood of anyone, or otherwise harass anyone.

The person in question did NOT post ANYTHING on this forum. This one doesn't apply.

We don't know if they posted or not

Do not send email, snail mail, phone, fax, or other messages to anyone if your intent is to threaten or harass, and do not encourage others to do the same.

The person in question did NOT send anything to Will, so this one doesn't apply either.

The rules does not state that the email must be sent to the DUer, it specifically says "anyone", the email was sent as a direct threat to Will's boss.

Do not take your disagreements off the message board and into the "real world," and do not do anything to try to harm or harass any member of this message board in the "real world."

The person in question appears to be a regular and significant contributor to Will's paycheck. As a result, they DO have the right to contact his boss if they see him doing or saying something they don't like, here or otherwise. Was it kinda dirty and low? Yes, it was. Does it qualify as harassment or trying to do harm? Not really because they are supporting the Truthout site and because of that they do have a vested interest in it. Is this person being miserable and rotten? Absolutely. Are they clearly breaking any rules? I don't think so.

I agree that they have a right to with hold a truthout contribution for whatever reason they choose. However, by writing to Will's boss threatening to pull a contribution and specifically stating that the reason is due to his posts here on DU is taking it to the real world BIG time and a direct violation of the rule. The emailer is trying to influence what and how Will posts here by using outside influence. He/she could have with held contributing to truthout without the mail.

[TLM]

220. Is a boycott harassment?

If I cancel a supscription to a magazine because they print Ann Coulter and I don't like something she said... am I harassing her?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

226. No and if they withheld support of Truthout for something he did on

Truthout, it would then be a boycott. They could have withdrawn their support from DU if they objected to something he said on DU. They didn't....they went elsewhere..that is what makes it so vicious.

[sistersofmercy]

228. Not the same thing and you know it

[TLM]

243. How is it different?

If I were a supporter of truthout and somebody they pay went to a public forum I was in and started attacking someone else I support, I do not think it would be harassing them to pull my support from truthout.

We're not talking about some blacklisting or some corporate CEO calling down to their dozens and dozens of media holdings and dictating that nobody is to publish Mr. Pitt. We’re talking about a boycott... and a boycott consisting of one person. This was nothing more than someone writing a complaint and canceling their subscription over something that was said in a public forum. Where’s the harassment?

I’ve seen this exact boycott tactic encouraged when directed at Rush or Fox News or Mike Savage.

[cindyw]

Democrat against Democrat is wrong.

Democrats should not be threatening other dems for a lack of support for their candidate. Let's just be honest. Will does not trash Dean. He has been favorable to Kerry. He has been threatened for that opinion.

Comparing Will Pitt to the likes Of Coulter to someone like Limbaugh is just wrong. People like coulter and Limbaugh deserve boycott's for the whole of their careers. Will has been on the right side (left side) long enough. Support for or against a candidate does not warrant a loss of a job, It is disgusting what this person may have done.

[GalleryGod]

266. Hey,Sis ! Put him on Ignore List

:think:

:nopity: Keep it moving, Frontrunners-for-the-moment, Keep it moving:boring:

[dsc]

233. Like it or not

Her interpretation of the rules, as they are written, seems to be accurate. I will admit to not liking that fact but Kerioke didn't write the rules and thus is not at fault for the fact we don't like what they say. In fairness, like often happens with laws and rules, this probably wasn't thought of when the rules were written. But instead of crucifying this person for telling us what we don't want to hear but is quite likely the truth, we should set about solving the problem.

[bearfartinthewoods]

294. bullshit

'or other messages to anyone if your intent is to threaten or harass,'

a message that threathened Will's livlihood was sent. no room for any crappy spin on this one!

[ProfessorGAC]

341. Highly Twisted Form Of Logic On Display Here

BTW: i'm not one of the Pitt Crew, around here. But, your logic defies explanation.

It may make sense to you, but i'd suggest that it ONLY would make sense to you.

The issue itself, i hardly care about. But, your post is a doozy.
The Professor

[sistersofmercy]

161. No you need to read the rule again

[BurtWorm]

166. I don't think he should have to cover his ass any more than the rest of us

and I support Dean. He came out as a Kerry supporter a long time ago. His interview with Kerry was actually a damn good, hard-hitting, no holds barred interview. His being a Kerry supporter, in other words, has not hampered his ability to deliver the goods as a journalist. But it does get under some poor Dean supporters paper thin skin, and she took an inappropriate action to carry the argument beyond the forum, as someone else put to, to try to hurt Will economically. That's really low.

[KaraokeKarlton]

187. No, he shouldn't have to

But we shouldn't have to do a lot of things that we do to protect ourselves from something happening that we don't want to happen. He made a choice that was risky, and he had to know that. He's not a dumb man by and means. He took that risk and now he's paying for it, regardless of how unfair it is.

[mikehiggins]

127. Hey, I'm not well known

but I post under my own name. Does that mean that if you don't like what I say you have the right to try and hurt me economically?

Interesting take on free speech and political discourse.

Last time I heard an argument like that it was from the White House.

We're not talking about Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh here, folks, we're talking about someone who tries to tell the truth as he sees it and share what he knows with the rest of us.

The inability to distinguish differences has always seemed to me to be the mark of the true zealot, and democracy has never been a zealot's strong suit.

Reminds me of the folks who shoot abortion doctors.

[KaraokeKarlton]

146. You aren't a public figure

but you shouldn't use your real name either. Nowhere did I agree with what this person did. My point is that Will made himself an easy target for something like this, and he's intelligent enough to understand that.

[BurtWorm]

172. Where in the rules is this distinction between public and private

figure that you're talking about? Where does it say public figures merit less protection of their privacy than private ones? And who is the arbiter of who is and who isn't a public person, of when a person achieves enough publicity to have their privacy protection kick out?

[KaraokeKarlton]

184. The public versus private thing has nothing to do with it really

Regarding that, all I'm saying is that being a public figure and using his real name here makes him an easy target and is only asking for trouble.

As for the rules, I spelled out in another post why it's not a clear violation. I think people are reacting somewhat emotionally right now and aren't really thinking about what the rules say or the fact that this person contributes to Will's paycheck. As mean spirited as contacting his boss may have been, the person was within their rights to complain as a contributor to the site.

[IndianaGreen]

203. This sounds like the language used by rapists

being a public figure and using his real name here makes him an easy target and is only asking for trouble.

This sounds like the language used by rapists. How many times have we heard words such as "she was scantily dressed and then went to his hotel room. That made her an easy target. She was only asking for trouble."

Do you even hear what you are saying? Or what you are trying to justify?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

213. He's attempting to make it appear reasonable that a supporter so

obsessed with their candidate has gone on a nut case vendetta against another DU'er...is that not clear?

He is attempting to make the unreasonable appear reasonable.

[KaraokeKarlton]

232. That's entirely out of line and you owe me an apology

For your information, I am a rape survivor myself and I am totally insulted by your post.

All I'm trying to say is that everyone knows that using your real name on the internet in the first place is stupid because there are a lot of bad people out there who would seek to harm you. Will is posting under his real name in a highly volative environment and it's not a wise thing to do. He got burnt and it could have been avoided if he had of taken common sense precautions that we ALL know we should take. Is it his fault he got burnt? Nowhere did I say that. I simply said that by not taking the precautions he could have, it made it all that much easier for someone to target him.

If you want to compare it to rape...it would be like a woman who notices a strange man following her deciding to take the dark abandoned alley shortcut home instead of taking the well lit busy route. There are safety precautions that certain situations call for, and if you choose not to take those precautions you put yourself more at risk than you have to. It doesn't make someone else's actions your fault. It simply means that you made a choice that made it easier for someone to do something to you that you didn't want done.

[bearfartinthewoods]

298. the people that have the balls to use their real names are the ones most

worthy of our support ....period. we need our champions and we sure as hell ought to cover their backs when they need us.

[RetroLounge]

376. Damn right we do!

"we sure as hell ought to cover their backs when they need us"

[Name removed]

307. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tatiana]

237. Score another one for IG.

Never even considered that, but excellent analogy which makes defense of this behavior even more disturbing.

[ibegurpard]

256. That is a really over-the-top,offensive analogy if you ask me.

Will Pitt himself has even clarified that it is unlikely to be getting him in trouble. Yeah, it was a shitty thing to do but comparing explanations for it to justifications for rape?! Come on!

[regnaD kciN]

250. In fact, using one's real name here may be asking for trouble...

Being a public figure may mean that there are more people willing to cause this sort of trouble for you than if you aren't, but it only takes one person who can identify you, hates something you wrote, and knows how that can be used against you in the most damaging way to get you into similar trouble.

For example, while I seriously doubt that my being laid-off this year at my former software company (owned by major local Republican donors) had anything to do with my posts here, I can't absolutely rule it out. It's entirely possible, if highly unlikely, that another employee browsed this board, recognized my name, and pointed it out to a higher-up or another employee (maybe maliciously, maybe just out of a sense of humor at "look at what one of the workers at this Republican-owned company is writing!"), and that this subsequently reached upper management and led to my being let go. And the fact of the matter is that this could happen to anyone here who's real name is readily detectable, and who might have someone with great influence over their life who would be upset at what they posted at DU.

Maybe we should have pseudonyms be required on this site, with nothing that might give away your identity allowed.

[ibegurpard]

252. You have a point

I'm sometimes uncomfortable even with what little information I have made available in my profile.

[KaraokeKarlton]

261. And that's the point I was attempting to make

before getting compared to a rapist.

There is a reason we all see those warnings about not posting your personal information on line or freely telling people who you are. It's because there is always the potential that someone will use that info against you. Will's not an idiot and he knew there was a risk in using his real name to post with. That doesn't make the person who sent the letter right, it only means that there were steps Will could have taken to avoid this. Pointing that out is important because it's a reminder to everyone WHY you don't use your real name on forums, or anywhere for that matter.

[Violet_Crumble]

321. It seems a clear violation to me...

And I'm not reacting emotionally because for one I've got no real interest in any of the candidates in the US, and secondly because I'm not a big fan of Will Pitt's. If the person who sent this email is really a DUer and used what Will posts at DU to have a petty, snivelling whine to his boss at truthout, then it's got to be a clear violation of the rules. It doesn't matter at all if he's a public figure or not. As someone who posts at DU he's entitled to be treated the same way as the rest of us, and following him out of here into the real world and contacting his employer is a spineless bit of work committed by someone who needs to get themselves a life. You can spell out as many times as you like why you THINK what happened didn't violate the rules put in place to protect all members of DU, but that doesn't make it a fact. Not unless yr Skinner going incongnito round these parts ;)

Violet...

[sistersofmercy]

130. So let me get this straight

You think Will doesn't have a right to post under his real name? Why would you think the culprit would already be sending another e-mail? The person who did this to Will is a petty, vindictive lowlife and should be banned for violation of the rules. This is a form of blackmail and stalking.

[KaraokeKarlton]

159. Of course he has a right to post under his own name

That's his choice. However, in making that choice he accepts the fact that at some point he might make enemies who would resort to doing something like this. It comes with the territory of being a public figure and opening your mouth. He chose to take the risk of something like this happening at some point, and now it has.

Blackmailing and stalking? No. The person isn't obligated to donate to Truthout. They have chosen to donate. They do have the right to complain if they aren't happy with something and they do have the right to tell Will's boss that they will stop donating if they don't get their way. Is it a nice thing to do? No, it's not. Would I advocate it or do such a thing? No, I wouldn't.

Anyway you look at this thing it all leads to the fact that none of this would have happened if Will didn't take a foolish risk by posting under his own name against the candidate of someone who contributes to his paycheck. :shrug:

[sistersofmercy]

180. So, it's all Will's fault, how very insightful

It's a form of harassment.

[TLM]

218. That's not what she said...

All she's saying is will didn't put on his seatbelt.

[no name no slogan]

355. If this poster was mad about something Will wrote for TruthOut

...s/he has every right to tell TruthOut that s/he will no longer contribute to them.

HOWEVER, using things that Pitt posts here to endanger his livelihood with another organization is quite Nixonian in its undertones.

The rules clearly state that anything that goes on here STAYS HERE, and should not be used against the poster IRL. Using anything posted here by a user against him/her OUTSIDE of DU is not only against the rules, but is just plain wrong.

Yes, maybe he should not have posted under his real name. But it would not be too hard for any halfway-decent hacker to get everybody's email addresses and/or CC info off the DU servers, either, and then we'd ALL be "found out".

If we allow this to happen without consequences, we are setting a very disturbing precident, one which will have a definate chilling effect on the free speech that happens here.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KaraokeKarlton]

162. Nope, I don't donate to truthout

and I actually like Will.

Are you the one?

:eyes:

[BurtWorm]

177. You didn't have to answer that.

Watch out for the witchhunters. :eyes:

[TLM]

215. Didn't take long for that to happen...

almost as if that was the intent of the whole damn production.

[Tatiana]

190. Good lookin out IG!

As usual.

The bitter, callous, fuck who did this should be banned FOREVER from DU.

[eleny]

378. This is an important rule

I do hope that Skinner reaches out to Will to get this matter resolved. Otherwise, no one at DU who is empoyed is safe from people who attack the livelihood of members.

I am so sorry that this has happened, Will. I haven't always agreed with you but have always learned something from your thoughts. You have my respect.

[Jerseycoa]

Right on

The person should be banned from DU. Sorry as hell this has happened to Will Pitt. Really stinks. Bleh.

[Hoppin_Mad]

48. As a Dean supporter I'm sorry - Don't hold it against us or Dean though

One bad apple . . .

[GalleryGod]

262. NOT BFEE it's the "FUCDA"

FUTURE Used Car Dealers of America consorting to bring down the Will-ster!:argh:

Not so fast...my sly,slimey friends!


This guy should take his donation and buy his candidate a decent,NON Willy Loman shirt.

Thanks for the update,Will!:hangover:


:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[PartyPooper]

17. As a Dean supporter, I am speechless.

I agree 100% with your post. I am both angry and sad. But, I understand your decision.

Peace to you, William Pitt!

O8)

[Ficus]

19. grrr

sorry to see you go. I think that whoever you are, no matter what you support, you are a thoughtful poster.

I am new to DU still, but I am sick of this kind of attitude from certain candidate's supporters around here. I hope you reconsider.

Stand up! Dissent is patriotic. Even within your own party...

[woofless]

20. I am truly sickened by this development Will.

Some here must feel that DU is all there is to the Democratic Party and that their choice of candidate somehow sheilds him/her from criticism. To go to someones boss with a complaint about a persons political beliefs is just plain wrong. I look to you for clear thinking and well thought-out commentary. I will look for your work at TO and wherever else I can find it.

Listen folks, support your candidate but leave other people alone. It is doubtful that you will sway anyone here from their choice of candidate. We all know who we support. Go outside somewhere and convert someone who is really undecided. You are making DU intolerable and that is a shame.

Woof

[LoZoccolo]

21. This is embarassing.

I'm sorry that this happened to you.

[JohnKleeb]

22. I'll miss you man

Keep on fighting the good fight against the bastards on 1600 Pennsylvania advenue. In the end, we will win, I think, I know not what will happen, but if you are leaving I will miss you. Sigh that must really make you feel bad eh man. Oh well, if you are gone, I would be honored and privileged if I met you during my trip if I go to Boston. Good luck.

[IndianaGreen]

23. BTW, if this person is truly a member of DU

it has violated DU rules about stalking and harassment and is subjected to banning from the board. I expect admin to ban this person.

I don't expect this coward to step forward.

I also would not be surprised if the perpetrator is really some jerk from that "other" website based in Fresno.

[arewethereyet]

24. well, it IS his money

and if it makes him feel better to moan about it, you know where the delete key is.

[FuriousMNDem]

WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF

WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF
WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF

[aquart]

27. Even class can attract trash.

The person who needs to answer this is Dean. Does he support "supporters" who want to stifle free speech and honest argument.

I know I don't agree with you sometimes. But to me it's important to know what other people think. It either teaches me something I didn't know, or sharpens my mind when I have to think of a rebuttal.

This sucks.

[TLM]

98. Oh please.... don't try to turn this into an attack on Dean.

This does suck... but it is the misguided action of one jerk. To try and parlay that into political capitol with which to attack Dean is just cheap.

I mean is that a standard you want to apply to all the candidates... that they are somehow responsible for all the actions of any of their supporters?

[RetroLounge]

380. "The person who needs to answer this is Dean"

Bullshit. Try, just for once, to answer a post without adding a slam against Dean. It is cheap, and really f*cking boring after a while.

Dean has NOTHING to answer for here. The person who did it does.

Dean Supporters have NOTHING to answer for here. The person who did it does.

Now repeat it a few times...

[Jerseycoa]

408. I agree it sucks

But a candidate can't be held responsible for everything his or her supporters do.

[JustJoe]

29. I was with ya until this BULLSHIT:

"I hope her fellow Dean supporters are equally proud. Maybe, possibly, I hope they can see that it is this exact kind of over-the-top behavior that leads a lot of others here to feel a sense of distaste whenever the name 'Dean' comes up."

It's fucking whiny bullshit to lump ANY group in with a
condemnation of ONE PERSON. Any more than I'd
judge all Kerry supporters by your gleeful hatchet
jobs on Dean.

By the way, you're kinda malleable to be blown away
by & cave in to one measly email. How do you know
what your boss is gonna say? If you're cool with
your proudly blasting Dean here and acting otherwise
elsewhere, then stay & fight.

How about the emailer coming out and defending what
she did?

[Hoppin_Mad]

84. I agree with you Joe

[JustJoe]

128. I am glad to see Will apologize and look forward

to the e-mailer stepping forward &
defending/explaining herself before she
gets the boot (if she does) for breaking
the rules.

[ScottNeelan]

30. WTF?

Okay, this kind of petty, stupid crap is part of why I've become a lurker. I've tried, on two seperate occasions, to actually become an active part of this forum. And why have I not done it? Because I am a Dean supporter. I am a Dean supporter that can't stand to see all the petty bickering and pointless attacks. I'm a Dean supporter who's also dedicated to seeing Bush out of office and the Democratic party stay together.

And it's this kind of crap that I wanted to avoid. A lot of people, for very good reasons, attack Dean supporters because of the legions of nutcases and thin-skinned babblers who think that Howard Dean is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ straight off the cross and that no one should be allowed to question "His Almighty Deanness".

I'm sorry to hear about the entire incident with your boss. This is the kind of thing that I was hoping to never see and the kind of thing that I'd feared and expected for so long. And it sickens me.
It sickens me to see the debate over which Dem candidate is the best choice escalate to such proportions. I can't stand seeing Clark supporters at Dean's throat, Dean supporters at Kerry and Clark's throats, or anyone at any candidate's throat.

If, at this point, we were all lockstep behind one nominee then I'd be worried. We're not a party of entirely likeminded people. There are many viewpoints and many issues under the Democratic Party banner. And to think that we can all agree on one perfect or nearly-perfect candidate is sheer lunacy. But to think that all this pettry bickering and cheap shotting is going to help your chosen candidate get ahead is also sheer lunacy.

I've said it before (with it falling upong mostly deaf ears) and I'll say it again right here. This isn't the time to tear apart the other candidates and insult their supposrters. I don't want ot hear why Dean, or Clark, or Kerry, or anyone else shouldn't be my choice. I want ot hear why they SHOULD be my choice. Don't attack the other candidates. Don't focus on the negatives. You're just giving Karl Rove ammunition for free under the guise of the primary.

As for Will, I hope everything turns out well with your boss and I hope to see you back here posting someday. Maybe, eventually, I'll come out of hiding too...sometime around the Dem National Convention...

[Crunchy Frog]

92. I wish you would

come out of lurkdom. Your post is one of the most sensible that I have seen here recently, and we could really use the elevation of discourse that you would certainly bring. I agree with everything you said, most of what I've seen going on in this forum is of an extremely destructive nature and can only hurt us in the end.

[mdmc]

34. I thought that you owned Truthout!

And that DU was a place for you to pitch your spin, as it were.

[WilliamPitt]

37. Nope

I'm an employee who gets a paycheck.

[mdmc]

42. perhaps an alias?

The Poster Formerly Known as WilliamPitt?

[LawDem]

35. So since when are you someone who runs away?

Mr. Pitt,

From what I've seen of your boss's work, my guess is that when he talks to you in the morning he'll say, "God, some shits just can't take a joke can they." You shouldn't let one person drive you out of a place that clearly has been your second home. Remember, only conservatives believe that a liberal won't stand his/her ground and fight.

Memo to others: The "this proves that Dean people are all bad" posts are plainly unfair and do nothing to further the cause.

Best

[WilliamPitt]

49. That's the thing

I reach around 2,000,000 people a month on truthout, plus the people who read my stuff when it gets reprinted, plus my books, plus my radio stuff, plus my frikkin speeches all over the place. Here, I argue with the same 200 shitheads every day. :)

I'm not running away from anything, but I'm not going to let wacko atitudes on this forum kill my chances to do all the rest of this stuff. truthout is my conduit to the real work I do. My boss'll be pissed; he hears "vendetta" and will think I've been threatening the reputation of the entire publication.

Nah. Fuckit. Not even an apology will do the trick here. But if you think I'm running away, tune in to the overview tomorrow. I'll still be there. :)

[LawDem]

76. If it hurts the rest of your work, of course, but . . .

If it really does threaten the rest of your work -- not to mention your livelihood -- then, of course, you're right. You know your boss. I don't. Still, I'll be surprised if he's that upset. Pissed off readers go with the territory. I do a little writing, but I don't reach 1/10,000th of your readership. Still, even in my little pond, someone will occasionally read me (and those who publish me) the riot act. Your boss has heard it all before.

Again, best.

[clarknyc]

131. Gee Will

Here, I argue with the same 200 shitheads every day. :)

So I suppose I can call you a fuckhead :) and it's OK?

[thinkahead]

138. as one of those "shitheads"

I feel I must call you out. When conservatives complain about liberals playing the victim, they are speaking of people like you. You dish out better than most in your vendetta here on behalf of John Kerry, and are suddenly so appalled and disgusted by one person's vendetta against you that you get all twisted up in a knot.

You know you are playing with fire here at DU while also trying to mantain some semblance of credibility as a journalist, or whatever it is you call yourself. Something like this was bound to happen, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying, "duh". The person responsible should be called out, but you are not just a victim here, you are responsible for your own actions, which often result in equal if not stronger reactions. It's politics for God's sake. Nobody told you to play partisan here, it was your choice - and you have lived up to it repeatedly.

I'm sorry someone was stupid enough to contact your employer. It was absolutely un-called for. But I'm also sorry you don't realize that you can't have it both ways here, expecting fair or even rational treatment from those you attempt to demonize with your partisan attacks on behalf of Kerry - or dare I say by referiing to them as "shitheads".

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

154. Be grateful to know where Will-as-journalist stands!

I wish we knew where the rest of them stood, rather than being forced to wonder how in bed with the Bushists they really are. If I knew for a fact Aaron Brown was a Democrat, I'd let his getting smarmy about Republicans slide for being just an attempt to be professionally, ethically "objective."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

178. Will's book with Ritter helped Dean anti-war stance immensely

If anything, Dean owes Pitt not vice-versa.

[Name removed]

289. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hillsey]

299. deleted

[Booberdawg]

311. Now, wait a minute

I am not a Dean nor Kerry supporter. I've never said this before, but to be honest, I don't give a rat fucking shit who the primary candidate is. Period.

Gawd. I am trying to word this very carefully so as it doesn't get wiped out as a personal attack as I suspect your words will be. I have never seen such a vicious attack from someone while at the same time insisting one was not attacking.

Do you feel better now? Did you leave anything out that you would like to get off your chest? I've got a copy in case it get's deleted.

:eyes:

It's a fucking message board.

That was disgraceful.

Decaf.

[regnaD kciN]

254. More to the point...

...I would say that if Will's boss tries to silence him in any way over this, then I would support a boycott of TruthOut!

If "watch what you say on your own time" becomes standard, there's no hope for anyone.

[Fenris]

39. Just proves that some of us are no better than the conservatives

Going after a man for what he posted to a public forum by harassing him at his place of business is a rather reactionary, conservative thing to do don't you? I swear to God, liberals can be just as bad as those we profess to despise for their tactics.

Well, fanaticism runs in both wings. I just thought we had the decency to avoid this kind of right-wing boycott bullshit we complain about. Wrong.

And now, because of fanaticism, we have lost the most talented member of this board. To hell with you and your goddamned candidates. None of them are worth the loss of William Pitt.

Whoever is responsible for this is lower than dogshit. They're a fucking conservative.

[Ficus]

44. I like that last line

Whoever is responsible for this is lower than dogshit. They're a fucking conservative.
!!!

[AP]

53. It's interesting to consider what this person was afraid of.

I would send that kind of letter to a Rush Limbaugh advertiser because Limbaugh likes.

Another parallel is Tavis Smiley. Smiley off air is very liberal, but Smiley on air is a straight up journalist who focuses on many stories which the rest of the media ignores. However, he keeps his politics to himself on NPR. And he always tells the truth.

That letter to truthout is like some idiot who doesn't like Smiley's off air persona writing in to NPR telling them they won't give money until Smiley's show goes off the air, and then conflates the off air persona with the on air persona to support the argument.

I just wonder if the person who wrote that letter thinks Pitt lies. Probably not, or the letter would say so. (Did it say that?) If the letter writer doesnt' think Pitt is telling lies, than what's the fear? That Pitt says things that are true and says them effectively somewhere other than truthout?

[Tatiana]

199. Bingo.

You've hit the nail on the head.

[aquart]

74. Don't use that tainted vocabulary. These aren't conservatives.

This is fascist corporatist anti-democratic anti-constitutional behavior.

It conserves nothing and destroys everything.

[Fenris]

81. That's implied by conservative

If they can make "liberal" a dirty word, then by God let's make "Conservative" pornographic.

[Michigander4Dean]

41. For Christmas, I was going to give my family your book, but never mind.

I'll give them something else.

If it hurts your book's sales, so be it. I'm not buying it until you come back to DU (if you do come back).

[Rowdyboy]

47. Goddamn it Will, thats not acceptable!

Surely, if enough of us here join together and contribute to truthout, we can make up for this asses objectionion. I do not currently contribute-but I will if it will allow you to continue to speak your mind. Your fairness and objectivity have helped me and I'm not ready to lose your voice.

Goddamn, whiney assed babies don't deserve to be on an adult board

[Armstead]

50. That sucks

I'm a Dean supporter but that really was out of line. There was no call for whoever to do that. Jeeze I'll be so glad when this nomination process is over.

A suggestion if you are concerned for your seperation of personal and professional. Maybe you could come back with some kind of name obvious to us but not to the outside world? Something clever like WillP.

Anyway, will understand if you don;t want to continue posting, but I hope you'll reconsider and stick around DU.

(Also posted in DU Lounge thread.)

[Hoppin_Mad]

52. As a Dean supporter I'm sorry - Don't hold it against us or Dean though

[zulchzulu]

54. Haven't you heard? Dean is invincible!!!

I've seen this vapid tactic done a number of times by some "Dean supporters" who feel that any criticism of their candidate is "bad for the Democratic Party" or "Repug" or somehow seen as playing "into Karl Rove's evil plan".

I've seen and talked to these "Dean supporters" who show nothing but scorn for anyone who doesn't see their "shining light" or whatever the bloody hell they are thinking.

Recently, I had a woman in a large SUV yelling at me at an intersection because I dared to have a Kerry sticker on my bumper. She flipped me the bird as she drove by and I could see the Dean sticker neatly placed next to the "No War In Iraq!" bumpersticker.

I'm sure she sleeps well at night. She has great tickets and a wonderful room for the unsinkable Titanic that will be leaving the shore next fall.

I've done tabling for Kerry and can tell you that Clark and Kucinich supporters are very nice people who are willing to engage in mature and mannerly political discussion. The same cannot be said about many that support Dean. I've seen it firsthand and find the pattern to be one fueled by arrogance, ignorance and cultish folly.

I'm not saying all Dean supporters are like this; but it's a majority of people I have been in contact with.

Will, don't lurk. Contribute please! You do excellent work and need to fill in the gaps here and elsewhere.

[candy331]

88. Everyone on this board

is really not a Democratic suporter, right? I'm sure there are transplant spies and disrupters, so even if the person is posting here on DU is the person known personally by anyone who did it? I may not have the right understanding but if I did, this is my take on the situation for now.

[Lisa0825]

322. That's just bullshit

"I'm not saying all Dean supporters are like this; but it's a majority of people I have been in contact with."

I am a very active Dean supporter, and I don't know anyone in my Meetup area who would act like that. You say the majority you've met are like that. Somehow, I think you're grossly exaggerrating.

[windansea]

55. truthout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fair is fair..truth is truth

out the weasel!!

I say this selfishly...I like your witty posts and superb way with words

give me your boss's email...letting a pathetic sleaze artist silence a great mind is unacceptable

[tsipple]

56. One Quibble

I hope this particular Dean supporter is quite proud of her work. I hope her fellow Dean supporters are equally proud.

First of all, are you quite sure it's a Dean supporter?

Second of all, I think the second sentence (above) is out of line, to be honest. Replace "Dean supporters" with something like "African-Americans" and you'll quickly see the point. (You really didn't mean that, did you?)

Speaking as just one Dean supporter, I have no idea what her argument was since you're not reposting it. (Nothing wrong with that, but there's no basis here to form an opinion on whether she had a valid point or not.) If she's upset that you're trying to spread false rumors that Dean eats babies for breakfast, that's one thing. If she's upset about something stupid, certainly she can complain, but your boss will of course back you if he/she is at all sensible.

I would also defend her right to stop contributing to any publication with which she doesn't agree. Not that I like that situation much, but unfortunately she's got the right.

So, basically, if she's got a point, time for some self-reflection. (Been there.) If she doesn't, keep doing what you're doing.

[jonnyblitz]

61. I agree. this thread is beginning to sound like a lynch mob

against a whole group of people because of the actions of one. I find it disturbing.

[IndianaGreen]

70. We don't know if the culprit is a Dean supporter

chances are that she is not!

The point is that if the culprit is a DUer, she has violated DU rules that will lead to her banning.

If a DUer can do this to Pitt, another DUer can do the same to you, or to me. That's unacceptable!

This issue should be handled by Skinner, and it is Skinner alone that should take this matter up.

[jonnyblitz]

99. the point is all Dean supporters have been called out on it

ALL Dean supporters are guilty. Read some of the posts. I am not gonna say what this reminds me of.

[5thGenDemocrat]

115. I don't like Dean -- that's no secret

But the problem here is not Dean or Dean supporters. The problem is that there's a rogue POS loose within our midst. I want this person found out, smoked out and kicked the hell out.
Then we can get back to our little food fight.
This festering boil is something else entirely -- a narc. A squealer. A stoolie.
No one here can or should condone this -- I don't care who we support individually, no one can be allowed to get away with this.
What you see here, what you read here and what you say here stays here.
Right?
John
Pitt, don't go. I won't rest until a certain someone else is unmasked to us all and goes, instead.

[jonnyblitz]

132. yup

:hi:

[5thGenDemocrat]

142. Yup

If nothing else, at least this has shown all of us that we can unite behind someone -- even if it's only William Rivers Pitt.
John
I kid, Pitt, I kid. Again, don't go and I apologize for saying Kerry's haircut looks like something I pulled out of my shower drain.

[Clark Can WIN]

152. Amen, what you said

don't care for Dean myself but dont believe 98% of Dean supporters (on DU anyways) would sink as low as this excremementia.

[aquart]

83. Lynching? No. More a hoisting with a person's own petard.

This vile mischief violates DU rules and threatens EVERY poster.

And it should be dealt with as such.

[jonnyblitz]

101. I agree.

But no need to blame everyone who supports Dean.

[Toucano]

73. You miss the point

there's no basis here to form an opinion on whether she had a valid point or not

If the article wasn't published on Truthout, it isn't an issue to be taken to truthout.

It wasn't about the publication that she disagreed with. It was about postings on a web forum.

Seeking retribution for something someone says at DU with their EMPLOYER is wrong, wrong, wrong. That's why it's against the rules.

[mikehiggins]

57. Our own little Osama ad-maker

The way I see it, some petty ass scumbag has attacked the way a man makes his living in an effort to shut him up.

Now, there may be some who see a difference between this and the Osama ad aimed at Dean, but I don't. This isn't even a dirty trick but a deliberate attack on someone because that person wouldn't tow the Dean party line and dared to be independent.

The Dean supporters demanded Kerry and Gephardt denounce that ad as being beyond the pale. I think it is just as appropriate to demand that the Dean supporters denounce this action.

And if Truthout doesn't back Pitt up, I think it would be appropriate for people who contribute to them to take that into consideration as well.

[WilliamPitt]

62. I'm sure truthout will back me up

PLEASE don't go howling to my boss. :) I'm not going to get fired or anything. That isn't the point. The point is I used to be comfortable posting here, and now I'm not, because I don't want this to affect my real work. And it sucks.

[ibegurpard]

71. As they should

but I think you're forgetting that you're not just a high school teacher anymore. You're a semi-public figure who is posting as himself on a message board that can be viewed by anyone. Because of that you've got to expect to get some flack over it.

I certainly think it was pretty low and I hope everything works out OK.

[TLM]

176. Whoa wait a minute... now Will I got the distinct impression from that

that you were in some shit as a result of this.


Was this just a complaint from a truthout supporter, who like you is on DU, and is pissed about the shit you've said so has elected to pull their support from truthout? Is this something that's basically the same as one of us canceling a subscription to a publication that prints Ann Coulter because we're pissed off about some shit she said??

There's a big difference between someone trying to silence you, and someone simply electing to no longer contribute their money to paying your salary. You really made it sound like your job was in jeopardy... like you were getting dixie chicked.

If that's not the case, and this was nothing more than the equivalent of a person canceling their subscription to a newspaper because they're pissed off about what one of the columnists said to them at a public event.... then I gotta say suck it up man.

You’ve got to know by now writers or journalists with any significant level of distribution get complaints all the time sent to their editors. And if they go around talking shit to the subscribers of that publication, it’s a pretty good bet they’ll get some cancellations. Is that all this is?

If so, why are you making a big production out of it? I really hope you're not making a big deal out of this just to take some shots at Dean supporters by making it sound like your job was being threatened because you do not like Dean.

Was this nothing more than somebody canceling their subscription to truthout because they’re pissed off that you’ve been raging on Dean?

[RetroLounge]

390. Apples and Oranges

"The Dean supporters demanded Kerry and Gephardt denounce that ad as being beyond the pale. I think it is just as appropriate to demand that the Dean supporters denounce this action."

You are comparing a PUBLIC TV Ad, to a private Email. Not the same.

This has NOTHING to do with Dean and Dean Supporters.

[nuxvomica]

58. Besides being horrendous, it's a huge disservice to Howard Dean

This sort of negative behavior doesn't help Dean at all. Doesn't anyone who is overly defensive about the candidate they support understand that? This kind of nonsense has always been a big mystery to me. :shrug: Not to mention what an ugly thing to do to you, Pitt. You deserve a lot better than this for the genuine effort you've made to enlighten discussion around here.

[TLM]

60. Yeah I gotta agree that's not cool...

I mean I've given you shit for your comments about Dean... but such comments should be limited to the venue in which you made your comments.

Contacting truthout to bitch about what you say on a message board isn't cool at all.

I may not like your attacks on Dean, but you don't deserved to get dixie chicked over it.

[Paragon]

66. Turns out I am Yoda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=19824&mesg_id=20149&page=

I'm sorry this happened to you, Will. Obviously, I don't endorse blackmail and whoever's empty threat. It crosses a basic line and is completely reprehensible. That said, it is ignorant not to realize the public nature of the internet. As the "miserable failure" Google bomb shows, anything (including DU posts) can find its way on to a search engine.

Your unique position at DU could have been used more judiciously, but you chose to declare "war" on a candidate - something unbecoming and downright foolish to do as a public figure. A chorus of DUers, myself included, watched it happen and begged you to stop. I can't say I'm surprised that you ignore your own culpability the way you ignored people who were genuinely concerned about your welfare.

There are no Dean supporters that would be "proud" of something like this. That's obviously posted out of anger, something that will fade in time, as most anger does. I hope the offending party is appropriately punished, and lesson as a public figure learned, I hope you come back.

Enjoy your time away and happy holidays. Come back soon.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. So what about this post was SO unreasonable?

That it would do any harm if read by others?


WilliamPitt (1000+ posts) Mon Dec-22-03 07:30 PM
Response to Original message

13. THIS is what scares me, folks

THIS is what scares me, folks


You can run two ways in the primaries:

1) You can run to the left without giving away the store, i.e without killing your chances with the moderates and independents once you reach the general; or,

2) You can run to the left and attack the crap out of the moderates and independents to really, really fire up the base, which will barnstorm you through the primaries to the nomination.

Most candidates do #1, because that path makes a lot more sense. Dean, however, has been taking the #2 path. That's why he's winning; to the base, he looks like a champion, gets them all charged up, and this will help him storm through the primaries.

Unfortunately, he will reap the whirlwind because of this, and so will the rest of us.

So I wrote this book...

[La_Serpiente]

91. What?

You say

I'm sorry this happened to you, Will. Obviously, I don't endorse blackmail and whoever's empty threat. It crosses a basic line and is completely reprehensible

and then write

Your unique position at DU could have been used more judiciously, but you chose to declare "war" on a candidate - something unbecoming and downright foolish to do as a public figure.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Will Pitt brought this upon himself??? Please explain.

[Paragon]

107. OK, imagine you're Eleanor Clift, James Carville, Al Franken, etc...

...and they declared "war" on a Democratic candidate, using every opportunity to mercilessly bash them.

Posting on a "private" forum or not, they'd be similarly crucified. It is NOT Will's fault that some rat bastard is trying to intimidate him - but his choices "reaped the whirlwind", as he himself put it.

I don't want the guy to go. I hope he comes to his senses and fights back on this one.

[WilliamPitt]

118. HOW THE FUCK DO YOU DECLARE WAR

ON A CANDIDATE WITHIN ONE SMALL FORUM WITHIN A LARGER FORUM?

Jesus, Paragon, get a grip. If I wanted to "declare war" on Howard Dean, I could do so to a MASSIVE audience every single day from now until Judgment Trump. Internet, print, radio, TV and public audiences - I could put the bricks to him before sooooooooo many more people than in this silly-ass fight club of a forum.

But I didn't, and I won't. Know why? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T FUCKING DECLARED WAR ON ANYONE except George W Bush.

Damn.

[JustJoe]

144. Two Questions, Will:

1. Did you really think your blasts at Dean (or
whatever you want to call them) would not get
beyond GD on DU? Did you really think it would
not get known (even to truthout readers) that you
think very little of Dean and are a Kerry supporter?
GD is the most popular forum on DU, and DU has 35000
registered members and at least several thousand who read
and/or post. You seem to minimize the readership of DU
(while you minimize your criuticisms of Dean)
as if it were a truly private site.

2. If you think Dean is such a danger to the Democratic
party and its ideals, why don't you use a wider forum than
DU & use your considerable talents to expose him and his
defects to a greater audience before it is/was too late?

[Paragon]

164. Man, that "My Recent Posts" feature would be nice to have right now

I'm not about to go traipsing through the Search feature to find examples of where you used the word "war" to describe what was going on in the primaries, and then proceeded to wage it in post after post.

I know you haven't said anything about Dean in your "public" face and I never said you did. But like I just said to someone else, DU is not a vacuum - no more than a London audience full of fans is to Natalie Maines. What you're experiencing now is not terribly dissimilar than what happened to her.

You're pissed right now, and rightfully so. If it has to be my throat you go after right now, fine. I can take it and come right back tomorrow, like I hope you will.

And my "grip" is just fine, thanks.

[clarknyc]

181. Oooh. So you dis this forum...

and proclaim your omnipotnce at once. Smooth trick.

[mikehiggins]

119. I guess free speech includes trying to cause someone economic

harm because he takes a stand you don't approve with.

I'm not quite sure what your definition of declaring "war" is but if Pitt's posts on this board constitute declaring "war" on Governor Dean's campaign then things have gotten entirely too soft around here.

To me this sounds like claiming a girl who walks down the street in shorts and a halter is asking for rape.

Somehow that doesn't work for me.

[Paragon]

185. *sigh*

I hear people sometimes use quotation marks to "quote" what other people say. :eyes:

"War" was Will's word (used on DU, not on truthout, or anywhere else in the "real" world), not mine - look it up yourself, I've got other things to do.

Thanks for the oft-used rape analogy, by the way. I just hope you don't find out I'm really Hitler. :silly:

[BurtWorm]

148. Some Dean supporters need thicker skins.

As do some supporters of other candidates.

[windansea]

96. interesting

basically you are saying a public figure cannot express their opinion freely

that's so democratic of you!!

please don't attempt a rebuttal...none possible

[Paragon]

133. Duh.

It isn't that he can't express an opinion, it's how you do it as a public figure in this country.

Ask Natalie Maines of The Dixie Chicks what happens to you when you speak out, even to a community you assume supports you.

How you play politics, in your professional and even private life, affects what happens to you. DU is not a vacuum in this respect, either.

There is no school where one can learn to be a public figure. This is a lesson in just how sick and stupid some people can be. Smart guy he otherwise is, I hope Will can swallow this "lesson" and come back to DU all the wiser.

[TLM]

192. I do not see any indication of Mr. Pitt not being allowed to express

his opinions.

Even he's said his job is not in any jeopardy.

Imagine if you were at a party, and say Hannity walked in and started talking shit about what an N-word that Powell is... would you consider it undemocratic if someone at that party was a financial supporter of Fox news and as a result of hearing Hannity's comments in that public forum they pulled their support from Fox news.

Now I'm not saying anything Will said was that bad or anything like that. But honestly if Will's going to go to a public forum where truthout subscribers hang out and then start bashing their candidate, I do not find it that out of line if any of those subscribers decide to cancel their subscriptions.

While I personally don't think Will has said anything that rises to the level of deserving a boycott, that's all this action really is. And since when is a boycott anti-democratic.

[Paragon]

197. Holy shit, someone's making sense.

Thanks.

[TLM]

234. Yeah well somebody had to....

And I think one has to appreciate the irony… A Dean supporter who is also a truthout supporter, decides they no longer want to contribute to truthout because they do not want to support Pitt, because he’s been attacking Dean on DU. Basically boycotting Pitt.

In response, Pitt uses that individual’s complaint as the fodder for yet more attacks on Dean supporters on DU. Which is exactly the same kind of behavior that pissed off this former truthout supporter to the point of boycotting Pitt..

Seems to me like fighting fire with gasoline.


Almost as if the whole point was nothing more than to fan the flames.

[MIMStigator]

67. Theyre turning on ALL the heavy hitters who don't support Dean

I've seen them turn on Bill Clinton, Begala, Will Pitt,and other heavy lifters who rail out against * if they say anything anti Dean.
All to nominate a lightweight who's going to LOSE to * in 04.

[dsc]

75. Yeah like we need etiquette lessons

from a person who called the wife of a candidate an ugly feminazi. This person, and it was one person, was wrong. Should I blame every Clark supporter for your anti woman comments?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

97. You said

she wasn't much to look at. That tranlates to ugly.

[MIMStigator]

105. That translates to

"she isn't much to look at". That was a way of saying her looks would turn people off which I could have said in another way but did not say "ugly" because its not what I meant. If you don't like that my opinion is that the way she looks will matter then too bad, that was the thread topic.

[dsc]

113. people whose looks turn people off are not ugly?

are you serious?

[MIMStigator]

125. swear to god that isn't what i meant. I meant.......

that I thought she looks like she doesn't care how she looks. Dumpy is how she looks to me and I think it would turn people off. She could be good looking and Dumpy. Would it matter to me? No.
Not anti woman either, I think Dean has problems in that department starting with looking like wrestling coach. If you don't think "looks" matter in politics that's your opinion.

[dsc]

174. Sorry

I will take you at your word. But I think you can see where I got my interpretation.

[Toucano]

126. Please don't have this conversation.

That topic generated enough acrimony for a lifetime.

I started that thread with an irresponsibly and poorly worded post that didn't frame the dialogue in the context I intended.

It was my fault, but I have learned not only the answers about Judith I was interested in, but also to be more careful in the future.:grouphug:

I think MIMSTIGATOR felt invited to step outside himself and speak in a voice that isn't his own.

on edit:

corrected gender pronoun.

[MIMStigator]

135. I could have been clearer with the "feminazi" word

could have put it in quotes AND said I didn't agree but still stand by the opinion and thought the thread topic was worth putting out there if people (VOTERS) notice wives, which I think they do.

[TLM]

198. I think the point was, regardless of what you meant...

is that it would be baseless to act as if your comments were somehow a reflection on all Clark supporters or Clark himself...

[killbotfactory]

69. ???

???

:(

Get an alias.

[IndianaGreen]

77. Let's stop the rush to McCarthyism!

This matter should be handled by Skinner.

The actions of this person are in violation of DU rules!

[uhhuh]

247. This is exactly the point

The actions of Will Pitt have been the focus of this thread. People have said that he should have expected that what he said here may have implications in the "real world". That is absolutely true.
The admins know this is true. That is why they have included the rule that those who are posting here also have to live with the consequences of taking action against another member, which may include getting banned from the site.

Will did not take something posted here and use it against another poster in the "real world". He took something from the real world and brought it here. That is something that everyone who posts here does, and that is probably why he chose not to reveal who the person is. He follows the rules.
The person who did this had every right to take the action that they did. The admins also have a responsibility to take action on their own rules and remove them from the site.
There is nothing illegal about what the person did, but it has consequences just like Will's posting here does. They have a right to express themselves and choose who to support or not support, but there is a specific rule designed to address taking issues with members off the board. Somebody here decided not to follow that rule and must be shown the door.

[oasis]

79. No doubt the "ghost" of Will Pitt will still haunt the threads at DU.

Although I Don't expect him to be quite as eloquent.

Good luck Will Pitt you will be missed.

[ScottNeelan]

82. See What I Mean?

This is exactly what is wrong with all of humanity. You see all this petty bickering? You see the electronic lynch mob? The exaggeration? This is the problem. This is what causes things like 9to use earlier examples) the Osama attack ad and the e-mail to truthout.

People, take a big step back and look at what's going on! You cannot blame an entire group of people for what one person does! Yes, it was out of line. No, it shouldn't have happened. And yes, I fully support Will Pitt in this. The e-mail attack was low and uncalled for.

But are all Dean supporters supposed to be rounded up and lynched for what one jackass does? No! This is like blaming the entire American public for what * does while in office!

Please, drop the electronic rope, let the mob disperse, and keep sending words of support to William Rivers Pitt, not words of hatred to Dean or his supporters.

Damn...I can't even lurk around here without my blood pressure sky-rocketing...

[WilliamPitt]

87. PLEASE NOTE EDIT ABOVE

added to main post:

"I have edited this post to remove some pointed and unnecessary references to 'Dean supporters.' I don't think 'Dean supporters' are responsible for this. One person is responsible for this. I'm sorry for using the broad brush."

Take care, folks. I'll see you in the winner's circle.

[JustJoe]

102. Thank you for that well-deserved apology.

[Donna Zen]

143. To a voice of reason:

Of course my wish is for you to stay, which is rather selfish really, since my first thought is of my own enjoyment of your writing, and especially your practiced one liners. The one word answers often make my day. What can I say, I'm easy.

That you will reach more people by leaving DU is certainly true, and yet....there is, or until now, has been a freedom to your words here that a more public forum such as truthout can limit. Nevertheless, you are correct. We all make public vs private choices, and yours makes sense. Who needs shit like this?

So Will Pitt, please lurk, please pm, please return as soon as the winds of your judgement allow. You are already missed. And thank you for posting a warning to us all.

DZ

[Hoppin_Mad]

189. Thanks Will !

[UrbScotty]

325. Thank you. But again, Will...

Please don't leave DU. DU needs your insight, commentary, and your presence. Leaving DU at this crucial time in American history because of one bad DUer (to quote another DUer) wsould be a disservice to DU, a disservice to the Democratic Party, and a dissservice to the United Statres of America.

If you do leave DU, let it be temporary. Come back AT LEAST by the time we know who our nominee will be.

[KaraokeKarlton]

90. My thoughts on this...

First, I think it's unfortunate that this happened to you. Having said that, there are some things to consider. You are a public figure, somewhat well known/famous to Democrats. You write for one of the few news sources that people feel they can depend on for truth and honesty. It's probably not a good idea for you to post in forums like this unless you do so anonymously because of situations like this...it can come back and bite you in the ass if you piss someone off. Apparently that's the case, here.

I have no idea who did this so I can only guess why someone would. The atmosphere on this site has been pretty lousy as of late. It's been one huge pig pile on not only Dean, but his supporters. Look at all the threads that are started with the intention of just pissing Dean supporters off. So, you have a whole bunch of very angry people who feel like they are being treated unfairly. It's gone on for a very long time and is a bubbling volcano ready to erupt at any given moment. It's very unstable here right now. You are an easy target for someone whose had enough of the baiting, antagonizing and shitty treatment. You ARE sarcastic and snarky when you get annoyed, and because of that and the extreme hostility here, you should not be posting in the heated topics unless you do so anonymously, because frankly, doing so is only asking for something like this to happen. Who else can this person lash out at for their anger? Again, you are an easy target.

Hindsight is 20/20 and I'm sure you realize you should be more careful at this point. I'm trying to be impartial on this and say what I see, so I hope you won't take it personally if anything I said bothers you.

I hope things go okay when you talk to your boss. I'm sure Skinner won't have a problem with you creating another Identity for the heated arguments so you can take part anonymously. That's what I'd advise you to do from here on out until the primaries are over.

[quinnox]

93. Indiana Green is right, this person should be banned

immediately. And DU maybe should organize a fundraiser for the web site Pitt works for, to alleviate any damage the idiot who did this may have caused.

[msanger]

94. some facts and an observation

I am a member of several Dean-yahoo groups, and saw a number of posts today about "truthout's new editorial bent." The one email I still have on my machine praised Will for his work, and talked about his pro-Kerry bent.

It then went on to suggest that truthout might become part of the "anybody but dean" forces. If you just read the email, and were a "Dean and nobody but dean" person, you might be upset at the suggestion that truthout was going to start beating up on Dean.

If you read the email carefully, it is clearly just the writer making assumptions.

So here is what I think is crucial. There is a tendency in human beings to sometimes get tribal about things. My tribe against your tribe. Freepers against DU. Kerry supporters against Dean supporters. Catholic against Protestent. Israeli against Palestinian.

The Bush adminstration reveals in "us versus them" thinking. The hallmark of the bush administrations has been "If you're not for us, your against us." this goes for everybody. In the Bush world there is "us" (aka the good guys) and "them" (aka the bad guys.) The bad guys include Saddam, Osama, Democrats, moderate Republicans.....

We have to work on transcending this "us versus them" thinking. We have to conquer the Bush adminstration, not by beating them over the head, but by moving past them, and not sinking to their level.

WHen we take part in divisive discussions that are more full of aggression than light - we are strengthening the "us versus them" mentality, and thus playing into bush's hands.

Of course the person who wrote Will's editor went too far, and of course we want Will (and the attacker)to continue to contribute to this board. But the root cause of this problem is not one person going overboard, but a general "us versus them" type of absolutist thinking that can infect any of us, any time.

As Clark supporters might know "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." I think that is the motto outside of SHAPE headquarters. We need to be vigilant, not just against external enemies, but against our own tendency to see things in terms of black and white.

I am working on a book "The opposite of terrorism." One section posses this idea. "If black is the opposite of white, what is the opposite of black and white?" That is what we are looking for. What isthe opposite of seeing the world in terms of "us versus them?"

While there are many possible answers, my own favorite is

rainbows!

It's late and time for bed.

anybody but bush!

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Great Post

I was trying to decide what to write in reply to the "don't blame Dean supporters" posts. You said most if not all of it. Of course I agree that no one should blame Dean supporters for something one person did. I've been talking a lot lately about the real difference between getting upset about what a candidate says, and getting upset about what a supporter of a candidate says.

But there is something about the near inevitable consequences that break out whenever a climate of hate or intolerence is allowed to grow unchallanged. Us supporters of our chosen candidates can't be held responsible for everything said or done by our fellow partisans, but we can't completely wash our hands of the fall out from excesses either, if we never lift a finger to protest them when they first begin to grow.

[quinnox]

167. I had to comment on your post

This is one of the best posts I have ever read on DU, I can tell you have studied some of the wisdom teachings from your eloquent words.

Bravo!

I will look for your book.

[HFishbine]

313. Well put. Excellent! (n/t)

[IndianaGreen]

95. I hit the Alert on this thread

I won't be a party to a lynch mob or to a rush to McCarthyism.

What happened to Will is a very serious matter that impacts all of us.

This is a job for Skinner!

[Ficus]

110. yeah

"Are you now, or have you ever been a part of the Dean campaign?" :)


Sure, it's an injustice, folks, but let's not freak out on the Deanies. Don't sink down to the level of the DUers who do this kind of garbage.

[Blade]

136. Agreed, my friend...

just because one supporter of Dean had to do such evil against his fellow DUer doesn't mean other Dean supporters will do the same thing. Like I said, don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch.

[IndianaGreen]

145. Correction: one "alleged" supporter of Dean

I don't even trust the avatars that people use unless I happen to be familiar with the poster, e.g., DTH is really a Clark supporter as his avatar indicates.

Some people will take the avatar of one candidate, in order to act like asses to make that candidate and his supporters look bad.

Regardless of motives or which candidate the perpetrator support, he/she broke DU rules and should be banned!

[Blade]

168. Whoops...

thanks for correcting me. I appreciate it. I agree with you. That person who broke the rules should be banned from the DU. (as I have indicated in my post below.)

[eileen from OH]

103. Jeebus what a crock. . .

Look, Will, every candidate has it's wingnuts and this is a doozy. I'm a Dean supporter and if someone says something snarky or stoopid or an out-and-out misrepresentation I'll argue with him/her - HERE. That's what the goddam blog is for. But, Gawd knows, you've never been any of those and you've been fair to ALL the candidates. This is so fucking nasty.

But I really wish you wouldn't tar all Dean supporters with the brush of the idiot. There happens to be a lot of us who are pretty reasonable people who realizes that ANY candidate is imperfect and that their guy or (gal) will stumble at times. The over-the-top ones who defend every little thing, cannot take the slightest criticism, can't find anything good about the others are, I think, in the minority. But unfortunately, they also make the most noise. I've gotten pissed at a few on DU myself cuz they make all of us look bad.

I've been a Dean supporter and Meetup host since February and we have a pretty good size group, that's growing all the time, mostly cuz we keep it positive, upbeat, and fun. I've hosted a fund raiser, I've been asked to speak at other things, and I support just about everything locally for Dean. We don't Dem-bash, cuz we're too damn busy organizing and it ain't what we're all about.

So, I've got the creds and I say as a REAL Dean supporter that whoever this broad is, we don't want her. Yep, you heard me - whoever you are, toots, take a hike. You ain't wanted in the Dean camp. And to some of the others, who didn't go this far, but are overly kneejerk and sensitive, howsabout you think about trying to win people over to Dean and not alienating 'em?

That being said, Will, I hope you will take a day or two to think about it, talk to your boss and then come back and maybe write about it again.

I'm off to donate to Truthout and tell 'em it's cuz of you.

eileen from OH

[WilliamPitt]

106. Please check my edit

[eileen from OH]

114. whoops, sorry.

Got so upset with the original post just went and replied without reading through the whole thread.

But the sentiment stands. We don't want the bitch.

eileen from OH

[jonnyblitz]

122. I checked it. thanks.

I also understand how pissed you must be and how easy it would be to lash out like that. :hi:

[Blue_Roses]

104. Oh fuck this!

You're not going anywhere. This "person" needs to recognize that DEAN will have his ass put on a plate and chomped at on a regular basis IF he wins the nomination and for you to be the "boogie man" is complete utter ignorance and naivity.

Dean doesn't speak for entire Democratic party and if they can't take the heat then their kitchen will get real hot once the GOP puts them on the PLATTER and believe as someone who has watched how Rove works ..lol...his mouth is watering to DEVOUR Dean.

I lived in Texas under Ann Richards governorship and watched the most hidious campaign trash her. It WILL get fucking ugly. I'm so ready to step back cause I know GW will get 4 more with this kind of crap, but I have 2 small children to worry about and with this mornon in the WH their future will be a hard road.

I think I could probably take one guess which "person" sent the email too.

BTW--I can relate...same situation happened (different circumstances) to me a few years ago. You've obviously done some good!

You have a voice that speaks and it is eventually bound to stir up the fireants...keep it up.

[Jim Sagle]

109. That's a damn shame, William.

I never thought you were that down on Dean. I felt really privileged to be on a forum with you.

Are you sure it was a DUer that blabbed? It could've been a lurker. I saw some VERY negative posts about you by a Dean supporter over at Salon Table Talk's Dean thread.

If you do decide to leave, I'll miss your professional work and valuable insights. :(

PS - I take back what I said about Kerry. He doesn't really look like a dead guy. ;)

[sujan]

120. I dont believe YOU

[WilliamPitt]

124. You got me. This is all part of my "vendetta." My "war." I'm caught.

Or not.

[clarknyc]

150. Gee, Will

This thread is a great example of what Bob Somersby writes about at the Daily Howler: insiders (syncophants) protecting their own. Hope you enjoy your stay...

[Ficus]

137. gimme a break

sure it's all a conspiracy against Dean. :tinfoilhat:

[sujan]

hmm....

I think he has an axe to grind against Dean supporters so he's simply making it up.

[Blade]

129. I just can't believe...

that a member of the DU could be so low as to bring a flame-fest to a person's place of work. What's worse is that he/she emailed his boss!! If there was a problem, the problem should have been resolved here and not at a man's place of business. That's just low, especially since the opinions were expressed here, on an internet message board, and not at your place of work. I agree with you all. Whoever did this should be ashamed of himself/herself and should be banned, as it was a clear violation of the Democratic Underground rules.

As for you Will Pitt, I haven't met you before, but I have seen your words here on the DU and at Truthout, and I have always been impressed and inspired with your comments/ideas/works. Too bad you're going to let one bad apple spoil it for the rest of the bunch. :(

You will be missed here on the DU. It's a shame it had to end this way. I only wish you'd reconsider.

If not, may God bless you with whatever you do. Have a safe and happy holiday season and I wish the best for you!

Hopefully I'll see you back here soon! Take care! :hi: :hug: :toast:

On Edit: We all need to stop arguing with each other over "he said, she said" b.s. that's stated in the posts above. We need to be civil to each other. After all, we're all fellow Democrats on here, aren't we? Also, I plea that anyone who supports one candidate over another needs to stop fighting against his/her fellow Democrat who supports a different candidate. Not only does it make you look bad, it makes the rest of the supporters look bad as well. Thanks.

[TheDonkey]

139. Time for me to start emailing your boss

... and explain my admiration for your truthful and intellegent presence I've encountered (which is here).

[FubarFly]

140. First off, what happened to you is despicable.

I don't have enough words to describe the amount of vitriol I'm feeling towards the offending party. The fact that this person is a fellow DU'er, a Democrat, and a Dean supporter is downright embarrassing.

Secondly, as you have done nothing wrong, I am hopeful that you will not receive any flak over this non-incident. In fact, expect a wave of donations to truth-out in your name.

And third and most importantly, I hope you take the time and realize that you are overreacting. One crass jerk shouldn't have the satisfaction of boasting that he/she managed to persuade the esteemed Will Pitt to leave DU. It will only encourage the other jerks. I think you should ride this one out. I'm sure I speak for most people when I say DU has your back. You do more good here than you may realize.

[Sapphocrat]

155. Will, I'm shocked... by YOU...

I want you to re-read something you wrote nearly two years ago. You fucking made cry with this, Pitt -- don't you dare make me cry again because you don't believe in it anymore:

You are your father's son or daughter. You are your grandfather's shining light. You are an American at the point of the sword, whether you like it or not. You stand at the fulcrum of destiny, and much is expected of you. Your ancestors are watching, and history will judge you, as it judges us all in the end. ...

You are the inheritor of a formidable history. Average Americans like you fought and died to hold this nation together. Average Americans like you fought for and won the right of workers to labor in a fair and equitable balance with employers. Average Americans like you survived the Great Depression, World War II, the McCarthy years, the Cold War, Vietnam, Richard Nixon, and countless other challenges daunting to even consider in the light of day.

You are being called again. You must not fear, nor can you surrender to the siren songs of fatigue and apathy. The very soul of this country is at stake. ...

How can you refuse to act?

You cannot.

You are an American, and justice burns in your eyes. Capture your birthright, claim your inheritance, and stride forth into the awful responsibility of history to set right what has gone so terribly wrong.

-- William Rivers Pitt
Stand Your Ground
February 2, 2002

Don't do this, Pitt. Don't you dare let them silence you.

Stand your ground, goddamnit.

[Ficus]

I hadn't read that before

but those are damn inspiring words. That's something I've tried to explain to my friends but never have had quite the right words to express it.

[Rowdyboy]

170. Sappho, you are one tough cookie!

Thanks for giving Will a solid kick in the nuts! He needs it (Also, thanks for posting that piece by Will-I'd never seen it and its absolutely beautiful)

[Sapphocrat]

182. Thanks, Rowdy...

Not as tough as I'd like to be -- but I can't stand by and watch someone I respect, admire, and believe in get cowed like this -- despite the fact that I disagree with him, 100%, on Dean. ROFL

The piece is a beautiful must-read -- possibly Will's very best. I'm sure it was on truthout, but here's the link to the whole thing, right here at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/02/02_ground.html

[JohnKleeb]

175. Thanks Sappho for sharing that retrospect, good stuff thanks

[UrbScotty]

354. Amen. (nt)

[corporatewhore]

158. Its a shame

your work is very intelligent its a damn shame some one is so fucking up obsessed with dean to pull such a low stunt.leave if you must or check back in with a different name

[SoCalDem]

160. Wow.. I saw this post when it had zero replies..

and it sure did not take long to turn it into GD 1 vs GD 2..

I will miss seeing WP around here, but I can fully understand why he needs to pull back a bit..

This may not be PC, but the web is like a large echo chamber.. Everything we write hangs around forever.. I am a small time person who is of little consequence, so I can say pretty much whatever I want, no matter how stupid ... Other than doing a google on my screen name, my words will probably not come back to haunt me, but when your chosen field of work puts you in the public eye, there will always be "watchers" , just waiting to dredge something up to "use" on you..

I am sorry that this happened, and like IG, if this person is a DUer, they need to be GONE..

That being said, they are never really "gone". We all know how many "formers" are still with us under a new name..

WP says things that cut to the quick when the Bush admin is concerned.. It should be no surprise that there are people "out there" and "in here" who would love nothing better than to cause him trouble..

I have not read ANY of the pertinent posts, since I am not backing any specific candidate, but I do know that lots of folks are wasting a whole lot of energy and brain cells with all this nonsensical "My candidate is God and yours is Satan" stuff.. It's all so "7th grade"..

I guess we will just have to visit WP at truthout, and then come back here for the mudwrestling :)

[ScottNeelan]

171. Seventh Grade?

Damn, that's an insult to 7th graders.

Seriously, I agree with a lot of the sentiments from this post and the others. I'll miss seeing Will Pitt around here on the board, but I can understand why he's leaving. I just think it's insane that the in-fighting got to the point.

This event should serve as a wake-up call to everyone around here. This is what happens when someone takes a comment WAY too personally at seeks revenge. Tempers are high right now, and while I don't agree with it, I understand it completely.

Now, if only people could cool the tempers and get back to the intelligent discussion board that the DU Forums were when I first joined...

And Will, again, good luck in the future and I hope to see you back here ASAP.

On Edit: Isn't it funny how someone leaving because of an attack like this can bring someone else permanently out of lurkerdom?

[alwynsw]

169. You didn't ask me to do it and I didn't ask if I could. I just did it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=20741

[Old and In the Way]

183. Can't say that I am surprised with your decision Will...and it's a good

one, I think.

You're becoming quite a rising star in the punditry world and I think your contribution there is far more important than your participation at the DU. I suspect that your acquiring quite an enemies list that catalogs and cross-references every word you post here at the DU...just waiting for the opportunity to discredit you (and us) by dredging up some out-of-context quotes and/or comments meant solely for the community here.

Even better, get reborn and continue to haunt our neighborhood, keeping your public personna private here.

Or wait till the primaries are over and rejoin us for the real fun...

All the best with whatever decision you make!

[Booberdawg]

195. This is BULLSHIT!

I have not read ALL of this thread and did not see what you wrote before you edited your post. But this is just nonsense.

BULL FUCKING SHIT!

Who in DU has THAT much fucking financial control over Truthout that they have editorial control ANY FUCKING WAY? I'd tell her to take her goddamn support and shove it up her ass anyway!

Over your personal opinions expressed in a private message board?

?????WHAT IS THIS??????

Don't you DARE fall for this, Wills! Don't you DARE!

This is unfuckingbelievable.

She/he won't get tombstoned.

This is BULLSHIT.

[clarknyc]

196. This is beginning to resemble "The Lord of the Flies"

...as I think Mr. Pitt well knows.

[IndianaGreen]

205. Let's get Piggy!

Did you have to mention Lord of the Flies?

Good point!

[Generic Other]

201. A disgraceful moment

Damn. Is this what we call collateral damage? A pyrrhic victory? Pre-emptive strike? Good old American values of the fink, squealer, informant, scab, stool pigeon sort?

Who ever did this to Will did it to all of us. It's not the breaking of the rules that's so bad, it's the breaking of trust.

I hope Will that you'll change your mind. Don't let one narrowminded lowlife chase you off. This is the time for taking a stand.

I agree with Indie Green. Skinner needs to deal with this person who has betrayed your trust. And the skank who pulled this stunt should remember that her actions will have more impact on whether some of us vote Dean than anything Pitt could have said. That's called blowback.

Hope you don't leave Will. Too many of the wise voices at DU have been silenced.

[TorchTheWitch]

306. Agreed

I hope Will that you'll change your mind. Don't let one narrowminded lowlife chase you off. This is the time for taking a stand.

I agree. Although it's understandable why he would wish to distance himself from this place now, I do agree that it's more important to take a stand.

Will, please don't let one despicable ass chase you away... don't let a terrorist win.

I agree with Indie Green. Skinner needs to deal with this person who has betrayed your trust. And the skank who pulled this stunt should remember that her actions will have more impact on whether some of us vote Dean than anything Pitt could have said. That's called blowback.

I am also in full agreement with IndianaGreen on this, and you make a very good point about blowback. I was thinking the same thing. Apparently, in this person's zeal to attempt to silence Will in a misguided effort to "help" their candidate, she did not consider the damage of fallout.

I will be more then happy to donate to TruthOut on your behalf, Will, and extend complimentary comments for your fine work. Since you prefer that nothing is mentioned of this incident to your boss, I will refrain from doing so however much I may like to... it is your right to make that call, and of course, I will respect your wishes.

I am utterly disgusted beyond belief by this person's gross actions and hope that they are outed from DU immediately for the shame and disgrace they have brought down on all of us here.

Peace to you, Will. :toast:

[Desertrose]

209. damn , Will....this sucks!

....but I'd say you gotta do what your gut tells you & in spite of what we think, DU really is small potatoes ( growing larger I admit ) but to others than those who post here...no big whoop really.

It is a shame someone had to feel so threatened for their candidate that they chose to take that action... to attempt to silence a clear voice of sanity by a backhanded childish manipulation is really low. Thats the damn trouble with being a lightening rod Will, sometimes ya get zapped.

FWIW, I think you have been fair to the candidates....all things considered in this crazy world....

Good luck with your boss tomorrow....I hope all goes well...if you leave DU , you will be missed but the main thing is to have your voice reach as many people as possible....

Best of luck in the future to you, Will Pitt...

I' m sure we'll be seeing you around in one form or another :)

Peace :hug:
Desertrose

[stickdog]

217. Thank God you'd never play favorites. (nt)

[WillyT]

221. See... This Is What Drives Me TO GREEN !!!

Will, you did nothing wrong.

Deep breath, sigh, shot of Jack, to bed, and wake with another perspective!!!

:loveya:

[HuckleB]

231. Why do you think it's any different there?

There are people of all kinds in every party. There's no magical dust of decency that reigns upon the Greens.

[ErasureAcer]

223. Frankly, I'm not shocked

you're not exactly the friendlies fellow.

The first, and only, thing you've ever said to me is "you're a political rookie."

You're not going to make many friends on the board with that kind of attitude.

If you've put down me...I'm sure you've put down someone else here.

Does it really shock you that someone here contacted your boss?

You've made some enemies.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

230. Oh I see...so if someone doesn't like him, they should be able to break

the rules at DU, contact his boss and exact a personal revenge upon him....amazing statement on your own ethics in the matter.

[ErasureAcer]

241. I'm not saying I would do it...

but I am saying if you push people around enough...they will fight back.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

245. No matter how dirty and unethical

[ErasureAcer]

253. please speak in complete sentences...

I have no idea what your last post meant.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

259. If you read your last post and then continue to my post..you said

"they will fight back" and I said "no matter how dirty and unethical"

Frankly, I don't see what Will hurting your feelings or anyone else's has to do with causing him economic harm but I guess there are people so obsessive on the internet, that at the first sign of being slighted, they will take to the net and make it a public campaign against the person.

I could see it happening..for that matter I have... There is nothing justified about it though.

[frank frankly]

339. ErasureAcer, you make DK look bad...which is hard

I will gladly be deleted to say YOU are part of the problem.

ignored.

[ErasureAcer]

414. haha

I didn't even do anything...people wonder what is wrong with America...it is this type of overreaction.

All I said was Will isn't exactly nice to some people on the board...(which is a fact)....I'm not surprised people have retaliated against him.

And someone ignores me and calls me part of the problem. haha.

Oh man...too hilarious.

[5thGenDemocrat]

257. There's a difference between a fighter and a snitch

What we are discussing here is a snitch.
John
I've had several arguments with Mr Pitt during my 30 months here. But I've never contacted his boss and tried to ruin his livelihood over any of them.
See the difference? I'm not sure you do.

[ErasureAcer]

419. As I said before

you push some people too hard...eventually they'll fight back...sometimes in snitching forms.

Obviously oh great one...you have a higher acceptance of tolerance(which is great! why you are the "great one") but not everyone does.

If anyone didn't think someone would ever try and get even for something that happened on a message board...you need to re-evaluate the numbers of lunatics on the internet.

[jmaier]

235. Every ardent candidate

supporter here makes enemies even when they try not to but what goes on here is a DU matter to carry it outside is unjustified. It's reached a point where my 2004 electoral contribution is going to be limited to voting. I'm pretty much fed up with the entire field or at least their most energetic online supporters.

You can't post here, dailykos, candidate blogs, etc. without being inundated with spite and vitriol. Sheesh, if someone can't support a candidate with reason and judgment without resorting to slams and rude behavior, I'd frankly rather not have those people voting.

It looks like we don't have "democratic anger" to channel, we have anger against any body who doesn't agree -- period.

[HuckleB]

240. This is out of bounds.

This is one Dean supporter who thinks that this is out of bounds and unnecessary. Unfortunately, it's also politics. I hope you can let it go, so you can focus your good work upon those currently treading upon the nation and the planet with a rash form of politics that makes this look like tiddly winks. Further, I hope your boss has the good sense to tell you to keep on doing what you do here. I suspect that it feeds your other work, and, as always, I believe that leaving is not the answer.

And, yes, one of these days, I will give to Truthout -- almost did last week.

Take care...

Salut!

[incapsulated]

249. whoa. Man, I have mixed feelings about this...

First, let me say that it's a shame you are leaving, Will, you will be missed.

Second, I think whoever wrote your boss is a jerk and he/she/it is wrong.

But...

I have to agree with those who have said that this is hardly surprising given the fact that you post under your own name. You are not just any DU poster, you are known for your work as a writer and for your work at TruthOut. The fact that nothing like this has ever happened before is actually pretty stunning, given your public persona.

Analogy. Let's say a given writer from a well known magazine decides to start a weblog. This blog is comprised of his own personal views on politics and does not represent the magazine that he works for. However, he uses his own name, that everyone knows, and refers to his work at the magazine.

Now, let's say his writings on his blog do not make a subscriber of that magazine happy. At all. And that subscriber figures, correctly, why should I pay the salary of this asshole? In fact, I think I'll write the magazine and tell them just what I think, and that becuase of this writer of theirs, I may cancel.

Now, it's obvious that this person could have simply cancelled their subscribtion without trying to intimidate the writer by emailing the magazine. And that the writer had every right to say whatever he pleased on his own time.

But, given the fact that the writer insisted not only in starting a blog for all the world to see, but also using on his well-known real name, it's a little disingenuous to cry foul if someone decides to use it for their own reasons. A bit more than naive, to me.

It's too bad all around, in the end. But it's not McCarthyism. It's just life in the real world for someone who has made a name for himself, even if he didn't realize it.

[FubarFly]

255. Hopefully his boss will express his support and Will

will be able to continue to say whatever he damn well pleases on his own private time.

Freedom of speech matters now more than ever.

[incapsulated]

258. I hope that is the case

However, it seems that Will expects that he will be supported, I think he just realizes what he says here does indeed effect his "real job" because he uses his real name.

Perhaps he will decide that does not matter, that nothing he says here is anything that would bring shame to truthout. I hope that is the conclusion he reaches. One person is hardly an ecomomic boycott of truthout based on Will's postings. ;)

[TLM]

271. Isn't truthout a non-profit organization?

Don't they have a different set of rules for what employees can do in terms of political advocacy?

[FubarFly]

273. If I remember correctly,

when Will endorsed Kerry on this board he made it clear that it was not a truthout endorsement and done completely in his own name. I was under the impression that Will as a private citizen could endorse Kerry as long as he made that distinction clear. Maybe someone can still find the thread. It's on DU1 though.

[TLM]

382. I think that's a fine line...

If you work in the media, and use you real name to go trash talking about a candidate... there's going to be blowback no matter how much you say that you've comparmentalized your bias.

I mean it is like if Ted Kopel started showing up at public events and talking shit about the democrats. He might say that that's just his opinion in his personal private life... but that shit would surely result in people not watching the news shows he anchors. It would blow back and it would piss people off.

It isn't fair, but that is part of being in the media or rather part of trying to be a journalist. If this is the first time that anybody even canceled a subsciption to a publication for which Pitt writes as a result of his behvior... he's damn lucky.

Seriously Will, suck it up man.

[KaraokeKarlton]

263. I'm hiding this shit-storm thread

I just wanted to let those I've been posting back and forth with that I'm hiding this thread because it's quite clear it's going nowhere fast.

One final thought.

I disagree with what the person who sent the email did.
I don't believe it was a violation of DU rules.
I do think it was a shitty thing to do.
I don't "blame" Will for someone writing to his boss.
I do think Will was foolish for posting under his real name because that DOES make it easier for people to do things like this. We get those warnings for good reason, and this is one of them. Let this be a lesson to heed those warnings.

Anyone who compared me to a rapist for holding the above positions should be ashamed of themselves. It's totally uncool to use such tactics as this to attempt to shame someone into silence by seeking to portray them as "dirty" and "bad" for disagreeing with you.

Okay, with that, I'm outta here.

[FubarFly]

269. Trying to make a logical argument counter to

peoples' emotions is a difficult thing to do. Whether the offender should or should not be banned is not up to you or I. As such, you are totally entitled to your opinion, and although I disagree, I respect you for it.

:toast:

[MSchreader]

267. Absolutely, positively, completely

UNACCEPTABLE!

I don't care what others here may think of me after saying this, but as far as I am concerned, whoever did this deserves whatever comes to them. This person is lower than low -- scum, slime, sleaze, snail shit. She is a snitch and should be treated accordingly.

Snitches are the second-lowest form of life, just barely above a scab. Sometimes, there is no discernable difference, since snitches and scabs generally walk hand-in-hand. Hence, they deserve the same scorn and treatment. People like this have fueled witchhunts and attacks across the years. In my view, these kind of people are FReepers without the consistency of also having fascist politics. Nevertheless, they are quite deserving of whatever kind of "justice" is meted out to them.

Yes, I am quite angry about this. I am angry that such a person has a nerve to threaten Will's job. That is the act of a craven coward and political opportunist. If someone tried to bring this kind of shit to my job, I would have no qualms about giving them an extended and much-deserved beatdown. As someone who has close ties to people who lived through McCarthyism, COINTELPRO and other blacklist programs, I am especially sensitive to these kinds of actions. I take it personally -- because there is no other way to take it.

I do not hold anyone other than the cowardly snitch responsible for her actions. Obviously, this was not part of a coordinated action, so holding Dean, his supporters or staff responsible is unproductive and unnecessary.

Personally, I think this cowardly snitch should be forced into the light of day. She should be permanently banned from DU (i.e., block her IP address), and her information should be made public, with a warning that this person is likely to harass you at work if she disagrees with you. People, DUers and non-DUers alike, should be warned about this person. She is dangerous, and should be treated accordingly.

Martin

P.S.: I have little doubt that the DU secret police ("Moderator") will descend on my little post and zap it out of existence. But before they send this to the ozone, they should take a moment to reflect on why it is that the actions of this scummy coward has elicited such a response....

Most of the DU moderators (if not all of them) have never had to worry about being fired from a job because of their political views. Unlike them, I have been blacklisted twice because I was "outted" politically on the job. So, you mods will have to forgive me if I am unbending in my anger and hostility on this issue.

Maybe, someday, when you get shitcanned for being a liberal or leftie, you will understand why some of us get angry. Until then, you will never understand.

[TLM]

272. It doesn;t seem Mr. PItt's job was at all threatened...

As i said earlier in this thread...

If I were a supporter of truthout and somebody they pay went to a public forum I was in and started attacking someone else I support, I do not think it would be harassing them to pull my support from truthout.

We're not talking about some blacklisting or some corporate CEO calling down to their dozens and dozens of media holdings and dictating that nobody is to publish Mr. Pitt. We’re talking about a boycott... and a boycott consisting of one person. This was nothing more than someone writing a complaint and canceling their subscription over something that was said in a public forum. Where’s the harassment?

I’ve seen this exact boycott tactic encouraged when directed at Rush or Fox News or Mike Savage.

While I personally don't think Will has said anything that rises to the level of deserving a boycott, that's all this action really is.

And since when is a boycott anti-democratic.

[MSchreader]

276. When a boycott is meant to silence a dissenting opinion

By costing the speaker his or her job, it is undemocratic (and downright fascistic, if you ask me). And make no mistake, this snitch was threatening Will's job. This, perhaps, is something you don't understand, since you've probably never been blacklisted before.

The language used by this snitch is the stuff from which blacklists are made. Will was fully justified to have been concerned. He may be lucky, in the sense that his boss is like-minded and may be understanding of such things. But that is Will's luck, and has no bearing on the actions of the snitch in question.

What if Will was working for a "mainstream" publication? Would his boss at such a place be so understanding? Unlikely. And THAT is the issue here. Will's boss at Truthout is an exception -- the exception that proves the rule, in my opinion.

But I have to say that I am bothered by the auto-defensism of you and others here. That you minimize and dismiss the issue makes me wonder if this snitch simply did what others had pondered for a while, but were not "audacious" enough to do.

By all rights, you and your fellow supporters should be the loudest among those condemning this snitch's actions -- if only to distance yourselves from such cowardly behavior. But you're not doing that, and it concerns me.

Martin

[dsc]

277. Oh Please

Several Dean supporters condemned this in the harshest terms and if you didn't see those posts then you need to read the whole thread. One person said the action was within the rules, and bluntly, it seems to be. I certainly don't think it is within the spirit of the rules and it certainly isn't right but it is technically legal. That was KK's sole point. That leave a couple of people who defended what was done out of several hundred Dean supporters on this board (this was posted at 1am est) and at least a dozen in this thread.

[MSchreader]

282. I didn't say a word to KaraokeKarlton at all

Where s/he comes into this, I do not know. If you have an axe to grind, go find a grinding stone. Don't bring it to me; I am really not in the mood for your sustained BS.

As for the Dean supporters, as I said in my original post, I have no reason to hold anyone other than the snitch responsible for her actions. However, I also find it a source of concern that there are some people here willing to alibi or apologize for her actions -- by saying they are "technically" within the rules, "technically" did not cost Will his job, etc. I find such scribblings the naive bleatings of those who think they will never have to worry about being blacklisted. Think again.

Even if it is the case that what this snitch did was fully within the letter and spirit of the rules, I find that to be besides the point. Such actions are reprehensible, and their authors deserve the scorn and treatment they get. I would say this regardless of which candidate this cowardly snitch supported. It is the person's actions, not their choice of candidate, that is the source of hostility here.

Martin

[dsc]

413. You claimed Dean supporters were defending this

so I listed the peole who had posted and what they said.

[incapsulated]

283. One person is not a "boycott" and what if it was?

This person donates money to Truthout. They are thinking of stopping because of what one of Truthout's more well known writers has said, under his own name, on a public web forum. That is certainly their right, even though we might disagree. If I gave money to an organization, and found one of their more famous employee's saying things I personally found offensive, would I decide to cease donating to that org? Maybe, depending on how strongly I felt about it. My money goes into that person's pocket after all, there is no law that forces me to do this. Or maybe I would shrug it off as their own personal opinion, that did not reflect on the organization, so I would not "punish" a cause I believed in, even though one of their representatives held personal views I found aggravating.

What if Will did work for a "mainstream" publication? And decided to publicly, under his own name, post on a rather raucous political web forum? Don't you think that a reasonable person would consider that this just might get back to his publication, should members of that forum become angered by what he is saying?

Nobody is "silencing" Pitt, other than himself at this point. If he want's to post under a name that is not his own, as most of us do, he could post whatever he likes without fear that it might get back to his real job. That is something we all take into consideration, isn't it? And make choices accordingly. For someone well known like Will, it's an even more important choice.

And by the way, you can't be a "snitch" about behaviour that is public. We aren't a secret club you know!

[MSchreader]

286. I disagree with most of the content posted here

Nevertheless, there is that little yellow star next to my username. Why? Because I find DU to be an excellent source of information and worthy of my donations. Under your guidelines, if I found out that someone like Plaidder did something I didn't like somewhere other than at DU, I have every right to send a nastygram to Skinner, et al., railing on her "vendetta" and withdrawing my donations.

Not only is that stupid and childish, it would also be an indication of my understanding of democracy: you have the right to say what you like, as long as I agree with it; otherwise, I will pull the financial plug.

It seems that you, like a lot of others here, are more inclined to blame Will for this situation than the snitch in question. Will has to "silence" himself here, out of concern that other such slime will commit similar actions.

This piece of snail shit got her wish; Will is censoring himself. I hope she is proud of her goosestepping self.

Martin

P.S.: And, in case you're wondering, incapsulated, I do not think that our rights should be dependent on the depth of our bank accounts. I have too much respect for democracy.

[incapsulated]

288. It's got nothing to do with money

And I really don't understand your point there...

It does have to do with "fame". Will Pitt's fame may be small in the big world, but it exists enough to get him on TV and to be well known right here. Can you get on a tv talkshow?

If, let's say, some reporter from the New York Times, someone quite famous, posted here under his own name, to assume that there wouldn't be consequences is just absurd.

Now, whether or not that endangered his job is up to the NYT, not a subscriber who complains about his posts. Famous people have to deal with this all the time. Most of the time the publication simply refuses to associate itself with what it's writers do on their own time, as long as they make it clear that they are not representing the publication they work for, only their personal opinions. Sometimes they are hired for those opinions, as well.

You are confusing the right to speak with the reality of the consequences of that speech. To say that a well known person is free to speak their mind is obvious. To say that it shouldn't have any consequence on their career is an opinion. It's up to their employer. Blame them if it does. But the person on the recieving end of that speech has freedoms too. Like the freedom not to financially support the speaker and the freedom to say so. Is it wrong that I refuse to watch and support some right wing trash like Hannity on FOX? Is it wrong for me to write them and tell them so?

[MSchreader]

345. It's obvious you'll never understand

It has everything to do with the relationship, in a society like this one, between the abstract right to do something and the concrete ability to do something -- which, as a rule, demands a healthy pocketbook. This is the point here, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

Take a look at the concrete ability of William Pitt to state his opinion. He says he has problems with Howard Dean. A Dean supporter takes offense and writes to his boss, saying that she will no longer financially support Truthout as long as Pitt states his opinion on Dean. Since Pitt does not wish to lose his paying job (which Truthout is), he censors himself by abstaining from the place where he once felt free to state his opinion. You call that "the consequences of that speech"; I consider it a form of terrorism.

As far as the fascists are concerned, "the consequences of that speech" can range from simply ignoring it to physical violence. Pressuring someone into silence lies somewhere in between these two ends. And that is precisely what this piece of snail shit did: pressured Pitt into silence, using the lever of his financial well-being.

"Fame" really has nothing to do with it, because this tactic can be used against anyone. Given your equivocation of democratic rights, I can gather that you will likely never be faced with a situation where your boss tells you, "keep your mouth shut or you're fired". Pitt's actions head that off at the pass, but the effect is the same.

(And, incidentally, I've probably been on more TV talk shows, done more news interviews and rubbed shoulders with more of the talkshow bobbleheads than most people here -- including Will, but we'd have to swap notes on that to be sure.)

Also, I don't think it is "absurd" to expect that someone here would not have their livelihood threatened because someone else has a difference of opinion (and, let's be clear on this, these differences you all have over candidates, are mere differences of opinion; they are not principled issues). You may be willing to dismiss someone's democratic rights because of their "fame", but I am not.

Yes, if Pitt's employer decided to buckle to the rantings of a scumbag snitch, then I would hold him responsible first. But I would consider the person who egged that on to be the spark that ignited the tinderbox, and would treat such a provocateur accordingly.

Being a willing and conscious accomplice to repression is no different than carrying out the specific act, in my book. That one chooses to act in this way is a sign that they, too, are not to be trusted and are just as much scum.

Martin

[Come Together]

351. This is all very interesting to a 'newbie':

First of all, I agree with a previous poster that snitching is just a step above scabbing.

However, if what else I read here is true, that is off the point.

This is my understanding:

Mr. Pitt is a journalist.
Mr. Pitt posts on DU as if he was one of us 'common folk'.
Mr. Pitt made someone angry enough to contact his employer for the purpose of what looks to me like a boycott.

Again, if you find a journalist, who is supposedly a news writer, advocating for one candidate and bashing another in the same party and further that journalist works for a well-known progressive outlet, why should you not be allowed to explain your concerns to the outlet and further to threaten what is really tantamount to a boycott?

Boycotting has a long and progressive heritage. Civil rights: bus boycotts; boycotts of tourism to states still using the confederate flag. Consumerism: boycotting products that sponsor products progressives find offensive...or shows on Faux that are ALL offensive. Journalism: there are currently several boycotts due to slanted coverage.

So, my take is that whomever contacted his employer was expressing a concern over the whether or not Mr. Pitt could be relied upon to provide even-handed news coverage. That seems reasonable. They used the almighty $$$ to back up their statements. Unfortunately, that is the only way one gets heard in this capitalist society.

Perhaps I don't understand the dynamic of Mr. Pitt's posts being taken from DU, but I don't understand why that would be breaking a rule. Posts are public here. Mr. Pitt chose to use his name here and even he states his job is in no danger.

[MSchreader]

362. One flaw in the logic

Will Pitt never "editorialized" in an article on Truthout. Thus, there is no way that his views could be construed as a reflection of the views of the Truthout editorial board, or anyone else connected to his job. To base a "boycott" on one person's views expressed outside of his or her place of work is an open attempt at censorship.

The boycotts you mention happened because the crux of the issue -- segregation, the Confederate flag, etc. -- was supported by those who had the power to decide one way or the other about that issue. In Pitt's case, the editors of Truthout had no way to "control" his views, and should not have that ability. A more accurate example would be if there was a "boycott" of a state called because an individual resident chose to fly a Confederate flag from a flag pole in their own front yard.

The so-called "expression of concern", combined with financial pressure, was meant to silence Pitt's personal views, which are expressed outside of his job. That is the act of a snitch and a provocateur, and they get what they deserve.

Martin

[TLM]

395. Wow... thank you for the reasoned response...

I see a lot of folks who seem to smell blood and want to dive in like so many piranna and lanuch a feeding frenzy on Dean supporters.

It bothers me to see the very same boycott tactic that we've used against Coulter, Rush, Savage, etc. being spun as now somehow censorship or snitching or undemocratic.

Nobody is obligated to support any organization, not me, or you, or anybody here.

[TLM]

391. Pitt said his job is in no danger....

And even if Pitt's employment situation were as tenuous as you want to claim... wouldn't it be colossally stupid to be going to public forums where subscribers to that publication that employs him hang out and to start talking shit about someone they support?

Sure Will has every right to do that... just as those subscribers have every right to cancel their subscriptions as a result.


"But I have to say that I am bothered by the auto-defensism of you and others here. That you minimize and dismiss the issue makes me wonder if this snitch simply did what others had pondered for a while, but were not "audacious" enough to do."

Funny I'm bothered by what seems to be a focused attempt by several folks to parlay this situation into yet another excuse to bash Dean supporters by acting like a boycott is somehow the same as blacklisting or censorship.

There's a big fucking difference between trying to silence someone... and simply refusing to continue using your own money to subsidize their microphone.

Are yu saying that this person is somehow obligated to continue supporting truthout, even if they feel offended by Mr. Pitt's public behavior and do not wish to continue contributing to his paycheck??

Now I've said I do not think what Pitt did rises to the level of deserving a boycott, however that's all this is. A one-person boycott, yet some want to act like it's the inquisition.

[MSchreader]

397. His job is in no danger ... this time

And what about the next? What if someone else decides to "boycott" his job because of his personal views -- even though they have never been reflected in his work there? Then what? Will it still all be Pitt's fault?

I have already responded to your arguments in other posts in this subthread. Diamondsoul also put together an excellent response.

I am not bashing Dean or his supporters as a general group. I am, however, quite bothered by what seems to be a trend among a handful of people standing out as Dean supporters and supporting political censorship.

As I said in another part of this thread, I think it's time for the Dean supporters' camp to clean house a little, and dissociate themselves from those whose commitment to democracy is tenuous at best.

Martin

[dsc]

274. We need to lay off KaraokeKarlton

Like it or not what happened here is almost certainly not against the rules.

Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone, threaten the livelihood of anyone, or otherwise harass anyone.


I put this message here so that it will be seen and read. Again I think the conduct here was both immoral and stupid. But I also think it was probably not against the rules as they are now written.



Do not send email, snail mail, phone, fax, or other messages to anyone if your intent is to threaten or harass, and do not encourage others to do the same.



Do not take your disagreements off the message board and into the "real world," and do not do anything to try to harm or harass any member of this message board in the "real world."

end of quote

It is possible to interpret these rules to ban the conduct of this person but frankly the clear meaning of these rules doesn't ban it. Only by having a tortured definition of anyone (which would include the person who wasn't the target) or by defining harass in a similarly tortured way, can these rules be made to apply. Sometimes laws and rules let us down. That is why new rules and new laws get made. No one thought of this situation and thus no one covered it. That happens. It did here. But we shouldn't blame KaraokeKarlton for telling us a truth we don't want to hear.

[robbedvoter]

278. Steno Sue - remember her? "public person' - Wa Po reporter?

For those disconnected from history, she aquired her nickname (can I say "nickname?") by taking dictation from Ken Starr and printing it as news.
When people were writing the paper complaining about her lies, she would track their places of employment and harass them - like our mystery DU-er here did. Freepers loved it! They were cheering Steno Sue on. Not all Republicans. Just the freepers.
Last night I was making this comment: there are posters on DU who are just like freepers - minus the personal harasment.
I stand corrected.
The mere fact that there are several people on this thread defending this action confirms my worse fears.
It is irrelevant whether Pitt 's job is in jeopardy or not. The letter writer's intent meant to create it - and failing to acieve that doesn't mittigate his/her horrible action.

I always considered fanaticism the most despicable human degradation.

Whether is in the name of religion, political convictions (stalinism, fascism) or TV show preference it brings the worst in people. It engenders the belief that the cause is so important, it justifies any behavior. Anything goes - from clobbering to murder - because "we are right" It blows away any sense of morality or respect to others.
To the person who wrote the letter to Truthout and those who support these actions (openly, silently): you've gone off the deep end - there's nothing separating you from the freepers now!
To Will Pitt: I sure hope you will reconsider your decision and stay. You are one of the few voices of reason on DU. We support different candidates and disagreed often in the past, but you are someone one enjoys arguing with and you always elevate the discourse. With people like you leaving, DU will lose about 500 collective IQ points - and cannot afford it. So, this is my plea: please stay!

[dsc]

281. Those are completely different things

While what was done to Will was wrong what Will wrote here was on a public forum. He had no expectation of privacy given that literally anyone can come on here and lurk. People who wrote to Steno Sue, on the other hand, did have an expectation of privacy. They were private letters between those people and her. To equate these acts is absurd. Thay are both wrong but one is way, way, way more wrong than the other.

[Name removed]

300. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

371. No Will isn't

but the plain fact is that his boss could have come here on his or her own at any time with or without Will's knowledge. The employer's in Steno Sue's case could have done no such thing. Again you evidently have a difficult time with the meaning of "What was done to Will is wrong". But it is less wrong than what was done to the people in Steno Sue's case.

[Zomby Woof]

388. a very Orwellian response

From "Animal Farm" no less. "Some animals are more equal than others". Now your moral relativistic tripe saying what happened to Will was "less wrong". So some wrongs are more equal than others, eh?

I haven't seen one Dean supporter in this thread fully and unconditionally condemn what happened to him. They always qualify it with "it's wrong but he should have expected this", "it's wrong but it's also politics", etc etc ad fucking nauseum.

Every last one of you makes me ill, and more determined than ever to fight Dean harder than ever.

[dsc]

393. We make distinctions all the time

We don't jail speeders we do jail murderers. What Susan Schmidt did is orders of magnatude worse than what this person did. This person took public info to Will's employer. Info that has been reported on the Rush Limbaugh show among other places (I don't know if Will was or wasn't quoted there but some people were and he did read user names). She shouldn't have done it. But she did not, in any way, shape, or form breach Will Pitt's privacy. Susan Schmidt did. And yes, diseminating the private writings of someone in order to get them fired is far worse than diseminating the public writings of someone in order to get them fired. Both are wrong. Both should be against the rules of conduct. But one is way, way more wrong than the other. Just like both murder and assult are against the law but murder is way worse.

[TexasPatriot]

352. thanks

I was thinking the same. There are so few opinions posted around here that last longer than a cut and paste sentence, much less a considered paragraph. (Hell, there's been more intellectual capital spent on this discussion than I've seen spent in most of the candidate-wars of late.) Will is one of the few that actually has something worthwhile to say - and someone going out of their way to harm him is wrong.

There have been times I felt there were elements of our oposition party that were becoming no better than the freepers. This confirms that I suppose.

[TLM]

404. Again since when is a boycott horrible?

Is this person that was offended by Will's public behavior somehow obligated to continue using their money to support Will's employer?

I mean if Salon hired ann coulter as a staff writer, would it be a horrible act of fanaticism for subscribers to salon to cancel their subsciptions and to say it is because they're offended by coulter's public statements?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

411. Again, a boycott would be appropriate if TRUTHOUT

printed Will's posts and the person objected.

If the person wished to boycott DU for what WIll posted at DU THAT might be appropriate.


Stalking Will at his job for what he posts here is out of those bounds but it does indeed make me glad that I post anonymously so that I may not meet Will's fate at the hands of Du'ers who may not be pleased by me or have some petty fucking grudge.

[imhotep]

279. my 2 cents

this whole thread belongs in the lounge with the rest of the emotional/personal garbage.

[sfecap]

284. Mr. Pitt...

I'm wondering why this is even posted here in GD2004P?

Why did you even post it at all? Shouldn't it be a matter between you and the Admins if a rule was broken?

Have you done something wrong? Why should your "boss" be angry with you? This IS a public forum, and you DO post under your own name. Surely you must have known that you may post something that someone would disagree with. Whomever wrote to Marc certainly has the right to disagree with you and as such discontinue their financial support. After all, that is a matter of choice, isn't it?

Perhaps you had an agenda when you decided to post your swan song?

[ClintonTyree]

296. My feelings exactly.............

see post #289.

[Padraig18]

285. I'm a Dean supporter, and this is COMPLETELY out of bounds!

Dear Will,

As I'm sure you realize, what this individual has done is in no way condoned by the vast, VAST majority of us who support Gov. Dean. This sort of gutter-level, poison-pen tactic is deplorable, and on behalf of all sane and decent Dean supporters, I would like to offer you a sincere apology.

People like that person are neither needed nor wanted by the Dean campaign, and I unconditionally condemn such cowardly tactics.

---Paddy

[TexasSissy]

287. I'm on your side, too! Count me in.

[oasis]

290. I have no doubt that posters who are in their "blame the victim " mode

would be warbling a different tune if you had been singing the praises of their candidate.

[stickdog]

295. I just want Will to know that, despite my fervent support for Dean,

I'd never even consider telling on him.

[Iverson]

301. print this out for your boss, Mr. Pitt

Any organization worth the name of truthout should not be maneuvered into chilling free speech. Especially in these reactionary times, such an organization should encourage individuals to become politically aware and active; my impression is that truthout.org's mission holds this idea as central to its purpose. Therefore, I hope that truthout will resist being moved by threats from people who have private disagreements with individual employees, just as we expect that our institutions of learning don't fire teachers who make utterances that fail to please everyone.

You have my condolences and shared outrage, Mr. Pitt. The very idea of attacking a citizen's livelihood is antithetical to liberty.

[ibegurpard]

302. Okay, I've been reading several very good points from all angles on this

And all I can say is that this sucks. If your job is actually threatened over this then you can count on me to protest it.

[Tinoire]

304. Despicable and a damn shame!

What a loathesome thing to do! I echo IG- let Skinner handle this one.

At your request I will not contact your boss in support of you but I, a proud supporter of a different candidate than yours, will be making a donation to TruthOut in your name.

Peace Will, chin up, don't let the scum who did this get to you. You keep right on trucking and posting under your real name- this is still your home and if you leave, well, it won't even feel like a facsimile of home anymore to me.

Karma always catches up with such people.

[jumptheshadow]

305. A note to Will's boss

Dear Sir,

Please don't take the extreme comments of one person seriously.

Will Pitt's posts always draw a high readership, as evidenced by the large number of responses they get.

Whenever he references your website, Will almost certainly does a highly effective job of drawing traffic and donations to it. If you want to check on whether this is true, search the DU archives, note when Will mentions your site, and then compare that data against your traffic and donations stats.

Will also has written several positive posts about virtually all the Democratic candidates. On many occasions he has focused the DU readership on our shared ideals and goals as Democrats.

This has been a particularly rough primary season, mainly because the stakes we face in this election are so high. The rhetoric, and the tactics, occasionally gets out of hand. We need Will's voice and his clear vision to remind us what our priorities should be.

Thanks.

A person who was guided to Truthout by Will Pitt

[hlthe2b]

309. I am so sorry to hear this...

I'm desperately fighting to maintain optomism for 2004 and that "our side" will rally around the candidate, whoever that might be to ensure we turn the tide on this corruption and devastation to democracy that is "current Republicanism."

Sadly, we have "DEMS" who turn to the same twisted tactics (against our own), that the Repugs do against us.

This too shall pass, Will. You have support.

[HFishbine]

310. Will, look at the big picture

As you note, you've posted here for nearly a thousand days straight -- and now you're going to let one misguided boob dictate your behavior? One thousand days, one boob. Seems like you've managed quite a bit of respect.

Think of the big picture Will. Those of use who read you on Truthout will continue to do so, we may not check in as often without your alerts to new articles, but your participation in DU, however partisan or not, has effects beyond your published works. Please don't cut off your nose to spite some boob's face. Your effectiveness as a force of education and discussion will be diminished.

I understand the concern of someone monkeying around with your livelyhood, but we can counter that. Post your boss's e-mail and plenty of Deaniacs will let her know that we approve of Will Pitts' participation on DU, and how your envlovement here actually publicizes Truthout.

[HFishbine]

312. Question: Are you sure this was DU poster?

After rereading your original post, I see that the portions you quote from the complaining e-mail do not specifically mention DU. Isn't it possible that this person is not a DUer? Maybe soemone overheard you say something, or was privy to some other non-published glimpse of your opinion.

[bitchkitty]

314. Will -

I saw this mentioned on another thread and forgot for a moment that you no longer taught school. I had a picture in my mind of some wingnut ranting to the principal about you.

I appreciate that you don't slam Dean in print outside this forum, and you don't really slam him here. Unfortunately your threads attract every newborn Dean-basher in the community in all their glory and that's probably why the DUer perceived it as actively campaigning against Dean.

Look at it as a sign of your popularity. I'll bet Al Franken's and Greg Palast's editors get a lot of fun mail.

[MaineDem]

315. Good lord

I don't know what to say, Will.

Do what you feel you have to do. I tend to forget that this is just an internet message board and it doesn't accurately reflect real life at all. Your job, on the other hand, IS real life and you should concentrate your efforts there.

I sometimes wonder if people here have any concept of what a primary fight is all about.

We'll miss you. I've learned a lot from reading your posts. And it has nothing to do with whichever candidate you personally support or not. You have a way of cutting through the crap and telling it straight. I appreciate that.

All the best...and keep fighting the good fight!

[Lars39]

316. That email was a form of blackmail, Will.

If the donor to Truthout was unhappy, she could have quietly stopped giving to the organization, but instead tried to make you conform to her views. Trying to silence someone in such a fashion is just a step away from blacklisting.

I've worried that you occasionally gave out too much personal information that enemies could use against you, but I never thought to see you have to step back because of your writings/opinion on the various candidates.

Please reconsider; censoring yourself in this manner is just giving into blackmail.

The person who did this clearly broke DU rules about harassmant and
should be banned.


On edit: as post #305 stated, I was also steered to Truthout by you from DU.

[Tinoire]

319. Well said

If the donor to Truthout was unhappy, she could have quietly stopped giving to the organization, but instead tried to make you conform to her views. Trying to silence someone in such a fashion is just a step away from blacklisting.

I would replace blacklisting with a much harsher word but excellent! You captured it in a nut-shell!

[Lisa0825]

317. Will, that is just awful, and I am sorry that someone....

proclaiming to be a Dean supporter would do that. I completely agree that your personal life and work are two seperate things, and I think it is reprehensible that anyone would contact your employer based on anything you posted here.

I am a pretty new poster, and I was really pleased to find out that you posted here, even if I disagreed with your choice of candidate. I will admit your writings gave me more respect for Kerry, and they also encouraged me to consider other points of view more seriously.

On behalf of the world class jerk who would write to your boss, I pledge to donate to Truthout, which I have never done before. Maybe if more people do so, your boss will see what a net POSITIVE affect your presence here actually is.

[Renew Deal]

318. This is not right

Just mention money. That is the way to get your bosses attention. This sort of slime should not be permitted. It is against the DU rules so you should submit the contact info to Skinner. Then again, any non-DUer can email your company.

The person that is responsible for this should be ashamed. Your willingness to try to shut up the people that don't agree with you is very Bushian. I suspect you will be voting for this person in November since your POV is in line with his.

:(

Will, I wish you the best and hope to see you again soon. :toast:

[Jacobin]

320. Why would a Dean partisan pay money to an organization

that opposes him?

I wouldn't give money to Pitt or Truthout to promote Kerry. I think he is a disaster waiting to happen, e.g. his much spun IWR vote, his jumping on the Bush* train criticizing Dems who opposed the invasion (isn't America safer without Saddam?), etc.

[bicentennial_baby]

324. ??

How is Truthout opposed to Dean? Will is not Truthout, he is an employee. How does Truthout promote Kerry over Dean?

[RetroLounge]

402. Truthout as an organization does not oppose Dean

Maybe individual members, but not as Truthout, and not on the TruthOut site.

While I disagree with Will about Dean, some of the most inspirational writing I've read is by Will and is from Truthout.

[Upfront]

415. I Gave A Small Donation

To Truth out because I liked the ad they ran against B*** on TV. I did not go after Pitt, but he has pissed me off a few times. If I had any idea that Truth Out was behind a certain candidate, even Dean, I would not donate to them. Seems to me that it would be wrong for them to back a single candidate during the primarys. Maybe Mr. Pitt was perceived as the voice for Truth Out on this forum and someone took exception.

[Crewleader]

323. William ,You are so part of DU!

I want to see what Skinner does about this, that someone had the intent to hurt you at your employment is beyond LOW and very against the rules here at DU. I hope you have gone to him and get this settled and not dare leave DU under these circumstances.

We don't need to know who it was but need to know that person is gone from here. If it doesn't happen there will be more of us gone.
I have never had "I'm leaving DU" thread but things like this is upsetting to all of us, not just you. This must be handled correctly to reassure us that the adminstration will stand behind us in circumstances that is not in our control but because of some other member's actions causing us a hardship to have to leave is just not right.

The infighting about candidates is ridiculous,I see people's behavior no different then freepers and we aren't suppose to act and be like them or we will never unite. Their greed brings them together, our anger should bring us together not at one another. God they are stealing our country right from under us and we are eating each other while they move forward with their plan!

DU from the start has grown because of DUers' like you William Rivers Pitt, you've been loved and hated with each word you write here. Believe me you are more loved then hated friend and we can't afford your absence here, we really can't!

I remember when you were a teacher, you had threats of getting intouch with your employer then, but that didn't stop you, don't let it stop you now. Your boss should look apon this as a positive sign that one of his best, moves people, be it negative or positive, you are motivation and a inspiration for alot of viewers those that love you as well as those who dislike you.

But you should feel free to post what you want here as long it doesn't break the rules. You've been a long time Kerry supporter and there's nothing wrong with that. You believe in the man and inform all the postiveness about him and did separate yourself personally for the interview. A fine job too, I emailed it out to my list so they have another view on another candidate those who haven't deceided.

I'm a Clark supporter,in my heart he is the one to become President that will do this country proud.But I am prepared to vote for the nominee whoever it may be just as you are. But expressing your likes and dislikes of a candidate shouldn't be taken personally like I have seen here or getting all information out on each candidate, we need to be open on all of them and more respectful of each other.


William DU means the world to you, but I know you have to eat and I just hope Skinner and your boss see how important it is to have you here and what it means to alot of DUers that love you, like me.

[Mairead]

326. Yes, it's awful -- but what's wrong with it?

Yes, this feels creepy and awful on one level...but on another level, why is it bad? What's wrong with it?

If you could shove Limbic or one of the other dirtballs off the air, you'd do it, right? So how is this different?

Is it because Limbic et al. are on the side of the Fiend himself and therefore deserves it?

Is it that William never said anything demonstrably awful about Dean and so doesn't deserve it?

Does 'deserving' even come into it?

Why would you do to Limbic et al. what you're getting outraged about here? Or wouldn't you do it to Limbic? And if you wouldn't, why not?

[Spider Jerusalem]

332. Would a Republican try to get Limbaugh off the air?

Would a professed Republican try to get an openly conservative, indeed, a conservative activist, journalist fired for daring to criticise one candidate out of nine in a hotly contested Republican nomination fight? Somehow I think not. What you're saying makes no sense at all, I'm afraid.

[Mairead]

340. "What you're saying makes no sense at all"

Well, perhaps not to you.

So you're saying that it's an issue of brand loyalty? That everyone's upset because this woman is supposedly a Democrat, so she has an obligation not to attack some other Democrat? But she apparently felt attacked, so what about that?

[in_cog_ni_to]

327. Will, I am so sorry this has happened to you.

Unfortunately, I can't say I'm surprised that a Du Dean supporter would do something like this. SOME of Dean's supporters harass supporters of other candidates on the streets while they are campaigning, they give supporters of other candidates the finger as they drive by in cars, they heckle the opposing candidates during their speeches during a National Convention and spread lies about who Dean's VP will be. I'm not the least bit surprised this has happened. It's win at all costs campaign. Since this behavior is ongoing, we can only assume that Dean himself condones it. At least I do. He must know it exists and if I were YOU, I would write Dr. Dean a nice long letter and let him know exactly what one of his supporters has done, not that he will do anything about it. :(

Flame away Dean supporters.

[CMT]

329. why should we, you did enough flaming for everyone

Will was gracious enough to say it was a single Dean supporter, not Dean supporters. You were ingracious enough to contaminate this thread with your hostility.

What happened to Will is beyond contempt. It is just plain wrong. What some people don't want to open their eyes to is that there are flame throwers in every campaign--not only Dean's and it is seen on DU. DU used to stand for something wonderful. Now it is getting to be nothing but a non-stop flame war.

I can understand why people are leaving.

[in_cog_ni_to]

334. Well obviously

it is NOT just ONE Dean supporter. The remarks I made are out of the mouths of people they HAPPENED to. I would hardly call the truth "ungracious" and "hostile" just because it's about Dean. I wasn't hostile. I stated the truth of things that Dean supporters have done and what Will should try to do to stop it before they try to destroy someone else's livelihood. It just adds to Will's account. It's not just him it's happening to, except THIS Dean supporter risked his JOB. Despicable and disgusting.

[CMT]

337. and no other candidate supporters engage in these types of acts

on DU or anywhere? They never flame other people or attack people's intentions. Stop throwing wide nets and look at some of the threads which attack Dean. Every campaign has its bad apples.

[Rose Siding]

328. Don't you dare let one person help defeat us!

You are stronger than that. One person, Will. And what if it were 10? or 50? Don't let them defeat us. If you can do any good by posting here, POST.

It isn't a dem candidate that is at risk but, ultimately, the future of our nation.

Studs Terkel wouldn't sign the oath and took the heat. It's your turn.

Don't turn your back on us.

[PATRICK]

330. The bright side

Isolated instances like this are worrisome. I feel unnerved when a Senator or someone feels unnerved over a measly few letters out of millions of voters. The power of the petty. One would like to think it was the power of the truth not the arrow of scorn that affects those trying to build up our society, but pain sometimes knows no higher virtue or balanced reason.

The bright side. I am getting a pleasant picture of the various campaigns in spite of the battle royals and flare ups and occasional line crossings. There is no mean machine or organized ruthless assault in any form or quality to lower itself to the GOP standard. Ominous fears about Macchiavellian cnadiates anbd their campaigns seem revealed as completely empty. Petty, unrestrained and frayed perhaps. Amateur hour, over enthusiasm and the safety of Internet anonymity for sure.

Let's save our energies for real campaigning. This is the equivalent of campaign workers razzing each other at the local bar. Kind of irrelevant for all the ruckus and certainly it should not transgress beyond the convivial environment.

When Boston wins the pennant we can all be more threatened by Pitt's judgment.

[Patriot_Spear]

331. I don't see a probelm here...

You admit you use DU for research- someone has chosen to fund Dean over Truthout.

Nothing to see here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

333. You are in a painfully small minority on this one

There is plenty "to see" and hundreds have seen it already, I have to wonder what percentage of the posts on this thread you have read. Someone pulling back support from Truthout because they would rather put their money into a candidates campaign is not a problem at all. Making a point to an administrator of Truthout that you are cutting off money because you think one of their reporters is on a vendetta against your candidate is something eles. Anyone who thinks Will engages in "Vendettas" because he has a different set of personal political priorities than they have is wrong, and to threaten Will's livelyhood because of that is very very very wrong. No one I have seen has shown me a single instance of Will waging a vendetta against Dean anywhere, let alone at Truthout, where his reporting has been excellent. Care to correct me on that?

[Patriot_Spear]

342. So Tom, just who do you want to censor here?

I respect your opinion, so I really want to know.

This person obviously felt strong about Truthout or they would'nt be supporting it financially.

And clearly they feel strongly about Dean to contribute to his campaign.

Now this person perceives a conflict between Pitt and their support of Dean, they feel like they had to make a choice- and they let Truthout know what influenced that choice.

Pitt has a right to say how he feels and support who he wants- The other person has the same right.

For my two cents, it's between them, not us.

Is Pitt posting here to express how sad this makes him ,or in a subtle way to turn the tables on the now non-contributor to Truthout?

Why should either have to remain silent? It's a tough call, they both have valid points.

[Tom Rinaldo]

358. We all have a responsibility for our actions

That's the theme of my reply I suppose. I agree, things are rarely as black and white as they first appear, but I can still tell the difference between tan and charcoal gray. Again, I see nothing wrong at all about someone redirecting their support towards what they believe in most, especially if they have reservations about supporting something else. In fact that is the right thing to do.

But this person did more than make a personal choice about where they wanted their money to go and why. They took it to another level. I do not believe that anyone who would make the type of points reportedly made in the email to Truthout would not be aware of the possible reprecussions making those statements in that context would have. I assume at least some of those reprocussions were intended. Does that mean that someone doesn't have a right to make those points? Of course they have a "right", they certainly have a legal right, free speech is protected thank God.

But in my book it is reckless and irresponsible to not weigh carefully the real world consequences of ones actions. Maybe that person in good faith thinks they did, but this is how I see it. They indirectly threatened the economic livelyhood of a journalist. Is that always wrong? No, but it sets a high standard for a burden of proof. They brought to bear economic pressures to curb or influence the practice of free speech by a known Democratic Party activist operating within Democratic media sources. Is that always wrong? No, but it is a hard stand to defend. We are the party of free speech, we want all opinions heard.

Since truth rarely is told in blacks and whites, it is necessary to look at something like this in its context. In this case the context is the writings of William Pitt, because the charge was made that Will is on a Vendetta against Howard Dean. Specifically, the writings of William Pitt in Truthout. Vendetta is not a value neutral term, it implies willful harmful intent, and disregard for the truth. Having a vendetta against a political candidate is not the same as thinking a diffent candidate is better suited for the office he is running for.

If the charge were true, if Will Pitt were using Truthout as an outlet to pursue a vendetta against Howard Dean or anyone else, the question turns more solidly gray as to what one should do. First off, let me say that I personally absolutely do not believe that is in fact the case here. But if someone feels otherwise, they should be prepared to back those feelings with solid evidence beyond "Pitt is backing another candidate on DU". Free speech does not cover slander for example. Some charges simply should not be made without careful documentation to back them up.

I would have to ask, did the person who sent the email write any letters or emails to Truthout previously regarding specific instances where they felt Will Pitt treated their candidate grossly unfairly? "Letters to the Editor" are traditionally the first line of defense against biased journalism, not attempts to link the journalist in question with being an economic liability to the media outlet that carries their work. There is certainly a lot to be seen in this one incident. We should not move on too quickly.

[Patriot_Spear]

363. Reasonably put, Tom- Thanks.

I absolutely see your point-

But honestly, I've done simiar things in boycotting Limbaugh and certain neocon writers- cancelling subscriptions, informing editors- there's nothing new is denying financial support to someone you don't agree with.

All the best,
PS

[Tom Rinaldo]

374. Always in context

That's why things are rarely black and white. Limbaugh DOES engage in vendettas, to put it mildly. Will doesn't. Beyond that I think I covered all my bases in my prior post.

You are very welcome.

[curse10]

335. I can't believe this

and I can't believe there are people posting in this thread that seem to support such bullshit!

Whoever did this is a disgusting person and I hope they are discovered.

Everyone on this board should denounce this action. We are a community here-- a sort of family-- a mighty dysfunctional one, but still.

This is the lowest of the low. And I am deeply saddened to know that someone did this to a fellow democrat and a fello DUer. :-(

[frank frankly]

336. Hey, to all the flamebaiting jerks throwing bombs at DU like it was fun

this is why you should shut the hell up.

Unless...if you are here to fuck up DU, great work! If you are here to prove in an anonymous forum you can be a mighty paper dragon, congrats!

This forum/information hub/learning center has taken a big hit because of your STUPID typed messages. Like Rush, like Bennett, like Bush, like Perle, you have succeeded by cowardly destruction. I hope you are trolls. At least I can understand that. A troll would try to destroy the truth, as you are doing.

One of the best minds available to you, to us, is probably gone.

You just cost me the chance to learn interactively from someone whose book lead me here.

----------------------------------

Sorry to see you go, Will, and I hope you come back.

Cheers, brother. And thanks for the knowledge.

:toast:

[LWolf]

338. So I wrote this email:

Just a note to let you know how much I enjoy Mr. Pitt's work here at truthout. I was troubled to find out that you lost a donation due to his postings on a separate, private message board about the democratic primary candidates. Mr. Pitt ought to be able to engage in political discussion and debate while off-duty. I've participated in those discussions with him, and never found him to inaccurate or unfair. So today I've signed up to send you a $5.00 per month donation, to make up for the loss of funds from one disgruntled donor. My preferred candidate is not Mr. Pitt's first choice; but we are joined in our determination to oust Mr. Bush, and replace him with the best democrat we can. Thank you for bringing truthout, and William Rivers Pitt, to your loyal readers.

Contact truthout at:

[email protected]

Donate, if you choose, at:

https://www.truthout.org/membership/membership.htm

A quick couple of minutes to address the issue.

[Patriot_Spear]

343. I'm sure Truthout is going to love all these Emails-

The issue clearly now makes their publication a deviding line.


What a mess.

[LWolf]

349. I don't see a dividing line.

Do you mean dividing line between democratic primary candidates, or republicans/democrats, or?

I don't see it as primary campaign issue, or even a democratic party issue.

[Patriot_Spear]

353. I do- and I just sent an Email to Truthout to that effect.

Straight up- I told them I'll be back after the primary is over.

Will Pitt absolutely has a right to his view- just like everyone else.

[RichardRay]

344. Once again, I am puzzled

by the firestorm and the rhetoric on this kind of issue.

Someone contacted Mr. Pitt's employer to complain about Mr. Pitt's statements on this board. Mr. Pitt posted to say what had happened and provide an eplanation for his plan to maintain a low profile. I don't want Mr. Pitt to do that, and I disagree with the original message sender's opinion. (I also disagree with some of what Mr. Pitt writes, but that's not the issue here.)

All the hoorah about the DU rules just provides a nice example of why writing good laws is so difficult and why attornies will always have work. All the name calling and blame throwing is just so much more noise.

The original message sender was within his rights to disagree with Mr. Pitt, I am within mine to support him.

The easiest, most direct and most appropriate response for me is to contact truthout, commit to a generous monthly contribution and note with that contribution that I do not wish his participation in this forum to be curtailed.

I have done so.

[adadem]

348. Me, too n/t

[Name removed]

356. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

357. divide and conquer

is such a lovely tactic!

Works so well for the neocons and their many stooges on the left.

In one fell swoop, let's try to damage Will Pitt, DU, truthout, and a few hundred DU posters. Nice move, whoever you are.

Care to share with us YOUR employer's name?

[UrbScotty]

360. Everybody Please Email Will's Boss at Truthout!

Tell him not to fire Will!

http://www.truthout.com/contact.htm

[Patriot_Spear]

364. I did, but not for your purpose...

I told him to cancel my subscription until after the primary. I certainly don't want Pitt fired.

[bicentennial_baby]

373. Did you say it was b/c of Pitt?

[Patriot_Spear]

386. Yeah, you read his post and tell me why. n/t

[demnan]

370. Done

I was sorry to note that bad publicity had been forwarded to you about Will Pitt from Democratic Underground. I am a member of Democratic Underground, and while I don’t always agree with Will I am happy to debate, joke with, and hear his views on issues. I have both his books and must say that his book interview with Scott Ritter was one of the most important works I read last year.

Our Message Board is undergoing a crisis right now. There is so much vicious fighting that many of us are considering leaving it. I’m hoping that publishing this letter to you will persuade you, as a fellow Dean supporter to continue to employ Will. There are many hot heads aflame right now and I’m hoping that a calmer voice will be more persuasive.

Also tell him to come back to DU.

[bicentennial_baby]

372. Um

Have you read this entire thread? It seems that Will says he is not in danger of being fired, and that he would rather people do not contact his boss.

[demnan]

361. I am so sorry

Someone did that to you. I can't image the motive involved in doing something to hurt you professionally. I don't understand the viciousness of the debates about candidates on this forum, I truly don't. I'll debate you on the candidates here, but everybody knows

God hates a snitch.

[drfemoe]

367. I just have to wonder

if this is the way TO plans to treat every "customer complaint"?

Your post claims someone reached out and attacked you 'in your place of work'. Yet you have posted work related items many times in the past, and now this "customer complaint", which would seem to call for confidential handling, has been published on DU. Why is that? Is this not something that would be better handled between you and your employer and the 'customer' (paying the bills) privately?

Your words have prompted a mob reaction to a "possible" Dean supporter who is "possibly" a DU member. People don't have to register to read this site. Or link to it, or repeat it, or reprint it. So now DU has almost 400 more divisive posts, which ARE searchable on google ... google news even searches DU.

I wouldn't care who the "customer" is in this situation. It just doesn't seem like the best way to handle such a sensitive matter.

[Cheswick2.0]

377. thank you for supplying a voice of sanity on this thread

I fail to see how any of this belongs on this forum to begin with. Are Will and this person running against each other in the 2004 primary?

Will needs to decide if he is a private person posting on a message board or a political pundit trying to be a public persona and build a following.

Bringing a customer complaint from T.O. to DU doesn't seem like the most professional thing to do regardless of the validity (or not)of the other person's complaint.

[Malikshah]

368. Your apologies ring hollow, again.

This was a serious misdeed by a supporter of Dean. It should have been addressed in a less inflammatory manner.

You, however, appear to desire to ratchet up the angst on the board and have, again successfully done so.

Your apologies ring hollow--you may not have intended to paint Dean supporters with a broad brush--but by focusing in on it you bring up the old anectdotal weapon that was so masterfully used by the anti-Clinton brigade as well as all politicos.

From now on--folks who dislike Dean and his supporters will trumpet this, extrapolate from it and use it as reason to attack the candidate, etc.

Congratulations--you have done your duty whether you know it or not.

BTW-- One wonders if other candidates' supporters are lily-white in all their actions? It's not worth looking into--as it would simply add to the general "eating one's own" mentality on this board.

One can add as many disclaimers as they wish--the point is yelling fire in a crowded auditorium is still wrong.

[jonnyblitz]

375. your post is 100% right on.

thank you.

[Malikshah]

396. No Prob--been there, done that.

This has become a habit...regardless of edited threads, etc.

I, for one, am getting tired of it.

There is so much going for our side, and I'm disgusted that folks will infight, air dirty laundry and generally screw things up.

What makes it even more egregious is that the media has begun to catch on--and yet folks still continue.

It's called maturity. It's called responsibility. It's called integrity. Folks from all camps of opinion on the Democratic side better look into this, now or we'll have 4+ years more of the regime...

[MSchreader]

379. So is threatening someone's job and demanding censorship

Which this cowardly snitch was trying to do.

Quite honestly, based on many of the responses I've seen here and in other threads, I think the Dean supporters' camp needs to engage in a little housecleaning.

Flame me if you want, but I call them like I see them.

Martin

[jonnyblitz]

387. sorry

you dont blame a whole group for the actions of one person. Will started out doing this and has since retracted and edited his initial post to reflect this. The anti-Dean folks have ignored his retractions and have continued to carry out their tirades against the whole Dean movement. This is not right and probably should have been handled privately. It's mob mentality. If you have ever been a member of a stigmatized group you might be more sensitive to this.

[MSchreader]

400. I don't blame the whole group, either

But it's high time the whole group take a stand and clean their own house, otherwise it WILL reflect on you all.

Martin

[mzmolly]

369. First of all it wasn't me.

;) However, I do have an unpopular opinion.

It feels like a witch burning party here. We are all saying "Will has a right to freedom of expression, but the TO donor does not?"

This is the price of fame Mr. Pitt. As a semi-famed 'reporter' for TO you represent them, like it or not. Just as any reporter somewhat represents his employer. Heck I've worked for Banks that required I behave in a certain manner in my off time.

These boards are not so 'private' they are read by Limbaugh on his radio show, it was bound to come to a head at some point.

I am on a posting haitus, but wanted to say so long, and "May the road rise to meet you, may the wind be at your back..."

I won't be back to debate my opinion, carry on :hi:

[bigtree]

381. Discussion boards can be dangerous places to express yourself

if your identity is revealed. Hence the wacky screen names. I'll miss the affinity Will had for DU and his willingness to share with us and make us seem part of the stories unfolding, as well as a part of his excellent writings. I am utterly saddened by this development.

-ron fullwood

[Duder]

383. IMHO, two wrongs here...

Disputes between individuals should be settled directly by the parties involved and not outside the forum such as at truthout or through a generalized thread on DU that implicates the supporters of a particular candidate, imo. One person blurs the line between an authors' negative posts at DU and truthout and then the author blurs the line between that individual and a candidate's supporters. Neither actions are honorable, imo.

If an individual states that they will support the nominee after September 1, I have to wonder if that individual is perhaps naive about the primary process and/or truly committed to removing Bush from the W.H. There are some posts that when you ask yourself "what is the purpose of this thread?" where the answer is nothing more than perpetuating more divisiveness within the Democratic Party. Disseminating divisiveness makes any proclamation of ABB seem hypocritical, imo.

[diamondsoul]

384. I'm just utterly disgusted from reading

this whole thread.

Mairead asks if I'd do something like this to Limbaugh. The answer is NO, I WOULD NOT. For all that I think he's a disgusting, hateful, bigotted, creep, he's allowed to be exactly that and to be heard whatever his twisted thoughts might be.

Erasure says Pitt has made some enemies, ok, and he's made some friends, too. I don't write his boss to compliment him on a regular basis because I have no interest in affecting his job situation one way or the other. If I have a compliment I deliver it to the man it's meant for, not to his boss. I'd do the same with a conflict because that's what decent human beings do.

The fact that Will is pseudo-famous has not a damned thing to do with his right to spend his off-duty time arguing for his preferred candidate on these boards. He's entitled and he's entitled to do so without threats to his livlihood, period.

Let it be known that most of the candidates who have met or read Will Pitt have sincere admiration for him. Dennis Kucinich loves his writing and I doubt he'd be pleased to know his supporters are defending a sleazy, sneaky attack on him like this one. I would imagine Howard Dean would feel the same, assuming he's at all familiar with Pitt's work over all.

To those who say "Pitt's job is not in danger..." No, not THIS time. What happens when every other disgruntled DUer starts pulling support over a candidate disagreement and threatening truthout like that? What happens when Pitt is told if he wants to keep writing there he has to give up his off-duty pursuits? Everyone got furious over soldiers being told they can't speak ill of Bush, yet nobody sees a problem with trying to punish Will in the exact same manner? Please!

For Will, do what you must, but if your boss doesn't stand right beside you on this one, he's a wimp who probably ought not be running a site called truthout. The threat of pulling support ought to easily be countered by the numbers of people who read and donate to truthout mostly because of you.

If it were up to me the person who wrote your boss would be tombstoned, your boss would sit down with you and laugh at obnoxious little control freaks like this one, and you'd remain the interesting and passionate contributor to DU you've always been.

[MSchreader]

392. Attention: All thinking DUers

Take this article, print it out and place it near your computer -- preferrably in a suitable frame that accentuates its best features, and hopefully next to a copy of the First Amendment.

A major-league :thumbsup: to you, diamondsoul.

Martin

[salin]

394. You and IG - make me proud to be a Hoosier

Well stated Diamondsoul... well stated.

[Patriot_Spear]

409. So what about TBTM boycott of Limbaugh?

From your post it looks like you're saying that was wrong. Am I mistaken?

I refused to continue purchasing from Overstock.com for TBTM; was that 'wrong'?

[salin]

389. I would like to say that I am shocked.

But I am not.

The level of insane vitriol... this side against that side... has been escalating to a point where I have feared for a long time that will be close to impossible to heal when we have to pull together behind a single candidate. Sadly it isn't only folks in one camp or another doing it... there are also a group of gadflys that constantly work to throw soap in the kettle to bring it to a boil more quickly - with a masochistic GLEE let out with yips and hollars as the next flame war goes on. It has led to a number of folks losing all sense of perspective. I have witnessed this from nearly EVERY candidate's camp.

I would like to say that I am shocked that someone would take conversations from this message board - to a posters place of work... but sadly this is the second time I have heard of such an action. I can not IMAGINE feeling so self-righteous as to take a DU debate (or series of debates) to a person's workplace. Nor can I imagine feeling justified at doing so under any reason. I guess my personal boundaries are just a lot tighter than some folks' boundaries (in terms of what bounds my behavior and self-description of decency.)

To those who equate this action, with complaining about a journalists article (ala the "Gore-ing" in 2000), there is a huge difference. Those complaints were about the work product - the column or on air work product. That is legitimate. From what I have read - Will has not ever crossed those 'battle lines' (that is the lines here at DU per candidate camps) in his professional work product. Trying to go to the work-product place... to SHAPE his private behavior... (eg... what else was the point except to try to get his BOSS to get Will to temper his behavior on a message board?)... is WAY over the bounds.

Doing the same thing to any other DUer... going to the work place with some kind of complaint about a DUers use of private time on a message board... WAY over the bounds.

To Will: we have hung out here a long time. You longer than I. We sometimes interact... and other times just sorta cross in the messageboard night. We came together on an issue of common interest and got some good information out there. While that can happen again - off the boards, I regret the loss of opportunity for that to happen with you and some other obscure DUer (as I was at the time) on another issue of common interest at some time in the future. All because someone has stepped far out of bounds. I understand your reaction, and accept your call in terms of how you need to respond. But it doesn't make me lament the loss to the board and the community and for future collaborations among other DUers that could have been.

Take care.

salin

[LuminousX]

398. I thought this was against DU rules...

It is really Freeperish if you ask me. I may not agree with Will Pitt some of the time, but doing this is just out and out creepy.

[Patriot_Spear]

407. DU rules stop at the DU border...

Any lawyers out there want to field this one?

[LuminousX]

417. If I harass a fellow DUer, I should be kicked off DU

and this is harassment.

[cindyw]

399. Your not the first Mr. Pitt. Kerry's core supporters have had their jobs

threatened also. It went as far as a their work places being threated. It is one of the reason you can no longer get the e-mail addresses on the blog or on the forum. It used to be that you could click the names of bloggers and e-mail them directly. It seems that supporting Kerry is a good way to have your livelihood threatened.

[LTR]

403. Harassment in the 'real world'

I'm sure many here have been harassed outside DU for opinions posted here. But it's usually at the hands of who we call 'freepers'. By harassment, I mean being stalked and having personal information coming into play. It happened to me in a right-wing forum once (my fault, since I was playing with them a little too rough - you know how thin-skinned those reptiles are), and while I laughed it off, since the methods used to gather information were what I saw as 'amateurish', it is definitely not right. It is something that we rant about here everyday.

DUers should be well above this kind of pettiness. Contacting Will Pitt's boss is low, and very freeperish. It is also noted in the DU forum rules, specifically. Whoever did this is well deserving of a tombstone.

Will, as many here have advised, you should PM Skinner or one of the other admins, and give them the entire email with sender (identification of harasser). Behavior like this is what will bring down DU. And I for one do not want part of a forum that encourages this type of behavior.

[Patriot_Spear]

405. Oh please... Harrasment my Aunt Fanny... HHHEEELLOOOOOO?

A contributor to Truthout decides (for their own reasons) to stop contributing and that's harrassment?

well then, I 'harrassed' News Day when they printed a neocon puff piece by cancelling my subscription then telling them why I did it.

For the love of pete...

[LTR]

416. I see it differently...

...although you do make a valid point.

This person took a DU disagreement to Pitt's place of work. The vibe that I felt was one of intimidation toward him.

I don't care if this person contributed to Truthout or how much he or she contributed. The issue here is that DU is connected. Pitt assumed all of us were above this freeper bullshit. His trust was blatantly violated, and in a way that directly violates a DU rule. THIS is the issue.

[Patriot_Spear]

418. I disagree.

We don't have to agree.

[Walt Starr]

406. I must honestly say, I am not surprised

The level of discourse in this campaign has been ratcheted up and up and up. You even said, this is the primaries, get used to it.

This is politics, Will. It was bound to come to these sorts of dirty tricks, but heck, some people shouldn't have got their knickers in an uproar over ad copy that compared Dean to Osama bin Laden either, right?

Now from where I sit, I consider both the Dean/Osama ad and this dirty trick to be the acts of scummy, sick individuals. This is politics, though, and these things happen I guess.

I suppose you see why half of the country won't vote and some of the other half are beginning to wonder why they ever got involved in the first place...

[RandomUser]

410. Don't let this lone extremist Dean supporter beat you, Will

This person is not representative of all Dean supporters. And you should not let this single Dean supporter run you out of DU, or keep you from posting freely here.

You and I may not agree on candidates, but in the time I've been on DU, I've come to respect your writing and your often insightful posts. DU would be a poorer place without your insights.

I am disgusted by what this single Dean supporter had done to you. And I'm disgusted even more by the people on this thread defending the injustice done to you.

But for ever person who feels that way, there are a hundred more standing right by your side. Let your boss know that your involvement and active posting on DU has done more to bring people into Truthout than drive fanatical Dean supporters away. I certainly was not aware of Truthout before learning it from you and others here. And my respect for Truthout stems greatly for the intelligence I've seen in your postings on DU. It's a net gain for Truthout.

I know the decision is ultimately yours to make. But I, and doubtless countless others on DU, would ask that you remain with us and not give in to the demands of one extremist Dean supporter. No one should be allowed to threaten your livelihood outside of DU. If it can happen to you, it can happen to any of us.

Stand your ground -- for all of us. Don't give in to this Dean supporter. Don't let them silence you.

[SayitAintSo]

412. Will - I am donating to Truthout on your behalf....

What this person did is an awful thing. It makes me even more wary of the 'Deaniacs' and Dean's true electability if one of thiers would resort to such underhanded methods that they begin to 'eat their own'. There is no way that this is not a reflection on the Deanies here ... sorry but that's the way I feel. No gettin' around it. They need to come clean, make amends and make it right if they have any integrity left after that stupid stunt.

One of the things that's kept me here at DU is the quality of folks like you Will Pitt posting your 'personal opinions'. You should have the freedom to do that. You have brought so much to this forum. I hope the person who did this to you is outed and pays enormous consequences for violating the rules here at DU.

Look for a big fat donation from me to Truthout on your behalf.

Sayitaintso

[EarlG]

420. Okay

I'm going to lock this thread now because we have discussed it long enough. I'm sorry we didn't get to this earlier, but Skinner is visiting his parents for Christmas so we've only just been able to get all three Admins together to discuss this.

Ultimately this is an issue between Truthout, Will Pitt, and the anonymous contributor. If Truthout and Will Pitt are concerned about this matter and choose to contact us privately to discuss it, we will absolutely look into it and determine whether the rules have been broken (or whether this is behavior that requires action by us) and what the consequences should be for the DU member, if it is a DU member.

If Will Pitt and Truthout choose not to contact us, then that is up to them, and it will remain their issue.

To put this in perspective, people write to DU on a very regular basis to tell us that they're not going to donate, or they're going to halt their donations, because of something they've seen on the message board - it's unfortunate, but it's sort of a fact of life when you're in this business.

EG
Admin