Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:32 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

Dear Skinner, when may we expect Manny Goldstein back?

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Now that "purgatory" is being emptied, how about some even-handedness and bring back valuable contributors like Manny?

173 replies, 12548 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Cannot reply in locked threads

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

173 replies	Author	Time	Post
Dear Skinner, when may we expect Manny Goldstein back? (Original post)	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	OP
K&R.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#1
Or at least Third Way Manny	jberryhill	Mar 2016	#2
No. He wasn't out because of 5 hides. He was PPR'd.	SunSeeker	Mar 2016	#3
Bullshit. nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#4
Ditto the bullshit.	SoapBox	Mar 2016	#5
3x	Depaysement	Mar 2016	#13
+10,000 nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#56
Bull.	840high	Mar 2016	#8
.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#14
The same could be argued about more than a few who have returned from purgatory.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#16
Those MIRT members that planned off-site to get members hidden here should have been PPR'd	polly7	Mar 2016	#28
And of course requests to do so were met with the sound of crickets.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#31
Yes.	polly7	Mar 2016	#33
"I'd love to turn Bonobo or cali into the quivering little chickenshits they are."	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#32
I have to admit, I have complete contempt for those people and always will after seeing their	polly7	Mar 2016	#35
I have to ask:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#36
Well, I don't imagine the alert-stalking is going to do much, if so	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#52
And this one .......	polly7	Mar 2016	#63
Wow.	progressoid	Mar 2016	#65
yikes, I need each and evveryone of these people on my ignore list.	Cobalt Violet	Mar 2016	#129
As far as I know, Skinner has never banned anyone for what they said off site.	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#166
No, folks allowed back under the new rules were alert-stalked into time outs. Mannie was banned.	SunSeeker	Mar 2016	#48
He was banned for	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#50
That is not why he was banned.	SunSeeker	Mar 2016	#71
Well that is what is says on his transparency page.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#93
Actually that is why he was banned.	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#167
No mostly they were jerks who earned their hidden posts by being jerks.	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#67
The admins have obviously noticed a partisan bent to the hides.	joshcryer	Mar 2016	#91
I know that Manny was banned.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#125
^^^ What SunSeeker Said ^^^	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#92
Sunseeker has been corrected on what (s)he said.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#96
And so have you. n/t	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#100
No, all I have seen are assertions, not arguments.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#105
I thorougly love Manny's sense of humor.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#123
And hence the question begs to be asked: when will he be invited back?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#132
Where is kelliekat? Alert-stalked away also. nt	Jitter65	Mar 2016	#154
OOPS	Omaha Steve	Mar 2016	#6
Bring Manny back	NJCher	Mar 2016	#7
posted without comment or reply.	revmclaren	Mar 2016	#9
It speaks of overreaction:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#25
Very true	Duckhunter935	Mar 2016	#155
You must have been lurking for the 2008 PUMA movement	pintobean	Mar 2016	#163
it certainly says a lot about the admins	redruddyred	Mar 2016	#39
No. He wasn't suspended because of hides. He was banned,	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#10
No shit he was banned. NO, he didn't deserve it, as much as he threatened the	polly7	Mar 2016	#11
He was in very clear violation of the terms of membership.	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#15
Nah, he wasn't.	polly7	Mar 2016	#20
If it's so obvious, then why are you disputing their decision? nt	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#21
Because I think it was 'wrong', why do you think?? nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#23
despite this the rule is bizarre	redruddyred	Mar 2016	#62
No he was not, quote where he was then	Duckhunter935	Mar 2016	#156
He was PPRed. There's no coming back unless he personally pleas his case with Skinner.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#12
So did Trumad, but he is back for an encore.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#17
To the best of my knowledge, Trumad was never PPRed.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#18
Well, he was a Clinton supporter, so I guess a PPR was too much to ask even then.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#19
Oh brother!	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#24
I didn't realize he was gone. I don't keep score.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#136
Trumad is back???????	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#131
So did CajunBLazer, by posting verbatim Jew-hate from a neo-nazi site	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#26
Good point,	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#29
Was that poster PPRed?	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#30
No, they were not, and that's kind of the point I'm making	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#40
Then you have no point to make.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#61
Arbitrary rules that are oft allowed to be defied on personal bias is no way to run a kingdom	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#86
You are free to leave if you don't like it.	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#99
I'd prefer a community with stable, predictable standards of conduct from all sides	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#109
I wonder whether your analysis is correct.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#128
We would certainly welcome it.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#134
Not All Bernie Supporters	ProfessorGAC	Mar 2016	#168
or L0oniz. or NYC_SKP	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#22
Yes, they too, of course. Manny was just the first name that came to my mind.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#27
+10,000 nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#55
+1	MissDeeds	Mar 2016	#118
Also. I would like to have them back.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#138
Wait, NYC_SKP has been nuked? n/t	Turborama	Mar 2016	#153
He was banned, not suspended.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#34
Which in itself speaks of a double standard.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#37
He was banned for a cause. Bernie or bust type stuff.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#41
Which during PRIMARIES is not disallowed. By the way:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#44
Skinner posted a clarification	bravenak	Mar 2016	#49
When "arbitrary" now means "biased"	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#53
This place is status quo	bravenak	Mar 2016	#68
Anything that favors your preferred candidate, eh?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#72
I am not emotionally tied to a candidate.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#76
Nope. nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#66
It is on his profile.nt	bravenak	Mar 2016	#70
See post # 57 please.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#74
Here	bravenak	Mar 2016	#75
Do you even read before replying?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#83
Not my call.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#88
But the primaries aren't over yet!	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#98
I know.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#104
OK, great. Seems a reasonable position. Would you then agree	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#107
Okay.	bravenak	Mar 2016	#113
I remember exactly what was posted. It was a bad ban.	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#81
Do you mean to ask if I would have banned him?	bravenak	Mar 2016	#85
Not at all what I meant. But I do agree. nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#144
No. He was in violation of a clear standard. Read the terms of membership.	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#45
^^^THIS^^^	SunSeeker	Mar 2016	#54
Ah, NO! Please see post # 57	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#60
The standard is clear. The violation was not:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#57
You missed this part:	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#79
At the time, it was (and still is) uncertain Clinton would be that candidate/ nominee	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#87
It is only permitted if the poster leaves the door open about changing his mind.	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#150
You Better Believe It!	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#97
We don't believe it, because there is nothing to back up that claim.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#101
You know, you could take it up with Skinner in ATA. That's what it's for. I get that you're trying	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#106
Yes, this is applying public pressure. Well spotted.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#108
Good luck with that!	Tarheel_Dem	Mar 2016	#111
skinner appears to have trashed ATA	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#114
Oooh, you just made me spray tea. (LOL)	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#115
Sadly, time to call it a night	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#119
I'm in a different time-zone, so allow me to keep up the good fight.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#122
NSS!! nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#38
What?	bravenak	Mar 2016	#42
Lol! +1	BeanMusical	Mar 2016	#82
It certainly seems that some TOS violators are arbitrarily ppr'd while others	bbgrunt	Mar 2016	#43
I have decided and it speaks of double standards.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#47
The establishment at their finest--much like DWS.	bbgrunt	Mar 2016	#58
The "establishment."	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#80
the above statement was brought to you by BIAS -	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#89
But if we set up websites of our own, it won't be any fun.	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#139
This is a website promoting the Democratic party owned by an individual. It is not a Democracy.n/t	pnwmom	Mar 2016	#149
You are free to spend your time elsewhere if it bothers you so much. eom	MohRokTah	Mar 2016	#69
So are you, there's always the cave, right? nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#77
is that where Moh lives after earning six or seven hides?	Scootaloo	Mar 2016	#90
Probably. I'd guess mostly camped out in the hidden Grumble section. nt.	polly7	Mar 2016	#94
Yeah, I mention these things because I'd rather be somewhere else.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#78
Manny was milder than the Rude Pundit	LiberalLovinLug	Mar 2016	#46
People that don't get satire must have it rough in the real world.	polly7	Mar 2016	#51
You don't get it.	delrem	Mar 2016	#59
F*CK David Brock, then.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#64
shrug. It's reality, Betty. Reality.	delrem	Mar 2016	#84
K&R nt	Live and Learn	Mar 2016	#73
Heaven forfend....Dieu nous en garde !	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#95
It would be fair and even-handed.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#103
He's been banned (thankfully), not suspended. Different rules.	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#110
Banned arbitrarily. Different standards too, perhaps?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#117
Skinner IS the ultimate arbiter around here...thank god.	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#120
Ultimate, but even he has imperfections.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#124
There was nothing "arbitrary" about that decision.	NanceGreggs	Mar 2016	#126
Yes, it's clear that your side wants a monopoly on reprieves.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#145
Don't like the rules? Change forums! Arbitrary after 10~ years of disruption?	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#127
So you want us to give you Hell and a cold treatment too?	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#147
THE MANNY HATERS CAN FUCK THEMSELVES	Skittles	Mar 2016	#102
Manny is gentle, kind, witty, ironic, imaginative, and enriched DU immeasurably.	senz	Mar 2016	#112
Senz, the kindness of your every word is wonderful.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#116
Illegitimi non carborundum	senz	Mar 2016	#121
Haha. You appeal to the latinist in me now:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#130
Wow, I'm impressed.	senz	Mar 2016	#140
Actually, I have Horace's collected works on the bookshelf: one very think volume.	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#142
What psycho-babble codswhallop...Bwaahaaaaaa!	Surya Gayatri	Mar 2016	#143
LOL! Well, I tried	senz	Mar 2016	#146
+100000000000000	JDPriestly	Mar 2016	#148
Jesus Christ, get a room already!	randome	Mar 2016	#159
He was a troll - banned for TOS violation. n/t	Lil Missy	Mar 2016	#133
Let me repeat once more: the rule is clear, the violation was NOT at all clear:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#135
It clearly helps Republicans. Get over it.	Lil Missy	Mar 2016	#137
Here is something for you to get over:	Betty Karlson	Mar 2016	#141
LOL...	SidDithers	Mar 2016	#151
Manny had an aversion to the likely...	Mike Nelson	Mar 2016	#152
Who says he wants back in here?	LiberalElite	Mar 2016	#157
God, the hero worship here is embarrassing sometimes.	randome	Mar 2016	#158
Manny is a racist. He was rightfully banned for his racist, and otherwise trolling. nt	msanthrope	Mar 2016	#160
That's not what he was banned for.	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#165
Black posters were on the receiving end of that 'advocacy.' Targeted, alert stalked, etc. You	msanthrope	Mar 2016	#169
No argument at all there, and Bravenak is one of my most favorite people on this board!	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#170
And people want his racist ass back.....unbelievable. nt	msanthrope	Mar 2016	#171
In order to expect that you'd have to think the rule changes were about fairness and inclusivity	aikoaiko	Mar 2016	#161
His ban was for something other than violating the "rules" covered in yesterday's OP by Skinner.	George II	Mar 2016	#162
Reasons as stated by Skinner.	Amimnoch	Mar 2016	#164
Where did Skinner say he's allowing banned members back?	sufrommich	Mar 2016	#172
Locking	In_The_Wind	Mar 2016	#173

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:33 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

1. K&R.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:42 AM

jberryhill (62,444 posts)

2. Or at least Third Way Manny

Although, frankly, I think I still have both Mannys on ignore anyway, so I don't mind him coming back.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:04 AM

SunSeeker (43,516 posts)

3. No. He wasn't out because of 5 hides. He was PPR'd.

And it was an excellent call by the admins.

His posts were not "valuable." They were little more than hateful, ugly sarcasm invariably aimed at Democrats, particulary Obama and Hillary. He was the epitome of a troll.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:10 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

4. Bullshit. nt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:11 AM

SoapBox (18,791 posts)

5. Ditto the bullshit.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SoapBox (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:22 AM

Depaysement (1,835 posts)

13. 3x

I'm catching the wave too!

Sometimes third way hubris can't be taken seriously.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:54 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

56. +10,000 nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:17 AM

840high (17,196 posts)

8. Bull.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:22 AM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

14. .

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:23 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

16. The same could be argued about more than a few who have returned from purgatory.

They too had 5 hides; and were full of hate, and sarcasm, aimed at Democrats (particularly Bernie Sanders).

Are they not the "epitome of a troll"?

This is hypocrisy. Even-handed means both sides get a reprieve, not just one.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:34 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

28. Those MIRT members that planned off-site to get members hidden here should have been PPR'd

as well. That was beyond sickening.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:37 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

31. And of course requests to do so were met with the sound of crickets.

Because of "even-handed" approach or something.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:39 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

33. Yes.

Disappointing to see that certain members were/are valued so much more than others.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:38 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

32. "I'd love to turn Bonobo or cali into the quivering little chickenshits they are."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:44 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

35. I have to admit, I have complete contempt for those people and always will after seeing their

vile hate campaign and all those screenshots. It was nauseating - and so are they. That not a single fuck was given to all of this - when long-term, loyal people here were targeted was not only disappointing, but told me a lot about just who is actually wanted here. They should just ban those they don't actually want posting and stop taking the money that many have paid for so many years. Clearly, the years of posts and contributions made for discussion don't matter - unless you're on the right side.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:44 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

36. I have to ask:

When the site admins invited these folks back, was it a heavy-handed effort to chase and hide-alert-stalk Bernie supporters away from the site? Seems a bit like what the CUP did in 1915 when trying to deal with the Armenian insurgencies around Van: open the prison gates and let things happen.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:53 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

52. Well, I don't imagine the alert-stalking is going to do much, if so

Seeing as it would appear to have no effect other than locking a person out of a thread now

Also, most of these inmates can't serve on juries while they're rocking 5+ hides.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:56 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

63. And this one .......

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:57 AM

progressoid (45,869 posts)

65. Wow.

That's pretty blatant. I'm not aware of these other sites so...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:50 AM

Cobalt Violet (9,553 posts)

129. yikes, I need each and evveryone of these people on my ignore list.

I don't know who they all are. But I don't want to interact with anyone like that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:44 AM

Amimnoch (4,558 posts)

166. As far as I know, Skinner has never banned anyone for what they said off site.

His reasons for Manny and L0onix was clearly stated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599266#post1

He's even opened up to asking for examples of Hillary supporters doing the same thing and he'd ban them as well.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:51 AM

SunSeeker (43,516 posts)

48. No, folks allowed back under the new rules were alert-stalked into time outs. Mannie was banned.

Everyone who was previously banned for troll behavior is NOT being allowed back, whether they were Hillary or Bernie supporters. The rules are being applied equally and fairly.

Don't want to be tombstoned? Don't be a troll. That rule has not changed and never will change.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:52 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

50. He was banned for

"advocating not to vote for Hillary"

How is that trolling?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:58 AM

SunSeeker (43,516 posts)

71. That is not why he was banned.

The Admins were absolutely justified -- and they have been fair about banning.

It is dishonest to equate a time out to banning.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #71)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:13 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

93. Well that is what is says on his transparency page.

So unless the admins are now as transparent as Clinton is with regard to her speeches for Goldman Sachs, we'll trust what public information is offered by manny's transparency page.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #71)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:47 AM

Amimnoch (4,558 posts)

167. Actually that is why he was banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599266#post1

You may have had other reasons for agreeing with the ban, but his openly advocating for others to pledge not to support a nominee if it wasn't the nominee that they wanted.

Skinner also made it clear he would apply the same to either side if examples were given.

It was a fair and justifiable decision and applied equally.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:58 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

67. No mostly they were jerks who earned their hidden posts by being jerks.

There's a few exceptions, but we all get dumbassed hides now and then. I've been hidden for berating someone for literally defending Hitler. Apparently I was "rude' to someone who thought genocide was the right idea. it was AMAZING and I laughed so hard.

But, no, mostly people get hides for being dicks. I would suggest setting aside the martyr complex and examining the hides you may have accrued. odds are you fully earned the overwhelming majority of them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:11 AM

joshcryer (61,604 posts)

91. The admins have obviously noticed a partisan bent to the hides.

Which is why it's good that juries will no longer have people on them who hide just because they don't like someone.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:39 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

125. I know that Manny was banned.

Which Hillary supporters were banned?

I put two people on ignore today, but prior to today, I had no DUers on ignore.

How do you find out who has been banned?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:12 AM

Tarheel_Dem (30,891 posts)

92. ^^^ What SunSeeker Said ^^^

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #92)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:14 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

96. Sunseeker has been corrected on what (s)he said.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #96)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:16 AM

Tarheel_Dem (30,891 posts)

100. And so have you. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #100)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:19 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

105. No, all I have seen are assertions, not arguments.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:36 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

123. I thorougly love Manny's sense of humor.

Of course, satire hurts the feelings of those who take themselves far too seriously.

Usually the kind of humor that Manny was so good at only hurts when the person reading or hearing it is unwilling to be honest about the truths he expresses in his humor.

The Third Way stole a political party that used to be the party of the people. Thanks to the Clintons we are now, in part, the party of the corporations and oligarchs. That fact became so apparent to me when workers in Wisconsin were in the State Building and Obama was so slow to support them. That was proof of how far we have come from the Democratic Party I grew up with.Truman

Of course, I guess you have to be old enough (and I am) to remember Truman, JFK and LBJ and Jimmy Carter to understand how far from the party of FDR the Clintons have taken us.

I'm an FDR Democrat so I like Manny's humor.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #123)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:54 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

132. And hence the question begs to be asked: when will he be invited back?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:25 AM

Jitter65 (3,089 posts)

154. Where is kelliekat? Alert-stalked away also. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:14 AM

Omaha Steve (77,998 posts)

6. OOPS

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:15 AM

NJCher (25,272 posts)

7. Bring Manny back

He added much to the place.

Cher

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:17 AM

revmclaren (1,713 posts)

9. posted without comment or reply.

this speaks for itself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=176002&sub=trans

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to revmclaren (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:33 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

25. It speaks of overreaction:

"Say he will not vote for the Democratic nominee if his favored candidate does not win the nomination, and encouraged other people to do the same."

is not the same as

"advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote"

because one way of doing so is by abstention from voting. And if THAT is not permitted, I'd like to see every member of the 2008 PUMA movement (a.k.a. Hillary or Bust brigade) to be tombstoned.

Yes, the uneven treatment speaks for itself indeed.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:35 AM

Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)

155. Very true

The TOS 's is very clear

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:32 AM

pintobean (18,101 posts)

163. You must have been lurking for the 2008 PUMA movement

Since you joined in July '09.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to revmclaren (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:46 AM

redruddyred (1,615 posts)

39. it certainly says a lot about the admins

i miss manny. he was a good poster.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:17 AM

pnwmom (103,848 posts)

10. No. He wasn't suspended because of hides. He was banned,

and he deserved the ban.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:20 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

11. No shit he was banned. NO, he didn't deserve it, as much as he threatened the

group think around here.

Opinions. Yours is just one, many, many others differed with you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:22 AM

pnwmom (103,848 posts)

15. He was in very clear violation of the terms of membership.

You should acquaint yourself with them.

And the only people who can determine this are the site owners. And they made the decision months ago.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:27 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

20. Nah, he wasn't.

His post could have been interpreted that way by those who chose to - and they did.

No shit, the only people who can determine this are the site owners. Captain Obvious much?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:29 AM

pnwmom (103,848 posts)

21. If it's so obvious, then why are you disputing their decision? nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:32 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

23. Because I think it was 'wrong', why do you think?? nt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:56 AM

redruddyred (1,615 posts)

62. despite this the rule is bizarre

i know there's an eagerness to prevent another nader, but frankly i'm not even sure nader is what people think he is
maybe years from now we will consider him unfairly scapegoated. i did not get the sense, in 2000, as well as 2004, that people were so informed and engaged in the election cycle. maybe a nader could make it now. in retrospect gore seems like a mediocre candidate.
as a teenager i considered myself "republican lite" and it was because, frankly, the more moderate wing of the democratic party doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence. obama impressed me tho, and continues to do so.

enough rambling: manny's posts were at times divisive but i think more enjoyable for it. his absence is DU's loss.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:36 AM

Duckhunter935 (16,974 posts)

156. No he was not, quote where he was then

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:21 AM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

12. He was PPRed. There's no coming back unless he personally pleas his case with Skinner.

Even then, he may never hear a word back from Skinner.

MAnny broke the rules and paid the price.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:24 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

17. So did Trumad, but he is back for an encore.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:25 AM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

18. To the best of my knowledge, Trumad was never PPRed.

HE has been on multiple timeouts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:26 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

19. Well, he was a Clinton supporter, so I guess a PPR was too much to ask even then.

eom

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:32 AM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

24. Oh brother!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:59 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

136. I didn't realize he was gone. I don't keep score.

I think it is bizarre to be so obsessed with who is and is not posting on DU.

I miss all who don't post although I did put a couple of people on ignore today. I remember some time ago, quite some time ago, I realized there were names on my ignore list. I have to this day no idea how they got there.

But today I decided to put two names on there just to preserve my sanity.

I think it is a better solution than trying to get people banned from DU out of some sort of sadistic pleasure or for some political reason.

I do not vote against people when I am on a jury based on political point of view. In fact I have taken a pledge to myself not to vote to remove posts. If the admins don't like my point of view on that, I have invited them to take me off the jury list. I suppose if someone advocated for Trump I might vote to remove the post or if someone threatened someone or threatened violence I would vote to remove the post but I do not believe in banning people just because their ideas differ from mine.

I will ask that posts be removed if they are clearly merely intended to make others angry. But then it is up to the jury to decide whether my alert has any basis. I have not done that very often at all.

I do not like the jury system. We should be polite and respectful toward each other.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:53 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

131. Trumad is back???????

I didn't notice that he was gone. Whew! I'm behind the times here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:34 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

26. So did CajunBLazer, by posting verbatim Jew-hate from a neo-nazi site

Just to attack a Jewish candidate running on the democratic ticket.

I can only imagine what would happen if a pro-Bernie poster did the same against DWS. I would try the experiment but 1) I have standards and 2) I actually already know the outcome.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:35 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

29. Good point,

and thanks for backing me up.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:36 AM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

30. Was that poster PPRed?

If so, was that poster allowed back?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:47 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

40. No, they were not, and that's kind of the point I'm making

A Hillary supporter posted content - verbatim - from a nasty-ass Jew-hating site that literally defends Hitler, in order to attack a Jewish person running on the democratic party ticket.

Now it seems to me that the ToS calls out exactly this sort of thing, and as we see here, many better posters have been PPR'd for far less.

So maybe we can at least balance the scales a bit here, i'm thinking. if outright jew-hatred is acceptable then there's no real argument for preserving the bans of L0onix, Manny, or NYC_SKP, whose violations were far less. if it's NOT acceptable, as the ToS makes clear, then some answers would be nice about why a poster who so grotesquely violates the ToS is allowed ot stay while others who were, at worst mildly annoying, get zapped.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:55 AM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

61. Then you have no point to make.

The amnesty was only for those on time out from hides.

There has been no amnesty for PPRed members.

The rules are clear. If any member who has been PPRed wants to come back, they must make a personal plea to Skinner and even then, they may never receive n answer.

This is Skinner's house and his rules. Manny, L0onix, and NYC_SKP al violated Skinner's rules and disrespected his house. They must live with the consequences.

BTW, I don't buy your spin about members you think should be PPRed. Your bias is obvious. Only the Admins have the authority to make those decisions, If you do not like their decisions, you are free to spend your time elsewhere.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:08 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

86. Arbitrary rules that are oft allowed to be defied on personal bias is no way to run a kingdom

And "don't buy it' all you like. The poster CajunBlazer posted shit verbatim from a neo-nazi hate site in an effort to smear bernie sanders. The ToS very blatantly makes htis unacceptable. if it is suddenly acceptable, then we have a pretty interesting case of the admin being pretty damned biased - especially when tey are usually VERY quick to wipe Jew-hate from the site.

I guress they make an exception for those who support clinton.

If you're fine with that, so am i - gives me a good look at the sort of people supporting clinton.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #86)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:16 AM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

99. You are free to leave if you don't like it.

This is a privately owned site and the owners are only accountable to themselves in such matters.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #99)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:24 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

109. I'd prefer a community with stable, predictable standards of conduct from all sides

Preferably one where opportunistic antisemitism wasn't the rule of the day, so long as you were a member of one faction on the site

i used to have one like that, until Skinner opened Discussionist and teabagger flotsam washed up on our shores.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:48 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

128. I wonder whether your analysis is correct.

I note that Hillary supporters think Manny was rightfully barred.

But we Bernie supporters think he was wrongfully barred.

That suggests to me that our opinions about whether he was rightfully barred are based simply on whether we agree with his views on Hillary and Sanders.

Which forces me to draw the conclusion that there is a strong likelihood that the site owners' decision to bar him was based on their bias against Sanders and his supporters and their bias in favor of Hillary and her supporters.

I think my conclusion is probably correct. But I hope that Skinner and the admins respond to this thread and examine their reasons for barring Manny, reconsider them and let us know what they think and propose to do.

I don't think Manny is asking to come back to DU. It is many of us who like him who want him invited back. Whether he would deign to come back after having been treated so rudely I do not know.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #128)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:56 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

134. We would certainly welcome it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #128)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:49 AM

ProfessorGAC (46,289 posts)

168. Not All Bernie Supporters

My preference is Bernie. I like the overall philosophy much more than any other.

But, i think the ban was valid.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:31 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

22. or L0oniz. or NYC_SKP

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:34 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

27. Yes, they too, of course. Manny was just the first name that came to my mind.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:53 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

55. +10,000 nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:32 AM

MissDeeds (7,499 posts)

118. +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:03 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

138. Also. I would like to have them back.

Of course, if Bernie wins the nomination I expect they will be asked back. That's another reason to vote for Bernie and to work for his campaign. So that our friends will be called back to DU.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:24 AM

Turborama (22,109 posts)

153. Wait, NYC_SKP has been nuked? n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:39 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

34. He was banned, not suspended.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:45 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

37. Which in itself speaks of a double standard.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:47 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

41. He was banned for a cause. Bernie or bust type stuff.

Trying to get other to do it with him. Same as Loonix. Same as Skinner wrote in the TOS.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:49 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

44. Which during PRIMARIES is not disallowed. By the way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7690735

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #44)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:51 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

49. Skinner posted a clarification

Basically, that if admins believe you are serious, they will ban, even during primaries. Quite arbitrary, but, it is what it is.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:53 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

53. When "arbitrary" now means "biased"

I'd agree with you.

And "it is what it is" is status quo nonsense. I don't do status quo.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #53)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:58 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

68. This place is status quo

We are here. It really is what it is. A private site with arbitrary rules created by admins. I do not care one way or the other if those folks come back. I never really spent to much time chatting with them. I just remember the clarification.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #68)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:59 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

72. Anything that favors your preferred candidate, eh?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #72)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:02 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

76. I am not emotionally tied to a candidate.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:57 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

66. Nope. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Live and Learn (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:58 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

70. It is on his profile.nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #70)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:00 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

74. See post # 57 please.

I'm getting a limp wrist from typing that stuff over and over again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:01 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

75. Here

Posting Privileges Revoked

Revoked on Reason Revoked by
Dec 19, 2015 Say he will not vote for the Democratic nominee if his favored candidate does not win the nomination, and encouraged other people to do the same. From the TOS: "advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground."
For more information see Terms of Service
Skinner
(Administrator)
Posts Hidden by Jury (last 90 days)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:05 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

83. Do you even read before replying?

As I have stated countless times in this thread:

"Say he will not vote for the Democratic nominee if his favored candidate does not win the nomination, and encouraged other people to do the same." =/= "advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote"

So it seems the TOS were applied in an overreacting, heavyhanded and inappropriate way.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #83)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:09 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

88. Not my call.

If it were the suspensions would have ended when primaries started and we'd get that amnesty thing for old posters, to see if they can be cool and post again with a new account. I think it happened before, so why not again after primaries. Nobody cares what I think, though.

And yes. I read the entire post, thx.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #88)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:16 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

98. But the primaries aren't over yet!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #98)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:19 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

104. I know.

That's why I think amnesty should come after. Once we have a candidate.
And if folks want to come together, it might be nice to let them sign back up. And stay unless they cannot not get ppr'd again.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #104)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:21 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

107. OK, great. Seems a reasonable position. Would you then agree

that either these folks shouldn't yet be invited back, or alternatively, that the other side deserves to be invited back too, for the sake of even-handedness?

And since one side has already been let back in (it is what it is), maybe the other side should too?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #107)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:25 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

113. Okay.

I'm able to not fight against it. I can compromise.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #70)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:05 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

81. I remember exactly what was posted. It was a bad ban.

And you of all people should agree.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Live and Learn (Reply #81)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:07 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

85. Do you mean to ask if I would have banned him?

Well, since you ask, not my call but no. Way worse folks should have been in line ahead of them.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:13 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

144. Not at all what I meant. But I do agree. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:49 AM

pnwmom (103,848 posts)

45. No. He was in violation of a clear standard. Read the terms of membership.

The only question is why he wasn't banned long ago.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:53 AM

SunSeeker (43,516 posts)

54. ^^^THIS^^^

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:55 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

60. Ah, NO! Please see post # 57

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:54 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

57. The standard is clear. The violation was not:

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #57)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:03 AM

pnwmom (103,848 posts)

79. You missed this part:

"If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side."

In short, he was engaged in efforts to depress turnout.

In general DUers who threaten not to vote are being given the benefit of the doubt. It is assumed that they will stop threatening this when we have a nominee. But Manny made it clear that his position would remain unchanged -- and he was trying to enlist others to his cause.

They were right to ban him from this Democratic site.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #79)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:08 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

87. At the time, it was (and still is) uncertain Clinton would be that candidate/ nominee

which is why during primaries, such statements are permitted. Unless of course, the admins had decided that only ONE candidate should be shielded from criticism all along.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #87)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:35 AM

pnwmom (103,848 posts)

150. It is only permitted if the poster leaves the door open about changing his mind.

Manny made it abundantly clear that he would not, and was working to recruit others to follow him out of here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:15 AM

Tarheel_Dem (30,891 posts)

97. You Better Believe It!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #97)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:17 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

101. We don't believe it, because there is nothing to back up that claim.

Only your assertion. You might as well claim that Skinner has a unicorn in his attic.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #101)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:20 AM

Tarheel_Dem (30,891 posts)

106. You know, you could take it up with Skinner in ATA. That's what it's for. I get that you're trying

to apply public pressure, but this is not a government run board, and the Bill of Rights don't apply here. You're playing in someone else's sandbox, so you play by their rules, whether you deem them arbitrary or not.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #106)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:23 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

108. Yes, this is applying public pressure. Well spotted.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #108)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:24 AM

Tarheel_Dem (30,891 posts)

111. Good luck with that!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Tarheel_Dem (Reply #106)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:26 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

114. skinner appears to have trashed ATA

In all honesty I don't think I can blame him

What with Hillary people constantly dragging ass over there to whine about how they are held to the same community standards as everyone else, and aren't given the reverential treatment they believe they are entitled to.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #114)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:27 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

115. Oooh, you just made me spray tea. (LOL)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #115)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:34 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

119. Sadly, time to call it a night

I have work in the morning and DST alwaysscrews me up as-is

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #119)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:36 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

122. I'm in a different time-zone, so allow me to keep up the good fight.

Sleep well.

Love,

Betty

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bravenak (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:46 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

38. NSS!! nt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:47 AM

bravenak (34,648 posts)

42. What?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:05 AM

BeanMusical (4,389 posts)

82. Lol! +1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:48 AM

bbgrunt (5,269 posts)

43. It certainly seems that some TOS violators are arbitrarily ppr'd while others

are given multiple time outs and then amnesty. Fair? you decide.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bbgrunt (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:50 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

47. I have decided and it speaks of double standards.

And I don't feel comfortable with double standards running rampant.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:55 AM

bbgrunt (5,269 posts)

58. The establishment at their finest--much like DWS.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to bbgrunt (Reply #58)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:05 AM

pnwmom (103,848 posts)

80. The "establishment."

Go set up an internet site and you, too, can be part of the "establishment."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #80)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:10 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

89. the above statement was brought to you by BIAS -

cherrypicking arguments since the dawn of time. Get yours now, and receive a free offer for lots of status quo!*

* may not be tenable any longer.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to pnwmom (Reply #80)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:05 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

139. But if we set up websites of our own, it won't be any fun.

I really think that even the Hillary supporters like to have people to talk to.

Bernie supporters are in the big majority on this website. Without us, the Hillary supporters would be rather lonely. There wouldn't be much of a Democratic Underground without us Bernie supporters.

As they say, be careful what you wish for . . . .

Which causes me to suggest that the Admins take a vote of DUers with a post count over a certain number as to whether we want them to invite certain banned DUers back. That would be a fair, DEMOCRATIC way to decide the matter.

And after all, this is DEMOCRATIC Underground, isn't it?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to JDPriestly (Reply #139)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:32 AM

pnwmom (103,848 posts)

149. This is a website promoting the Democratic party owned by an individual. It is not a Democracy.n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:58 AM

MohRokTah (15,429 posts)

69. You are free to spend your time elsewhere if it bothers you so much. eom

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #69)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:03 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

77. So are you, there's always the cave, right? nt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to polly7 (Reply #77)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:11 AM

Scootaloo (25,699 posts)

90. is that where Moh lives after earning six or seven hides?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Scootaloo (Reply #90)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:13 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

94. Probably. I'd guess mostly camped out in the hidden Grumble section. nt.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to MohRokTah (Reply #69)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:03 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

78. Yeah, I mention these things because I'd rather be somewhere else.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:49 AM

LiberalLovinLug (12,187 posts)

46. Manny was milder than the Rude Pundit

And his OPs are reposted on here.

His Third Way Manny posts made too many on here uncomfortable.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:52 AM

polly7 (20,582 posts)

51. People that don't get satire must have it rough in the real world.

He was always kind about it though - the truth was there, he just never used it to hurt anyone here. Unlike those who swarmed him for it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:55 AM

delrem (9,688 posts)

59. You don't get it.

The full David Brock has been unleashed, that's all that these new rules mean.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to delrem (Reply #59)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:57 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

64. F*CK David Brock, then.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:06 AM

delrem (9,688 posts)

84. shrug. It's reality, Betty. Reality.

It seems to be a winning formula.
Unfortunately.

I'm a Canadian.
I'm very invested in US politics because Canada is part of NATO and NAFTA,which are US defined and controlled agreements.
Wow, do you guys ever keep on trying to draw us into your web.

So I want to input my point of view, and in my opinion the only political voices in US presidential politics that echo the general Canadian point of view, that voted in Justin Trudeau and are *hoping*, are Pres. Obama and Bernie Sanders.

That's a fact.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 02:59 AM

Live and Learn (12,769 posts)

73. K&R nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:14 AM

Surya Gayatri (15,445 posts)

95. Heaven forfend....Dieu nous en garde !

Manny Goldstein back? Arrrggghhhh!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #95)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:18 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

103. It would be fair and even-handed.

I'm not exactly thrilled about certain returns either.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #103)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:24 AM

Surya Gayatri (15,445 posts)

110. He's been banned (thankfully), not suspended. Different rules.

Although, he's probably put on other socks since then.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #110)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:31 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

117. Banned arbitrarily. Different standards too, perhaps?

Can't find a witty smilie. You'll have to accept my reply without one.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #117)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:34 AM

Surya Gayatri (15,445 posts)

120. Skinner IS the ultimate arbiter around here...thank god.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #120)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:39 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

124. Ultimate, but even he has imperfections.

So how about we point one out, and ask him to relent on an arbitrary decision?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #124)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:47 AM

NanceGreggs (26,089 posts)

126. There was nothing "arbitrary" about that decision.

Manny broke the rules - one of the FEW rules that Skinner actually still enforces.

And whether Skinner has "imperfections" or not is irrelevant. It's his site, he can do as he pleases, and he doesn't have to answer to you or anyone else.

Manny was an ardent shit-disturber. He kept pushing the edge of the envelope for a LONG time. He finally pushed it too far and suffered the consequences.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #126)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:13 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

145. Yes, it's clear that your side wants a monopoly on reprieves.

And on most everything else too.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #124)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:48 AM

Surya Gayatri (15,445 posts)

127. Don't like the rules? Change forums! Arbitrary after 10~ years of disruption?

That'll be the day when I lobby Skinner to take back the disruptor extraordinaiare, Manny G.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #127)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:15 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

147. So you want us to give you Hell and a cold treatment too?

OK, I'll see what may be done.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:17 AM

Skittles (133,204 posts)

102. THE MANNY HATERS CAN FUCK THEMSELVES

YES INDEED

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:25 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

112. Manny is gentle, kind, witty, ironic, imaginative, and enriched DU immeasurably.

I never understood why his detractors disliked him so. It never made sense. Unless perhaps his excellence made them feel inferior.

If they would learn to love and honor themselves, then maybe they could tolerate excellence in others.

Come to think of it, perhaps Bernie's astonishing moral excellence makes them feel sort of lowly and unclean. Again, they should validate themselves so that they can validate others.

But if Bernie's excellence makes them feel that their candidate is somewhat unclean by comparison, well, they should try to remember that her failings are not their fault. Just let her take responsibility for her own behavior. Then they'll feel better.

Betty Karlson, you are one of the best DUers around.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to senz (Reply #112)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:28 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

116. Senz, the kindness of your every word is wonderful.

Thanks for that warm message of support.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #116)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:35 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

121. Illegitimi non carborundum

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to senz (Reply #121)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:52 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

130. Haha. You appeal to the latinist in me now:

Integer Vitae scelerisque purus

(Horace, Carmina 22: 1)

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #130)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:05 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

140. Wow, I'm impressed.

It's been about four decades since I took Latin. Our teacher favored the orations of Cicero. I can't remember any of it except a few phrases I set to music as a memorization device. I have never encountered a more intricate and beautifully constructed language.

But it sounds like you're pretty fresh with it, Betty! (By the way, the phrase I used isn't real Latin, but it's fun to say, anyway.)

Your quote could apply to the very fine Senator Sanders.

Thanks!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to senz (Reply #140)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:09 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

142. Actually, I have Horace's collected works on the bookshelf: one very think volume.

But I will admit I had to consult that volume. My memory wasn't so fresh that I could quote from memory.

Horace has some good quotes about statesmen like Sanders. I'm trying to think if there is a good quote by which to compliment you as well...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to senz (Reply #112)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:10 AM

Surya Gayatri (15,445 posts)

143. What psycho-babble codswhallop...Bwaahaaaaaa!

"If they would learn to love and honor themselves, then maybe they could tolerate excellence in others.

Again, they should validate themselves so that they can validate others."

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #143)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:15 AM

senz (11,945 posts)

146. LOL! Well, I tried

Stuff works for me so thought I'd share it. But it looks like you're on your own, Surya!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to senz (Reply #112)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:17 AM

JDPriestly (57,936 posts)

148. +100000000000000

I can tell that many DUers have never studied literature.

They don't understand why things are funny.

Haven't read for example Moliere.

I feel sorry for people who don't get humor and satire. Life is so much richer when you do.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to senz (Reply #112)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:07 AM

randome (34,845 posts)

159. Jesus Christ, get a room already!

He was none of those things from my point of view. He was a deliberate disruptor who dreamed of being something like a new version of Stephen Colbert when all he really was was just another DU poster.

He rarely contributed to threads that he didn't start himself for the sole purpose of getting under people's skin. Granted, sometimes getting under the skin is good but not when it's your sole schtick. Then it's just falling in love with the sound of your own voice as you try ever-so-hard to get more and more attention for yourself.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:55 AM

Lil Missy (17,865 posts)

133. He was a troll - banned for TOS violation. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Lil Missy (Reply #133)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 03:59 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

135. Let me repeat once more: the rule is clear, the violation was NOT at all clear:

From Manny's transparency page:

Admin says: "Say he will not vote for the Democratic nominee if his favored candidate does not win the nomination, and encouraged other people to do the same."

But that is not the same as as what is forbidden in the TOS:

"advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote"

because one way of doing so is by abstention from voting. And if THAT is not permitted, I'd like to see every member of the 2008 PUMA movement (a.k.a. Hillary or Bust brigade) to be tombstoned. Furthermore, the PUMA brigade in 2008 (Hillary or bust) was not tombstoned en masse for saying the same and worse.

The uneven treatment speaks for itself indeed. And hence the decission should be revisited.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #135)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:01 AM

Lil Missy (17,865 posts)

137. It clearly helps Republicans. Get over it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Lil Missy (Reply #137)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:06 AM

Betty Karlson (7,231 posts)

141. Here is something for you to get over:

The primaries are not yet over, so appealing to people to NOT vote for Clinton is (unless and until she is nominated) not a vioation of the TOS,. because she may not be on the ticket at all. In which case the Republicans can cry me a river, because Sanders would bury them in a landslide.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 04:36 AM

SidDithers (44,058 posts)

151. LOL...

Sid

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:17 AM

Mike Nelson (7,519 posts)

152. Manny had an aversion to the likely...

...Democratic nominee. The former poster may not want to return.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:50 AM

LiberalElite (14,691 posts)

157. Who says he wants back in here?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:02 AM

randome (34,845 posts)

158. God, the hero worship here is embarrassing sometimes.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:08 AM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

160. Manny is a racist. He was rightfully banned for his racist, and otherwise trolling. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to msanthrope (Reply #160)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:42 AM

Amimnoch (4,558 posts)

165. That's not what he was banned for.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599266#post1

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Amimnoch (Reply #165)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:55 AM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

169. Black posters were on the receiving end of that 'advocacy.' Targeted, alert stalked, etc. You

should read some of the things he wrote to Black posters here.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to msanthrope (Reply #169)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:58 AM

Amimnoch (4,558 posts)

170. No argument at all there, and Bravenak is one of my most favorite people on this board!

I'm not saying there isn't other reasons to agree with the ban, but that link has exactly why he was banned, and it was for the advocacy for others to pledge not to vote for the Democratic Party Nominee should it not be the person he wanted.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Amimnoch (Reply #170)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:00 AM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

171. And people want his racist ass back.....unbelievable. nt

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:26 AM

aikoaiko (31,236 posts)

161. In order to expect that you'd have to think the rule changes were about fairness and inclusivity

It was just a move to make DU appear more HRC supportive during the primary season.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:27 AM

George II (60,023 posts)

162. His ban was for something other than violating the "rules" covered in yesterday's OP by Skinner.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:41 AM

Amimnoch (4,558 posts)

164. Reasons as stated by Skinner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12599266#post1

We have not banned any long-term members this election cycle...

...for simply stating an intent to personally not support the Democratic nominee in the 2016 general election.

In the case of both L0oniX and MannyGoldstein, they engaged in advocacy. L0oniX posted an online petition so other people could pledge to withhold their support from the eventual nominee if their favored candidate did not win. And MannyGoldstein very clearly advocated that other DU members withhold their support from the nominee if their favored candidate did not win. As far as I can tell from the linked posts that have not been self-deleted, MaggieD did not do that. She stated her personal intent but did not expressly advocate.

I'm sure you would agree that we do not want to ban everyone from DU who states a personal intent not to support the eventual nominee. As you yourself pointed out, surely most of such comments should be taken with an enormous grain of salt. And furthermore, such banning a would overwhelmingly target the supporters of one candidate over the other, to the tune of about 150 to 1.

As for NYC_SKP, I know that there have been instances where the c-word was used on DU. But I really have to draw the line at letting people call one of our presidential candidates that word. Same with calling Bernie Sanders the k-word or Barack Obama the n-word.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:04 AM

sufrommich (22,871 posts)

172. Where did Skinner say he's allowing banned members back?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Response to Betty Karlson (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:09 AM

In_The_Wind (71,848 posts)

173. Locking

Statement of Purpose

... disruptive meta-discussion are forbidden.

[img]

[/img]

Cannot reply in locked threads

General Discussion (Forum)