That's actually a very good distinction. (Reply #119)

In the discussion thread: Is there trolling going on here in regards to Obama? Like [View all]

Thu Jan 29, 2015, 02:15 AM

R B Garr (15,189 posts)

119. That's actually a very good distinction.

I see what you mean. The person posting that I referenced said he worked in a law firm and he posted all hours of the day and night, which was further suspicious because law firms are all about billable hours. This was about 10 years ago now when I first saw that and watched this persons methods.

But otherwise, I see what you mean -- the low level Limbaugh yahoos would not have any access LexisNexis. Yet there are plenty of functioning dittoheads that have time and access to spread their talking points, and they are using resources provided to them somehow.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

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

Replies to this discussion thread

270 replies	Author	Time	Post
Is there trolling going on here in regards to Obama? Like [View all]	applegrove	Jan 2015	OP
Is there a specific op you have in mind? Nt	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#1
This message was self-deleted by its author	Recursion	Jan 2015	#2
Why is that funny? nt	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#9
Manny, your alter ego masterfully trolls about Obama nearly every day	Recursion	Jan 2015	#13
Well, thank you for the kind compliment	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#16
Yeah, see my definition of "troll" downthread	Recursion	Jan 2015	#17
Ok, thanks for the clarification	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#48
I prefer to think of what you do as	Andy823	Jan 2015	#59
Are there some examples that you'd like to point out?	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#69
Post removed	Post removed	Jan 2015	#75
it's only satire if done correctly, maybe BP could take you on as an understudy?	snooper2	Jan 2015	#68
Your disagreement with his politics doesn't mean he's doing satire incorrectly.	merrily	Jan 2015	#125
Nope. Nothing in particular. Just noticing it here when I know it has been	applegrove	Jan 2015	#6
Err, I think you overestimate the importance of DU. This ain't the party's star chamber. n/t	X_Digger	Jan 2015	#3
that pretty much sums it up	still_one	Jan 2015	#10
+1 nt	RiverLover	Jan 2015	#41
(lol).	tosh	Jan 2015	#50
True, but	Andy823	Jan 2015	#63
Yeah, it looks like anti-Obama to me and a way to troll this board.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#4
What do you mean by "anti-Americanism?"	Maedhros	Jan 2015	#82
No, by shaming and broad-brushing Americans using the	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#92
I guess I haven't seen those posts, so I can't comment.	Maedhros	Jan 2015	#93
He/she is very, very upset I posted a story of a child killed in a drone strike.	polly7	Jan 2015	#98
Nothing you ever say is in context.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#109
Do what on purpose?	polly7	Jan 2015	#110
Nothing you say is in context.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#111
Ahhhh.	polly7	Jan 2015	#115
Yet I've seen your hidden posts...	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#117
Oh no, don't doubt it at all! But still no answers?	polly7	Jan 2015	#118
Okay, now I am laughing at you.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#120
I did what on purpose? Accused someone of nasty things for posting about the death of a child?	polly7	Jan 2015	#122
Back to my first post in this exchange. Nothing I've seen you say is in context.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#126
In other words, you've got nothing but filthy accusations, using the death of a child.	polly7	Jan 2015	#127
"the death of a child" OMG, nothing you say is credible.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#128
Then it should be easy to point out the others you've had such a problem with,	polly7	Jan 2015	#131
"just this one child" "others you've had such a problem with"	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#136
Well, reading your own posts, everything I said was 'in context'.	polly7	Jan 2015	#138
I've seen you attack other people for some time now.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#139
Examples? nt.	polly7	Jan 2015	#140
LOL	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#141
Still nothing? Lazy stuff. I thought at least you'd try a little something. nt.	polly7	Jan 2015	#142
Oh, I'm sure you did think i would "try a little something"	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#144
Sorry, I've never alerted on you. But, you should have examples, no? nt.	polly7	Jan 2015	#145
Your own posts to me here are all over the place.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#146
Did you miss the part that I reply as I'm spoken to, and when I'm accused of filthy things	polly7	Jan 2015	#148
Oh, you're back to "filthy things"	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#150
Sorry, I don't have any hidden posts.	polly7	Jan 2015	#156
I've answered you over and over and over.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#157
Who broad brushed Americans in my post?	polly7	Jan 2015	#102
+1	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#87
Funny thing is I have observed some in the AfAm community saying they see little difference	NoJusticeNoPeace	Jan 2015	#204
Yes, I've noticed that, too.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#212
Well, we're not going to have any volunteers come forward and say.. "yeah!"..	Cha	Jan 2015	#5
I still think our President deserves proper grammar	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#12
Petty. nt	Bobbie Jo	Jan 2015	#42
Petty? Why?	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#43
Who are you trying to impress?	Bobbie Jo	Jan 2015	#46
Don't you agree that "I got Obama's back" is gramatically incorrect?nt	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#47
Don't care.	Bobbie Jo	Jan 2015	#49
That's deeply unfair.	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#51
Right.	Bobbie Jo	Jan 2015	#57
Isn't that generally what happens when someone is losing an argument or ...	Stellar	Jan 2015	#270
No more and no less incorrect than using a colon rather than a semi-colon to separate a dependent...	LanternWaste	Jan 2015	#52
Disagree	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#54
Some here only post for the rec's	Andy823	Jan 2015	#64
The same ones (I think, not sure anymore) who relentlessly attack our President also	NoJusticeNoPeace	Jan 2015	#206
Someone using the incorrect spelling of "complement"	chieftain	Jan 2015	#83
Ouch!	MannyGoldstein	Jan 2015	#84
Hey chieftain..	Cha	Jan 2015	#152
Hey to you Cha,	chieftain	Jan 2015	#195
What is your complaint? The "I got" bit? Join the 21st Century--language is evolving far faster	MADem	Jan 2015	#94
LOL.. I Got You Babe!	Cha	Jan 2015	#151
You know, I wondered what this year's gefilte fish was going to be. nt	msanthrope	Jan 2015	#187
This is it?	Cha	Jan 2015	#189
This message was self-deleted by its author	msanthrope	Jan 2015	#191
Gotcha!	Cha	Jan 2015	#192
You Better Believe It! nt	msanthrope	Jan 2015	#193
It ain't hard to "get" some folks' numbers hereabouts! nt	MADem	Jan 2015	#196
Yeah, and this drives 'em irrational..	Cha	Jan 2015	#215
Take 'em to church--show 'em the VIDEO!!!!!!!	MADem	Jan 2015	#217
Zounds! I knew she was beautiful from her back but I had no idea.. for one thing I thought	Cha	Jan 2015	#224
Don't get mad when anyone gives you some 'issue' with your sig line.	MADem	Jan 2015	#227
Yeah, I usualy don't pay attention.. because who would have issue	Cha	Jan 2015	#233
Kurt Vonnegut on "Got".. Final word.	Cha	Jan 2015	#262
I am so loving you, MADem!	sheshe2	Jan 2015	#226
Don't get mad--put up a happy picture! That's my philosophy....	MADem	Jan 2015	#228
k~	sheshe2	Jan 2015	#232
MADem's Spectacular Spectacular, she.. The story behind the sig line..	Cha	Jan 2015	#234
If some here care to look every picture tells a story Cha.	sheshe2	Jan 2015	#239
Maybe Manny's trying out a new persona.....like "Grammar Nazi of DU Manny."	msanthrope	Jan 2015	#188
OMG, that is an hilarious sketch! nt	MADem	Jan 2015	#198
Hahaha!!!!	Major Hogwash	Jan 2015	#14
On advice of a lawyer it was suggested I stay away from certain threads.	sheshe2	Jan 2015	#223
Just called to say	Cha	Jan 2015	#225
Well, sure, any discussion board has trolls	Recursion	Jan 2015	#7
I meant payed GOP trolls. Here to mess up life for democrats...and thus alienate	applegrove	Jan 2015	#8
Ah, I believe the word you may be looking for is "shill"	Recursion	Jan 2015	#11
Limbaugh references LexisNexis which gives the dittoheads	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#15
I would be surprised if any dittoheads can actually read!	Major Hogwash	Jan 2015	#116
That's actually a very good distinction.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#119
Also to add: The poster using the databases at the law firm	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#134
You could not imagine why anyone would plant paid posters here? Or perhaps make it part of	merrily	Jan 2015	#53
It is very interesting you mention Sunstein "cognitive infiltration"	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#70
He was on the Daily Show recently--book tour--saying essentially the same thing that my post said.	merrily	Jan 2015	#71
Thanks for the Daily Show mention -- watching now	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#73
Well, there are faux Democratic Third Wayers	LondonReign2	Jan 2015	#56
By troll, does one mean anyone who disagress with one?	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#24
By my definition none of those makes you a troll	Recursion	Jan 2015	#25
OK. Thanks.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#29
I remember the Trolls of Yore, back in the 1980s	Recursion	Jan 2015	#30
Here I would only count "Concern Troll"	daredtowork	Jan 2015	#39
Like the OP of this very thread?	merrily	Jan 2015	#124
The GOP doesn't have to do that, plenty of DUers will do that just because	Rex	Jan 2015	#18
Obama his own worst enemy. Can u say TPP, torture or chained CPI?	on point	Jan 2015	#19
None of which is law. And "torture"? Link?	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#85
Torture problem is pretty simple. Failure to prosecute Bush criminals. Try google for a link	on point	Jan 2015	#88
Your original post insinuates Obama committed torture & the rest is, not surprisingly, all nonsense.	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#90
What's "nonsense"..	sendero	Jan 2015	#186
I was on an interesting jury earlier	daredtowork	Jan 2015	#20
I try to vote to leave posts as often as I can.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#26
This is my policy on juries on, too	daredtowork	Jan 2015	#38
Respectfully, I think it depends on your view of jury duty, not your view of DU.	merrily	Jan 2015	#160
Yes on civility and being a Democrat. But Democrats do not agree on all issues.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#161
I've been accused of being everything but a child of God, so I am very	merrily	Jan 2015	#165
There's no doubt in my mind that there is trolling going on for that reason AND because	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2015	#21
Do you really believe those who are criticizing Hillary Clinton	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#28
No. Not all of them, but it's hard not to be skeptical of some posts that are anti-Hillary here.	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2015	#58
There is a lot of that on both sides of the Hillary candidacy issue	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#61
Hillary is not synonymous with Democratic candidate.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#32
True. But she is the frontrunner...for now. It's self-defeating to put her down as some	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2015	#60
I agree much like the PUMA thing	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#62
I do not trust Hillary Clinton, and I think a writing campaign would be a waste of time.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#76
"I do not trust Hillary Clinton." Then there's no reason to continue discussing her with you.	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2015	#162
Thank you. I've been watching politics since I was nine years old.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#164
OK, but if Hillary is the nominee and she loses California by one vote, I'm	merrily	Jan 2015	#176
She is a frontrunner before the primary even starts, much like 2008.	merrily	Jan 2015	#130
Money quote!	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#137
If you knew how many, many hours I worked to get Obama elected.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#154
Thanks, Tarheel_Dem. eom	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2015	#163
Hahahaha!!!!!!!!	Major Hogwash	Jan 2015	#114
I did not say that she was not a Democrat although I suppose you could read my words that way.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#149
CNN Money: "Elizabeth Warren is worth millions"	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#133
We are not burning anyone, certainly not mere millionaires.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#147
The Hill: "Warren: Destroying ISIS should be 'No. 1 priority'"	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#153
I do not disagree with Elizabeth Warren on that. It's just common sense.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#158
So you're not against all war making millionaires, just Hillary? That about right?	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#214
I am against Hillary's vote on the Iraq War. She should have checked her facts.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#219
Just to be clear, you want to make war with ISIS, but only if Millionairess Warren is CIC?	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#220
No. I did not say that.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#238
It's a discussion board, is it not? Many of us fear that the hype surrounding EW is just that.	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#251
My big issue is disparity in wealth. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton understands that issue	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#253
Warren is rigorously pro-military. People don't realize that about her.	MADem	Jan 2015	#237
I support Warren for, among others, these reasons.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#243
You are of course free to support whosoever you choose~!	MADem	Jan 2015	#245
^^^^^THIS^^^^^	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#250
It's easy to do--what's hard is to weigh the good, the not-so-good, the things ya like,	MADem	Jan 2015	#252
The sitting POTUS can attest to everything in your post. The pitting of one Democrat against another	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#258
But of course....which is why, despite all the pot stirring, we're not seeing much	MADem	Jan 2015	#260
Truth be told, I don't see EW creating the kind of enthusiasm that HRC & BHO did. People were.....	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#261
P.S.: If by "most Americans" you mean the ones who want EW not to be POTUS, follow the numbers.	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#155
I did not find Warren's name in either article.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#159
EW is "G" at the scribd link, but you have to scroll to the very bottom if that tells ya anything.	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#211
Where was "she" herself, Hillary Rodham Clinton, personally endorsing the pipeline?	MADem	Jan 2015	#235
She was Secretary of State when the pipeline deal was being discussed and negotiated with Canada	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#236
You do realize that, as Secretary of State, she is NOT her own actor? She speaks for POTUS.	MADem	Jan 2015	#240
If you are correct, then I would expect Hillary to make it very clear that she opposes and opposed	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#241
I strongly doubt you'll see that happen anytime soon.	MADem	Jan 2015	#242
Sorry. But aside from the issue of the pipeline, that is Hillary at her least clear, her most	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#244
No--she's being very clear. She's not going to talk about it.	MADem	Jan 2015	#246
Warren was an unknown challenging an incumbent. Of course it was touch and go.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#247
An incumbent IDIOT who was an INTERIM seat-filler. He hadn't done a full term--he was finishing	MADem	Jan 2015	#249
Same is true for Hillary. Benghazi! Ridiculous.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#254
It's not a contest for "Who has the most 'exciting' ideas.	MADem	Jan 2015	#256
And if you think that is bad, wait till you see what they do to Hillary.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#257
No, we've heard that before--it's not news. We will tell naysayers to cut the crapola, to get	MADem	Jan 2015	#266
When I speak of "attractive," I'm not talking about beauty.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#267
Neither Hillary--nor Barack--are "rulers." They don't have the power you ascribe to them.	MADem	Jan 2015	#269
She managed 8 pts, in a state that Obama carried by 23. Eight pts would have been impressive if....	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#259
If she wasn't worth millions by now, I'd think she was pretty stupid--and she's not stupid.	MADem	Jan 2015	#230
I think a troll has a better chance of defending RW policies of Obama	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#22
I'm with you.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#33
Nailed it.	JEB	Jan 2015	#45
+100	ND-Dem	Jan 2015	#67
no, there's a simpler explanation	Enrique	Jan 2015	#23
This message was self-deleted by its author	1000words	Jan 2015	#27
+10000000. Oh, the horror of it. Someone daring to think for him- or her-self. Imagine that.	JDPriestly	Jan 2015	#34
Exactly.	merrily	Jan 2015	#177
You Better Believe It! nt	msanthrope	Jan 2015	#31
No doubt	Jamaal510	Jan 2015	#35
YES!	sheshe2	Jan 2015	#36
considering Obama's positioning in the polls are absolutely dependent on DU - there must be - Part	Douglas Carpenter	Jan 2015	#37
I don't think so but I do think some are so hypersensitive	ChosenUnWisely	Jan 2015	#40
some of you apparently wish the whole of DU was the BOG.	m-lekktor	Jan 2015	#44
Yeah and some	Andy823	Jan 2015	#65
GD in DU is basically an anti-Obama forum.	JoePhilly	Jan 2015	#80
Care to back that up?	great white snark	Jan 2015	#89
Mahalo great white snark.. those posters know criticism of the President is rampant in GD.. the OP	Cha	Jan 2015	#184
Thank you gws!	sheshe2	Jan 2015	#200
Is the President Black?	Major Hogwash	Jan 2015	#97
Instead of vague accusations, maybe those who feel this way can lay out what positions Obama has	dissentient	Jan 2015	#55
What a strange OP	Marrah_G	Jan 2015	#66
Oh I agree you cannot tell from one OP. I thought to myself	applegrove	Jan 2015	#79
I count 3.. including myself that could be one of those trolls	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#91
Why did you single out my post, are you accusing me of being a troll? nt.	polly7	Jan 2015	#99
I didn't mean to have it single out like that	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#101
Oh, my apologies	polly7	Jan 2015	#104
'This' post is what this is all about??	polly7	Jan 2015	#100
I should have clicked "View All" before copying and pasting	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#103
No worries!	polly7	Jan 2015	#105
Bingo!	RiverLover	Jan 2015	#179
Of course there is, its a public forum.	JaneyVee	Jan 2015	#72
Yep. Pro this or that trolls, as well as anti this or that trolls	merrily	Jan 2015	#178
IMO it is so illogical to let Republicans win because Democrats are not conservative enough	treestar	Jan 2015	#74
You've seen a lot of DU posts suggesting that we let Republicans win?	merrily	Jan 2015	#123
Yeah letting Rs win because Democrats are not progressive enough	treestar	Jan 2015	#180
Really? I'm here almost daily and don't see many posts like that.	merrily	Jan 2015	#182
You don't see any because that special poster	Rex	Jan 2015	#197
Thanks for the 411.	merrily	Jan 2015	#199
Anytime!	Rex	Jan 2015	#207
Those Democrats from red states do far more Obama bashing	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#264
Trolling? At an anonymous online bulletin board? Why would anyone suspect that?	struggle4progress	Jan 2015	#77
I'm a big fan of the President personally.	NaturalHigh	Jan 2015	#78
As a critic of many Obama policies, all I can say about "innocently" criticizing him in the BOG	merrily	Jan 2015	#129
Actually, no I didn't know...	NaturalHigh	Jan 2015	#183
Then I am sorry I assumed you would surely know. Criticism of Hillary should not be	merrily	Jan 2015	#185
That's cool either way.	NaturalHigh	Jan 2015	#190
Yes	butterfly77	Jan 2015	#81
From the defensive tone of some of the responses, I think you got your answer.	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#86
Do people really believe that Obama discussions here on DU impact his numbers?	oberliner	Jan 2015	#95
No but creating strife on settled issus, like Iran negotiations in exchange for no nukes,	applegrove	Jan 2015	#96
Settled issues like claiming Iran is after nukes?	polly7	Jan 2015	#106
That is a bit of a misrepresentation, at-least regarding me	JonLP24	Jan 2015	#107
That is up to them. Plenty of Democrats, rightist, center and leftist, supposedly were	merrily	Jan 2015	#167
Yet, your two line OP mentioned posts here bringing down Obama's numbers.	merrily	Jan 2015	#181
This message was self-deleted by its author	1000words	Jan 2015	#112
LOL. I take it you don‘t want the discussion	applegrove	Jan 2015	#121
This message was self-deleted by its author	1000words	Jan 2015	#135
That poster has pages of self-deleted posts.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#143
I have a grand total of four posts hidden, they are posted as journal entries.	1000words	Jan 2015	#201
Wow, sounds like quite a strange and calculated strategy.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#202
Lots of games being played at DU	1000words	Jan 2015	#203
"Lots of games being played at DU" Oh, U Betcha.	R B Garr	Jan 2015	#205
Point of order	Bobbie Jo	Jan 2015	#209
You are correct, my mistake.	1000words	Jan 2015	#210
Oh Snap! "Grand strategy" indeed. Thanks for that.	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#216
Just trying to be	Bobbie Jo	Jan 2015	#221
And doing a bang-up job, my Dear!	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#222
Well, if the truth were known . . . .	Major Hogwash	Jan 2015	#113
Major Hogwash, pls link to one of those daily posts about about impacting Obama's poll numbers	merrily	Jan 2015	#132
Merrily, pls link to "every single one of those posts" ...	NanceGreggs	Jan 2015	#166
Sure. Right after I get the link I requested.	merrily	Jan 2015	#168
I am a bit perplexed ...	NanceGreggs	Jan 2015	#172
Oop. You didn't get perplexed about Reply 168 until after my reply 169 called you out for bad faith	merrily	Jan 2015	#175
Now I am perplexed ...	NanceGreggs	Jan 2015	#208
Oh, sorry. I didnt notice that you were asking for a link to EVERY SINGLE post that I have seen	merrily	Jan 2015	#169
I agree it was an unreasonable request.	NanceGreggs	Jan 2015	#170
After your unreasonable and bad faith posts to me, I could not possibly	merrily	Jan 2015	#171
In other words ...	NanceGreggs	Jan 2015	#173
Predictable much? In other words, due to your bad faith, I very obviously never looked.	merrily	Jan 2015	#174
Game! Set! Match!	Tarheel_Dem	Jan 2015	#213
merrily, you have been targeted here by a particular kind of....	grasswire	Jan 2015	#218
Thank you, grasswire. At this point, I'm ignoring the posts (on this thread) of one of them.	merrily	Jan 2015	#231
Just using logic to deduce why they think they have an impact on Obama's poll numbers.	Major Hogwash	Jan 2015	#229
Logic? That is not logic; it's leaping to quite a few baseless conclusions.	merrily	Jan 2015	#248
I've been here for 12 years.	Major Hogwash	Jan 2015	#265
ALL YOUR BASELESS CONCLUSIONS BELONG TO US!!	merrily	Jan 2015	#268
This message was self-deleted by its author	Corruption Inc	Jan 2015	#108
No politician still in office is a settled issue.	99Forever	Jan 2015	#194
The trolls been here in my opinion	mstinamotorcity2	Jan 2015	#255
Sometimes I think yes, sometimes no, if you mean paid trolling.	ucrdem	Jan 2015	#263

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.