Skip to main content

View Diary: Do you want to help Scott Prouty? (55 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He wasn't HRed immediately (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gustynpip

    You've been told this repeatedly, but you don't want to hear it.

    He posted a bunch of diaries that were one video clip each.
    He was asked not to do that, to delete them and post them all together.
    He ignored the requests.
    He was asked to explain what the videos were.
    He gave little context and only replied that David Corn had them and they'd be all over the major media in a couple of days.

    Well he was right that they'd be all over the major media, but it took more than a month... because Corn did it right and VERIFIED THEY WERE WHAT HE SAID THEY WERE.

    Since the diarists gave no information to anyone here, how could anyone verify the clips were real?

    Use your head.

    •  Stop stalking me. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaveDC, BvueDem, dave146

      In response to a polite PM I sent you, you replied with a rant beginning "what the f*** are you talking about?," and then proceeded to post four comments in one diary digging yourself deeper and deeper into your defense of Hide-Rating the diaries in which Scott Prouty leaked his 47% videos on DailyKos. Your comment to me got 2 recs, my reply to you got 14 recs. It seemed to degenerate from there, and no-one was interested. I twice offered to publish our PMs, and you refused. I concluded on Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 04:06pm:

      My other comments here stand; I'm done with this topic and diary.
      Best wishes.
      I let you have the last word. I thought we were done with this.

      Now, you sprout up out of nowhere on this diary, titled "Do you want to help Scott Prouty?," and you reply to me.

      Knock it off. Stop stalking me. Drop it.

      All 10 of his diaries were hide-rated, some into oblivion. There was no need to either accept or reject them; one could have simply made a comment (as many responsible Kossacks did) saying the videos were not yet verified and therefore should not be rec'd. That's it. We don't need to pass judgment on every diary, we can suspend judgment. It's not a boolean, dichotomous, yes/no, up/down choice.  

      Suspension of judgment is a cognitive process and a rational state of mind in which one withholds judgments, particularly on the drawing of moral or ethical conclusions. Whereas prejudgment involves drawing a conclusion or making a judgment before having the information relevant to such a judgment, suspension of judgment involves waiting for all the facts before making a decision. ...
      In socio-political situations the suspension of judgment is the cornerstone of a civil society. Rather than prejudging people based on generalizations, preconceptions, or other forms of incomplete information, we should judge individuals only when we have adequate information about that individual.
      You've been told this repeatedly, but you seem so insistent on defending yourself that you are unable to acknowledge it, and to admit you were wrong.
      http://www.dailykos.com/...
      http://www.dailykos.com/...
      http://www.dailykos.com/...
      http://www.dailykos.com/... (you see only the half of kos' reply that you want to see; read both halves.)
      >He posted a bunch of diaries that were one video clip each.<
      Yes, and we at DailyKos are grateful to him for that, and for giving us the scoop on this important contribution. But your role is even worse than I thought. anneonymous670 (Scott Prouty) apologized for not putting them in one diary. He wrote:
      Sorry not to put them all in one diary!! (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by: anna shane
      Hidden by: madhaus

      I didn't know the rules. They are real though. Will be vetted by MSM shortly. Big KOS fan for years. Thanks for watching.
      by anneonymous670 on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 09:23AM
      Notice he got one tip and one Hide-Rate? Now, who Hide-Rated Scott Prouty when he apologized for not knowing the site rules? Oh, that would be user madhaus. On what possible grounds does that specific comment deserve to be hide-rated? Answer: none.
      >He was asked not to do that, to delete them and post them all together.<
      A few members, with no more authority than thousands of other members, requested this. Looking ahead, if someone else has bombshell-video on (say) Jeb Bush in 2016, and decides to post 10 diaries with one video-clip per diary, instead of combining them into one diary that might get lost on the scroll, then more power to them. At that level (e.g. Dan Rather, Anthony Weiner), each case must be judged on its own; when we get it right we're collectively proud, when we get it wrong we admit it and move on.
      >He ignored the requests.
      Yes. Maybe that is that the problem, for you: that he ignored you. Maybe this is a power-issue, for you.
      >He was asked to explain what the videos were.
      Again, some members were responsible in asking him, which is great. Others were not, they wrote comments like these and Hide-Rated him:
      being a HOS troll, spamming, rat fucking [twice], crap, hoax, "Kindly to be fucking off now, spammer," bullshit, Go 'way, desperate for attention, a troll or an honest fool, not what we're looking for at Dkos, Big fat waste of everyone's time, really fucking annoying, etc.
      That's what I and others are objecting to, and to the unwarranted use of HR.
      >He gave little context and only replied that David Corn had them and they'd be all over the major media in a couple of days.<
      1) No, he did not say this. You are making things up. Even now, as you stalk me, and even though anyone can look up what he wrote. Amazing. He wrote: "The unedited video is in David Corn's hands. More soon." And "David Corn will confirm soon." And "David Corn will clarify. Thanks for watching." He never said "in a couple of days."
      2) Oh, that is so f'ing irritating of him, btw, I mean the nerve, who does he think he is, protecting himself and telling the truth like that. On a site like this!
      >Well he was right that they'd be all over the major media, but it took more than a month... because Corn did it right and VERIFIED THEY WERE WHAT HE SAID THEY WERE.<
      1) DO NOT SHOUT AT ME EVER AGAIN. IS THAT CLEAR? Shouting is against DailyKos rules.
      2) It took a week from the time he posted here, for Corn to post them, as seen in the responses to your critical comments on his diaries. It did not take "more than a month." E.g., you Hide-Rated him on Sept 10, and you wrote:
      And this unedited user is in Daily Kos' banneds
      Bojo.
      by madhaus on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 01:04:19 PM PDT
      ChuckInReno replied to you on Mon Sep 17, 2012 at 10:05:00 PM PDT:
      Nice work
      Feeling a little embarrassed, are you?
      Mr SeeMore replied on Tue Sep 18, 2012 at 02:34:15 AM PDT:
      Shame on you for helping ban the person that has
      just driven a stake into Mitts presidential campaign. This persons video and audio will be Mitts undoing.
      Etc.
      >Since the diarists gave no information to anyone here, how could anyone verify the clips were real?<
      It may not be possible to verify, nor to discredit. So you suspend judgment.

      I'd written a couple days ago that I was done with this topic. I am.

      Again, I am done with you, madhaus. Please do not reply to me again.

      •  OMG, you've really been writing about this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        madhaus

        since that happened?  And you're still THIS angry about it?  And you actually think you can tell someone not to respond to your comments?

        I'm really sorry to say this, but I think you need to question why you'd have such an obsession about this.  It was one regrettable incident a long time ago.  And yes, it was very reasonable that it got HR'd, under the circumstances.  And if you don't want someone to respond to your comments, don't make them.  That's the ONLY control you have over this situation.  

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:07:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ? Huh? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          science geek, DaveDC, BvueDem, dave146

          Horace wrote this diary asking for support of Scott, yesterday; I replied to it, madhaus stalked me here. I don't know what you're talking about. The only things I'm annoyed about are being stalked, SHOUTED at, and condescendingly lectured to by madhaus ("You've been told this repeatedly, but you don't want to hear it").

          I'm glad that the vast majority of Kossacks recognize we blew it in the way we treated Scott when he first posted the videos here. I'm embarrassed by the few who can't seem to admit they were wrong.

          The 47% videos were not a minor incident either in the 2012 election nor within DailyKos -- I've rarely seen markos step in so strongly on a current meta issue, regarding what he called "Crap community behavior".

          Thank you for sharing your opinion.

          I see that you also HR'd Scott Prouty's video diaries, at the time. *shrug* I'll let your words speak for themselves:

          HRing as I agree there's something terribly
          fishy here.  "Diary" after diary of supposed quotes from Romney that no one but has heard.  Whether you're a troll or an honest fool hoping to make (up) a splash, your diaries are not what we're looking for at Dkos.
          by gustynpip on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 08:07:38 AM PDT
          So if they are, why doesn't the diarist offer
          something to substantiate them?  Diary after diary of these "quotes" from Romney that only the diarist has ever heard of?  
          People on this site require verification.  We don't just accept bullshit because it's what we'd like to hear.
          by gustynpip on Mon Sep 10, 2012 at 08:10:22 AM PDT
          Like I said, I'm done with this topic.
          •  Like I said, you've really got an obsession going (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            madhaus

            here.  You talk about someone else stalking you, while you go back months and months to find out what my reaction was to his very poorly posted videos?  Honestly, that's just creepy.  

            Obviously, someone that has an obsession like yours is not going to hear reason, so I'll drop the subject as well.  And simply avoid you from now on.  Cuz I actually am finding you kind of scary.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:40:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Search" is our friend. Have a nice day. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DaveDC, BvueDem, dave146
              •  Makes my point. Anyone who would actually (0+ / 0-)

                do a search like this has a bizarre obsession.  I've disagreed with numerous people on this site numerous times; never have I once done a search on anyone.  The fact that you do, particularly about something so minor and so long ago, and seem to think it shows your superiority, makes you a scary person.

                "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                by gustynpip on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:40:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks gustynpip (1+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              gustynpip
              Hidden by:
              BvueDem

              This user appears to have some serious issues.  Stalking? Does s/he own the site? I don't think so.  S/he also has some curious ideas of what a "polite" PM is, but I don't post people's PMs unless they are made as deliberate harassment. In this case it appeared to be an issue of honest passion crossed with inability to set reasonable boundaries.  It's fascinating that this user thought it was completely acceptable to send me very impolite and accusatory PMs but blows up when disagreed with in public... And doesn't understand that her/his own actions are less appropriate.

              Hers/his PM was a meandering and unfocused accusation rather than deliberate harassment, not unlike the cloud-cuckooland you see above... Yet with no context so I had no idea why this nutter was calling me out.  Some serious projection issues as well. Wow.

              I would advise said Bartender Defender to seek professional help, but somehow I suspect s/he won't.

              •  Is this conversation remotely (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Paul1a, DaveDC

                relevant to my post?

                Top right corner is the help desk link if the drama gets too much for you that you have to vent. Please use it instead of my comment threads.

                "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

                by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:29:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Perhaps you should direct your complaint to (0+ / 0-)

                  the person who felt he owned your post and could demand who was and was not allowed to post in it, who was and was not allowed to SHOUT (but was free to do exactly the same thing in out of context PMs).

                  And with that, I hope I am done here.

              •  Here is my Private Message to you, in full. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                science geek, DaveDC, BvueDem, dave146

                I will let readers decide if it is what you describe, above.
                I challenge you to post your reply, in full.

                Fri Mar 15, 2013 at 12:33 AM PDT
                To: madhaus
                Subject: Scott Prouty's legal defense fund

                The link is here: http://www.gofundme.com/...
                Just a thought: since you led the HR charges against Scott here, you could 'set the record right' and 'lead by example' by posting a short diary that apologizes, and states how much you have donated to his legal defense fund? This would have a big multiplier effect, as I'm sure many other Kossacks would be inspired by your example and follow suit! :-)

                We all make mistakes, and I know for CERTAIN that you thought you were doing the right thing (and you do many great things here), so I don't mean this to be critical in any way. Just looking for a positive outcome, to come out of this all. :-)

                Cheers!


                I won't say more about this, it speaks for itself. (Bold added, CAPS in original.)

                Your comment above deserves to be hide-rated, on two counts. Insulting another DailyKos member is grounds for hide-rating. Accusing someone of mental-health issues is grounds for hide-rating; not only does it detract from meaningful dialogue, but it insults those who do face mental health issues. Meteor Blades has led the charge, on this.

                Have a nice day.

                •  Not sure what madhaus' objection is to (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  science geek, Paul1a

                  your PM, except that s/he does not want to hear what you have to say, and by sending a PM you initiated what I think many of us consider an improper level of contact, too private/intimate for this kind of controversy. Your PM appears direct and substantive, no rambling, but it is subject matter that IMO should have stayed out in the public and not in a PM.

                  I was taken aback by what I considered to be the disproportionate ferocity of the Donut Brigade when Prouty posted his videos. There seemed to be no reasoning behind all the naked aggression, just mob emotionalism. At the same time, I was annoyed and mystified that Prouty posted so many separate diaries -- and not because I give a rat's ass what gets knocked off the Rec List; I know quite well how to find the day's plum diaries, but because 1 or 2 longer diaries would have been more effective. (But how is a n00b supposed to know that, esp. one who is freaking out because he knows he's carrying around national-level political dynamite?)

                  I'm not in an HRing mood so I won't donut mh, but I agree her/his ad hominems are treading on unacceptable territory imnsho, and I'm not sure why resort to such characterizations was necessary.

                  Ah well, posting in our Kossack Kitchen sometimes requires a Nomex suit.

                  YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

                  by raincrow on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:01:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks for your thoughts! Much appreciated. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DaveDC, BvueDem, dave146

                    Fwiw, my only thinking in beginning with a PM was (ironic in retrospect) to protect the person, so that it would not call public attention to an old mistake that a couple dozen people made. I didn't want to 'out' individuals, nor to encourage a mob against them. I thought the individual would much prefer it to be in PM. *shrug* Chacun a son gout.

                    Thanks again, raincrow!!!

                    •  I don't think any of us need "protection" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      madhaus

                      -- we hang it all out every day, for better or worse.

                      Just my opinion about proper use of PM, but if I found I had a nagging bone to pick with someone well after a diary was stale, I'd go ahead and comment in the diary on the off chance that my comment would be seen by the person in question.

                      If my intent was to pursue the development of a substantive idea or avenue of argument, rather than to simply chastise, I might consider sending an inquiry via PM asking if the other person were interested in continuing to pursue the bone-picking.

                      Others may have different ideas about PM etiquette, but these are mine. Fwiw, I don't PM all that much except when someone is in emotional or financial trouble, or when I need to apologize for having been an asshole.

                      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

                      by raincrow on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:58:53 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Well you could ask (0+ / 0-)

                    Bear in mind that when that PM arrived in my inbox I had absolutely no idea what it referred to whatsoever.  It makes sense in a Scott Prouty diary.  In my mailbox, when I hadn't read anything about Scott in a few days?  It made no sense at all.

                    As to my ad hominems, well, perhaps it's time for me to step away from this discussion, but consider how you would feel getting such a missive completely unasked.  I had not participated in any SP diaries when I received it.  When I did, I looked into them, because I wondered what this hostile (yes, hostile) PM was all about.

                    Again, if posted as a comment in, say, this diary, it's pretty tame.  But it wasn't.

                    •  If you read my comment, I did try to (0+ / 0-)

                      say I think PMs are not the vehicle for the kind of message P1a sent. My impression is that most of us use PM for personal / non-political / non-argument / apology types of communications. I would be pretty chapped if someone carried an argument into my PM den, especially after a polite interval had lapsed between diary and PM. I would want P1a to rethink PM etiquette.

                      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

                      by raincrow on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:45:52 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh it's worse than that (0+ / 0-)

                        I never had any contact with this user ever. I had no idea who he was or what he was talking about. Because he (?) brought up the topic, I sought out the Prouty diaries.

                        Then he got angry that I discussed it in public, after poking me with a sharp stick in the first place.

          •  You don't get to give orders to anyone (0+ / 0-)

            I think it's time you learned that when you start an undesired conversation in someone's mailbox, you don't get to freeze it in public because it isn't going so well for you.  Don't like me commenting on This topic? I probably wouldn't have if you hadn't sought me out in the first place.  And you definitely don't get to tell me, or anyone else on this site, what we may or may not do.

            Even if Scott Prouty.

            Stalking? Shouting? Mote. Beam.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site